Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry friend the evolution evangelists are WAY ahead of creationist that end up losing their job when they express their views in creation. Need evidence?
Just more of your baseless talking points, or do you have statistics to back this up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee9786
What are we teaching in schools - evolution or creation? Is the creation viewpoint even being expressed in schools (K-college)? Nope.
Like most everything you think, it is fact-less and baseless.
Fortunately the courts have ruled laws that force the teaching of fairy tale creationism unconstitutional, but that has not stopped the drive of the ignorante to force their stupidity into Americas classrooms.
Ignorant people on school boards are trying everytime to circumvent the laws to teach it, including the deliberate and willful ignorance currently used in Louisiana of removing all teaching of evolution, thus allowing utter ignorance to be the standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee9786
ZERO science supports evolution. We simply aren't evolving. Mutations show to drive species to extinction not evolution. Abiogenesis is something imagined by Agnostic humanists in high places (aka not observed). Neanderthal man etc has huge problems such as miscalculation of the mandible in the model of the original skeleton. Et al..
There is simply an agenda to get people to think that we can evolve to a higher state of "consciousness" where we can control our own little universe capable of being our own little god.
We aren't evolving. Evidence for intelligent design is EVERYWHERE. Anything created has a creator. The randomness statistics of all symbiotic relationships in nature prove evolution is fantasy. This computer didn't create itself by itself. It's pure fantasy fiction fairytale garbage being propagated/indoctrinated to kids across the world distorting what is reality.
And many have taken the bait hook, line, and sink.
There is simply too much deliberate ignorance here to even attempt reason. Stunning and scary ignorance......................
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,726,125 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
Just more of your baseless talking points, or do you have statistics to back this up?
Like most everything you think, it is fact-less and baseless.
Fortunately the courts have ruled laws that force the teaching of fairy tale creationism unconstitutional, but that has not stopped the drive of the ignorante to force their stupidity into Americas classrooms.
Ignorant people on school boards are trying everytime to circumvent the laws to teach it, including the deliberate and willful ignorance currently used in Louisiana of removing all teaching of evolution, thus allowing utter ignorance to be the standard.
There is simply too much deliberate ignorance here to even attempt reason. Stunning and scary ignorance......................
and couple that with islam, and i say "huston we have a problem
As a muslim I dont reject the whole theory of evolution , It does not conflict with our religion in many ways .
Our main objection is about the process of a complete transformation from one specie to another different one because the qualities that acquired by the environment and climate etc .. can not be included in the composition of the cell therefore it can not be inherited to the next generation .
"Qualities gained can not be included in the composition of the cell ..."
I wonder how you can say that? The genotype (the specific mappable DNA-based genetic makeup that produces the outward expression of it, or it's "phenotype") does indeed adapt to produce an organism that is well adapted to it's existing environment, perhaps even to a new environment.
DNA is very good at exactly replicating the exact changes it's seen (achieved through mutations and other transcription errors). For better or for worse.
It doesn't "see" changes in the environment and then sentiently change it's existing genetic makeup. Nope! Rather, it endures the inevitable changes in it's environment, but through the relentless, inevitable and documented processes of genetic mutation, it happens upon a potentially better version, which is replicated in the next generations who then get to "try it out" against the real world.
Get it? Then, if that is an improved adaptation, it's obviously and logically selectively supported in future generations, precisely because it offers them some sort of real and tangible advantage.
And the species is therefore improved, and over time, changed into, possibly, a better- or differently-adapted one. so the older version may well survive to utilize the older environment, but the new and "improved" version may well expand into a newly created or located environment. So now you've got, potentially, two different species (or sub-species en-route to becoming a new species, etc.)
ZERO science supports evolution. We simply aren't evolving. Mutations show to drive species to extinction not evolution.
We aren't evolving. Evidence for intelligent design is EVERYWHERE. Anything created has a creator. The randomness statistics of all symbiotic relationships in nature prove evolution is fantasy. This computer didn't create itself by itself. It's pure fantasy fiction fairytale garbage being propagated/indoctrinated to kids across the world distorting what is reality.
And many have taken the bait hook, line, and sink.
My my lee, you are tragically mis-informed, aren't you? Where did you read that stunningly ignorant little tid-bit? Which on-line evangelical web-site dedicated to lies and mis-information, or revisionist redefinitions, did you pull i from without checking on their credibility?
You obviously haven't taken even one iota of serious skeptical-thinking time to test your claims. Hint: (soz to help you not look too stupid any longer...) Try Lenski, 2008, (U. Of Chicago if I'm not mistaken) for a start.
Why? Well, because he conclusively and irrefutablyproved (by any and all standards..) that a species can and does evolve into another species. Fortunately for our knowledge of bioscience, Richard kept samples of all the generational DNA from all of his 22 yr long research with one unique species, not even knowing about the inevitable DNA genome mapping capabilites we're now graced with, and which will crush the endlessly ignorant rants of anti-evolutionists.
So he's now got indisputableproof that after a unique set of genetic mutations that occurred by chance, a new species, with unique capabilities (thus defining "species", BTW... so sorry!) arose and subsequently flourished into a newly available environment. Oh-oh for stagnantly-minded Creationists!
And so, go ahead: Now you'll re-define "species" for us; it's the denialist way after all.
Of course, we can't ever stop the incessant pesky barking of the problem dog next door. So we just learn to ignore it and move on with the real world.
My my lee, you are tragically mis-informed, aren't you? Where did you read that stunningly ignorant little tid-bit? Which on-line evangelical web-site dedicated to lies and mis-information, or revisionist redefinitions, did you pull i from without checking on their credibility?
You obviously haven't taken even one iota of serious skeptical-thinking time to test your claims. Hint: (soz to help you not look too stupid any longer...) Try Lenski, 2008, (U. Of Chicago if I'm not mistaken) for a start.
Why? Well, because he conclusively and irrefutablyproved (by any and all standards..) that a species can and does evolve into another species. Fortunately for our knowledge of bioscience, Richard kept samples of all the generational DNA from all of his 22 yr long research with one unique species, not even knowing about the inevitable DNA genome mapping capabilites we're now graced with, and which will crush the endlessly ignorant rants of anti-evolutionists.
So he's now got indisputableproof that after a unique set of genetic mutations that occurred by chance, a new species, with unique capabilities (thus defining "species", BTW... so sorry!) arose and subsequently flourished into a newly available environment. Oh-oh for stagnantly-minded Creationists!
And so, go ahead: Now you'll re-define "species" for us; it's the denialist way after all.
Of course, we can't ever stop the incessant pesky barking of the problem dog next door. So we just learn to ignore it and move on with the real world.
In regards of your Intro ...
It is scientifically known that genes are responsible for building proteins & characteristics heredity .
That is why they can not inherit the new qualities and acquired behavioral patterns to subsequent generations .
So when the monkey's body shape or skin start to changes due to food or sun light for example , The monkey can not inherit this new acquires characteristics to his descendant because it is not found in the genetic structure .
Therefore, the monkey will remain a monkey even after a billion year .
I hope that I explained well .
You did but it flies in the face of the acceptance of the genetic changes of micro - evolution. The descendents do inherit the genetic changes - or don't you accept that?
Evolution within a Lineage
In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow. I have grouped them into two classes -- those that decrease genetic variation and those that increase it.
Recombination
Each chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.
In meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.
Recombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can form a new allele. Recombination is a mechanism of evolution because it adds
new alleles and combinations of alleles to the gene pool. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Mutations range in size from a single DNA building block (DNA base) to a large segment of a chromosome.
Gene mutations occur in two ways: they can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person’s lifetime. Mutations that are passed from parent to child are called hereditary mutations or germline mutations (because they are present in the egg and sperm cells, which are also called germ cells). This type of mutation is present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/muta...s/genemutation
If this is what evolution required no one else would believe it either. Fortunately what you've posted is (at best) a horrible misunderstanding of the science involved. Changes don't happen because of the environment, changes happen due to reproduction being imperfect and the most successful offspring are more likely to pass along their genes. You have the process almost exactly backwards - pretty typical since if creationists actually understood evolution they wouldn't be creationists anymore.
Yes, good point. It is so unrelated to genetic mutation that I failed to point out to squall that temporary changes don't get passed on but mutations giving a survival advantage do. This is why the old Q 'Why don't children inherits their parent's tattoos?' is a good laugh but nothing to do with evolution theory.
The problem with these debates (if you want to call them that) is creationist can say anything they want to, no matter how absurd, and it'll be true.....to them.
A perfect example right here: "ZERO science supports evolution."
You have the "because I say so/wanna believe it" crowd arguing with the facts and evidence crowd.
It's kinda hard to have a serious discussion when two sides are playing by different sets of rules; and really, there isn't a debate to be had on whether evolution happens or not anyways.
Take a look at the link I posted a bit further back and tell us in detail why it isn't science and / or it doesn't support evolution. We'll be waiting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Can't anyone stop that noisy dog next door?"
