Video: Alabama GOP gubernatorial candidate ripped for … kinda sorta supporting evolution

posted at 9:33 pm on May 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

This is … not a prominent line of attack here in New York. In fact, I didn’t realize that it was a prominent line of attack anywhere. Reporters love to press national Republican candidates on evolution to make them squirm but I thought this sort of thing flew mostly under the radar in statewide elections — especially in a political climate like this, with fiscal issues at the forefront. Not so: Not only is this now floating around the ‘Net, but Byrne’s heresies about Darwin and the Bible are prominently featured on websites devoted to attacking him.

The attacks are working like a charm too. Check out his long, anxious reply to the ad desperately trying to set the record straight:

If there was ever any doubt, these relentless government leeches have proven today that this election will determine whether Alabama moves forward and achieves the kind of future our citizens deserve, or falls backwards and remains under the dark cloud of the politics of the past…

I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true. From the earliest parts of this campaign, a paraphrased and incomplete parsing of my words have been knowingly used to insinuate that I believe something different than that. My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action.

As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state.

Exit question: Does Bradley Byrne believe that man is descended from monkeys?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Maybe I wasn’t watching closely enough, but to me, the theme of the ad was that Byrne is a political weathervane, and the evolution issue was just one of several. I’ll probably take a lot of flak for my position on the side issue of the THEORY of evolution, but as a scientist, I reject it.

If Darwin’s synthetic theory of macroevolution is correct, why doesn’t it explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the building blocks of life, and the origin of intelligence? If the standard for “good science” is that an event be “observable, repeatable (in a controlled environment), falsifiable, and able to predict new facts or events, how can evolution meet the standard as “good science” when every experiment fails, and all the evidence to date disproves its predictions while validating the “intelligent design” theory? By now, there should be thousands if not millions of artifacts of transitions living and dead, yet there is not a single validated transitional fossil or living transitional creature. Every living creature contains millions of bits of intelligence stored in DNA instructions. What put it there, random chance, brownian motion, time and trial-and-error or an intelligent designer?

Those of you who believe your ancestors were primordial pond scum can see a relatively non-complex phonebook and instantly assess it is the product of “intelligence”, yet I would venture to guess you reject the notion that a single-cell organism, containing more intelligence than 40 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is evidence that it is the product of “intelligence design”.

opaobie on May 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Holger,

By the time I got to college I had abandoned the teachings of my Catholic upbringing. I very deliberately investigated a variety of worldviews, including atheism. Then, one day in Engineering Design Graphics, I was slaving away on a cross-section of a double-hung window. Being easily distracted, my eye was drawn to a leaf that had blown in the open window.

A leaf is a rather amazing structure, really. So is a tree, for that matter. And the blueprints for the whole thing are written in each smallest piece of it.

I considered the leaf, then my drawing, then the leaf again.

It was blindingly clear that there must be a Draftsman.

skydaddy on May 12, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Bottom line: There’s no way to prove or disprove any of the positions; they depend on one’s prior assumptions.

skydaddy on May 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM

2 of your explanations assume the interference of, for lack of a better term, a magical being. Maybe that’s a good assumption, but it’s not a scientific assumption. More important, it’s an unnecessary assumption because the existence of Nylonase is already explained by ordinary physical processes.

I’m making an effort to keep things simple, but I think if you dug a little more into the research you’d discover that the scientists responsible for these discoveries are more competent than you’re giving them credit for. They’ve considered possibility 1 and eliminated it experimentally. Possibility 4 is exactly why Nylonase evolved, so it doesn’t really contradict evolution.

You’d also find even more clear-cut examples of the evolution of new species of bacteria. Look at Lenski’s E. Coli experiment. He carefully controlled which traits were present in the initial populations and discovered, in real-time, new traits emerge. It’s a remarkably powerful experiment from which new details emerge to this day.

Is there a 100%-no-doubt-whatsoever-double-your-money-back guarantee that Nylonase is the result of an evolved trait? That’s not even possible. I could say that OJ’s glove didn’t fit, so he must not have done the murders, but everyone recognizes that as a spurious objection. That’s how I think you’re looking at evolution. Maybe you don’t want it to be true for whatever reason, and so every tiny, completely unavoidable uncertainty confirms your biases. I’m sorry to be so direct, and I don’t mean to insult your intelligence, but I think your whole approach to this is just hopeless. Is there any evidence that would convince you that species evolve through random mutations?

RightOFLeft on May 12, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Marxist radicals to the left of me, religious zealots to the right of me.

Both trying to force the rest of us to live in their personal visions of Utopia.

Both of them ignoring reality for the sake of what makes them feel the most comfortable.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM

skydaddy on May 12, 2010 at 12:14 AM

A friend of mine, bachelors in Astrophysics, lent me a book by Stephen Wolfram back in college which talked about Computation, specifically in regards to complex systems.

The belief that existence is an accident (or anything other than a purposefully created event) and we are nothing more than the products of an improbably long series of improbable events has always struck me as an incredibly simple and grotesque explanation, its like an answer you give to a two year old. Its like believing the Mona Lisa just happened. Or bad mythology like the World resting on a turtle who is resting on a lizard who is resting on a goat who is resting on a pig and so forth until you get to Green Men from Mars involved.

Also though, I cannot deny observed facts. Evolution is factual, it is the best explanation for the amazing diversity of life on this planet. It would be like denying Electromagnetic Radiation.

It struck me in Fencing class. God could create the universe, lay down laws in such a way and give it a beginning state in such a way that with very little intervention the Universe would progress the way God wanted it to. Just like a very competent computer programmer could.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 12:51 AM

GOP: Can we leave the dark ages, please?

AshleyTKing on May 12, 2010 at 1:37 AM

I’ll probably take a lot of flak for my position on the side issue of the THEORY of evolution, but as a scientist, I reject it.

opaobie on May 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I’m with you, opaobie. I’m a geologist who definitely started out on the evolution side but found I could not justify it scientifically. The more I look, the more issues I see with the theory of evolution. That is speaking strictly from a scientific viewpoint – religion doesn’t have to enter into the picture, as far as I am concerned.

tballard on May 12, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Man, it’s a different world you all’ve got down there.

galenrox on May 12, 2010 at 1:59 AM

Jesus made the bunny rabbits and the geraniums but not the squirrels cause one time one bit me and it hurted.

happyfeet on May 12, 2010 at 1:59 AM

Well, I don’t want to make enemies or violate any of the rules of etiquete, but “Do Any of You Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist”? Visit the site below or search on “Frank Turek” and watch a few of the videos on his website. He has debated Christopher Hitchins three times that I know of, and I believe those debates are posted on the site…great debates.

http://crossexamined.org/videos.asp

Every discovery in microbiology destroys another myth of evolution. Evolution claims its timetable by EXAMINING THE UNIVERSE and counting backwards to the “big bang”, so it depends on astronomy, and it has NO explanation for the origin of the very timing mechanism it uses to determine the age of EVERYTHING…circular reasoning is NOT a proof. “Natural Selection” would predict that every species would have died out or “evolved” into only ONE super species by now, all inferior species having been “de-selected”…more absurdity, not good science.

So the greatest minds on Earth working for a century and a half with everything at their disposal cannot even begin to understand the BASICS of how it works let alone DO it, but “nothing” using no design, no intelligence, no instructions, no materials to work with, no source of energy, no assistance of any kind could do it? Now which one of us is basing our conclusions on “blind faith”?

opaobie on May 12, 2010 at 2:31 AM

Both trying to force the rest of us to live in their personal visions of Utopia.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Au contraire, Dr. ZhivBlago. Marxists envision Utopia on earth–a future world they must construct and police themselves. If you refuse to cooperate with their plans, you are impeding Utopia. You are literally stalling its arrival.

Christians know that heaven has never, can never, and will never occur on earth…it is in the world to come. In this life, God gave you free will to believe or not; to live by His precepts or not. Your choice in the matter has not one whit to do with MY choice; you cannot sabotage my entrance into heaven any more than I can assure yours. Christians will happily share the Good News, but your choice to believe it in no way impacts or impedes the sovereignty of God, nor the inevitablility of His plans for humankind.

There’s a vast difference between Marxist radicals and Christians.

Grace_is_sufficient on May 12, 2010 at 5:01 AM

The point of the ad is the guy’s a political pander artist in the mold of Crist or McCain, or worse, Specter.

Evolution is just one of his flips, and it’s a pretty big one.

Jason Coleman on May 12, 2010 at 5:02 AM

Visit the site below or search on “Frank Turek” and watch a few of the videos on his website. He has debated Christopher Hitchins three times that I know of, and I believe those debates are posted on the site …

Hitchens is a polemicist, not a biologist.

Every discovery in microbiology destroys another myth of evolution.

That is nonsense.

Evolution claims its timetable by EXAMINING THE UNIVERSE and counting backwards to the “big bang”, so it depends on astronomy, and it has NO explanation for the origin of the very timing mechanism it uses to determine the age of EVERYTHING…

This is even more nonsense. Evolution is the study of life on earth, in particular the variety of life on earth (i.e., species.) Evolution is based on genetics, fossils, biogeography, anatomy, etc.

“Natural Selection” would predict that every species would have died out or “evolved” into only ONE super species by now, all inferior species having been “de-selected”…more absurdity, not good science.

The absurdity is in your strawman which I’ve boldfaced. Natural selection predicts no such thing and only in your fantasy world is it even a concept. From where are you getting your talking points?

Sorry opaobie, but your absurdities betray you as someone who is either quite unlearned or dishonest.

aeroponicallychallenged on May 12, 2010 at 5:12 AM

The “religious right” is not at all on the right side of the political spectrum. They have nothing at all to do with Conservatism. They have wormed their way in to the Republicans as part of a pact with the devils and have been nothing but a lead anchor to the cause of Conservatism.

I have not and will NEVER vote for a candidate who is a creationist. This isn’t a matter of religious discrimination. It is a matter of knowledge discrimination. Anyone who is too ignorant to accept that the only scientific explanation for speciation is evolution is too ignorant to represent my interests in any public office.

MJBrutus on May 12, 2010 at 6:10 AM

I’m still amazed at this thread. Everyone DOES know that …

(1) Contrary to what Allahpundit says in his post … this is NOT a “prominent” attack line in the South. In fact – this attack on Byrne comes from ONE shadowy, localized political action committee that has existed in Alabama for less than a month.

(2) Byrne himself is saying that the PAC attacking him isn’t even a bonafide Republican outlet – but, in fact, has ties to leftist organizations that have historically attacked Republicans.

(3) And it’s not just Byrne saying this – but also a local newspaper who’s reported that the Alabama Teacher’s Union may have ties to this.

So this is an “invented” story by Allahpundit. He didn’t properly research it prior to smearing Southern Republicans with this.

This is NOT representative of what happens in the South. Would a few make attacks like this? Oh sure – but the problem is – they aren’t representative of the whole of the South anymore than a guy holding a picture of Hitler is representative of most Tea Partiers.

HondaV65 on May 12, 2010 at 6:28 AM

Gotta be honest. What a candidate believes about evolution is about #500,992 on my priority list.

Don’t care.

therightwinger on May 12, 2010 at 7:21 AM

NEW FLASH: Allahpundit the Wall Street Journal traced back all of the differing groups till they found the source of these “concerned” Republicans and they were the Alabama chapter of the teachers union.

It is a hit piece AP. Even the very liberal Wall Street Journal Washington Wire denounced this. What is it that you hate so much about the South and the GOP?

You are stopping being the devil’s advocate and seem to be very much in the bag against the GOP.

Jdripper on May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM

Jesus made the bunny rabbits and the geraniums but not the squirrels cause one time one bit me and it hurted.

happyfeet on May 12, 2010 at 1:59 AM

happyfeet: Considerate it a blessing,that you were bit’n
by a DemonSquirrel,and not a DemonSheep,because
if you were,you`d be in a world of hurt!!

canopfor on May 12, 2010 at 7:54 AM

Jdripper on May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM

I’m glad someone else finally gets this. Allah made a couple of mistakes here …

(1) Just automatically assuming this was a bonafide GOP outfit making allegations about this candidate (when it may indeed be a FAKE outfit).

(2) Painting attacks made by one organization as representative – or even significant of the whole of Southern Conservative voters. In this, he makes the same mistake as the MSM – who paint the Tea Party’s as “extremists” because of one or two questionable signs in the crowd.

Is HotAir having trouble with finances or something? Because I’m not sure why else one would attempt to whip up a story from thin air on something like this.

I mean – you want astroturf – this is it.

HondaV65 on May 12, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Every discovery in microbiology destroys another myth of evolution.

BA in microbiology, MA in biochemistry, both with honors.

That’s utter hogwash.

funky chicken on May 12, 2010 at 8:17 AM

As Honda and others have noted, this ad campaign is a Dem-sponsored deception. Evolution is not, as yet, a campaign issue.

Having said that, I have to admit that AL politics is like a trip to bizarro-world. Those who enjoy poking fun at the South can easily find lots of material here.

The REAL issue in this campaign isn’t evolution. It’s the scourge of electronic bingo.

Bugler on May 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM

BA in microbiology, MA in biochemistry, both with honors.

That’s utter hogwash.

funky chicken on May 12, 2010 at 8:17 AM

to the darwinists everything supports evolution…its evolutionary thinking, vestigial organs support evolution, no vestigial organs support evolution, junk dna supports evolution, oops no junk dna, supports evolution…

evolution explains why giraffes are tall, and snails are small, it explains it all…darwin is all in all…praise darwin…

in other words, evolution is a religion.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 9:05 AM

in other words, evolution is a religion.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Bingo. Mirror image of creationism: everything somehow supports the final conclusion.

Dark-Star on May 12, 2010 at 9:12 AM

I have not and will NEVER vote for a candidate who is a creationist. This isn’t a matter of religious discrimination. It is a matter of knowledge discrimination. Anyone who is too ignorant to accept that the only scientific explanation for speciation is evolution is too ignorant to represent my interests in any public office.

MJBrutus on May 12, 2010 at 6:10 AM

I wouldn’t vote for a darwinist. they’re intolerant bigots pushing their atheist religion.

oh and since its so ‘scientific’ evolve something…or give me the exact mutations that led to an eye…you can’t. evolution is an atheist fairy tale…’science’ right…like neanderthals were our evolutionary ancestors right? remember that story? oops…neanderthals-r-us…too funny…

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

If Darwin’s synthetic theory of macroevolution is correct, why doesn’t it explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the building blocks of life, and the origin of intelligence?
opaobie on May 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I seriously doubt youre a scientist of ANY type. Otherwise you’d know that one is cosmology, the other two biology.

Keep grandstanding, and digging that hole.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 11:00 AM

oh and since its so ’scientific’ evolve something…or give me the exact mutations that led to an eye…you can’t. evolution is an atheist fairy tale…’science’ right…like neanderthals were our evolutionary ancestors right? remember that story? oops…neanderthals-r-us…too funny…

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

How incredibly idiotic.
Hundreds of people studying the subject, publishing papers, constantly refining a theory according to EVIDENCE, and yet you say “ZAP! Youre human!” is more credible.

Show ANY evidence. ANY evidence will do.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Well, I favor an all-of-the-above approach to origins….

I still think this is the world’s most boring argument. AP must be desperate for traffic, because he’s pulling up the Creation-vs-Evolution fight (WHY are they mutually exclusive again? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) AND simultaneously insulting the South, which he knows will get our hackles up.

Remember your theory about epistemic closure, AP? That Conservatives have been insulted in pop culture for so long that we’ve simply withdrawn? Please note that the same principle applies to the South. I was raised in Pennsylvania, but after living in Georgia for 8 years, I completely understand the defensiveness: the open contempt many Northeasterners have for us gets old.

Animator Girl on May 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM

How incredibly idiotic.
Hundreds of people studying the subject, publishing papers, constantly refining a theory according to EVIDENCE, and yet you say “ZAP! Youre human!” is more credible.

Show ANY evidence. ANY evidence will do.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Any evidence for what? you have no evidence for evolution, you cannot show it in the lab, you cannot duplicate it, you don’t see it in the fossil record, so what do you have other than a just-so story?

like I said, prove evolution, evolve something, should be easy, right? or give me the exact mutations that led to the human eye. you cannot.

have you heard about the splicing code and epigenic code? codes within codes…and yet you think it just ‘evolved’ right…talk about idiotic.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM

You are a hypocrite.

You got one incredibly high and unattainable standard of Evidence that would be necessary to proof Evolution but a much lower Standard of evidence, where lack of evidence is sufficient, to Refute it. I’d also wager with Religion, the standards of evidence are completely reversed where words in a book are sufficient to convince you but the evidence necessary to convince you the other way would be require God-like qualities to acquire.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Everyone knows that man devolved from the Cat.

Cheshire Cat on May 11, 2010 at 10:02 PM

I have two cats-whom I think are union members.
I have no proof-just a weird vibe.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM

You got one incredibly high and unattainable standard of Evidence that would be necessary to proof Evolution but a much lower Standard of evidence, where lack of evidence is sufficient, to Refute it. I’d also wager with Religion, the standards of evidence are completely reversed where words in a book are sufficient to convince you but the evidence necessary to convince you the other way would be require God-like qualities to acquire.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM

really now? why is that so hard? you don’t have any evidence for evolution, ever hear of ‘punctuated equilibrium’?? why is there such a thing? the cambrian explosion? body types are found fully formed, no intermediate stages….remember ida?? oops…. you can’t evolve anything, but you KNOW IT HAPPENED!!!! it HAD TO HAPPEN, because the alternative, God is unthinkable to you.

even Dawkins admits that biology studies things that appear to be designed, but of course you have to tell yourself they evolved…right.

as far as religion, the Bible has proven itself over and over again…where is it wrong? Israel exists, as the Bible foretold…Iran is her primary enemy, again as the bible foretold…

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Israel exists, as the Bible foretold…Iran is her primary enemy, again as the bible foretold… right4life on May 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Now ya went ahead and ruined it.

For the record, there is noting in the Bible about there being an Israel or Iran in today’s world. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

Akzed on May 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

For the record, there is noting in the Bible about there being an Israel or Iran in today’s world. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

Akzed on May 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

guess you missed Ezekiel 37-39…hint persia is iran…

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 1:32 PM

ever hear of ‘punctuated equilibrium’?? why is there such a thing? the cambrian explosion? body types are found fully formed, no intermediate stages
right4life on May 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Your ignorance is astounding.
Everyone has heard of punctuated equilibrium. So what?

“body types are fully formed” – what the Hell did you expect? Half a fish?

“no intermediate stages” to what? You are one of those who reads creationist literature and is able to regurgitate it at will.

POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. We are all “intermediate stages” to something else.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 1:40 PM

POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. We are all “intermediate stages” to something else.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 1:40 PM

a statement of faith, in other words you have nothing.

just list the mutations that caused the eye, in order, how hard is this? evolution is science isn’t it?? *smirk*

“body types are fully formed” – what the Hell did you expect? Half a fish?

you do realize that evolution is supposed to be a gradual process, where you can trace the intermediate stages through the fossil record…perhaps you don’t even know your own precious theory!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM

More importantly is this going to make Alabama a national laughingstock? If not, why not?

{^_^}

herself on May 12, 2010 at 2:07 PM

just list the mutations that caused the eye, in order, how hard is this? evolution is science isn’t it?? *smirk*

You do know soft tissue rarely survives to be fossilized and that in decomposition, the eye is the first to go. Furthermore, DNA never survives fossilization.

The evidence you seek, cannot be presented.

you do realize that evolution is supposed to be a gradual process, where you can trace the intermediate stages through the fossil record…perhaps you don’t even know your own precious theory!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM

You do realize that what you are asking for is every intermediate stage, every organism responsible for speciation. It is a standard of proof that is impossible to attain.

And if by some miracle that sort of evidence could be presented, you’d ask for even more evidence such as the mutations between mutation down to the smallest percent of a percent of a percent genetic change.

Ad Infinitum ad Absurdum.

Then, your standard of proof against Evolution, is lack of evidence in any area. If there is a single thing unexplained, such as the eye, it is suddenly evidence against Evolution and casts the entire Theory out.

You want complete and total evidence. A total Evolutionary log from the Beginning of Life to now. Such evidence can never be attained. A lot of that evidence is lost to decomposition. The only way we could attain that evidence is to break the Laws of Physics.

Yet, you do not use this same standard of evidence against Creationism. A few words in a book are sufficient to convince you.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 2:17 PM

You do know soft tissue rarely survives to be fossilized and that in decomposition, the eye is the first to go. Furthermore, DNA never survives fossilization.

The evidence you seek, cannot be presented

really? especially when they have found soft tissue in 80 million year old dinosaur fossils? and why can’t you trace the evolutionary path back? if you cannot, how do you really know anything evolved in the first place?

You do realize that what you are asking for is every intermediate stage, every organism responsible for speciation. It is a standard of proof that is impossible to attain.

one or two would be nice…but so far all you have is speculation, which usually turns out to be wrong…like with Ida…

And if by some miracle that sort of evidence could be presented, you’d ask for even more evidence such as the mutations between mutation down to the smallest percent of a percent of a percent genetic change.

so you have no evidence for evolution, yet you believe it…how interesting for ‘science’ right.

Yet, you do not use this same standard of evidence against Creationism. A few words in a book are sufficient to convince you.

quite the contrary, I can look at the DNA CODE, and then the epigenic CODE, and the splicing CODE…and I know nothing creates CODES except for intelligence. I can view the awesome complexity of living things, and it really doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these biological engines were designed. especially since you darwiniacs have no clue how they could have evolved, except to say ‘it evolved’ right..

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Then, your standard of proof against Evolution, is lack of evidence in any area. If there is a single thing unexplained, such as the eye, it is suddenly evidence against Evolution and casts the entire Theory out.

oh and since the eye is too hard for you, why don’t you explain how the sexes evolve?

pretty convenient that male and female evolved at the same time!!! golly that evolution SHO IS CLEVER!!! PRAISE DARWIN!!!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 2:58 PM

If Darwin’s synthetic theory of macroevolution is correct, why doesn’t it explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the building blocks of life, and the origin of intelligence?
opaobie on May 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Biological evolution never, ever, presumed to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of chemical elements in the universe. The question I have is why do opponents of evolution bring up such issues? I would argue it’s because they are clueless about what we are arguing and what scientists want taught in schools. What we want taught is biological evolution. To be clear what we want taught is for instance how zebras and horses evolved from a common ancestor, and not the origin of the first life. The origin of the universe and the origin of life don’t belong in a high school science curriculum.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM

oh and since the eye is too hard for you, why don’t you explain how the sexes evolve?

pretty convenient that male and female evolved at the same time!!! golly that evolution SHO IS CLEVER!!! PRAISE DARWIN!!!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 2:58 PM

The recombination of DNA through sexuality enabled the resulting life forms to better combat parasites. The details of how it occurred are events four billion years ago, and I’m having even difficulty now locating my keys which I put somewhere this morning.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The recombination of DNA through sexuality enabled the resulting life forms to better combat parasites. The details of how it occurred are events four billion years ago, and I’m having even difficulty now locating my keys which I put somewhere this morning.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM

4 billion years ago? really? isn’t that about when the earth began? and the sexes evolved right then huh? really now?? especially since in evolutionary lore there were just single cell animals (ie bacteria) until the cambrian explosion…

nice story, thats about it.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM

its called faith, it HAD TO EVOLVE. but to think that male and female could evolve…right, with no plan, no guidance, nothing…laughable. in the extreme.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 3:42 PM

to better combat parasites.

so explain why bacteria, which does not use sexual reproduction, survive so well?? how could they resist all those parasites so well??? hmmmmm???? why didn’t they have to evolve the sexes????

oh I know CAUSE DARWIN SAID SO, and thats the bottom line!!!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

its called faith, it HAD TO EVOLVE. but to think that male and female could evolve…right, with no plan, no guidance, nothing…laughable. in the extreme.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Actually, it’s called induction and it’s valid form of proof in mathematics.
That is we see how evolution occurred later and deduct how evolution happened earlier.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

eally? especially when they have found soft tissue in 80 million year old dinosaur fossils? and why can’t you trace the evolutionary path back? if you cannot, how do you really know anything evolved in the first place?

No, they did not find dinosaur soft-tissue, specifically soft-tissue inside the bones such as bone marrow, blood vessels and blood cells. They found the remnants of bacteria and framboids (iron spheres).

one or two would be nice…but so far all you have is speculation, which usually turns out to be wrong…like with Ida…

We do not have those intermediate stages. The modern eye has been around since before the Dinosaurs. Again, the eye is usually the first to go during decomposition. We have organisms currently existing with what are probably intermediate stages of the eye(examples being certain marine and terrestrial animals like the Nautilus, Insects and other organisms) but that would not count as they are currently existing. You are asking for historical organisms with DNA. You may as well be asking for a fossil of the very first single-celled organism!

so you have no evidence for evolution, yet you believe it…how interesting for ’science’ right.

No, there is plenty of evidence. The Evidence you are asking for is unattainable. You want the Origin of the modern eye or sexual reproduction traced from the first Organism on this planet to now. For lack of a better way of putting it, you want God’s booming voice from the Heavens proclaiming Evolution’s factuality.

The Increase in brain size, general body size and weight and level of uprightness from Hobo Habilis to Homo Sapiens, the Diversity of Life on this planet, the similarity all DNA based life-forms on this planet share, the explosion of Mammals after the K-T Boundary. If this is not enough evidence for any rational person to come to the conclusion that life can spread and diversify by itself, then no level of proof will ever be sufficient.

and I know nothing creates CODES except for intelligence.

Read Stephen Wolfram’s, a New Kind of Science. It deals with Computation with regards to Complex systems such as Nature. All you need are simple parameters (laws) to create complex patterns and systems. Your idea of God is very outdated, practically Aristotlean.

I can view the awesome complexity of living things, and it really doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these biological engines were designed.

If that be the case, he isn’t all that intelligent or was rushed for time because it is the human body is crappy as hell. Really, wasn’t there a better way at waste disposal?

oh and since the eye is too hard for you, why don’t you explain how the sexes evolve?

Find the DNA of the first two-sexed sexual reproducing organism and there is your explanation. It died around 1 billion years ago.

Would you rather I proof Gravity doesn’t exist?

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

That is we see how evolution occurred later and deduct how evolution happened earlier.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

translation: you take it on faith that evolution had to happen, and you tell a story to support your faith.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

No, they did not find dinosaur soft-tissue, specifically soft-tissue inside the bones such as bone marrow, blood vessels and blood cells. They found the remnants of bacteria and framboids (iron spheres).

really now?? (this does make you wonder about how they date things)

A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

link

maybe you should keep up with the science…

The modern eye has been around since before the Dinosaurs.

and it sure is clever of evolution to use it again and again…just think of the odds….uh….sure…

You are asking for historical organisms with DNA. You may as well be asking for a fossil of the very first single-celled organism!

no I am not. I am asking for the sequence of mutations that led to an eye. why can’t you reverse-engineer the evolution? since we reverse-engineer things all the time…maybe we need more chinese evolutionists…

No, there is plenty of evidence.

actually there is very little evidence, the fossil record does not show evolution, nor can you show it in the lab. you see evolution because its what you want to see. so you use darwin’s finches and minute changes in beak size to proclaim evolution.

The Increase in brain size, general body size and weight and level of uprightness from Hobo Habilis to Homo Sapiens, the Diversity of Life on this planet, the similarity all DNA based life-forms on this planet share, the explosion of Mammals after the K-T Boundary. If this is not enough evidence for any rational person to come to the conclusion that life can spread and diversify by itself, then no level of proof will ever be sufficient.

you are assuming we evolved from hobo habilis…ok, then give the mutations that caused this evolution. why is that so unreasonable?

did you ever see a car? how they use similar components, engines, wheels, etc? and they were designed…

interesting you use the term ‘explosion’ and you are correct, it was an explosion, like special creation…check out the ‘biological big bang’ theory.

All you need are simple parameters (laws) to create complex patterns and systems

ok, evolve something in the lab then. should be simple…take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. by your own admission, should be easy.

If that be the case, he isn’t all that intelligent or was rushed for time because it is the human body is crappy as hell. Really, wasn’t there a better way at waste disposal?

this is the typical darwiniac line, they could have done it better than God…like with the eye…but ooops thats been thrown out….

M. Labin and E. N. Ribak, “Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity,” Physical Review Letters, Volume 104, Issue 15, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.158102.

sorry…

Find the DNA of the first two-sexed sexual reproducing organism and there is your explanation. It died around 1 billion years ago.

right, evolution somehow KNEW to create a male and female…gosh its clever!!

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Evolutionists most probably do not have it right.

Creationists, with a near certainty, do not have it right.

Evolution fits for a good portion of the record we have access to. IF we get access to more of the record, evolution will either be supplanted/corrected, Darwin will be sent the way of Ptolemy or it will be proven correct.

Any scientist claiming with 100% certainty that evolution is correct, had better read up on their Ptolemy and Newton. Creationists should wake up to the near certain probability that their idea of their God-Construct and creation is way way wrong.

Jason Coleman on May 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Poeple have explained things to you.
You, however, are the epitome of “thick as a brick”.
Once something is explained, you then come up with more nonsensical rantings.

So far you’ve used:
- post hoc, ergo propter hoc
- appeal to ridicule (doesn’t work when YOU are the one saying nonsense)
- appeal to authority
- begging the question
- red herring
- straw man argument

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Find the DNA of the first two-sexed sexual reproducing organism and there is your explanation. It died around 1 billion years ago.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Whoops! I was three billion years off about when sex evolved. Good thing, I’m really only interested in the last half a billion years.

thuja on May 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM

really now?? (this does make you wonder about how they date things)

Oh, now you are doubting the very laws of Physics? I’ll give you this, you are ambitious.

A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

link

maybe you should keep up with the science…

Counter-Link

maybe you should keep up with the science…

That is funny coming from someone who said:

(this does make you wonder about how they date things)

ok, evolve something in the lab then. should be simple…take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. by your own admission, should be easy.

Easy, probably. But it would not be a day long science experiment. We have speciated bacteria in the lab.

interesting you use the term ‘explosion’ and you are correct, it was an explosion, like special creation…

Special Creation as opposed to General Creation? It is also a lot like a prison population suddenly set loose upon the world.

and it sure is clever of evolution to use it again and again…just think of the odds….uh….sure…

Are you smoking crack? You’d expect a trait (being able to see) that gives such a great advantage without any disadvantage to be passed on to future generations. And the fact that it probably hasn’t changed much means what exactly? It should mean its structure and capabilities are great and any mutation that would improve it is not such a major advantage that the mutation would likely get passed on.

no I am not. I am asking for the sequence of mutations that led to an eye. why can’t you reverse-engineer the evolution? since we reverse-engineer things all the time…maybe we need more chinese evolutionists…

We cannot reverse engineer the steps. We cannot say this happened and then this happened and then this happened for certain. It could have happened in any order. We do not know the DNA changes that happened, when they happened or how they happened. For that we need Heritage DNA.

We do have what appear to be organisms with those intermediate steps living today, that will shed light on the origin of the eye.

you are assuming we evolved from hobo habilis…ok, then give the mutations that caused this evolution. why is that so unreasonable?

The only thing that would convince you is the DNA of every Hominid from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens. Basically two million years of DNA, about 250,000 Generations of DNA, multiplied by the number of Hominids that lived.

You place such a low level of evidence against but require an impossible level of evidence for. You should be honest with yourself and apply this standard to everything (good luck keeping your sanity)

And you further argue that because we do not know how this happened or how that happened, therefore the entire theory of how it happened is false. Its like saying Gravity doesn’t exist because Newton didn’t explain everything and there were problems with his Physics.

You asking for this level of proof is like an Atheist asking for absolute proof that God exists. You cannot deliver it. Absolute proof is an impossibility.

You are just as bad as any Militant Atheist.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

aeroponicallychallenged on May 12, 2010 at 5:12 AM

I’ll make this short since all of this is off the topic. Bachelor of ARTS, huh? You didn’t stay and complete the rest of the courses to get your Bachelor of SCIENCE like the rest of us? OK, fine, well you stayed out of the workforce long enough to get a “Masters”, so good for you, but standing on a toadstool shouting criticism at the research of scientists, several of which have multiple PhDs doesn’t carry much weight. My FIRST research work for NASA as a college intern in the 1960s was under the direct supervision of a 29 year old lady with TWO PhDs, and our project evaluated the effects of weightlessness and diet and exercise on bone decalcification of astronauts in orbit and beyond. I get the feeling that flashing credentials around here doesn’t win points; sound arguments do, though.

Darwin considered the simple cell a “black box”, a homogeneous “blob”. Modern science has blown that myth up, but I guess you still cling to it: “We don’t NEED no Steeeeeeeeenkin’ DNA!”

Read what I WROTE, not what you want it to say before you criticize it. I said, “Evolution claims its timetable by EXAMINING THE UNIVERSE and counting backwards to the “big bang”, so it depends on astronomy, and it has NO explanation for the origin of the very timing mechanism it uses to determine the age of EVERYTHING.” I didn’t say it WAS astronomy or cosmology or cosmetology or prestidigitation. Evolution depends on circular logic and a time measuring device that is not even constant — unless you think Einstein and all the others got it wrong — to calculate the ages of development of life forms on the Earth, which is preposterous. Word for the day “Red Shift” (using the Joe Biden method of counting words). All the disciplines of science you listed produce evidence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN and not one shred of evidence of macro evolution. Do you still believe birds hatched from dinosaur eggs or that dinosaurs ran along the ground faster and faster until their scales turned into feathers and they “evolved” into birds? …and your side says the evidence-based claims of Intelligent Design are based on “blind faith”.

Show me the fallacy in my logic if you believe the inevitable end for “Natural Selection” is NOT one super species, all others having been eliminated. In the ultimate end, it, too, would become extinct. I can discount out of hand your specious, unsupported criticism just as easily as you can discount my contention.

I won’t post on this topic again, but I couldn’t let childish insults stand…AP wouldn’t respect me if I did even though he disagrees with everything I posted.

…now, I have to go put my snakes into the carrier and get my Bible; we have church services tonight….

opaobie on May 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Poeple have explained things to you.
You, however, are the epitome of “thick as a brick”.
Once something is explained, you then come up with more nonsensical rantings.

So far you’ve used:
- post hoc, ergo propter hoc
- appeal to ridicule (doesn’t work when YOU are the one saying nonsense)
- appeal to authority
- begging the question
- red herring
- straw man argument

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM

well there Gomer, I’ve noticed you are unable to answer any of my points…all you can do is throw out the most superficial darwiniac talking points…you don’t even know enough to defend your precious theory.

thanks for the laughs, loser.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Whoops, forgot the
Counter Link.

Newswise — Paleontologists in 2005 hailed research that apparently showed that soft, pliable tissues had been recovered from dissolved dinosaur bones, a major finding that would substantially widen the known range of preserved biomolecules.

But new research challenges that finding and suggests that the supposed recovered dinosaur tissue is in reality biofilm ” or slime.

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Ugh

Link

Holger on May 12, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Sorry, I just noticed I addressed part of my post to the wrong person. The one touting his creds was:

funky chicken on May 12, 2010 at 8:17 AM

but the point is the same.

…running late, and the snakes are starting to get restless….

opaobie on May 12, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Ooooooooooops, I see I addressed another part of my post to the wrong person.

Shambhala on May 12, 2010 at 11:00 AM

…that part was for YOU…and if I missed anyone else, jump right in. I may have to post again, but this topic is really off in the weeds now…and I had better take a snake bite kit to church with me; they are REALLY starting to get irritated with me for lolly gagging….

opaobie on May 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Easy, probably. But it would not be a day long science experiment. We have speciated bacteria in the lab.

you mean lenski’s work? much ado about very little..oh and ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma?? of course not.

Counter-Link

didn’t see a link…so national geographic is LYING??? alright!! too funny!!

maybe you should keep up with the science…

That is funny coming from someone who said:

(this does make you wonder about how they date things)

do you honestly think that soft tissue can last for 70 MILLION YEARS??? oh please. I have a bridge to sell you.

Are you smoking crack? You’d expect a trait (being able to see) that gives such a great advantage without any disadvantage to be passed on to future generations. And the fact that it probably hasn’t changed much means what exactly? It should mean its structure and capabilities are great and any mutation that would improve it is not such a major advantage that the mutation would likely get passed on.

you’re pathetically stupid. what do you think the odds are for ‘convergent evolution’?? please you make evolution out to be the intelligent designer that uses off the shelf components again and again…laughable…and this is in widely divergent animals like squids and humans, there is no way they came from the same line, not even close.

We cannot reverse engineer the steps. We cannot say this happened and then this happened and then this happened for certain. It could have happened in any order. We do not know the DNA changes that happened, when they happened or how they happened. For that we need Heritage DNA.

why not? reverse engineering is always easier than doing it the first time. again, all you have is faith.

We do have what appear to be organisms with those intermediate steps living today, that will shed light on the origin of the eye.

oh God, the ‘shed light’ BS again..can’t you darwiniacs evolve some new lines??

The only thing that would convince you is the DNA of every Hominid from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens. Basically two million years of DNA, about 250,000 Generations of DNA, multiplied by the number of Hominids that lived.

You place such a low level of evidence against but require an impossible level of evidence for. You should be honest with yourself and apply this standard to everything (good luck keeping your sanity)

no its real simple, evolve something. you said yourself how easy it was to come up with complex things from simple things…so do it.

but you can’t

And you further argue that because we do not know how this happened or how that happened, therefore the entire theory of how it happened is false. Its like saying Gravity doesn’t exist because Newton didn’t explain everything and there were problems with his Physics.

there are still many things about gravity we don’t understand, but you can drop a barbell on your feet and it hurts…why don’t you just evolve something, and you would have your proof? how hard is this??

VERY obviously. but you have your faith…in the hairygod of evolution….too bad you don’t any evidence.

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Newswise — Paleontologists in 2005 hailed research that apparently showed that soft, pliable tissues had been recovered from dissolved dinosaur bones, a major finding that would substantially widen the known range of preserved biomolecules.

But new research challenges that finding and suggests that the supposed recovered dinosaur tissue is in reality biofilm ” or slime.

sorry I gave you the wrong article earlier…check the date on this one…

Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
John Roach
for National Geographic News
May 1, 2009

The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says.

The research was led by the team behind the controversial 2007 discovery of protein from similar soft tissues in 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bones.

link

right4life on May 12, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2