Video: Mom pushes kid to ask Perry about evolution

posted at 2:05 pm on August 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, honey.  Go up to the big, scary stranger and start asking him about religion and science!

Ah, motherhood and politics:

Even better: Dammit, son, you’re not asking the questions I’m too afraid to ask right!  You have to ask him why he hates science!

I’ve got a question for Mom.  Why don’t you have the guts to ask the question yourself?  Too afraid of looking like an idiot in public?  Well … too late for that now.

Perry manages to get in a good backhanded slap at Mom, though, when he explains that Texas teaches both evolution and creationism, and says that assumes that students will be smart enough to figure it out for themselves.  Too bad Mom doesn’t think the same thing about her son here.

Breaking on Hot Air


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.


Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Here is another quote from that link I provided…

Is it possible to have life based on any element? Could I have an iron-based life form? Calcium? Neon?

No. The reason life is carbon-based is that carbon is able to form bonds with 4 different atoms, so that it is able to form extremely complex compounds. Only elements that can form 4 bonds, and which are also fairly common, are likely to be able to form the basis for life.

Silicon can also form 4 bonds, and it has sometimes been speculated that it could potentially provide the basis for life forms. But so far this is just science fiction.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Aha! So some scientists speculate that in the early pre biotic environment of earth, back several billion years ago when earth first formed, there were very low to non existent levels of oxygen. And scientists speculate that in the transition from non life to life, that sulphur based life might have been a transient stage in the progression of chemicals from non life to life.

but even THIS still doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution Jason. It only highlights what I’ve said many times before in our discussion, and that is that the life forms that have developed on earth over the millenia are all subject to natural selection, sexual selection, and the environment they happen to inhabit at the time.

It may BE that sulphur was a good way for life to live on this planet before those sulphur based life forms emitted oxygen as a by product of just plain living.

As time progressed over the eons, and the environment changed more towards what we know today, life CHANGED to adjust to the changing environment.

This is evolution dood.

I’m right, you’re wrong, go lick your wounds.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Hydrothermal vents –

Sulphur replaces Carbon in the common exchange with H and O for both the anatomy and biochemistry of the organism. See: Decadal Survey of Marine Life

BUT. . . . if you want the “at least twice argument”, you can start here:

I’ve never made the “at least twice” argument. I think it’s pretty much a given that “at least twice” is accurate. There’s a compelling argument that life arose, changed the atmosphere, which killed it off, life arose again using new environment. . . A) B) unrelated.

The kicker is within the same time and space scale.

We have sulphur based organisms in the deep ocean interacting with carbon based ones. This is a problem for evolution.

We have viruses that appear to pass instructions through hosts, this is also a problem for evolution.

There are numerous other problems with evolution, like Junk DNA containing genetic material that should not be available to the organism if current Evolutionary theory is accurate.

Your trying to hold me to a standard of disproving Evolution, and that isn’t how science works. That’s how religion works.

Evolution is a process. That’s a given in my book. It can and does happen in the extent that species change over time.

That doesn’t mean it is THE process and there is ZERO certainty that “today’s evolved Evolutionary theory” is accurate to the degree you state.

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 3:29 PM


You “debunk” me by quoting some people from a forum chat?

That’s just one priest quoting another priest.

I even told you “within 10 years”, and you want to claim your forum chat from 2002 “debunks” me?


The wheels on your bus are falling off.

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 3:38 PM


These people are your “debunking” source?????

No. The reason life is carbon-based is that carbon is able to form bonds with 4 different atoms, so that it is able to form extremely complex compounds. Only elements that can form 4 bonds, and which are also fairly common, are likely to be able to form the basis for life.

I’ll leave out the “are likely” and “to be able” parts and just scream this.


You DARE call religious people ignorant when this is what your argument has devolved to?

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM

They’re not sulfur based lifeforms. They’re carbon based life forms that can metabolize sulfur.

But again, that still doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution since the theory only states the following.

Evolution – a unifying principle of biology

The theory of evolution states that modern organisms are descendants of ancient organisms and that modifications accumulated over time explain the apparent changes and differences among modern forms of life. This ‘descent with modification’ theory was central to Charles Darwin’s argument of biological evolution, an idea spearheaded by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). The idea of evolution proposes that animals and plants can change over time, and are not static forms created at once and independent of each other. Lamarck and Darwin proposed different explanation of how these changes may occur. Darwin’s proposal of natural selection has proved correct and evidence from biology, earth science, and cosmology all corroborate the basic mechanism of natural selection.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Whatever Jason. As I said before, I tire of the argument with you because all you appear interested in doing is calling me religious when I’m clearly not.

JUST because someone argues about something doesn’t make them religious about it.

I said send me some links to prove all that you claim and I have yet to see anything, other than you calling me religious and making unsubstantiated claims.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 5:10 PM

When someone says their scientific position is 100% correct and that it will never substantially change, that’s not science, that’s religion.

The organisms at the hydrothermal vents not only metabolize Sulphur, they use it for their anatomical structure all the way down to the nucleus.

I checked your “carbon complex” argument. . . . did you realize it comes form Rodenberry’s Star Trek?

Again, I’ve already proved my case, that your theory has holes and has been revised many times since introduction and will be revised many times going forward. To claim otherwise is simply denial.

You are the one that has the heavier burden of proof. Until your theory can account for the lack of common genetic history between equine and canine and explain the connection between cow and dolphine, it’s incomplete.

You have to be right 100% of the time for you to make your claim. I only have to be right once.

Viruses passing instruction is enough to blow a big huge hole in YOUR “current evolved Evolutionary theory”.

Evolution is not 100% correct. Won’t be in your lifetime either.

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM

You quoted Buehler. How cute.

Priest quoting priest.

Seriously man, 99.9 percent of scientific theory has been proven wrong, what makes you think your HIGHLY POLITICIZED theory is in that .1 percent?

You can’t even find a real working Evolutionary Biologist that will say that.

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

God damn it man! How freaking dense are you? You just don’t get it do you?

What exactly does the Theory of Evolution say Jason? I won’t say another word until you give me a definition. Give me the definition of the Theory please.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Which definition do you want? The one used by the National Academy of Sciences rev. 2007 or how about the 2003 revision, maybe the one from 1992.

Or would you prefer the one used by the University of Pennsylvania in 1941 or maybe the one from the Ohio Department of Education from 1986 or the one passed by the Ohio Legislature a few years later.

I bet that the one you like best comes from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Few scientists use that one but it does seem to be a favorite of the anti- theistic evolution(Darwin) crowd.

THAT is why your “truth” claim about Evolution is absurd. It’s an “evolving” science, a very young evolving science at that. Most damaging, it’s a politicized science.

The “Theory of Evolution” doesn’t say anything. There are priests like you who say it says everything, giving us all the answers to any question about species. That’s pretty absurd. There are a few scientific “schools” of Evolutionary theory and there are those who break from the schools and offer up complimentary or conflicting theories.

Huxley had a definition, one that’s held up pretty well over time, Wallace had another, one that’s a bit shot up but servicable, Darwin had one, but as you say, that’s not the current “evolved Evolutionary postion” that you claim.

I can look at all the definitions out there and see that NONE of them are or claim to be 100% accurate as you want to portray them.

Even within Universities, like Oxford, you have multiple definitions of the theory depending on whether you’re in the department of Biology or Anthropology. You even have differences between Oxford professors in the same department.

The question isn’t “what does the Theory of Evolution say”, it’s more accurate to ask “Who’s theory of Evolution do you want to discuss.”

You’ve already said you’re off Darwin and onto some “evolved Evolutionary theory”. On one hand you want to use Wiki, on another you want to use Matson (good man by the way) and finally you’ve tossed out Buehler.

My position is that they are ALL wrong to one degree or another because the history and application of science tells me so beyond the major holes each have.

You’re the one who’s schizophrenic about it.

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 8:55 PM

actually I’ll make it easier on you. . . let’s leave out all the political theories and just stick with the major ToE’s in play during the period from 1997 through to 2007

(in play means more than 10 major peer-reviewed papers published annually on the subject in the time period selected)

So which do you want?

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model of Evolution
Mutation Evolutionary Theory
Natural Selection Evolutionary Theory
Small Population Size Effect Evolutionary Theory
Gene Flow Evolutionary Theory
Recombination Evolutionary Theory
Non-Random Mating Evolutionary Theory

or the after-school favorite. . .

Micro and Macro Evolution Theory for Students

Jason Coleman on August 23, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Evasiveness… The modus operandi of those who know they’ve lost.

All those theories you submitted are examples of sub theories. Try again.

There are four common mechanisms of evolution.

The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and reproduction of entities that differ in one or more inherited traits. Selection can act at multiple levels of organization, for example differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms, populations, or gene variants.

A second mechanism is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.

A third mechanism is biased mutation, which can affect phenotypes expressed across multiple levels of organisation.

Finally, the fourth mechanism is gene flow, which is the incorporation of genes from one population into another.

The list you provided are only examples of sub theories, try again.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 10:38 PM

definition please. not evasive mealy mouthed commentary.

SauerKraut537 on August 23, 2011 at 11:13 PM

I’m not evading anything. Evolution is wrong with near certainty.

My position is consistent. Like 99.9 percent of all scientific theory, evolution is significantly flawed, incomplete and incorrect. My position is that you are most certainly wrong.

Calling divergent theories “sub-theory of the same” is the dodge. Just like Matson and Buehler disagree on what evolution is, so do recombinant and Hardy-Weinberg theorists differ in significant and exclusive ways. My boy Matson and your latest boy Buehler both significantly disagree with each other.

If you need a current and valid definition of Evolution I’ll give it to you, but to do so doesn’t really help your cause:

The historical development of a related group of organisms.
or how bout
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Now. . . if you want to accept either of these as “the definition”, be my guest and we can end it right here.

Both of those definitions can withstand the test of time.

However they aren’t the definitions you’ve been using.

Which is why I find it pretty funny that you’re accusing me of a dodge.

My position throughout has been consistent. Yours has not.

My position is that you are wrong. Just like 99.9 percent of the scientific theory that has come before. There is nothing to indicate that whatever it is your cult is pushing this week, it’s not correct and doesn’t meet any test for being declared Near Certain or in that .1 percent.

I’ve not tried to elevate to truth as you have, I’ve not tried to claim equality with scientific law as you have, I’ve not denied the possibility of new information as you have. I’ve not made absoutist statements that cannot be supported as you have.

My position is that NEAR CERTAINTY is not found any any of the current evolutionary theories (you call them sub-theory, but that seems to be a descriptor you’ve added all on your own). Sub-theory is not part of any major published theory of evolution.

Claiming subtheory is no different than hiding behind a denominational defense.

Again, you’ve dropped down into religious faith in science and it’s forced you to make critical mistakes in both logic, reason and historical/scientific fact.

Evolution in your new current model (with divergent sub-theory) becomes merely a concept, and that I’ll grant. Evolution is a valid concept, a supported concept.

Once you get into laying down a unified theory, though, you have a problem. There is NO UNIFIED EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL.

No one has attempted a modern unified Evolutionary theory. What you call sub-theories are theories in and of themselves which place higher or lower priority on divergent mechanisms of change.

The recombinant Evolutionary biologists almost wholly disagrees with the practitioner of the HWE model. The HWE modeler dismisses the importance of artificial actions (like significant orogenic events) and a Evolutionary mutation researcher will put that mechanism on top. Just because they put different mechanisms in different places, doesn’t make them the same, just as Christianity and Hinduism use similar/identical constructs doesn’t make them the same. Just as Newton and Einstein use some of the same equations and incorporate the same scientific laws doesn’t make their Theories the same. (Or. . . . . . have you elevated Evolution to a Science in and of itself. . . oh boy, that would be a fun argument. . . . why don’t you try that!!!!)

They can’t all be right, and they aren’t. That’s the great thing about science. In the real scientific world, scientists know they are largely wrong and that there is almost always room for a new theory that closes holes in previous theories and moves us closer to an understanding of the universe around us.

To claim that we’ve ended the development of Evolutionary theory and we’ve “got the answer” now is simply hubris and incorrect on it’s face.

You’ve yet to answer any of my points other than to simply deny. The ridiculous attempts you’ve made to “debunk” fall short (seriously, Star Trek and forum chats).

Let me give you a hint. You CANNOT debunk my position because it is the scientific default position. To “debunk” my position would require YOU TO PRESENT a unified Evolutionary theory which accounts for all of the differences from Huxley to Chief Justice Renquist.

You can’t do it. If you could, you wouldn’t be wasting your time trying to “debunk” the scientific skeptic position. You’d be accepting your Nobel.

So there’s your definition. Doesn’t help you explain the canine/equine problem or the cow/dolphin problem. Doesn’t help you explain away Junk DNA containing code which Evolutionary genetics says shouldn’t be there. Doesn’t help you explain organisms that metabolize Sulphur and incorporate it into their anatomy and it sure doesn’t help you deal with the problem of viral instruction.

Sub-Theory. . . really. . . that’s your defense? You’ve had moderate luck with your google-fu (I thought you might have me with Dr. Matsons marine vertebrates) so far, but did you even bother to check “Evolution sub-theory” before you decided to declare 100′s of research years to the sub- dustbin.

You essentially pulled a denomination defense. That’s pretty lame.

99.9 percent of all scientific theory throughout history is wrong. Simple as that. We do not live in a special time. Therefore, the probability that whatever Theory (or sub-theory) you want to use is wrong with absolute near certainty (meaning as close to certain as one can get).

Nothing you’ve said leads anyone to think that whatever current “evolved Evolutionary theory” your cult is pushing rises to that .1 percent. (That bold part is your own admission of your fatal flaw.)

If you’ve got some evidence that it does, complete evidence, please share.

As a sidebar – I’ll accept your sub-theory defense if you accept one of my “definitions” of Evolution as the theory rather than a definition. Because only then could HWE and recombinant actually be considered sub- theory.

Of course, that would kinda blow up your whole “evolved Evolutionary theory” thingee, now wouldn’t it.

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM

AGAIN you evade!

Dude, it’s not hard.

Here’s the definition…

Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.

THAT’s all the theory is bro.

Now, inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Look Jason, I know how hard it is to accept that you’re wrong, but you’ll get over it bro.

Now, all those theories you alluded to in your post, where we have scientists disagreeing on the specifics of how animals change over time are ONLY EXAMPLES of scientists disagreeing on the specifics of HOW organisms change over time. They’re NOT disproving evolution, they’re arguing over the specifics of evolution.

You’re guilty of the distinction without a difference fallacy. Hate to keep sounding like a broken record but they’re fighting over the minutia. NOT the theory itself.

They’re refining the theory is all it is.

They don’t disagree on the main theory itself.

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Here’s the money quote from the link I provided Jason… The last sentence in paragraph 5…

“Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

But even that last sentence is wrong in one sense… They don’t develop other theories that explain its causes… they develop hypothesis that explain its causes.

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Firstly, there’s a problem.

Your quote is from Wikipedia. Did you bother to look at the history of that “definition”? Who vetted that definition. I’ll give you a hint. No scientist gave that definition, and no scientist has vetted that definition. A definition of the ToE that completely devoid of natural selection. . . interesting.

You can’t find that definition as the basis for any scientific program of research or study of Evolution. In fact you can’t find that definition outside of of the reference back to Wikipedia. . . .here’s a clue:


Prior to June of this year, that definition you quoted. . . it didn’t even exist. Now Futuyama is the guy who is paraphrased there, but it’s a bad paraphrase and has been edited multiple times from the original. A competent copy editor would toss it out because the quote doesn’t match the citation. Even the citation is out of date as the citation is from 2005 and the text was revised in 2009 and the ORIGINAL cite isn’t even in the current literature.

“Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.”

Really???? They have???? Where???? The University of Oxford disagrees vehemently with that statement. I’m going to trust Oxford, rather than wikipedia. Even given the low (non-existent) standards of Wikipedia, the above quote doesn’t even have the illusion of proper attribution.

But lets roll back to your orginal cite:

Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time.

A mutation theorist would disagree with a number of points here. Firstly, the traits don’t HAVE to be initially inherited. Radical interference can cause mutation of traits without the necessary for inheritance. Additionally, inheritance does not necessarily have to occur within/throughout A population, but can occur simultaneously across distinct populations, universally or randomly.

Futuyama even addresses this problem with the 2005 text in his book “Coevolution”.

Doesn’t mean that your definiton is completely without merit, just that it’s not universally applicable and not useful as a unifying statement.

I’m curious, though, have you studied any of this or are you merely relying on google-fu????? Your reliance on flawed and contradictory Wikipedia citations tends to make me think your actual familiarity with the subject is only as deep as the nearest search engine.

You’re being pretty insulting to the work of Hardy, Huxley, Wallace, Darwin, Lamarck, Cuvier and countless other authors of theory when you claim their work is merely hypotheses rather than theory. I think most of them would be quite offended by your layman’s misunderstanding of their volume of work. Not to mention the hundreds of department chairs across the globe who built their department around particular competing theories. . . you don’t build academic departments around hypotheses.

“They’re NOT disproving evolution”

Did anyone say such at thing???? I surely did not. I think that’s part of the profound problem that you don’t understand, so I’ll state it again.

99.9 percent of all scientific theory devleoped to date has been shown to be wrong.

My position is that the “current Evolved theory” that you have tried to cite from wikipedia (which would I guess make your ‘evolved’ comment sensible if you call the random editing without merit “evolution”) falls within that 99.9 percent.

Your position is that it falls with the .1 percent. That’s a pretty high bar you’ve set for yourself. I don’t see any evidence to show that any ToE out there, and of course there are more ToE’s out there beyond what I listed, meet a higher standard for truth than Newton did (and he was indeed, wrong). They merely work within the framework set up by the Theory.

To date, no Theory of Evolution has been tested to any extent that moves an organism from one species to the next. Even with a few million generations of trying with fruit flies. . . . no one can make it work.

If you can’t make a theory work, if you can’t test it and get the result you predict, that’s a serious problem for the theory.

To date, no one has been able to predict the outcome of an evolutionary experiment, or even get a change in species through “Evolutionary” means.

Not to say we haven’t created new species in the lab. We have, most certainly. . . . just not through Evolutionary theory. Case in point, the Blood Parrot Cichlid.

It’s up to YOU to prove the theory is as accurate as you say. I’d settle for an accomplished scientist stating that any ToE is as accurate as you say. You’d better find a better source than wikipedia.

Since you didn’t even try to find any fault with my definitions, I’m going to assume that you agree with them. They really are the best chance you have, since they actually are scientific definitions.

So. . . . I’m curious though. IF the theory is as you’ve stated, where does that leave Darwin’s Theistic Evolutionary theory?????

Hmmmm….. I’m guessing Darwin doesn’t fit into your “evolved Evolutionary theory”. Hmmmm… What does that say about the most widely used ToE. . . . macro and micro evolutionary theory for students?????

I’m sorry but you’ll have to do better than wikipedia.

Some more LOL’s from that Wikipedia page:

Lord Kelvin did not contribute to Evolutionary theory. . .
Darwin solved the antiquity problem. . . . (Darwin himself says he didn’t)
Richard Dawkins is GOD!!! (I really got a smile on that one.)

The oh so wonderful. . . . “consensus needed” discussion. I love this one. When people who don’t know anything about a subject want to expound on it, they look for “consensus”. Consensus has no place in science and science is not done through consensus. Consensus is the realm of religious dogma and politics. . . not science.

Oh, and Lamarck mentioned without mentioning “natural laws”. . . . seriously. . . .THIS IS YOUR SOURCE??????

Wikipedia might be a good source for Paris Hilton gossip. . . as a scientific resource, it’s pretty lame.

Oh look, your “evolved Evolutionary theory” “evolved” again in the last 24 hours. . . . 8 times!!!!!! Come on Kraut, fess up. You’re in there making edits yourself, aren’t ya.

I think you’ve pretty much blown your wad now Kraut.

Wikipedia. . . . Really???

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I really love this from the entry:

“as requested, boldly inserted a draft built from long discussion; still needs work but please resist making it digress or puff up too much; use talk to discuss “missing” stuff

You got some sure-fire science-minded wikipedians over there working on your “evolved” theory there bud.

Thanks for the laughs. . . . more?

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

LOL@Jason. Somehow I KNEW you’d belittle Wikipedia, most people do when it’s used against them, but then most people belittle any piece of evidence that’s used against them in a debate. It’s called confirmation bias, get used to it Jason. Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.

Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

You’ll get over it one day bro, but you still don’t get it!

There is a basic theory of evolution whereby animals are subjected to natural selection, sexual selection, and environmental pressures. Along with these, they experience mutations, genetic recombination and gene flow, among other causes for why/how they evolve. Science is trying to figure out these details.

Now scientists disagree on the minutia of how that might have transpired but there is no doubt that whales evolved from land animals in much the same way that dolphins did. They’re mammals, they started out in the sea, evolved into land animals as the first animals made it ashore and then moved back into the sea and shed a lot of the traits that made them land animals, ie legs, etc…

THAT HAPPENS, and it’s been proven to happen with the fossil record, with genetics that show their DNA to have a lot of the markers that their distant cousins on the land still have. There is a history in the genetic record of every animal that shows their predecessors and cousins relationship.

You don’t doubt this do you? So evolution happens right? You agree on that point?

But you keep saying that it’s wrong, that it’s been proven wrong, etc. What you’re REALLY saying is that the various hypothesis that have been proposed to answer the unknowns about evolution are 99.9% wrong (which is funny because I seriously doubt that the percentage is NEARly that high, people who usually spout statistics like that are usually exaggerating), not that evolution itself is wrong.

The basic theory is still the same whether you’re using Dawkins, or Baer, Dart, Gould, whomever. As I said, since it was first intimated in Darwin’s Origin of Species, the theory has been refined. Our technologies have gotten better to where we can now see the fine details of HOW it happens, which prompts scientists to propose specific hypothesis about how it actually happened.

But carry on with your extreme doubt. I’m just glad the actual scientists in the field get it. Hopefully the rest of the world will quit kidding themselves any longer.

The indelible stamp of our lowly origin

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM

The world is your oyster Jason. Go look up the hundreds of thousands of scientific papers that are on this site that show proof of evolution.


There are Pee-lenty of papers here proving evolution. I report, you decide. Please decide rightly. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I’ve already addressed Pubmed, it’s a great resource. How bout you pick something from there. That’d be great. Then I can also pull a competing paper from there.

I don’t think you’ll find ANY paper on pubmed that uses the term “proved” or “truth” or otherwise claims that any theory of Evolution is undeniable fact. Go ahead and try tho.

As for Wikipedia.

The entry you cited said “Richard Dawkins was God” on Tuesday. I’m sorry but it’s not MY bias that makes Wikipedia a bogus source, it’s BS like that.

Of four top “authors” on that page, none are scientists in any way shape or form. None of the quotes on the page are accurate to their associated citations.

Then there’s the “consensus” issue. YOU may find science by consensus appealing, but it’s not science. Not in any way.

I’ve addressed the other problems with Wikipedia and I’ll clue you in to why Wikipedia isn’t even acceptable for High School term papers anymore. . . . it, Wikipedia itself, is nothing but a collection where anyone who wishes can post whatever they want without any repercussions or fact checking whatsoever.

Are you a Wikipedia editor Kraut??? I’m really starting to think you are. If a high school chemistry teacher won’t accept Wikipedia as a source, I certainly won’t and your reliance on it belies what I already said, that your knowledge on this subject is only as deep as the nearest search engine.

I’m going to revise that as it appears that now your knowledge runs only as deep as the Wikipedia search function.

Remember, you’re the one making the claim of accuracy and truth. It may be the case in your “evolved Wikipedian theory” that the onus of proof is on the challenger, but in the real world of science it’s up to the one who makes the absolutist bombastic boast who must prove their case. Not the challenger.

Or are you one of those people who snickers when you ask “How long ago did you stop beating your wife?”

You made a claim not backed by science. It’s mildly backed by the Wikipedians of the moment. Yet as I pointed out, your Wikipedia theory “evolved” 8 times just today.

You made a claim you can’t back up. The ONLY source you have that agrees with you is Wikipedia. That means not only do you fail, but within just a few short days, all of your “evidence” will be lost to the fever-swamp of dueling Wikipedia “editors”.

Wikipedia is not a valid source. . . for anything.

I do need to note that your “definition” wasn’t last rewritten in June like I had earlier thought. It’s much worse than that.

Your “evolved” definition “evolved” itself into being on August 12th.

Boy you sure on the cutting edge of that “evolved Wikipedian Evolution theory”. So lets see who added that hack job of an edit to Futuyama’s statement. . . . ah, he’s pursuing a degree in “ecoliteracy”. Wonderful source you got there.

Perhaps you could have gotten recycling expert to rehash Futuyama and put words in his mouth that even he disavowed in 2009.

Seriously man, when your main quote a hackjob of a quote disavowed by the author 2 years previous. . . you’ve got a problem.

The onus to prove your absolute statement is on you, not me, that’s how science works. And you don’t get to use “consensus” to prove it.

I’m going to have one more little crack at your definition just for fun. I really can’t help it when presented such a ripe target.

Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.

I’ll even use PubMed for you. . . . have a bit of. . . .directed evolution:

I’m gonna guess that directed evolution is another example of minutia????? Yeah, right.

How about a bit of change ACROSS varied independent populations. . . again PubMed:

I love this quote. . . AGAIN. . . from Pubmed:

“However, we still lack elements of a general theory accounting for the origins and distribution of inversions in nature.”

It seems your sources are working against you. . .

Care to play in PubMed. . . I’m game. . . give it the old college try there Kraut.

This is starting to feel like I’m punching puppies here. Maybe you should stick to editing Wikipedia entries rather than get into serious sources. . . . I would love for you to find a paper there in PubMed that says any ToE has “proved” itself or been determined to be scientifically “true”. That’d be fantastic if you could find that cite that no one seems to have ever written.

Come on Kraut. Show us your google-fu with Pubmed.

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I’m curious. . . Do you agree with this statement?

One “can’t claim truth without justification, and we can’t claim justification unless our evidence rules out the alternatives.”

Simple universal yes or no will suffice.

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM

I hate it when you type out a long post and click submit and you get nothing, like the damn message got rejected or is in some kind of moderation… Ugh!

It’s not worth it. I know I’m not religious about it, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that we evolved over time into the beings we are today and that in a million years we will likely be very different bodily and mentally than we are today.

I’ve heard enough scientists expound ad nauseum on the topic to trust their judgement. I can’t understand all that they speak of, but what I do understand, and what I’ve learned along the way, it’s the truth.

Keep the faith Jason.

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 10:57 PM

happened again, I guess I’m trying to post a link the system doesn’t like. It’s a CNN story on Francis Collins (more on that below)

I’m curious. . . Do you agree with this statement?

One “can’t claim truth without justification, and we can’t claim justification unless our evidence rules out the alternatives.”

Simple universal yes or no will suffice.

Jason Coleman on August 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Why yes I do, and I do because I said so myself. Bravo, you stalker you!

I DO have justification for the truth of evolution. It’s called evidence of it, and the experts who’ve shown it to be true with the evidence they’ve provided.

There are plenty of blogs out there where the owners are evolutionary biologists. You can look them up if you like (Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers most prominently).

There are plenty of quotes by scientists as well, like Francis Collins’

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Not typing more than this because it’ll probably block it again. Go Google that quote from Collins and follow the link to CNN to see the article if you like.

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Forgot to add (cause wasn’t sure if it’d post or not)

But there IS no alternative Jason. Evolution is it, and alot of the medicines and advances in medical science are a direct result of understanding life through the prism of evolutionary thought.

Suck on it! ;-)

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 11:33 PM

“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” Theodosius Dobzhansky 1973 Essay

SauerKraut537 on August 24, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Very good. Glad you agree with it. Would have been very problematic if you had not.

Do you agree with this:

“Newton believed that Alchemy was a viable science… Many great people are deluded all the time. “

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 12:55 AM

I DO have justification for the truth of evolution. It’s called evidence of it, and the experts who’ve shown it to be true with the evidence they’ve provided.

And does this evidence rule out ALL of the alternatives?

You say “But there IS no alternative” . . . that’s not a very smart statement, you can take the chance now to revise it if you wish.

Still waiting on that Pubmed resource. You wanted to play in Pubmed, remember. Don’t go moving those goalposts.

Collins quote is noted, we’ll address it in a bit. Let’s finish with either your quotes or Pubmed first though. Time to clean this up and get ready for the nails.

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Bravo! Quote mining! I’m sure you’ll bring the context along with it (/sarcasm), but if you’re inferring that all these scientists, who’ve done experiments which proved evolution, are lying about it or delusional in this regard… Go reproduce their experiments and if you don’t get the same result, just use doubt and keep at it until you get it right. ;-)

Many highly intelligent people, just like yourself, get things wrong. Including me!

I just happen to be right on this. ;-)

Of course scientists don’t put their theories across in such a manner as “I’m right and that’s that”. They request, dare people try to poke holes in their findings so that their hypothesis becomes closer to a law if it passes the test and is worthy of law like status.

But once a hypothesis has been repeated time and time again like a lot of evolutionary hypothesis have been so far… It’s a “fact”, it’s as close to fact as one can get in science.

It is a fact that evolution is the way we came to be. Not faith.

SauerKraut537 on August 25, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Nah, I’m done with you bro. You’ve got your faith that there is something else out there that will supplant evolution and I guess that’s the way we leave it.

Maybe you could try Intelligent Design? LOL

SauerKraut537 on August 25, 2011 at 1:15 AM

All the alternatives???

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM

I’ve never said a damn thing about supplanting.

All the alternatives?

You got anything from Pubmed?

ID? You got a definition for that? What do you mean by ID? Is that anything like directed evolution? Or do you mean theistic evolution. . . you know “the minutia”.

I probably don’t mean ID.

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Or do you mean ID in the sense of what that dude on CNN? You know, that Collins fellow you just posted.

But why couldn’t this be God’s plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be.

then he said. . .

“The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God’s majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.”

that kind of ID? Nah, I don’t mean that.

But YOU agree with all that guy Collins said, right?

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 1:29 AM

All the alternatives???

Tell you what, since you’re so smart, go put a alternative theory together and submit it for peer review like all scientists do, and then we can talk about alternatives.

I got a regular day job, I’m not a scientist, but I enjoy it immensely and read a lot on it to try to understand our universe better. I’ve done plenty of evolutionary theory reading in my day. I don’t recall it all at the drop of a hat, but I’ve done the due diligence already and put it out of my mind as a question I once had.

It doesn’t really affect me much anymore except when I choose to argue against ignorance, which is every few weeks or so after I’ve come across a slew of ignorant remarks on the topic.

Too many of my countrymen are keeping their heads in the sand about reality (being too religious), and evolution is reality. 65% +/- a few percentage points discount it purely along religious affiliation. It’s got mounds of evidence on its side and like I said, no REAL alternative, except for the new incarnation of creationism, Intelligent Design.

All the alternatives?

Obviously I have to keep an open mind, but so far I’ve seen no real contenders, only pretenders.

SauerKraut537 on August 25, 2011 at 1:29 AM

So yes or no on all the alternatives?

It’s your quote. . . you said you agree with it. I just want to make sure. All the alternatives?

Not up to me to prove your statements.

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM

I’m letting it rest… Come stalk me again in a few weeks when I need some exercise.

Over and out

SauerKraut537 on August 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Ok then, since you can’t even play by your own rules without crying and whining “I’m taking my ball and going”.

I’ll just cut to the chase.

You’re a three year old atheist who’s discovered a Universal Truth “There is no God” and rather than doing the hard work that such a position entails. You’ve simply dispensed with the hard work and gone straight into Proselytizing.

Rather than rejecting both the god-construct and associated religion, you’ve altered your religious position to one with an anti-god construct.

Let me break something to you. After a few more years of being an atheist, you’ll come to realize that it’s not the guy in the sky that is the problem with religion, it’s religion itself, irregardless of the construct.

What you’ve got now, for you, is a system where you’ve replaced the elements of the Abrahamic faiths with elements from current science (keyword: current).

You personally have replaced Noah’s flood with the Black Sea Event and you’ve traded Creationism for Evolution. Now on their face, both the BSF and Evolution are fine as fields of scientific inquiry and understanding of our natural world. However, it’s beyond mere hubris to claim (as you have) that the BSF Theory IS Noah’s Flood, and that Evolution IS Creation.

When you make those absolute statements. You’ve entered into the realm of religion again, declaring Universal Truths where none exist. The BSF event was NOT Noah’s flood because Noah (as a distinct individual, probably did not exist) and the story of Noah’s flood is not something that can be set down as a “This is the story of Noah’s flood” statement. There are over 500 “Noah’s Flood’s” out there, and quite a few have exactly ZERO to do with anything that happened around the Black Sea (unless of course we are actually referring to a great flood that covered the entire Earth and there is no evidence for that).

It’s not Evolution that is the problem. In your haste you completely glossed over the fact that I said that Evolution had a great deal that is probably correct. You just can’t take a challenge to the religious position that your “evolved Wikipedian theory of evolution” in faulty in any way. You claimed the Universal Truth of Evolution and now you feel you have a religious duty to defend YOUR MOST OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE POSITION even in the face of what you admit are historical errors and differences in the “minutia” of the theory.

Evolution is not the counterpoint to Creation. Evolution doesn’t even really address “creation”. As your friend Collins pointed out, and Darwin before him, Evolution and God can coexist. . . . .

Oh wait. . . . they can’t. . . . because God doesn’t exist.

THAT RIGHT THERE is the first problem with your absolute statement of the Truth of Evolution.

I’ve said it before and you’ve missed it. We do not live in a special time. We do not have any special knowledge. What we know now will be just as primitive to humans in 100 years as what humans knew 1000 years ago is to us today. That’s an undeniable fact. The pace of human understanding is proceeding at an exponential pace, the very laws of the universe are falling apart around us as we open up the atom and find another universe inside. Information is transmitted faster than the speed of light in quantum experiments and just beyond 10*1028 light years from the center of our universe all of the fabric of reality either breaks apart or starts again.

Evolution is one piece of the puzzle, a VERY large piece, but that puzzle is far greater today than it was just a few short years ago.

A few short years ago, it was inconceivable that a virus could insert instructions into a carrier, and have that host inject instructions to another. Until VERY recently, we believed that in some fashion, the virus itself must have crossed over through the carrier into the victim, we know know with CERTAINTY that such a thing CAN and DOES happen.

Does this new information about viral instruction debunk Evolution? NO, it doesn’t, and I’ve NEVER claimed that it did.

In fact, in your religious ZEAL, you’ve failed to recognize that I’ve never even tried to say that “Evolution was ‘untrue’” and I’ve never said anything like “Evolution has been/is debunked.”

I’ve been VERY specific about what I’ve said. You’ve been EXTREMELY sloppy about what you’ve been saying. That’s EXTREMELY bad form for an atheist in an Evolution discussion. When you start making absolute statements in an argument about Evolution, you’ve made evolution the religion, whether you wanted to or would like to, or not.

Viral instruction IS an alternative to Evolutionary change. The trait is not “inherited” (until the 2nd generation, IF AT ALL), and yet a different species can indeed arise from the viral instruction. Again, see any number of fish without a place on the evolutionary tree whose “species” was created by man, like the Blood Parrot Cichlid (which technically is not a viral Instruction creation, those have numbers for names and don’t google easily and the vast majority are bacterium, a small number of shellfish and a few bony fish (I’m guessing you didn’t know that when you chose Matson.)).

WE can create a species outside of the Evolutionary Theory Framework. WE can make the set of instructions and inject them either directly or through intermediaries.

WE are the alternative. We’ve done it, we have created the new species, and we did it both with (kinda-99% there) and more importantly WITHOUT, the benefit of the ToE, evolved or otherwise.

There are some good ToE’s and there are some not so good ToE’s. I’ll leave you do decide which are which and which are your “evolved ToE”. There is alot of work to be done on whatever exactly your “evolved ToE” is. To deny that fact would deny all of the questions left unanswered, and the need for a unifying theory only exists because of those unanswered questions.

Almost all that aside. Here’s the kicker.

If we are the alternative. And we are, undeniably. given that we’ve created new species without Evolution. Then the ToE is not “true” by your definitions, it isn’t “certain” by any stretch, and if it is neither true, nor certain, there is only one logical true statement that can be made as to the validity of the theory as the “answer” to the question of the origin of species.

That is that Evolution IS wrong, and will have to be revised (probably many times over) before it can be declared true, if it can ever be.

It is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that one could ever claim evolution to be THE only and complete explanation for species development on the planet Earth. Even if it could be demonstrated that 99.9999999 percent of all species on the planet prior to 1998 were the result of evolution from one common ancestor, you STILL, even with that high a percentage going for you, claim the Universal Truth that you are trying to without an appeal to religion.

As an atheist, you can’t make the claim. You can’t because man is the alternative. If man can do it, so can someone else.

If we are not special. There are more like us (quasi-intelligent) out there. If there are more like us, there have been more like us. If there are more like us, it stands to reason that at least one of “us” has been blown or torn apart in a cosmological event we may or may not begin to understand.

If we have the ability to create, they have the ability to create. If we can contaminate Europa and Mars with our spore as they (mainly Mars) have contaminated us (in theory), then THAT is also. . . an alternative. (NOTE: Mars is only an example for convenience. The contamination could come from Algol, which dipped into our Oort cloud something like 7 million years ago and threw comets at us. I’m not saying the Algol system is THE source or even A source, just that such an event is theoretically possible. Algol just coincidentally has a rich yet almost identical history across cultures. Creepy history.)

These are possibilities. They are remote possibilities for sure. Not that remote though that they can be discounted without prejudice. They are alternatives; and logically and scientifically, they are 100% valid.

If you are an atheist, you have to break with the absolutes. There is only one absolute, that you exist. Nothing beyond that can be said with certainty. If you try. . . . . you’re not an atheist.

I understand your desire to proselytize, it’s a natural human condition. Religion is a natural human condition, so it’s easy, easy, easy to go out and do it. It just “FEELS” right to try and correct that 65+ you claim are “too religious”.

But please. You’ve got to go spend some time in the dark with your atheism and realize that a whole new universe was opened up to you briefly whenever it was you had your epiphany, don’t shut it back down by creating new unassailable universal truths where none exist.

That’s not being an atheist, that’s not being a scientist. That’s being another preacher spewing just another set of dogma.

We don’t know the origin of life on Earth. However, we might have a good handle on most of the species differentiation on the planet, but we cannot with certainty say we have it ALL figured out because tomorrow (perhaps even earlier today) someone has either come up with a new question, or just skipped all the questions and just gone right ahead to the next set of unknown future theory.

The Newton quote was good. You shouldn’t have run from it.

It was the closest you had come to actually sounding like an atheist or a scientist rather than merely another born-again agnostic trying to count coup on the Sons of Abraham.

So now I’m done. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m sure you’ll end your tantrum and bring your ball back for one more go.

So you can have the last word. . . proceed. You’ll get no challenge.

Jason Coleman on August 25, 2011 at 4:13 AM

LOL! Read the first sentence and then blah blah blah! Good job wasting your time trying to spank me. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on August 25, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7