Evolution, Creation and Politics

posted at 1:01 pm on January 30, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Perhaps the most popular parlour game in American politics is for media types to generate litmus test questions which they can put to every candidate and elected official to feed the news cycle beast. These range from generic items such as asking where they stand on abortion or second amendment rights to party specific queries which include egging on Republicans as to whether or not Sarah Palin is “qualified to be President.” One of the oldest and saddest ones, though, is dredged back up by Steve Benen this week, highlighting the gaudy spectacle of Bill Maher asking Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) if he “believes” in evolution.

“Real Time” host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: “Do you believe in evolution?” Kingston not only said rejects the foundation of modern biology, (sic) he explained it this way: “I believe I came from God, not from a monkey.” He added, “If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence.”

Seriously, that’s what he said.

First, by way of disclosure, I personally am comfortable with the theory of evolution. I am also comfortable with the fact that in most cases, religion and science are not mutually exclusive, primarily because faith and laboratory experiments have very little overlap. I can also relate to the temptation to deride those who disagree about evolution or other scientific principles because I did it myself when I was younger. It’s easy, as a young man, to be not only invincible but convinced that you’re smarter than everyone else on the planet – particularly those stupid old people.

But as we age, hopefully we learn a little more tolerance and realize our own limitations.

Not only are science and religion not mutually exclusive, more and more these days we see them working together. One of many examples was the discovery by archaeologists of a stone pylon with the name of Pontius Pilate inscribed on it, taking one character out of the realm of “Bible stories” and inserting his name into the history books. Additional examples abound.

Do we really need to badger office seekers and holders with this question any more? Even if some of us disagree with them, is a fixed belief in literal creation truly an indicator of some lack of “critical thinking in the Republican Party,” as Benen so smugly puts it? They aren’t arguing with you in favor of some different scientific theory which contradicts yours. They’re promoting an entirely different belief which demands no proof from the laboratory.

If the development of the universe and our planet played out over billions of years and life “evolved” here as current theory suggests, I’m not so vain about my own intellect to claim that God couldn’t have designed the entire shooting match to do just that. Matters of timelines could be nothing more than misinterpretation of scale. And what of all those fossils in the ground? Perhaps, as I suspect, they are the result of various animal and plant species rising, changing and dying off. Or, for all I know, I’m totally wrong, the planet actually is only six or seven thousand years old and God put them there on purpose for us to find. Why? I haven’t a clue. You’d have to ask Him.

The point is, no matter how sound any given scientific theory turns out to be, you’re never going to prove that it wasn’t a flashing, infinitely divine creation. And you’re never going to shake the belief of those who find it a bedrock foundation of their faith. So why should you try? And in a land founded in part on religious freedom, why would you want to try?

Just some food for thought on a chilly Sunday.


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 13 14 15 16 17

Biblical creationism, ID, creation myths, etc. = religion, not science.

Theory of evolution = science.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM

all you can is parrot talking points. evolution isn’t science, its atheism as Provine admits…you probably don’t even know who he is.

what a buffoon

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM

@right4life

Another example is drug resistance for antibiotics. The bacteria evolve to be less sensitive to the drugs.

really now? and what is the bacteria after all that evolution? its still a bacteria. the bacteria actually LOSE functionality to become resistant to anti-biotics.

Another example is agriculture. Every domestic crop and domesticated animal is an example of genetic modification by selective breeding. This is natural selection in that humans, being part of nature, are altering the criteria for reproductive fitness to meet the economic needs of the humans. That is, the domesticated crops and animals are co-evolving with humans

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 10:41 AM

selective breeding…oh you mean INTELLIGENT DESIGN by humans…yeah I’ve heard of that, breeding has NOTHING to do with evolution. Its more than obvious you really don’t understand the theory you profess to love so.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Get into the millions of generations and you might begin to see it. fruit flies live what? 2 days or something? I could go look it up but it doesn’t matter because even IF I went and looked it up you would just say it was false.

ah yes, you just need more time…in other words you have FAITH it will evolve. because you sure can’t see it….the classic definition of FAITH. too funny.

My earlier example about the bacteria study thats been going on for 40,000 generations… They see the evolution in action there just fine but thats what you need is decades of study of one particular strain of bacteria.

40k generations…and its still a bacteria, isn’t that interesting…Lenski’s work actually validates Behe’s edge of evolution…but you knew that right? sure.

Despite his understandable desire to spin the results his way, Lenski’s decades-long work lines up wonderfully with what an ID person would expect — in a huge number of tries, one sees minor changes, mostly degradative, and no new complex systems. So much for the power of random mutation and natural selection. For his work in this area we should be very grateful. It gives us solid results to point to, rather than having to debate speculative scenarios.

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/new-work-by-richard-lenski/

To put it another way, the perfect example of evolution is the very fact that each year when we get a flu vaccination we are fighting off the EVOLVED forms of influenza that are new THIS year, and more prevalent, because the influenza that survived last years onslaught of vaccinations have evolved to counteract the defenses we throw in its way.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 10:37 AM

again, after all that ‘evolving’ its still a virus.

here’s what one of the researchers into anti-biotics said about evolution’s role in his work:

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Read more: Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15676/#ixzz1Cj9h1kGl

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM

“Your buddy right4life?” Apparently not the only one doing a little bit of namecalling….

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM

yes the buck private is such a ‘victim’….and a hypocrite.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM

@Good Lt

Something creationists and religiously inclined people seem to fail to get is that the Theory of Evolution is not JUST a theory like the Stork Theory of Reproduction or the Theory of Intelligent Falling. It’s a theory based on cold hard science from the fields of biology, archeology, genetics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Oh my god Right4life… You are so far gone it’s not even funny anymore. I truly am done with you and your buffoonery. Have a great life living in ignorance, but as they say “ignorance is bliss”

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Oh my god Right4life… You are so far gone it’s not even funny anymore. I truly am done with you and your buffoonery. Have a great life living in ignorance, but as they say “ignorance is bliss”

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM

translation: I blew your moronic talking points out of the water, you’re too stupid to respond, so you have to leave in a huff..

loser.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:10 PM

It’s a theory based on cold hard science from the fields of biology, archeology, genetics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM

the ‘cold hard science’ doesn’t support evolution. not in the fossil record, not in the lab…keep the faith.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:10 PM

LOL@Right4life…

You are a hoot my friend, a verifiable hoot!

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM

@Good Lt

Something creationists and religiously inclined people seem to fail to get is that the Theory of Evolution is not JUST a theory like the Stork Theory of Reproduction or the Theory of Intelligent Falling. It’s a theory based on cold hard science from the fields of biology, archeology, genetics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I think some of it stems from the misunderstanding of what a “theory” is in science. They also commonly and mistakenly think that a “law” in science is higher than a “theory.”

Not so.

A law, such as the law of gravity, or laws of physics, are incorporated into a theory.

I like to use the theory of relativity as an example – it incorporates laws of physics and laws of gravity. And no creationists/IDers here have taken on Einstein with the “hey, it’s only a theory” nonsense.

They reserve that for Darwin for some reason, but they appear to understand Darwin’s theory about as well as they understand Einstein’s.

Hence, the misuse of the term.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:17 PM

LOL@Right4life…

You are a hoot my friend, a verifiable hoot!

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM

you my friend, don’t even understand the theory you profess to love so…thinking breeding is evolution…I mean seriously have you had even one biology class?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:17 PM

They reserve that for Darwin for some reason, but they appear to understand Darwin’s theory about as well as they understand Einstein’s.

Hence, the misuse of the term.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:17 PM

oh the irony…..LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM

righ4life – did you even read the Origin of Species?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM

righ4life – did you even read the Origin of Species?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM

is that your bible?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM

is that your bible?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM

You claim to know a lot about it.

I’m just wondering if you’ve, you know, read it.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:20 PM

You claim to know a lot about it.

I’m just wondering if you’ve, you know, read it.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:20 PM

its rather obvious I understand it a great deal more than you do…explain the synthesis to me…and the person behind it.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

its rather obvious I understand it a great deal more than you do…explain the synthesis to me…and the person behind it.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Did you read it or not?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Did you read it or not?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

so you don’t know what the synthesis is…how can you defend a theory you don’t even understand?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Did you read it or not?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

so list for the me the genetics darwin talked about in your bible…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM

so you don’t know what the synthesis is…how can you defend a theory you don’t even understand?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So you haven’t read it?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM

So you haven’t read it?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM

so you don’t know what the synthesis is…and since you can’t list the genetics darwin talked about in your bible..you haven’t read it. LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM

still waiting for that list…hurry and google that and the synthesis….LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM

so you don’t know what the synthesis is…and since you can’t list the genetics darwin talked about in your bible..you haven’t read it. LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I’ll take that as a “no, I haven’t read it. I’m just ranting on and on about something I’ve never even read or understood.”

Here, champ. Show us where synthesis and genetics are:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You’re the expert on evolution, remember.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Here, champ. Show us where synthesis and genetics are:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You’re the expert on evolution, remember.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I’ll take that as admission of no you haven’t read it, you don’t know what the synthesis is either!! LOL

oh this is too funny…you never read your bible..and you don’t understand your own faith!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Here, champ. Show us where synthesis and genetics are:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You’re the expert on evolution, remember.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM

you have NO IDEA HOW ASTOUNDINGLY IGNORANT THAT STATEMENT IS!!

ROFLMAO!!!

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I’ll take that as admission of no you haven’t read it, you don’t know what the synthesis is either!! LOL

You rant on and on about “synthesis” and “genetics” in “my bible,” and I provide for you a copy of the text to show us exactly what it says about them – an attempt to get you to put up or shut up regarding whether you’ve even read the work or not (you haven’t) – and you can’t do it.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:31 PM

You rant on and on about “synthesis” and “genetics” in “my bible,” and I provide for you a copy of the text to show us exactly what it says about them – an attempt to get you to put up or shut up regarding whether you’ve even read the work or not (you haven’t) – and you can’t do it.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:31 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA just keep digging…its funny as hell….

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

and I provide for you a copy of the text to show us exactly what it says about them – an attempt to get you to put up or shut up regarding whether you’ve even read the work or not (you haven’t) – and you can’t do it.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:31 PM

*smirk* BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA just keep digging…its funny as hell….

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Haven’t read the book, have you?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM

*smirk* BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Here’s your chance, champ.

Show us what it says about synthesis and genetics.

The link’s right there. All divided up into chapters for easy browsing.

We’re waiting.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Haven’t read the book, have you?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM

its MORE than obvious you haven’t!! LOL

what a buffoon..

you’re a typical darwiniac…thanks for displaying your complete and utter ignorance…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Here’s your chance, champ.

Show us what it says about synthesis and genetics.

The link’s right there. All divided up into chapters for easy browsing.

We’re waiting.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

you must be masochistic!!

I don’t think I’ve ever laughed more since I’ve been posting here!! ROFLMAO!!

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM

its MORE than obvious you haven’t!! LOL

So did you?

It’s time to stop pretending you have.

Really. You’ve shown yourself to be an bit…unhinged…within the last 10 posts or so, but I gave you a chance to show everyone your command of the material you so forcefully decry, and you puss out. I even provided you with access to the full, original text so that you could guide everyone through it and make your case against it.

It’s not up to Darwin to make the case to you – he’s done that in the work.

You had a chance to show everyone where he was so catastrophically wrong that his entire work was invalidated.

And yet, you didn’t do it.

Ask yourself why.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM

And yet, you didn’t do it.

Ask yourself why.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM

if you only knew…BWAHHAHHAAHAHHAH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM

this is better than when one of your fellow darwiniacs on MM told me evolution is the mechanism for evolution…LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM

you have NO IDEA HOW ASTOUNDINGLY IGNORANT THAT STATEMENT IS!!

ROFLMAO!!!

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA just keep digging…its funny as hell….

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

*smirk* BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever laughed more since I’ve been posting here!! ROFLMAO!!

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM

BWAHHAHHAAHAHHAH

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Wow.

Very convincing arguments supporting your case.

Impressive.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Darwin was unawares of Mendel’s pioneering work in genetics.
OOTS was written ~90 years before The Modern Synthesis.

Thread is painfully stupid.

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Wow.

Very convincing arguments supporting your case.

Impressive.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM

your ignorance is very impressive…you don’t even understand the theory you proclaim!!! LOL

and you keep digging even deeper damn you’re dumb.

keep going…this is funny as hell…

when you look up the synthesis, you’ll understand why I am LMAO

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I’m leaving it to you to educate everyone, because you’re the expert that’s PWNED DARWIN LOL BWAHAHAHA@!!#11!!

You don’t seem to be able to.

Here – it’s easy:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Give us a chapter, and a section, and show us where Darwin’s wrong. We can do the clicking and reading – all we need from you is the argument you’re presenting.

We now have the tools to evaluate for ourselves what you’re argument is – so lead us.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM

desperately trying to change the subject…you don’t understand your own theory.

beyond stupid. and you seem to revel in your stupidity. wow.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM

desperately trying to change the subject…you don’t understand your own theory.

beyond stupid. and you seem to revel in your stupidity. wow.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Show us, O Wise One.

Chapter and section:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Can’t do it, can you?

Nope. You can’t.

And that’s evident now.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:51 PM

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:37 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:38 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:40 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:43 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:46 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:48 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:01 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:10 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:10 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM
right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM

From the looks of things, you probably should be spending more time here. Or here.

mmnowakjr85 on February 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM

From the looks of things, you probably should be spending more time here. Or here.

mmnowakjr85 on February 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM

what business is it of yours?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM

From the looks of things, you probably should be spending more time here. Or here.

mmnowakjr85 on February 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Bomb dropped :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Bomb dropped :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

and its as big a dud as all of yours!! LOL

interesting that he didn’t list all the times you posted….but then the darwiniac pigs are more equal than others…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I have a job.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

and here’s why I’ve been LMAO off at you

THERE IS NO GENETEICS IN THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES…

it wasn’t put in until the SYNTHESIS…what we know as the theory of evolution today….by Ernst Mayr…

God you are pathetically stupid.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I have a job.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

it doesn’t take much thought obviously.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Mayr came up with the synthesis in the 1940s…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM

and here’s why I’ve been LMAO off at you

THERE IS NO GENETEICS IN THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES…

it wasn’t put in until the SYNTHESIS…what we know as the theory of evolution today….by Ernst Mayr…

God you are pathetically stupid.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

How much of the Origin of Species deals with human evolution?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

How much of the Origin of Species deals with human evolution?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I’m done with supply you with answers, its casting pearls before swine. you ignorant piece of trash.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

but thanks for demonstrating the abysmal ignorance of darwin’s stooges….and for a few laughs!!

see you’re good for something.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

THERE IS NO GENETEICS IN THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES…

it wasn’t put in until the SYNTHESIS…what we know as the theory of evolution today….by Ernst Mayr…

God you are pathetically stupid.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM

You don’t say!

That’s why I asked you to point it out. And put it in quotes when I mentioned it.

Derp!

Now – show us where Darwin takes on racism and human evolution – cause you have lots to say on that, too:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

it doesn’t take much thought obviously.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Oh, it does.

You caught me on off days.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I’m done with supply you with answers, its casting pearls before swine. you ignorant piece of trash.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Translation: you had nothing to offer, nothing to say, no knowledge of what you spoke, haven’t read the book you’re decrying, and you don’t care. Now you slink off.

Toodles!

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM

but thanks for demonstrating the abysmal ignorance of darwin’s stooges….and for a few laughs!!

see you’re good for something.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Thought you were leaving.

Bye.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Wow, this thread became a slugfest. Food for thought. Most of the argument revolving around evolution vs. creation boils down to where you want to place your faith. Consider this short bibliography of research….

Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectromety. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.

Kim, S. et al. 2004. DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: An ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae). American Journal of Botany. 91 (4): 615–620.

Morell, V. 1993. Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118): 160.

Organ, C. L. et al. 2008. Molecular Phylogenetics of Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 320 (5875): 499.

Poinar, H. et al. 1996. Amino Acid Racemization and the Preservation of Ancient DNA. Science. 272 (5263): 864- 866.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 94 (12): 6291-6296.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952-1955.

Schweitzer, M. H., J. L. Wittmeyer and J. R. Horner. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 274 (1607): 183-197.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2007. Analysis of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein. Science. 316 (5822): 277-280.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.

Willerslev, E. and A. Cooper. 2006. Pathogenic microbial ancient DNA: a problem or an opportunity? Proceedings of the Royal Society. 273 (1587): 643.

I wish I could post a link to all of these for everyone to read the main sources, but that isn’t possible due to copyright issues. However, you can go to a university library to find any of these. You should be able to find abstracts online if you are curious.

Now, if you simply look at this objectively, this presents a very confusing picture. DNA and proteins such as collagen are not supposed to survive for millions of years, based upon what we’ve observed about decay processes in these molecules. The argument of why this happened in these fossilized situations is that the conditions for this occurence are an even more rare circumstance than the condtionns for fossilization.

Now, logically, does this make sense? If you find more DNA and protein in fossils as you keep looking, doesn’t that have serious implications for what you predicated your assumption upon?

In other words, either the conditions for preservation aren’t rare, and there is something fundamental we don’t understand about protein and DNA decay rates, OR, there is a fundamental flaw in the assumptions of age and these are much younger than believed.

My point is this…you can argue at lenght on the philosophy of the topic, but if you don’t engage your brain to examine the assumptions that you pin your beliefs upon, you may be way too easily fooled by an argument that sounds good.

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Forgive the typos…
condtionns = conditions
lenght = length

I forgot my glasses today.. :(

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM

something fundamental we don’t understand about protein and DNA decay rates, OR, there is a fundamental flaw in the assumptions of age and these are much younger than believed.

I’d say (without knowing all the specifics) the former, because we have other corroborating evidence (rocks, carbon dating, etc) suggesting that the age of these are what they are.

Where would you lean?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Another example is agriculture. Every domestic crop and domesticated animal is an example of genetic modification by selective breeding. This is natural selection in that humans, being part of nature, are altering the criteria for reproductive fitness to meet the economic needs of the humans. That is, the domesticated crops and animals are co-evolving with humans

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 10:41 AM

If you’re reduced to arguing that selective breeding is the same process as natural selection, then you’ve already lost.

Selective breeding is the application of intelligence to breeding. Since human intelligence was not around to guide the evolutionary process before humans existed, there was either no intelligence behind natural selection before humans arrived, or there was another intelligence behind it.

Or an Intelligence….

tom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

“If you’re reduced to arguing that selective breeding is the same process as natural selection, then you’ve already lost.”

Nonsense. The logic behind natural selection and selective breeding is exactly the same. Certain traits command better reproductive success than other competing traits. Therefore, traits promoting better reproduction become more prevalent in successive generations.

Whether the evolutionary pressure consist of humans looking for a certain trait in their domestic animals or nature affording more reproductive success for animals with a certain trait, the logic of natural selection stands.

What’s the alternative, animals with genes not conductive for successful reproduction mystically become ‘plentiful’ and inherit the earth?

NORUK on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Selective breeding is the application of intelligence to breeding. Since human intelligence was not around to guide the evolutionary process before humans existed, there was either no intelligence behind natural selection before humans arrived, or there was another intelligence behind it.

Or an Intelligence….

tom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Whether its nature doing the selecting or man himself, the idea is still the same. The former (nature doing the selecting) is a much longer process meaning that it takes tens of thousands of years to get a noticeable change in a species.

The latter (man made selective breeding) moves on a much more brisk pace and the changes are much more dramatic in a shorter amount of time. There is less chance involved with humans are at the helm, we are the first species to decide our own fate… Other components of nature that are subjected to intelligent design by humans are modified much quicker. That stands to reason.

You assume too much when you say that something other than human (some other intelligence) was guiding nature prior to our ascendancy to prominence on this planet.

Nature had billions of years to evolve without interference from man and it was a much slower process than when man came along.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Actually, I lean towards the ageing being based upon faulty premises. Carbon 14 is only good to about 20k years, and the rock layering methodologies are more subjective, but logically satisfying in relative terms, older rocks are below younger strata. The radiometric clock for millions of years is based largely upon the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40, which I’ll abbreviate as K-Ar for convenience. Ar is an attractive choice, because it is a non reactive noble gas, so in theory it accumulates in the crystal lattice of these minerals at a steady rate. The primary assumption I have a problem with is that all Ar in a sample is assumed to be derived from the decay of K. This ignores the research that high temperatures and pressures increase the permeability of these rocks to noble gases, and the evidence that there are rocks formed which have increased levels of argon 40 from a source in the mantle and not solely from potassium 40 decay. Essentially, we don’t really know how much Ar was present at formation, but are assuming that all of it is from decay. I have a problem with that assumption. Just like my last post, my opinion isn’t based on what I’ve come to believe from what I was taught in my numerous biology, geology, and oceanography classes; it is based on what I see as flaws in the assumptions. The selected bibliography for this…

Baksi A.K. and A.F. Wilson, 1980. “An Attempt at Argon Dating of Two Granulite-Facies Terranes,” Chemical Geology, 30: pp.109-120.

Ballentine C.J., 1989.”Resolving the Mantle He/Ne and Crustal 21Ne/22Ne in Well Gases,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 96: pp.119-133.

Burnard P., D.Graham and G.Turner,1997. “Vesicle-Specific Noble Gas Analyses of `Popping Rock’: Implications for Primordial Noble Gases in the Earth,” Science, 276: pp.568-571.

Funkhouser J.G., I.L. Barnes and J.J. Naughton, 1966. “Problems in the Dating of Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Method,” Bulletin of Volcanology, 29: pp.709-717.

Harrison T.M. and I. McDougall, 1980. “Investigations of an Intrusive Contact, Northwest Nelson, New Zealand—II. Diffusion of Radiogenic and Excess 40Ar in Hornblende Revealed by 40Ar/39Ar Age Spectrum Analysis,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 44: pp.2005-2020.

Harrison T.M. and I. McDougall, 1981. “Excess 40Ar in Metamorphic Rocks from Broken Hill, New South Wales: Implications for 40Ar/39Ar Age Spectra and the Thermal History of the Region,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 55: pp.123-149.

Lanphere M.A. and G.B. Dalrymple, 1976. “Identification of Excess 40Ar by the 40Ar/39Ar Age Spectrum Technique,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 12: pp.359-372.

Laughlin A.W., 1969. “Excess Radiogenic Argon in Pegmatite Minerals,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 74: pp.6684-6690.

Moreira M., J. Kunz and C.J. Allègre, 1998. “Rare Gas Systematics in Popping Rock: Isotopic and Elemental Compositions in the Upper Mantle,” Science, 279: pp.1178-1181.

Patterson, D.B., M. Honda and I. McDougall, 1993. “The Noble Gas Cycle Through Subduction Systems,” in Research School of Earth Sciences Annual Report 1992 (Canberra, Australia, Australian National University), pp.104-106.

Pickles C.S., S.P. Kelley, S.M. Reddy and J. Wheeler, 1997. “Determination of High Spatial Resolution Argon Isotope Variations in Metamorphic Biotites,” Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61: pp.3809-3833.

Porcelli D. and G.J. Wasserburg, 1995. “Transfer of Helium, Neon, Argon, and Xenon Through a Steady-State Upper Mantle,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 59: pp.4921-4937.

Staudacher T., 1987. “Upper Mantle Origin of Harding County Well Gases,” Nature, 325: pp.605-607.

Notice that these are not new problems. A couple of the ones I’ve selected to point out go back to the 60’s. These underlying assumptions to the dating of rocks are not presented to the public when the relevant subjects are taught. I have some heartburn with this.

I guess the synopsis is that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. (If you’re honest with yourself)

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

I guess the synopsis is that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. (If you’re honest with yourself)

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Or that we don’t even know what we don’t know.

All the more reason to continue exploration and scientific analysis :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Nature had billions of years to evolve without interference from man and it was a much slower process than when man came along.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM

That’s what history tells us.

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM

The Dunning Kruger Effect… based off a quote from Darwin and Bertrand Russell.

Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”

Russell said, “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”

But it boils down to essentially what you said which is that at some point in most everyone’s lives (not everyone gets there though), we realize that we know so much that we know how little we know.

This is the beauty of science… It answers questions, but always uncovers x number of other questions as a result. Most scientists grasp this concept, that they’re so smart that they know how little they know.

Armchair quarterbacks like Right4life swoop in and get an inkling of the knowledge and graduate themselves to doctor-hood on the subject but in the process of fleshing out his ideas, he doesn’t realize how much he shows his true ignorance. As stated in the Dunning Kruger Effect, his incompetence denies him the metacognitive ability to appreciate his mistakes.

I’m not perfect by any means but I know enough to know how little he knows on this topic attributing racism charges to the likes of people like Darwin, Watson, Crick, et al..

Complete buffoonery. The guy is whacked in the head.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 4:04 PM

If we evolved from monkeys…..why are there still monkeys?

whatzit2u on January 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

If God created Man from dust, why is there still dust?

VekTor on February 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Selective breeding is the application of intelligence to breeding. Since human intelligence was not around to guide the evolutionary process before humans existed, there was either no intelligence behind natural selection before humans arrived, or there was another intelligence behind it.

Or an Intelligence….

tom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The traits that humans selected were still produced by random genetic mutations. There’s a difference between animal husbandry and genetic design. It’s like the difference between shopping for a pair of jeans and making it yourself at home. As sauerkraut537 already pointed out, it doesn’t matter whether humans do the selecting or the environment does, the result is still evolution.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

If God created Man from dust, why is there still dust?

VekTor on February 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust…

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Nonsense. The logic behind natural selection and selective breeding is exactly the same. Certain traits command better reproductive success than other competing traits. Therefore, traits promoting better reproduction become more prevalent in successive generations.

NORUK on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So, how do you tell by looking at the fossil record that natural selection ever occurred? One strong way to challenge intelligent design might be to compare the fossil/skeletal record of designed animals (e.g. horses, domesticated dogs, livestock) and plants (e.g. maize) with the fossil record of more ancient species, and show that there’s a distinctly different pattern to their evolution. So far, I’ve never heard of any such study.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I guess the synopsis is that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. (If you’re honest with yourself)

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Or that we don’t even know what we don’t know.

All the more reason to continue exploration and scientific analysis :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Would you say that skepticism is an essential quality in the persons doing this exploration and scientific analysis?

And if so, why is there such overwhelming opposition brought to bear on anyone who looks skeptically at the “accepted” theory of evolution?

I make no claim to be especially knowledgeable in this arena. As a matter of faith, I believe that God created all that is; whether his methods fit the definition of “evolution” or not is, to me, as much a semantic debate as a scientific one.

I DO believe (again, based upon faith) that MAN WAS created out of the dust, because the Bible specifically tells us that he was; but apart from man, I make no assumptions about how God wrought creation. Nor do I presume to know whether cromagnon man or neanderthal man was an “image of God” man or some fairly bright species of ape (created by whatever means) that looked somewhat like him.

The point of this is that I’m one of those people with no dog in the fight, and not even a whole lot of interest in the question. As a more-or-less disinterested party, I see behavior that smack of insecurity on both sides: on the side of my fellow creation-believers, I often see a refusal to consider whether their interpretation of scripture might be TOO literal; and on the part of materialists, I see a Gollum-like paranoia that someone might cast even the slightest doubt on their “precious” — the vaunted Theory Of Evolution With No Supernatural Guidance.

In short, everyone in this struggle needs to take a step back and gain a bit of objectivity — to be more concerned with learning the truth, to the extent that it can be known (and accepting the unknowable AS unknowable) than proving their current belief correct.

RegularJoe on February 1, 2011 at 5:07 PM

So, how do you tell by looking at the fossil record that natural selection ever occurred? One strong way to challenge intelligent design might be to compare the fossil/skeletal record of designed animals (e.g. horses, domesticated dogs, livestock) and plants (e.g. maize) with the fossil record of more ancient species, and show that there’s a distinctly different pattern to their evolution. So far, I’ve never heard of any such study.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

What would this study prove? The big deal with Intelligent Design, other than its postulating that a god like “intelligence” guided the evolution of all the animals, is that specific cherry picked examples such as the flagellum are supposedly irreducibly complex meaning that they were poofed into existence at the whim of a god in whatever form the adherents to ID choose to discuss, ie Bacterial Flagellum, etc…

Maybe creationists and religious people who close their eyes to science don’t know it, but we’ve mapped the complete genomes of multiple types of plants, insects, invertebrates and vertebrates and an interesting thing can be seen in the DNA.

Birds have the same genetic code built into their genome that would allow them to have scales instead of feathers… The genes are just “turned off” somehow. Humans have the genetic code in our genome that would allow for the creation of vitamin c like many other animals on this planet have the ability to do. Instead, it’s turned off for some reason and we need to eat limes and such or suffer the effects of vitamin c deficiency/scurvy.

Now you can claim that there is an intelligent designer that is turning these switches off and on in the genomes of all of the species we’ve mapped so far but why does that designer need to leave the unused code in there to begin with?

If he’s supposedly the perfect being and godlike in stature, what’s with all the confusing leftover DNA that all species we’ve mapped so far have? This means this designer is either completely inept at “coding” the various species we see, or he’s a deceptive one…

Watson and Crick were the final chapter in the Theory of Evolution if you ask me. Once we have the “genetic codes”, the game is over for creationists and religiously inclined people who choose to not see the evidence before their very eyes…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM

RegularJoe on February 1, 2011 at 5:07 PM

I have a healthy respect for people such as yourself. I used to be a Christian for 40 of my 42 years and I was where you are at a point in the not too distant past. Intellectual honesty is what everyone should strive for, and I wish more people lived their lives with that in mind, but people’s beliefs have consequences…

People’s beliefs affect others around them. If you believed cyanide was a good thing to drink and claimed it as a religious ritual, I’d try to talk you out of it (I’d try anyway) but the consequence of thinking it was good to drink ends in negative results doesn’t it?

Same thing applies with this belief in god. If not for the belief in god, we wouldn’t have Islamic nutters blowing themselves, and others, up. We wouldn’t have Christian extremists blowing up abortion clinics, etc.

Yes, there will ALWAYS be crazies in life, for a myriad of reasons, but we work with these people to try to dispel their destructive beliefs don’t we?

The root cause of the religious war we find ourselves in with Islam is a belief in a god. We KNOW we’re right, and they KNOW they’re right but what if the third option that we’re all WRONG was the right answer?

Just think about it a second. The VERY same logic and reason that you use to come to the conclusion that your religion is right is the VERY same that they use to profess a belief in their religious texts. Yes, they’re too fundamentalist about it but…

Theists often call atheists arrogant but pull the log from your own eye before seeking to pull the splinter from your neighbors. You call everyone else’s religion wrong and misguided, don’t you? How arrogant is that to dismiss the beliefs of others, either implicitly in the process of not choosing theirs or explicitly by telling them their religion is flat out wrong?

The reality is that ALL religious people’s beliefs are wrong, and it will be our undoing as a species one day because one of these days a fundamentalist, likely an Islamic variety but not exclusive of all other religious adherents, is going to get a hold of some nukes and decide that god told them that the right thing to do would be to blow it up in an infidel’s city or in his land…

Religions are like farts, YOURS is good but everyone else’s stinks.

When you understand why YOU dismiss all the other possible gods being followed today, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM

What would this study prove?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM

It wouldn’t prove that natural selection had ever happened, but it would be a (first) compelling piece of evidence in support of it. Otherwise, by your own admission, the fossil and DNA records are equally supportive of either theory.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:25 PM

The VERY same logic and reason that you use to come to the conclusion that your religion is right is the VERY same that they use to profess a belief in their religious texts.

I am not aware of any compelling evidence for any religion other than Christianity. I believe the argument for the truth of Mohammed’s revelation is “We’ll cut your head off if you don’t accept Mohammed as God’s prophet”. By contrast, Christianity is supported by an incredible quantity of logical proofs, archaeological evidence, fulfilled prophecy, and the consistency and reliability of eyewitness accounts that rule out the possibility of fraud. Something like 500 eyewitnesses testified to witnessing the resurrection, at the cost of great personal persecution, and many died under torture rather than change their testimony. There’s no explanation for it other than their testimony was true.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM

It wouldn’t prove that natural selection had ever happened, but it would be a (first) compelling piece of evidence in support of it. Otherwise, by your own admission, the fossil and DNA records are equally supportive of either theory.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:25 PM

I don’t think so… The “excess” DNA points more toward natural selection but don’t let the term confuse you… There is no active intelligence selecting anything…

Think of it like this. Lets say we have a Magwai (yes from the Gremlins movie). This Magwai has 3 children, 2 with very similar DNA and little or no mutations and the remaining one with mutations galore such that he’s either got a furrier coat, or more fat to provide insulation against the cold.

If tragedy strikes and the two babies with the closest DNA match to the parent die before reproducing age, and the one with the many mutations lives. Its the one who lives who’s DNA gets passed on to the next generation. This implies that other Magwai are around so lets say that there was another Magwai who had 2 children, both with DNA that very closely matched their parent.

If the one who survived bred with either of the 2 babies from the other Magwai, then his genes get passed on but they’re now brought back towards what a real Magwai would be (unmutated one). But his traits of a thicker coat or more insulating fat layers would be passed down to his kids.

Now lets say that an ice age came on. Well, his kids would likely fare better in this climate thus making them “selected” by nature to live on. The ones with the original DNA who didn’t have the thicker coats might not fare so well and may die off.

Over millions and billions of years, this process creates different species.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

I am not aware of any compelling evidence for any religion other than Christianity. I believe the argument for the truth of Mohammed’s revelation is “We’ll cut your head off if you don’t accept Mohammed as God’s prophet”. By contrast, Christianity is supported by an incredible quantity of logical proofs, archaeological evidence, fulfilled prophecy, and the consistency and reliability of eyewitness accounts that rule out the possibility of fraud. Something like 500 eyewitnesses testified to witnessing the resurrection, at the cost of great personal persecution, and many died under torture rather than change their testimony. There’s no explanation for it other than their testimony was true.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM

then you’re not being intellectually honest with yourself Joe…

Use the same skepticism that you use to discount all these other religions, on your own.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:47 PM

So, how do you tell by looking at the fossil record that natural selection ever occurred? One strong way to challenge intelligent design might be to compare the fossil/skeletal record of designed animals (e.g. horses, domesticated dogs, livestock) and plants (e.g. maize) with the fossil record of more ancient species, and show that there’s a distinctly different pattern to their evolution. So far, I’ve never heard of any such study.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

There are a few problems with this-

-Intelligent design is formulated so that it can’t be disproved. ID proponents would just say that’s how the designer wanted it to look. Traditional creationists play a similar game when they argue that the earth was created to appear older than it really is.

-I’m not a biologist, so I’m not certain that evolution predicts there would be a difference in the pattern of evolution, but it seems logical that human selection would result in an accelerated rate of genetic change. That’s trivial to demonstrate just by looking at human history.

-”Designed animals” is a misnomer. Humans directed the course of evolution of cows, for example, but to say they designed them is like saying that sharks designed pufferfish. Sharks accelerated the development of defense mechanisms in their prey simply by following their natural instincts. Such evolutionary arms races are common in nature. Like animal husbandry, these are examples of opportunism more than design.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Over millions and billions of years, this process creates different species.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Apply the same skepticism that you use to discount intelligent design to the theory of natural selection. We know that it could happen, in theory, because of Darwin’s logical syllogism. We have no proof that it ever has happened. As you yourself acknowledged above, the evidence is equally supportive of either natural selection or intelligent selection. So why would you be opposed to a study that might enable us to distinguish between the evidence of NS and that of ID?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM

”Designed animals” is a misnomer. Humans directed the course of evolution of cows, for example, but to say they designed them is like saying that sharks designed pufferfish.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 5:52 PM

So intelligent design is the same thing as natural selection? That’s a nice way to win the argument by losing…

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I am not aware of any compelling evidence for any religion other than Christianity. I believe the argument for the truth of Mohammed’s revelation is “We’ll cut your head off if you don’t accept Mohammed as God’s prophet”. By contrast, Christianity is supported by an incredible quantity of logical proofs, archaeological evidence, fulfilled prophecy, and the consistency and reliability of eyewitness accounts that rule out the possibility of fraud. Something like 500 eyewitnesses testified to witnessing the resurrection, at the cost of great personal persecution, and many died under torture rather than change their testimony. There’s no explanation for it other than their testimony was true.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Joe joe joe… There are plenty of religious adherents throughout time who have chosen to die in the name of their religion. There are a plethora of examples of people dieing for their beliefs, paying the ultimate sacrifice.

Just because people have died in the name of a religion does NOT make it right or true.

Just think back to the Branch Davidians… They were a sect of Christianity… I live just up the road from where it happened (figuratively speaking I live in Dallas), there are survivors of that conflagration who are still Branch Davidians… They still think David Koresh is/was the son of god. They died for him… Imagine 2 thousands years from now if these followers were big breeders who spread their beliefs on to others… What would you have? A new religion.

New religions pop up every year. Charismatic leaders always grab a following.

The Mormons are a good example of a recent religion that grew to some prominence… They “believed” that polygamy was a good practice… Why is that do you think? What better way to spread the seed of their religion but by mass producing adherents.

ALL religions seek this kind of dominance, thus why you have the Catholic church speaking against condom usage so vehemently.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM

christian for 40 of 42 years indicates christian for no years.

Deconversion for this one was simple I think. RC I’m guessing…

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Whether its nature doing the selecting or man himself, the idea is still the same. The former (nature doing the selecting) is a much longer process meaning that it takes tens of thousands of years to get a noticeable change in a species.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM

this is just idiotic. you’ve made evolution the intelligent designer.

you don’t even understand your own theory.

pathetic.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Armchair quarterbacks like Right4life swoop in and get an inkling of the knowledge and graduate themselves to doctor-hood on the subject but in the process of fleshing out his ideas, he doesn’t realize how much he shows his true ignorance. As stated in the Dunning Kruger Effect, his incompetence denies him the metacognitive ability to appreciate his mistakes.

I’m not perfect by any means but I know enough to know how little he knows on this topic attributing racism charges to the likes of people like Darwin, Watson, Crick, et al..

Complete buffoonery. The guy is whacked in the head.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 4:04 PM

talk about a nut-case piece of trash…you don’t have the guts to talk to me when I’m here…but then when I’m gone, you talk about me.

you really are a disgusting little weasel.

I’ve made you look stupid over and over again. you don’t have the intelligence to debate me obviously…all you can do is LIE about how you’re done…and then sneak back in and talk about me.

pathetic.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM

So why would you be opposed to a study that might enable us to distinguish between the evidence of NS and that of ID?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I’m not opposed to it… Do the research and submit it for peer review like all other scientific endevours are done and we’ll let the experts decide and tell us why its not.

I’m pretty sure ID has already been thoroughly debunked. Just look at the Kitzmiller vs Dover decision. Watch this 2 hour long video by Ken Miller and understand WHY it’s bunk “science”

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM

So intelligent design is the same thing as natural selection? That’s a nice way to win the argument by losing…

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM

these darwiniacs don’t even understand the theory of evolution that they defend.

Breeding is NOT evolution…how hard is this?

it shows they’re just talking point trolls.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I’m pretty sure ID has already been thoroughly debunked. Just look at the Kitzmiller vs Dover decision. Watch this 2 hour long video by Ken Miller and understand WHY it’s bunk “science”

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM

hey gomer you can’t debunk ID if its not science….duhhhhh

if ID was religion you couldn’t debunk it…moron.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

and then sneak back in and talk about me.

pathetic.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM

You’re delusional man… I’m not sneaking behind your back… Are you fughing nutz?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Oh, it does.

You caught me on off days.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

ROFLMAO…hell sonny boy you’ve never had a ‘on’ day.

complete and utter jackass.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM

You’re delusional man… I’m not sneaking behind your back… Are you fughing nutz?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

talking about me when I’m not here…you’re a f’ing nutjob

a gutless one at that…weasel

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:04 PM

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM

hell you don’t even know what the theory of evolution is…it has NOTHING to do with selective breeding…damn you’re dumb.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:04 PM

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I’ll say this much though Right4life… I certainly was enjoying your absence… Now I adjourn until you’ve moved on again, and NOT because I can’t debate you. I can. But you just berate and belittle and make a fool out of yourself so why bother?

I hope someday that a HA moderator sees your idiotic posts and realizes that you’re not a serious commenter and bans you.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM

I’ll say this much though Right4life… I certainly was enjoying your absence… Now I adjourn until you’ve moved on again, and NOT because I can’t debate you. I can. But you just berate and belittle and make a fool out of yourself so why bother?

oh yeah you’ll come back and talk about me, since you’re OBSESSED with me obviously…

what a nut-job, get some help you sick piece of trash.

I hope someday that a HA moderator sees your idiotic posts and realizes that you’re not a serious commenter and bans you.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM

poor little baby…you just can’t keep up with me…and like a typical darwiniac stooge want me shut up…cause you don’t have the intellect to keep up with me…its MORE than obvious

LOL

loser.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM

and don’t worry, I’ll be back to make you look stupid…not that you need any help..

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

oh yeah you’ll come back and talk about me, since you’re OBSESSED with me obviously…

what a nut-job, get some help you sick piece of trash.

I hope someday that a HA moderator sees your idiotic posts and realizes that you’re not a serious commenter and bans you.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM

poor little baby…you just can’t keep up with me…and like a typical darwiniac stooge want me shut up…cause you don’t have the intellect to keep up with me…its MORE than obvious

LOL

loser.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

This is why you’re delusional…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

So intelligent design is the same thing as natural selection? That’s a nice way to win the argument by losing…

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM

No, animal husbandry is not intelligent design. That was a nice way of avoiding losing the argument by avoiding the argument altogether, though.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM

This is why you’re delusional…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM

the truth hurts. run away gurly-man…LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM

No, animal husbandry is not intelligent design. That was a nice way of avoiding losing the argument by avoiding the argument altogether, though.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM

yes it is….

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442983a.html

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:11 PM

No, animal husbandry is not intelligent design. That was a nice way of avoiding losing the argument by avoiding the argument altogether, though.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM

and who does this breeding? oh yeah people? and why do people do it? oh yeah they have a purpose in mind…they work towards a goal…evolution does not..unless you’re saying evolution is the intelligent designer.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:14 PM

the truth hurts. run away gurly-man…LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you… ;-(

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I am not aware of any compelling evidence for any religion other than Christianity.

By contrast, Christianity is supported by an incredible quantity of logical proofs

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Can you provide three examples out of the the “incredible quantity” of logical proofs that DISTINGUISH Christianity as supported from all other religions?

In other words, what are these logical proofs that support Christianity without supporting any other religion?

If any of them actually support any other religion than Christianity, your own contention that you have no compelling evidence for any other religion. If that proof supports Christianity, it supports the other religions that are compatible with it as well.

Do you have even one “logical proof” that is exclusive to Christianity?

VekTor on February 1, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 13 14 15 16 17