America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[Dov Henis]

A 'gene' might be defined like: "The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring"

 

BTW, I conjecture life's genesis much earlier than celling of genes. I consider present genomes a communal coop of what originally were RNA independent genes, these various/different genes being then the first reproliferrable life forms. Evolution and survival directed them to become chromosomes and genome simply because cooperation is the most survivable mode, and the further process of evolution included celling for control of environmental parameters plus specialization of individual members of the commune of genes.

 

I think,

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

Still no proof that religion existed among humans 100,000 years ago either. I'll give it another couple of days before I declare the earlier comment false.

 

I am sorry cwess but I have to disagree with this statement. We cannot declare this statement false, we can only gather that the evidence is inconclusive. For we truly have no idea if there was truly any form of religion 100,00 years ago, and we will no know until further evidence is dicovered.

[cwes99_03]

Granted, I meant that the earlier statement would be found unsupportable. Thanks for correcting me.

[Turtle]

The burden of proof has always been on whomever made the claim and would not support it and those who take his side. ...Nice to see someone again make me look like a criminal (hyperbole).

 

There is no scientific support for your god claims and you are like a criminal. You have made your belief clear and artfully dodge every evidence contrary to your belief while your confederates pick the pockets of onlookers for their alms. You believe you have the truth and so you no longer look for it. In view of the multiple surveys indicating a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution and that it is because of religious beliefs, and moreover that such unfounded belief is bad for America, you and your ilk are bad for America. :P

[learnin to learn]

There is no scientific support for your god claims and you are like a criminal. You have made your belief clear and artfully dodge every evidence contrary to your belief while your confederates pick the pockets of onlookers for their alms. You believe you have the truth and so you no longer look for it. In view of the multiple surveys indicating a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution and that it is because of religious beliefs, and moreover that such unfounded belief is bad for America, you and your ilk are bad for America. :P

 

there are many threads here at hypography that talk about the difference between science and religion.

I have to disagree with most of your statement turtle. Cwess's "ilk" is not what is wrong with America. Because this country was based on freedom of speech and freedom of belief. What is wrong with the country is the politics. Politics has ripped this country apart. Do you happen to know the two things that George Washington warned America about? He warned us not to form separate parties (republicans and democrats) and not to form long term alliances. He understood that those two things would tear this country to pieces. And so it is.

Why does gas cost so much??? Because our president and congress will not cut the middle east off. What do I mean by cut the middle east off? I mean to show them that they do not control us, by find another means of obtaining oil. which we are capable of! this in turn will greatly decrease the cost of oil. Why wont they do this? because then the American people will not like their decision because it will inconvenience us for a little while and those in congress who voted to cut the middle east off will not be elected again.

While congress should be doing what is best for the people of America, they are instead doing what is best for their own careers.

[Turtle]

there are many threads here at hypography that talk about the difference between science and religion.

I have to disagree with most of your statement turtle. Cwess's "ilk" is not what is wrong with America.... yada yada yada....

 

You take a similar tactic as Chad L2L; you do not admit to what is right about my statement, and then you change the subject. :P

[learnin to learn]

I am sorry turtle my intention was not to change the subject, but to give an example of what is truly tearing this country apart, my apologies.

[learnin to learn]

I do believe that many americans say to hell with evolution because thier religion says otherwise. They believe what their pastor or preacher says and they do not question their word. That is what is wrong with most followers of any given religion.

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03: You asked a question, I gave you an answer, if you're not interested in the answer, I'd prefer that you dont ask the question.

You have used the expression "behind the evolutionary curve", this seems like a typical expression of someone who doesn't understand what evolution is. Why dont you read some of the links that have been provided for you?

[cwes99_03]

There is no scientific support for your god claims and you are like a criminal. You have made your belief clear and artfully dodge every evidence contrary to your belief while your confederates pick the pockets of onlookers for their alms. You believe you have the truth and so you no longer look for it. In view of the multiple surveys indicating a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution and that it is because of religious beliefs, and moreover that such unfounded belief is bad for America, you and your ilk are bad for America. :xx:

 

Turtle, I have tried twice to figure out what you have against me or against religion via PM, but you have refused to answer. I don't know what has you worked up so much that you are getting so angry. Angry enough that you have now given me bad rep twice in less than 6 days for two posts on this site without much reason (you did say I was being arrogant, but did not explain why you thought so).

1) I have not dodged any evidence. I have taken it head on, and left those who have tried to produce unfounded evidence dodging my repeated efforts to substantiate them.

2) How is my posting here like a criminal act?

3) There is much scientific support for my claims. Would you care to pick them back out and go over them again?

3) My friends should not, are not, called confederates - One who assists a lawbreaker in a wrongful or criminal act - as you have suggested. They do nothing illegal nor anything immoral. How can I say this? Quite simply. You have me and my friends mistaken with others.

a) We do not pick the pockets.

B) We do not pass a collection (plate, basket, whatever you like)

c) While collecting money and giving it to poor people who have needs is a wonderful thing, we do not collect nor disburse funds for such a matter

4) I do believe I have a great deal of knowledge about the true God, but I do continue seeking additional knowledge and truth, as well as test what I am taught/learn from my studies in accord with the scriptures admonishment to keep testing whether what you believe is in line with the scriptures.

5) Do the multiple surveys find that religious belief is unfounded? Do they also (or otherwise) find that such unfounded belief is bad for America? Are these your interpretations based on your personal belief that no such thing as a spiritual world can exist (materialism) because you refuse to be scientific in examining it?

6) Do you realize (I'm sure you do by the manner in which you were posting) that the word ilk, which by the strictest of senses just means those like you, has seriously arrogant connotations to it? Have you been the arrogant one all along?

7) Don't confuse those in the world, for which your hatred is probably propperly place, who teach all kinds of false belief and traditions of men from the pulpit and demonize anyone who investigates their sermons for fallacy, with me and my companions. I like you am disgusted by some who act in the way which seems to have you so upset. But it is my belief that they will soon be seen for what they are, liars and false prophets, as you have seen them. In the meantime, you are in danger of becoming like them in that you likewise are demonizing me for investigating claims made on this thread which are unsubstantiated or not fully thought through.

 

It is the job of everyone on this site to test the material presented in each post and compare it with the wealth of knowledge each person possesses from their upbringing, education, experience, or ability to research. It is the responsibility of everyone likewise to see if they agree, or to point out mistakes in posts, and to attempt to remain calm in doing so. I myself have been guilty before of losing my temper a bit, but rational examination will always lead to positive results.

[cwes99_03]

Cwes99_03: You asked a question, I gave you an answer, if you're not interested in the answer, I'd prefer that you dont ask the question.

You have used the expression "behind the evolutionary curve", this seems like a typical expression of someone who doesn't understand what evolution is. Why dont you read some of the links that have been provided for you?

 

I'm not interested in someone telling me to go find it myself. It was you and others here who posted the original ideas that I am questioning. I have asked for substantiation for those ideas, and have not received any. If you are suggesting that one or two of those articles linked on the website you suggested do a wonderful job of explaining how biological evolution and the human social climate are inextricably linked, then suggest one. However, in attempting to view the first in the list, all I get is the following

 

An article by Peter J. Richerson, Robert Boyd, and Robert L. Bettinger that speculates on evolutionary factors driving the Neolithic Revolution.

I like the word speculates.

 

The next one actually contains an article. Nice reading material. Still doesn't give any evidence for how a change in the genetics of the people (thus an evolution in man) caused a change in his social behaviors. This as I have pointed out on this thread already is the litmus test. For social change to be considered "evolutionary" then it must be linked to a change in genetics.

Otherwise, it is simply "like" evolution, in that in gradually changed over time as new techniques, information, and climates were experienced.

If you say it is evolution (completely tied to the evolution of life/species) then you must show an evolutionary change in the genetic makeup of the species in question. Likewise, every change in modern techniques (computers, agriculture, politics) would indicate a new change in genetics. If you could show this, then I would accept your idea. I've not seen any data indicating a rapid increase in the evolution of man since the late 1400s (reformation) or 1700s (political revolution) or 1800s (industrial revolution) or 1990s (tech revolution).

Perhaps you need to do additional research on what evolution is and means.

 

May I suggest the following websites.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Perhaps this site will help particularly

 

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol2.html

Then, in the 1930s, a group of biologists demonstrated how the results of genetics research could both buttress and extend evolutionary theory. They showed that all variations, both slight and dramatic, arose through changes, or mutations, in genes. If a mutation enabled an organism to survive or reproduce more effectively, that mutation would tend to be preserved and spread in a population through natural selection. Evolution was thus seen to depend both on genetic mutations and on natural selection. Mutations provided abundant genetic variation, and natural selection sorted out the useful changes from the deleterious ones.

[cwes99_03]

I do believe that many americans say to hell with evolution because thier religion says otherwise. They believe what their pastor or preacher says and they do not question their word. That is what is wrong with most followers of any given religion.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[InfiniteNow]

Cwes,

 

You will not find absolute truths in science as you do in religion. Science acknowledges that these are hypotheses and proposals, and that they are subject to change. I suspect that this is why you find them less satisfying...

 

I sense that you are looking at evolution somewhat differently. Your posts seem to imply (and I apologize up front if I'm misinterpretting) that your definition of evolution could be said thusly:

 

"Evolution means that if my environment changes I will change with it. That's clearly hogwash..."

 

Whereas the way I see it is, "Our environment is always changing and if you look at large enough time scales you will see certain effects as a result of natural selection."

 

Your view does work, however, on a cellular level. Let's say you smoke (and this is a silly example for illustrating purposes, so please don't slice it apart and use it as the crux of your response), so cells within you will die, but some that are immune to the smoke will not. Those that are immune to the smoke reproduce, but those that die clearly do not. Hence, after some elapsed time, your body will have evolved to have more smoke resistant cells. Botta boom...

 

Or you drink coffee everyday, so your caffiene receptors become less sensitive. You've evolved the ability to drink greater amounts of caffeine with less effect...

 

I came up with these examples in about 5 seconds... there are certainly more and better ones out there if you look (which is what Ughaibu was suggesting, and Turtle got frustrated with you for seeming to ignore the evidence available).

 

The timeframes in the examples you give seem orders of magnitude too small to be used as accurate counter points to evolution. That's my beef with what you're saying. Hope I've proposed this idea clearly and without attack.

 

If the one asking to be shown the light is blind, they won't see it despite how brightly it is shown on them.

 

 

Cheers. :xx:

[cwes99_03]

This is a wonderful composition, Infinite.

 

I understand your examples are made up, but let's continue to explore these situations.

 

My understanding of evolution is:

 

Let's say you smoke so cells within you will die, but some that are immune to the smoke will not. Those that are immune to the smoke reproduce, but those that die clearly do not .

We can all agree that this is a mutation in the cells. The cells that survive will make the individual stronger (more able to handle adverse conditions) and according to the idea of survival of the fittest, the individual would survive harsh smokey conditions, say near an active volcanoe, while others who did not have similar mutation would not. This might be considered microevolution IF the trait gets handed down to one's progeny. This also must be a new trait developed and expressed and passed on through procreation.

Hence, after some elapsed time, your body will have evolved to have more smoke resistant cells.

I have a slight problem here. Your body has not evolved. Evolution happens from parent to child and must take place that way only. If you do not pass along this new trait (new genetic material that allows for your progeny to likewise have a resistance) then there will be no evolution of a new species. Your body has mutated.

 

As far as the second suggested thought experiment. Receptors naturally become less sensitive over time. Cones and rods get burned out by excessively bright light. Drug addicts have to take larger amounts of product to get the same buzz. A propper detox will cause that person to regain some sensitivity to the drug. It is only if the cells themselves change genetically and reproduce in a different way that we can say a mutation has taken place.

 

The timeframes in the examples you give seem orders of magnitude too small to be used as accurate counter points to evolution. That's my beef with what you're saying. Hope I've proposed this idea clearly and without attack.

 

If the one asking to be shown the light is blind, they won't see it despite how brightly it is shown on them.

 

The only time frames I am aware of proposing are in my last post about the 1400's, 1700's, 1800's, and 1990's. In noting that these time frames are too short for evolution, you have hit the nail on the head, and made my point completely clear. Social evolutionists, who wish to say that changes in society are linked directly with biological evolutionary theory, would say that such massive changes in politics, industry, and ways of living (along with development or loss of religious ideas) are casued by the evolutionary process.

 

My point is that these things happen, not because of evolution but, because we were created (or if you prefer evolved) with abilities to make decisions and change our minds based off of reason, and thus changing our minds because we can does not mean we are evolving at all. Social evolution by those points would seem flawed and unfounded.

[InfiniteNow]

This is a wonderful composition, Infinite.

Well... donkey chain... ahem... Donka. ;)

 

I have a slight problem here. Your body has not evolved. Evolution happens from parent to child and must take place that way only. If you do not pass along this new trait (new genetic material that allows for your progeny to likewise have a resistance) then there will be no evolution of a new species. Your body has mutated.

Ah... but if you step my example out far enough, the body which survives is the one where the cells had this quality. The body with more cells which died from the smoke also tends to die, and not pass on it's genes. In the longrun this can have visible impact...

 

 

My point is that these [social changes, often described as linked with biological evolution] happen, not because of evolution but, because we were created (or if you prefer evolved) with abilities to make decisions and change our minds based off of reason, and thus changing our minds because we can does not mean we are evolving at all. Social evolution by those points would seem flawed and unfounded.

 

I've already offered a hypothesis regarding this in this very thread. I'm willing to let go of that hypothesis if you propose a better one which not only describes the same things, but does so in a better way.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[cwes99_03]

Okay you lost me there in that last part a little bit.

 

but if you step my example out far enough, the body which survives is the one where the cells had this quality.

 

What do you mean by step it out far enough? Do you mean, by the fifth generation of progeny? Even if one does develope mutated lung cells (or throat or whatever) if one does not pass on this new trait, then no evolution has occured. The next generation will still have the same problems as the previous, in that they will have to develop these same resistant cells. Evolution is a process that takes time because it has to be transfered through reproduction.

If it is never transferred through reproduction then there can not be evolution. The species will never develop any new traits, thus no evolution.

 

I've already offered a hypothesis regarding this in this very thread. I'm willing to let go of that hypothesis if you propose a better one which not only describes the same things, but does so in a better way.

 

Sorry Infinite, I must have missed it. Could you find it and remind me what that hypothesis was? The only hypothesis I remember is that someone said I must need to do more reading.

Here's a better hypothesis than (in that it has a chance of being true) than social evolution for why we develope different social systems including religion and politics.

Man was created with abilities like his creator. Man lost perfection..... I'm sure you'd rather I not go on. Many on this site have said that this cannot be proven. These same ones will also admit that it can't be disproven because it involves belief in a being that is not physical (material). I say it can and will be proven in time, and that through examination of the Bible, one can obtain enough data to develope a strong enough belief in it.

 

Some of this data is stories of resurrections of humans. While these are not reproduceable today in the way that they were described and written, there is still evidence toward belief that they happened the way they were told to have happened.

 

If you examined someone's research and noted that all of their foundational work appeared to be unflawed and accurate. Furthermore, you noted that the conclusions they made from that foundational work seemed to make sense and have great benefit for anyone reading the research paper. Furthermore, they produced experimental data that seemed to seal the deal except that you could not reproduce their work because you didn't have the ability. Would you still not have a good reason to believe in their work?

 

Perhaps. One could always argue that until they saw it themselves they would not believe. Likewise today, some can still say that they will not believe in the existence of atoms until they see them themselves. They would be wrong, but they have a right to believe so.

[Turtle]

Turtle, I have tried twice to figure out what you have against me or against religion via PM, but you have refused to answer.

That's right; my position is public.

4) I do believe I have a great deal of knowledge about the true God, but I do continue seeking additional knowledge and truth, as well as test what I am taught/learn from my studies in accord with the scriptures admonishment to keep testing whether what you believe is in line with the scriptures.

Circular reasoning.

6) Do you realize (I'm sure you do by the manner in which you were posting) that the word ilk, which by the strictest of senses just means those like you, has seriously arrogant connotations to it? Have you been the arrogant one all along?

In all humility, I am the most arrogant member here; this is why I so easily recognize your own arrogance.

It is the job of everyone on this site to test the material presented in each post and compare it with the wealth of knowledge each person possesses from their upbringing, education, experience, or ability to research.

Yep...did that. In every instance you come up short. It gets criminal when you and your ilk set about to get your twisted moral logic incorporated into the law, which is part of this whole business of denying evolution and prohibiting stem cell research etc.. :cup:

 

Addendum:

United States Constitution

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt