PDA

View Full Version : Victory for evolution in Texas



The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 11:46 AM
Victory for evolution in Texas

July 22nd, 2011

Pop the champagne corks. The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In 14-0* vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC.

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers," said Josh Rosenau, NCSE programs and policy director, who testified at the hearings this week. In his testimony, Rosenau urged the board to approve the supplements--recommended by a review panel largely composed of scientists and science educators--without amendments, and to reject International Database's creationist submission. The board did just that, and asked for only minimal changes to the approved supplements.

In hearings yesterday, NCSE members and allies showed up in force. At least four times as many people testified in favor of the supplements as written, versus those opposing the supplements or demanding significant changes.

...

http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory-evolution-texas-006802

:bravo:

Odysseus
07-25-2011, 12:31 PM
We already knew that you were a lower order of primate. This just means that they will be able to teach it.

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 02:14 PM
An article about the nature of the material proposed by International Databases Inc.:


Creationist materials submitted in Texas

April 26th, 2011

Materials "laced with creationist arguments" have been submitted for approval by the Texas state board of education, charged the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education in a joint press release issued on April 25, 2011. As the press release explains, "The Texas Education Agency has made available on its website science instructional materials — all of them web-based — that publishers and other vendors have proposed for high school biology classes across the state. Materials approved by the state board in July could be in Texas science classrooms for nearly a decade. An initial review by NCSE and TFN has revealed that materials from at least one vendor, ... International Databases Inc., promote anti-evolution arguments made by proponents of intelligent design/creationism."

"International Databases' materials are not only laced with creationist arguments," said NCSE's Joshua Rosenau, "they are also remarkably shoddy, teeming with misspellings, typographical errors, and mistaken claims of fact." The press release cited "intelligent design"-tinged claims such as "life on Earth is the result of intelligent causes" and "students should go home with the understanding that a new paradigm of explaining life's origins is emerging from the failed attempts of naturalistic scenarios. This new way of thinking is predicated upon the hypothesis that intelligent input is necessary for life's origins." The materials describe "intelligent design" as a "legitimate scientific hypothesis" and even as "the default position," despite the consensus of the scientific community that it is not. Examples of these claims are posted (PDF) at the TFN's website.

"Two years ago State Board of Education members thumbed their noses at the science community and approved new curriculum standards that opened the door to creationism and junk science," said TFN President Kathy Miller. "Now they are getting exactly what they wanted — the chance to make Texas the poster child for the creationist movement. The state board would be aiding and abetting wholesale academic fraud and dumbing down the education of millions of Texas kids if it doesn't reject these materials." All of the materials submitted for approval will be examined in June 2011 by teams of reviewers appointed by the Texas Education Agency; the Texas state board of education is scheduled to hold a public hearing and final vote on the materials in July 2011; public schools could then decide to purchase approved materials for classroom use in the 2011-2012 school year.

...

http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/creationist-materials-submitted-texas-006645

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 02:14 PM
Does anyone care about this?

Arroyo_Doble
07-25-2011, 02:16 PM
Does anyone care about this?

I don't and I live in Texas.

jnkbortka
07-25-2011, 02:28 PM
they should teach all options

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 02:31 PM
I don't and I live in Texas.

How encouraging... for the creationists.

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 02:34 PM
they should teach all options

Scientology too?

Arroyo_Doble
07-25-2011, 02:37 PM
How encouraging... for the creationists.

OK. I can't care about every damn thing.

jnkbortka
07-25-2011, 02:38 PM
Scientology too?

ok, all widely discussed options.

evolution, intelligent design, and creation... besides, scientology is a cult :smilie_wall:

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 02:45 PM
ok, all widely discussed options.

evolution, intelligent design, and creation... besides, scientology is a cult :smilie_wall:

Astrology is widely discussed. Should that be taught in schools too?

Apache
07-25-2011, 02:46 PM
Does anyone care about this?

Not really. You seem to think that life originated from pond scum...

I think you need to evolve further.....:eek:

Apache
07-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Astrology is widely discussed. Should that be taught in schools too?

Knock it off dipshit....:rolleyes:

noonwitch
07-25-2011, 03:00 PM
Does anyone care about this?

I do, but I am on your side of this issue. Evolution is what should be taught in science class. Creationism/Genesis is for Sunday School or literature class.

Zathras
07-25-2011, 03:10 PM
Not really. You seem to think that life originated from pond scum...

In the case of Shit Bird he did come from pond scum...and then stopped.


I think you need to evolve further.....:eek:

You know you're asking for the impossible with that.

Odysseus
07-25-2011, 03:28 PM
Does anyone care about this?

Not if you do. Take the hint.

Wei Wu Wei
07-25-2011, 05:25 PM
Does anyone care about this?


I do, and this is good.

Accepted scientific theories should be taught in science class.

We don't want holocaust denial to be taught in history class, just because many people believe that. We shouldn't teach "both sides" of the "debate" either, letting the kids decide whether or not the holocaust really happened. That is stupid.

Present the facts as we best know them, simple as that.

fettpett
07-25-2011, 05:35 PM
I do, and this is good.

Accepted scientific theories should be taught in science class.

We don't want holocaust denial to be taught in history class, just because many people believe that. We shouldn't teach "both sides" of the "debate" either, letting the kids decide whether or not the holocaust really happened. That is stupid.

Present the facts as we best know them, simple as that.

sure, but present it as a theory not a fact

hampshirebrit
07-25-2011, 05:38 PM
sure, but present it as a theory not a fact

Good post. You have it exact.

Wei Wu Wei
07-25-2011, 06:32 PM
sure, but present it as a theory not a fact

and teach what a scientific theory is

Apache
07-25-2011, 06:34 PM
and teach what a scientific theory is

aka The S.W.A.G. :rolleyes:

fettpett
07-25-2011, 06:52 PM
and teach what a scientific theory is

very true, someone needed to do that with Wiillllburrrr

jnkbortka
07-25-2011, 08:30 PM
Astrology is widely discussed. Should that be taught in schools too?

werent we talking about creation theories?

Rockntractor
07-25-2011, 08:34 PM
werent we talking about creation theories?

He has the attention span of a seven year old.

The Night Owl
07-25-2011, 09:04 PM
werent we talking about creation theories?

Well, okay. Let's stick to creation theories. Should Hindu creation mythology be taught in the science classroom? Billions of people believe it!

Rockntractor
07-25-2011, 09:08 PM
Well, okay. Let's stick to creation theories. Should Hindu creation mythology be taught in the science classroom? Billions of people believe it!

I learned all about it in social studies, were you stoned that week or did the teacher just have trouble keeping you focused?

Sonnabend
07-25-2011, 09:51 PM
Should Hindu creation mythology be taught in the science classroom? Billions of people believe it!

That's religious, not science. Evolution is science. Religion is not, which is why AGW is also a religion, not a science

Odysseus
07-26-2011, 12:39 AM
Well, okay. Let's stick to creation theories. Should Hindu creation mythology be taught in the science classroom? Billions of people believe it!

In India, if that's what they want, sure.

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 02:07 AM
That's religious, not science. Evolution is science.

My point exactly. Evolution is science and Intelligent Design, like Hindu creation mythology, is religion. That's why Texas rejected creationist teaching material from International Databases Inc.. Because it's religion.

Apache
07-26-2011, 12:45 PM
My point exactly. Evolution is science and Intelligent Design, like Hindu creation mythology, is religion. That's why Texas rejected creationist teaching material from International Databases Inc.. Because it's religion.

Evolution is not science, it is a belief, a religion. Evolution has no more backing it up than when Darwin started that fallacy years ago...

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 03:18 PM
Well, okay. Let's stick to creation theories. Should Hindu creation mythology be taught in the science classroom? Billions of people believe it!

lets do some statistics here:

In the US, 76% of the population is christian, add 1.8% for Jews and Muslims, who have basically the same creation story, bringing the total to 77.8%.

In the US, 0.4% of the population is Hindu

No brainer

Wei Wu Wei
07-26-2011, 03:28 PM
Evolution is not science, it is a belief, a religion. Evolution has no more backing it up than when Darwin started that fallacy years ago...

lol

dude go to any bookstore and get a used copy of a high school biology text book. read the parts of genetics and evolution, then come back and we can have a minimal-level discussion about this.

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 03:37 PM
lol

dude go to any bookstore and get a used copy of a high school biology text book. read the parts of genetics and evolution, then come back and we can have a minimal-level discussion about this.

there are holes in the theory of evolution, like gaps in the fossil record.

evolution is used because it is the closest thing to reasonable that doesn't involve a god

Zafod
07-26-2011, 03:44 PM
Does anyone care about this?

nope. and you dont either.

This is nothing but a poop fling post to stir up shit.

you are a tool

Zafod
07-26-2011, 03:45 PM
I am here to service the night bowel with my mouth cuz thats how my master likes it....


fixed

Novaheart
07-26-2011, 03:58 PM
Does anyone care about this?

I think it reflects the true majority in the South. Only the most extreme want to send their kids off to college believing in magic finger snap theory. Even some very religious people accept the Bible as allegory and that parts of it are intended to make understandable that which wasn't understandable at the time.

It's also important to remember that despite the image some people have of Texas, it's a heavily Catholic state and the Vatican has already as much as said that Creationism is a parable for Evolution, that God created the building blocks and Evolution takes over from there.

Novaheart
07-26-2011, 04:03 PM
Evolution is not science, it is a belief, a religion. Evolution has no more backing it up than when Darwin started that fallacy years ago...

That's simply not the case. There is quite a bit supporting Evolution. It's true that Evolution cannot explain the point of beginning of all things, no science or religious belief has a good answer for how you get something from nothing, whether it's the spark of life from rock or the I Am from the nothingness. All JCI religion does is to declare the I AM as being eternal. That's not really an answer.

The absence of complete and absolute understanding is not the negation of the accumulated evidence. That's like saying that Cardiology is a belief system because the scientists can't build an exact working replica of a human heart.

Wei Wu Wei
07-26-2011, 04:21 PM
there are holes in the theory of evolution, like gaps in the fossil record.

It's like that episode of South Park. There are also a few holes and missing pieces in the official record of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that doesn't mean we should scrap it and accept a wild conspiracy theory.


evolution is used because it is the closest thing to reasonable that doesn't involve a god

Evolution is the best theory that has been tested hundreds of thousands of times in countless experiments and showed consistent ability to predict results and explain phenomenon.

It's used in science because when you are using The Scientific Method, you must use falsifiability as your bedrock. A theory is falsifiable if some experimental result can disprove it.

For example, if you could demonstrate that DNA doesn't mutate, that would falsify evolutionary theory. If you could demonstrate that natural selection doesn't occur (aka: survival of the fittest, to put it in simple terms), then that would also falsify evolutionary theory.

God, however, cannot be falsified. There is no piece of empirical evidence or hypothetical experimental result that could prove that God is not working behind the scenes influencing reality. This is an interesting theory, but it absolutely cannot be disproven.

That is why theories that rely on God or some other supernatural being cannot be used in science. It has nothing to do with an anti-religion bias, it's the nature of the scientific method.

If a theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. God cannot be falsified, therefore any theory with God in it is not scientific. Therefore, creationism or intelligent design do not belong in science class.

Wei Wu Wei
07-26-2011, 04:22 PM
The absence of complete and absolute understanding is not the negation of the accumulated evidence. That's like saying that Cardiology is a belief system because the scientists can't build an exact working replica of a human heart.


Good analogy.

Apache
07-26-2011, 04:27 PM
lol

dude go to any bookstore and get a used copy of a high school biology text book. read the parts of genetics and evolution, then come back and we can have a minimal-level discussion about this.

LOL


Dude go and find me an unbroken record, from pond scum to modern man, showing the path of evolution! You can't. Therefore your "science" is no more so a belief, than my belief in creation....

Apache
07-26-2011, 04:29 PM
That's simply not the case. There is quite a bit supporting Evolution. It's true that Evolution cannot explain the point of beginning of all things, no science or religious belief has a good answer for how you get something from nothing, whether it's the spark of life from rock or the I Am from the nothingness. All JCI religion does is to declare the I AM as being eternal. That's not really an answer.

The absence of complete and absolute understanding is not the negation of the accumulated evidence. That's like saying that Cardiology is a belief system because the scientists can't build an exact working replica of a human heart.

When you get a real argument, let me know :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
07-26-2011, 04:40 PM
LOL


Dude go and find me an unbroken record, from pond scum to modern man, showing the path of evolution! You can't. Therefore your "science" is no more so a belief, than my belief in creation....

By this logic everything is taken by faith. There is simply not such thing as evidnece and logic. Everyone who has ever been convicted of a crime because of detective work, well that was just guesses and faith.

When I park my car and go to work it's possible that someone stole it, took it for a joy ride, refilled the gas, and messed with my odometer. I guess it's just pure 100% faith that my car was sitting there the whole time.

When I close my eyes it's possible the entire world turns purple and when I open them the colors go back to normal, I assume that doesn't happen but it's all faith, shot in the dark.

How about history?

We don't know all the details about the 9/11 attacks, so it's possible that Bush did it? I guess either way is reasonable, it's faith!

The holocaust? There are many details that are disputed, the exact perfect history isn't known, so I guess it's possible it just never happened, like ahmadinejad thinks. I guess it's just a matter of faith, huh? No one knows all of the details 100% so anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's guess?

:rolleyes:

Zafod
07-26-2011, 04:43 PM
this thread is lame as shit now.


Thanks for fucking it up wee.....

Wei Wu Wei
07-26-2011, 04:43 PM
Apache you bring up some issues about what can be known, the nature of knowledge and belief, and other questions that are very legitimate in certain contexts, such as the philosophic discussion of epistimology.

In that setting, everything you are saying has a place, but we are talking about Science, science education, and the scientific method. Science is a bit more rigid.

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

take a look at that and see what I mean

Zafod
07-26-2011, 04:57 PM
Apache you bring up some issues about what can be known, the nature of knowledge and belief, and other questions that are very legitimate in certain contexts, such as the philosophic discussion of epistimology.

In that setting, everything you are saying has a place, but we are talking about Science, science education, and the scientific method. Science is a bit more rigid.

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

take a look at that and see what I mean

wikipedia?

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 05:05 PM
LOL


Dude go and find me an unbroken record, from pond scum to modern man, showing the path of evolution! You can't. Therefore your "science" is no more so a belief, than my belief in creation....

Wow! How very retrograde.

Apache
07-26-2011, 05:13 PM
By this logic everything is taken by faith. There is simply not such thing as evidnece and logic. Everyone who has ever been convicted of a crime because of detective work, well that was just guesses and faith.

When I park my car and go to work it's possible that someone stole it, took it for a joy ride, refilled the gas, and messed with my odometer. I guess it's just pure 100% faith that my car was sitting there the whole time.

When I close my eyes it's possible the entire world turns purple and when I open them the colors go back to normal, I assume that doesn't happen but it's all faith, shot in the dark.

How about history?

We don't know all the details about the 9/11 attacks, so it's possible that Bush did it? I guess either way is reasonable, it's faith!

The holocaust? There are many details that are disputed, the exact perfect history isn't known, so I guess it's possible it just never happened, like ahmadinejad thinks. I guess it's just a matter of faith, huh? No one knows all of the details 100% so anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's guess?

:rolleyes:

Hyperbol much? Am I stepping on your religion's toes?

Evolution IS a theory. Not proven. Not "science". A "theory"... got it?

Darwin made many wild assumptions in his book/s, many have been proven false. In his zeal to remove God from the world he made mistakes. Mistakes that science HAS proven....

Get off your elistist high-horse, and try to keep up.

Apache
07-26-2011, 05:20 PM
Apache you bring up some issues about what can be known, the nature of knowledge and belief, and other questions that are very legitimate in certain contexts, such as the philosophic discussion of epistimology.

In that setting, everything you are saying has a place, but we are talking about Science, science education, and the scientific method. Science is a bit more rigid.

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

take a look at that and see what I mean

Once again, evolution cannot be proven. It's a guess! Yet creationism is the one that get's laughed at. Both are religious. One based on God, the other of man....

Apache
07-26-2011, 05:23 PM
Wow! How very retrograde.

No, not at all....


Thanks for playing though.....;)

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 05:30 PM
Hyperbol much? Am I stepping on your religion's toes?

Evolution IS a theory. Not proven. Not "science". A "theory"... got it?

Darwin made many wild assumptions in his book/s, many have been proven false. In his zeal to remove God from the world he made mistakes. Mistakes that science HAS proven....

Get off your elistist high-horse, and try to keep up.

You're making a rookie mistake. When we talk about evolution, we're talking about a scientific theory, not a theory in the general sense of the term. A scientific theory is the culmination of a process involving the the analysis of evidence and/or data in an experimental setting.

Here is a simple chart describing the scientific process:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/scientific_theory.gif

As you can see, scientific theory is the end product of the scientific process, not the starting point. The word theory can be used interchangeably with the word hypothesis but that's not what we're talking about here.

Apache
07-26-2011, 05:55 PM
You're making a rookie mistake. When we talk about evolution, we're talking about a scientific theory, not a theory in the general sense of the term. A scientific theory is the culmination of a process involving the the analysis of evidence and/or data in an experimental setting.

Here is a simple chart describing the scientific process:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/scientific_theory.gif

As you can see, scientific theory is the end product of the scientific process, not the starting point. The word theory can be used interchangeably with the word hypothesis but that's not what we're talking about here.

So they have the original pond scum that we all supposedly evolved from? They have found an unbroken chain of evolution from that pond scum to modern man. They have experimented on the pond scum and made unsupported viable life....



Nope evolution hasn't done any of this and cannot do it. That is why it is just a theory, not science.

NJCardFan
07-26-2011, 05:58 PM
Astrology is widely discussed. Should that be taught in schools too?

Are you listening to yourself? You want just one side taught. Why? What are you afraid of? And to think you liberals call yourselves open minded. You people are the most closed minded people I have ever known. The reason why you don't want an opposing viewpoint is that you're afraid that too many people will not agree with you. This is why liberals are cowards and hypocrites.

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Are you listening to yourself? You want just one side taught. Why? What are you afraid of? And to think you liberals call yourselves open minded. You people are the most closed minded people I have ever known. The reason why you don't want an opposing viewpoint is that you're afraid that too many people will not agree with you. This is why liberals are cowards and hypocrites.

I'm all for schools teaching students about various creation myths. What I'm against is schools categorizing these myths as scientific. They are not.

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 06:05 PM
So they have the original pond scum that we all supposedly evolved from? They have found an unbroken chain of evolution from that pond scum to modern man. They have experimented on the pond scum and made unsupported viable life....

Nope evolution hasn't done any of this and cannot do it. That is why it is just a theory, not science.

I can see why you're confused. Evolution does not address origins.

Apache
07-26-2011, 06:33 PM
I can see why you're confused. Evolution does not address origins.

Nor can it. Basic theory is that everything was something else, but where was the start? It had to start...right?

Evolution tries to remove God from the equation. The fact is, you can't have a middle without a beginning...


conveinent that evolution completely ignores that, and no one askes why...

Apache
07-26-2011, 06:39 PM
I can see why you're confused. Evolution does not address origins.

One more thing...



In the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.


:D

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 07:05 PM
how did this (deinonychus)

http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/8748/mm-deinonychus-illustration-big.jpg

turn into this? (archaeopteryx)

http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2855.gif.jpeg

I'm an Intelligent design person actually, i just accept that god can account for shit like this.

MrsSmith
07-26-2011, 08:51 PM
I can see why you're confused. Evolution does not address origins.

I will never understand how seemingly moderately intelligent people can believe that evolution explains the great variety of life on this planet...and then turn around and make statements like this one without seeing the "elephant in the room."

Evolution cannot explain anything if it has no life to work on. First, something had to start life. Then something had to make that life stay alive. Then reproduction of some sort had to come from somewhere...along with the most incredibly efficient memory known to man - DNA, existing in an amazingly complex cell. Only after those miracles could evolution explain anything. Even if you manage to skip that huge, huge problem, you still have to ignore the massive amount of evidence that never has and never will fit into the pattern evolutionists are working so frantically to build. And you have to ignore all the evolutionary "knowledge" we had a couple decades ago that is now debunked, like the evolution of the horse, the similarity of fetuses across species, the "missing link" that was such a huge topic 30 years ago, the constantly changing time frame of the first men, etc.

It takes way too much blind faith to believe that evolution really explains anything...

fettpett
07-26-2011, 09:08 PM
I will never understand how seemingly moderately intelligent people can believe that evolution explains the great variety of life on this planet...and then turn around and make statements like this one without seeing the "elephant in the room."

Evolution cannot explain anything if it has no life to work on. First, something had to start life. Then something had to make that life stay alive. Then reproduction of some sort had to come from somewhere...along with the most incredibly efficient memory known to man - DNA, existing in an amazingly complex cell. Only after those miracles could evolution explain anything. Even if you manage to skip that huge, huge problem, you still have to ignore the massive amount of evidence that never has and never will fit into the pattern evolutionists are working so frantically to build. And you have to ignore all the evolutionary "knowledge" we had a couple decades ago that is now debunked, like the evolution of the horse, the similarity of fetuses across species, the "missing link" that was such a huge topic 30 years ago, the constantly changing time frame of the first men, etc.

It takes way too much blind faith to believe that evolution really explains anything...

and then you find things like this
http://www.wimp.com/unexplainedstructure/
that pushes human civilization back 8,000 years farther than previously thought

Hawkgirl
07-26-2011, 09:55 PM
I was under the impression that evolution theory was debunked years ago? :confused: Darwin was just a man who proposed his own theory on how life on earth changed over time after it was created. He did the best he could with the information he had...even he thought it was flawed. He knew nothing of genetics or molecular biology, or even paleontology.

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 11:00 PM
and then you find things like this
http://www.wimp.com/unexplainedstructure/
that pushes human civilization back 8,000 years farther than previously thought

like this

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

i read a book about this once, it's called fingerprints of the gods by Graham Hancock http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/0517887290/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1311736549&sr=8-2

it's a great book, you should read it sometime

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:10 PM
and then you find things like this
http://www.wimp.com/unexplainedstructure/
that pushes human civilization back 8,000 years farther than previously thought

You ARE kidding....right?:)

The Night Owl
07-26-2011, 11:13 PM
Nor can it. Basic theory is that everything was something else, but where was the start? It had to start...right?

Evolution tries to remove God from the equation. The fact is, you can't have a middle without a beginning...

conveinent that evolution completely ignores that, and no one askes why...

I haven't claimed that there wasn't a beginning. I just don't see any reason to believe that the beginning was the result of actions taken by a magical being.

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:13 PM
like this

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

i read a book about this once, it's called fingerprints of the gods by Graham Hancock http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/051788729

it's a great book, you should read it sometime

First link was what I was looking for WEEKS ago....(loser :p)


second link....noworky

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:17 PM
First link was what I was looking for WEEKS ago....(loser :p)


second link....noworky

Try it now

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:22 PM
Try it now

I DON'T like PEAS!!!!!!!:mad:

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 11:33 PM
try this (http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/0517887290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311737546&sr=8-1)

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:33 PM
I DON'T like PEAS!!!!!!!:mad:

What kind?:confused:

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:34 PM
try this (http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/0517887290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311737546&sr=8-1)

I fixed it for you, dork!:rolleyes:

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:39 PM
What kind?:confused:

THe green kind, the pea kind, the round kind.....:p

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:41 PM
I fixed it for you, dork!:rolleyes:

Now Rock, he ain't used to you yet..... Be nice;)


I don't like peas!!!!:mad:

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:44 PM
try this (http://www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/0517887290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311737546&sr=8-1)

So you think we came from "out there" ?

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:44 PM
Now Rock, he ain't used to you yet..... Be nice;)


I don't like peas!!!!:mad:

Why do you hate America!:mad:

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:46 PM
Why do you hate America!:mad:

Because it's full of whey......




I mean Wei.....:p

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 11:47 PM
So you think we came from "out there" ?

nah, but it's an interesting book nonetheless. i think the "ancient aliens" theory is possible though. but that book is about ancient civilizations like with that Göbekli Tepe thing. not aliens.

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:49 PM
Because it's full of whey......




I mean Wei.....:p

Wei is full of something?:confused:
His friend shoe boy slipped and hit his head on my ban hammer, it was an accident, he'll be back in two weeks.:(

Rockntractor
07-26-2011, 11:51 PM
nah, but it's an interesting book nonetheless. i think the "ancient aliens" theory is possible though. but that book is about ancient civilizations like with that Göbekli Tepe thing. not aliens.

I have a theory that Ronbots are part reptilian!

jnkbortka
07-26-2011, 11:52 PM
here's another interesting article

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/flood/flood.htm

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:57 PM
I have a theory that Ronbots are part reptilian!

Knock it off Rock...





My bark is worse than my .... Acorn....




Wait! What?:D

Apache
07-26-2011, 11:58 PM
Wei is full of something?:confused:
His friend shoe boy slipped and hit his head on my ban hammer, it was an accident, he'll be back in two weeks.:(

You were sleep-thumpin'.....


Gotcha!:justice:

Apache
07-27-2011, 12:21 AM
I haven't claimed that there wasn't a beginning. I just don't see any reason to believe that the beginning was the result of actions taken by a magical being.

Ummmm, sorry TNO. Iwasn't ignoring you... really I wasn't :o(you slipped this in between posts)



Please explain how the "magical being", God, is less real than your 'magical theory' of evolution?

RobJohnson
07-27-2011, 03:22 AM
OK. I can't care about every damn thing.

I agree. You have to pick your battles.

Parents can always teach other theories at home.

fettpett
07-27-2011, 10:38 AM
You ARE kidding....right?:)

I was just giving an example of something that can't be explained so easily with accepted view of modern scientists, archeologists, and historians, there is a lot that we don't know about our (human) past, and many discoveries that don't fit into the tight little boxes that many of those academia like to put everything.

Novaheart
07-27-2011, 12:06 PM
Are you listening to yourself? You want just one side taught. Why? What are you afraid of? And to think you liberals call yourselves open minded. You people are the most closed minded people I have ever known. The reason why you don't want an opposing viewpoint is that you're afraid that too many people will not agree with you. This is why liberals are cowards and hypocrites.

Creationism isn't "another point of view" in the scientific study of the earth's systems. The debate in computer technology is "Mac is better." and "Windows is better." not "Mac, Windows, and Numerology are all equals."

The Bible is a folk history of the world. It is comparable to American Indian creation myths and various other religious artifacts, not science. The fact that there are some actual names, events, and dates in the Bible does not make Creationism science anymore than our knowledge that Mt Olympus actually exists is proof of the existence of Zeus as we understand the nature and origin of Zeus.

fettpett
07-27-2011, 12:27 PM
Creationism isn't "another point of view" in the scientific study of the earth's systems. The debate in computer technology is "Mac is better." and "Windows is better." not "Mac, Windows, and Numerology are all equals."

The Bible is a folk history of the world. It is comparable to American Indian creation myths and various other religious artifacts, not science. The fact that there are some actual names, events, and dates in the Bible does not make Creationism science anymore than our knowledge that Mt Olympus actually exists is proof of the existence of Zeus as we understand the nature and origin of Zeus.

it may not be science, but when it comes to the "origination" of life, it's just as much a theory as evolution.

Wei Wu Wei
07-27-2011, 02:15 PM
Please explain how the "magical being", God, is less real than your 'magical theory' of evolution?

God cannot be disproven. There is no mechanism of action for God, no one can explain how God functions, there is nothing in creationism or intelligent design that says how God is able to influence the natural world, nor is there anything that explains who or what God is at all.

Evolution does have a mechanism of action, it's called imperfections in DNA replication (mutations), combined with environmental factors (natural selection) which causes populations to change over time. There are many kinds of DNA mutations, this is all documented, we know what DNA is and how DNA works. We know how natural selection works too, there is nothing magical about it.

Evolution is the reason people have to get new flu shots every season, evolution is the basis for incredible amounts of scientific progress. So much of what we take for granted in biology and in medicine comes from our knowledge of genetics and evolution.

DNA determines the form of an animal, DNA is copied in reproduction and those copies are passed down each generation. DNA copying is not perfect, so sometimes changes in the DNA sequence occur, which may result in changes in the phenotype of the next generation of organism. Sometimes the changes might help an animal, sometimes they might hurt an animal, that depends on the organism and it's environment. For example, a mutation that makes fur a little longer or shorter may help an animal survive or overheat it, it may help disguise it from predators, it may make it more likely to catch parasites, ect. The result is that over time, DNA that "works" better in a specific environment spreads through the population, as the animals with those mutations survive and reproduce better. This is evolution, there is no magic involved. There is no supernatural activity, being, event, or occurrence happening.

Biologists know evolution works because they work with it all the time. Especially in microbiology, because of their incredibly fast rate of reproduction, it's possible to see their evolution over the course of weeks or months.


When you say that God did it, but then say you cannot explain how God did it and you cannot explain what God is and you cannot prove that God exists, you aren't saying anything at all.

Some people believe that God is working behind the scenes, with his invisible hand influencing everything, but again, this is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. There is no piece of empirical evidence that could disprove that hypothesis, so it is not falsifiable, so it is not a scientific theory.

txradioguy
07-27-2011, 04:22 PM
I agree. You have to pick your battles.

Parents can always teach other theories at home.

Well I guess in fanboy's case there's a first time for everything.

txradioguy
07-27-2011, 04:23 PM
Creationism isn't "another point of view" in the scientific study of the earth's systems. The debate in computer technology is "Mac is better." and "Windows is better." not "Mac, Windows, and Numerology are all equals."

The Bible is a folk history of the world. It is comparable to American Indian creation myths and various other religious artifacts, not science. The fact that there are some actual names, events, and dates in the Bible does not make Creationism science anymore than our knowledge that Mt Olympus actually exists is proof of the existence of Zeus as we understand the nature and origin of Zeus.

:rolleyes:

Talk about "another point of view".

txradioguy
07-27-2011, 04:24 PM
I haven't claimed that there wasn't a beginning. I just don't see any reason to believe that the beginning was the result of actions taken by a magical being.

Nothing like ignorance hatred and personal bias get in the way of rational thinking. :rolleyes:

Hawkgirl
07-27-2011, 05:37 PM
Evolution is the reason people have to get new flu shots every season, evolution is the basis for incredible amounts of scientific progress. So much of what we take for granted in biology and in medicine comes from our knowledge of genetics and evolution.

.

That's not evidence..last I checked the flu doesn't turn into monkies...it mutates into another strain of the flu.

jnkbortka
07-27-2011, 06:52 PM
The debate in computer technology is "Mac is better." and "Windows is better." not "Mac, Windows, and Numerology are all equals."

last i checked, numerology isn't an operating system :D

Wei Wu Wei
07-27-2011, 08:43 PM
That's not evidence..last I checked the flu doesn't turn into monkies...it mutates into another strain of the flu.

nature doesn't care about categories such as "flu", those are categories that humans use to organize lifeforms into different groups.

so a flying dinosaur could evolve into a bird, because the categories of "dinosaur" and "bird" don't exist in nature, only in man-made categorization systems. the difference between a dinosaur and a bird is simply some genetic mutations, some environmental selection, and a few million generations.

However, if you really want to insist on modern categories, you could say that pre-humans evolving into humans is simply a primate mutating into another form of primate.

Odysseus
07-27-2011, 09:14 PM
nature doesn't care about categories such as "flu", those are categories that humans use to organize lifeforms into different groups.

so a flying dinosaur could evolve into a bird, because the categories of "dinosaur" and "bird" don't exist in nature, only in man-made categorization systems. the difference between a dinosaur and a bird is simply some genetic mutations, some environmental selection, and a few million generations.

However, if you really want to insist on modern categories, you could say that pre-humans evolving into humans is simply a primate mutating into another form of primate.

Exactly. It's like the false distinctions between socialists, communists, progressives and leftists. Ultimately, they're all just toxic statists.

Hawkgirl
07-27-2011, 09:15 PM
so a flying dinosaur could evolve into a bird, because the categories of "dinosaur" and "bird" don't exist in nature, only in man-made categorization systems. the difference between a dinosaur and a bird is simply some genetic mutations, some environmental selection, and a few million generations.

.

If you have a herd of deer running under threat of predators, the ones who run faster will survive...it will result in faster running deer...not a new species. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" will just produce a better species...it will not change the species because Natural selection does not change genetic factors.
If you want to bring up mutations, a break in the DNA, that occurs by accident ( like radiation), causes so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. (Like Trisomy 21, a baby born with Trisomy 21 usually dies within 2 years, if it doesn't die before birth)
Mutation isn't a magic wand that transforms any living organism into a more advanced life form...It's a flaw that can only result in death, disability, or a freak of nature. (think Hiroshima) Mutations are harmful, they are not the path to new life forms...but the exact opposite.

Odysseus
07-27-2011, 09:21 PM
If you have a herd of deer running under threat of predators, the ones who run faster will survive...it will result in faster running deer...not a new species. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" will just produce a better species...it will not change the species because Natural selection does not change genetic factors.
If you want to bring up mutations, a break in the DNA, that occurs by accident ( like radiation), causes so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. (Like Trisomy 21, a baby born with Trisomy 21 usually dies within 2 years, if it doesn't die before birth)
Mutation isn't a magic wand that transforms any living organism into a more advanced life form...It's a flaw that can only result in death, disability, or a freak of nature. (think Hiroshima) Mutations are harmful, they are not the path to new life forms...but the exact opposite.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133ed39e758970b-500wi
Oh, no, you didn't... :D

Hawkgirl
07-27-2011, 09:31 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133ed39e758970b-500wi
Oh, no, you didn't... :D

Biology 101

I will simplify it even further and add one has to look no further than DU to see the harmful effects of mutated DNA.:D

fettpett
07-27-2011, 09:40 PM
If you have a herd of deer running under threat of predators, the ones who run faster will survive...it will result in faster running deer...not a new species. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" will just produce a better species...it will not change the species because Natural selection does not change genetic factors.
If you want to bring up mutations, a break in the DNA, that occurs by accident ( like radiation), causes so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. (Like Trisomy 21, a baby born with Trisomy 21 usually dies within 2 years, if it doesn't die before birth)
Mutation isn't a magic wand that transforms any living organism into a more advanced life form...It's a flaw that can only result in death, disability, or a freak of nature. (think Hiroshima) Mutations are harmful, they are not the path to new life forms...but the exact opposite.

not to mention sickle cell anaemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia#Management) , which is a direct response to malaria

Wei Wu Wei
07-28-2011, 01:42 AM
If you have a herd of deer running under threat of predators, the ones who run faster will survive...it will result in faster running deer...not a new species.

Except that mutations don't just alter stuff like how fast an animal can run. DNA codes for every aspect of the animal's structure, so mutations can occur that change their speed, that change their muscle density, that change the lengths of their limbs, that change the color of their hair, that change the shape of their cells, that change how their bodily systems work, that change their size, and so on and so on and so on.

Because DNA encodes everything, changes in DNA can change every aspect of an animal.

Clearly, major sudden changes are not viable, but if you have dozens of changes that are selected for over millions of generations, it's quite possible that the later population would appear radically different from whichever population you started looking with.

Why wouldn't this happen? Nothing stops DNA mutations after a specific number of generations, nothing stops natural selection from occuring, nothing stops the limit of what DNA mutations can change. If you can see that in the short term evolution can produce small changes, if there is no mechanism to stop the change, why would animals not continue evolving forever?

Speciation has been observed, we know it can happen, there is no biological mechanism that stops evolution at some arbitrary point.

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


Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" will just produce a better species...it will not change the species because Natural selection does not change genetic factors.

You are right that natural selection does not change genetic factors, but evolution requires genetic variation PLUS natural selection. Just one or the other will not result in evolution, but both occur together in nature, so evolution occurs.

Mutation provides genetic variation, and the environmental conditions "select" phenotypes by some organisms being better or worse adapted to survive and reproduce.



If you want to bring up mutations, a break in the DNA, that occurs by accident ( like radiation), causes so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. (Like Trisomy 21, a baby born with Trisomy 21 usually dies within 2 years, if it doesn't die before birth)
Mutation isn't a magic wand that transforms any living organism into a more advanced life form...

This just isn't true.

First of all, there are many different types of mutations, not simply "breaks" in the DNA. segments of DNA can be replicated more than once, they can be swapped around, they can have an extra nucleic acid inserted into a sequence or have a different nucleic acid swapped into one area. There are other types too.

Not all mutations are fatal or even all that bad. It is true that many DNA mutations are very harmful, but not all of them. Look at eye color, look at the gene that lets people digest milk, there are countless.

DNA sequences to put it simply just tell the cells which proteins to make and how to use them. If there are changes in the DNA sequence, it is very possible that it will be harmful, but it can also just be a relatively benign change.

Even if 90% of mutations are terrible and fatal, you still have 10% of mutations that may be beneficial. That may not be many, but that's all it takes. It only takes a single mutation that is beneficial to help an animal successfully survive and reproduce, which then masses on that new gene to it's offspring, and so on. Over time the gene pool may become filled with this single lucky mutation.


It's a flaw that can only result in death, disability, or a freak of nature. (think Hiroshima) Mutations are harmful, they are not the path to new life forms...but the exact opposite.

This is just wrong.

Here is a list of observed mutations that had demonstratable benefits to the organisms in question: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html


Your criticisms here seem to be based on a severe misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and basic genetics.

Sonnabend
07-28-2011, 03:38 AM
nature doesn't care about categories such as "flu", those are categories that humans use to organize lifeforms into different groups.

Wrong. Flu is a VIRUS, not a bacteria, they are not groups they are specific and different forms of life.


However, if you really want to insist on modern categories, you could say that pre-humans evolving into humans is simply a primate mutating into another form of primate.

In your case? Evolution forgot all about you.

Hawkgirl
07-28-2011, 05:43 PM
Your criticisms here seem to be based on a severe misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and basic genetics.[/QUOTE]

Stop projecting. You don't understand what and how a mutation works...very rarely a mutation might benefit the organism. Some bacteria can lose information for a controlling gene and become resistant to certain antibiotics but mutations do not create..they corrupt. If you can't grasp that simple truth, there is no use continuing this discussion with you.

Wei Wu Wei
07-29-2011, 02:02 AM
Stop projecting. You don't understand what and how a mutation works...

I do, actually.


very rarely a mutation might benefit the organism.

This is true, but that's all that it takes. Most of the time mutations cause problems in the production of protein synthesis which negatively affects the organism, but not always.

When mutations are not beneficial, the organism is more likely to die, and that mutated gene dies with the organism.

When a mutation is beneficial, which is more rare, the organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, which produces copies of that mutated gene, which can then spread through the gene pool.

So even though most mutations are harmful, the process of natural selection causes beneficial mutations to propagate and become more common.



Some bacteria can lose information for a controlling gene and become resistant to certain antibiotics but mutations do not create..they corrupt. If you can't grasp that simple truth, there is no use continuing this discussion with you.

This is not true, it's not a simple truth. Mutations are not all deleterious. There are multiple kinds of mutations, some mutations involve pieces of the DNA strand not being copied, these are deleterious because nucleotide bases are "lost", causing effectively a shorter gene. Other mutations, however, can simply change existing genes by swapping nucleotides, interposing nucleotide strings into other areas, or even duplicating nucleotides which effectively lengthens the DNA strand.

Different strings of nucleotide bases cause different amino acids and subsequently different proteins to be synthesized, so if a gene has pieces that are moved around or flipped around, then entirely different proteins are produced, which results in changes in the phenotype (or physical structure of the creature). Changes are what occur, not "corruptions", just differences.

When strings of nucleotides are copied more than they should be, you end up with entirely new segments of genes that can effectively "add information" to the DNA strand.

So what is the problem, what is not possible here?

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


* A neutral mutation has no harmful or beneficial effect on the organism. Such mutations occur at a steady rate, forming the basis for the molecular clock.
* A deleterious mutation has a negative effect on the phenotype, and thus decreases the fitness of the organism.
* An advantageous mutation has a positive effect on the phenotype, and thus increases the fitness of the organism.
* A nearly neutral mutation is a mutation that may be slightly deleterious or advantageous, although most nearly neutral mutations are slightly deleterious.



This myth that mutations can only "delete" information is totally absurd, which is obvious with just a little logic.

Take any organism, take any gene in it's DNA strand, zoom in and change a single A nucleotide (Adenine) to a G nucleotide (Guanine). This is a simple Point Mutation. If you believe that this necessarily results in a "loss" of information, then what happens if, in the next generation, on that same DNA location, that G gets swapped with an A? This is called a Reverse Mutation, and it is common.

If going from the original A to a G is a "loss of information" then the equally possible swap from G to A must necessarily be a "gain of information".

Can you explain any reason why this is not so?

Wei Wu Wei
07-29-2011, 02:05 AM
This works in many ways.

If a mutation occurs which "deletes" a nucleotide from a DNA strand, is that a loss of information?

If so, what is it when a mutation inserts a nucleotide into a DNA strand?

fettpett
07-29-2011, 10:37 AM
This works in many ways.

If a mutation occurs which "deletes" a nucleotide from a DNA strand, is that a loss of information?

If so, what is it when a mutation inserts a nucleotide into a DNA strand?

either way it is 99.9999999999999% of the time a bad thing

djones520
07-29-2011, 10:45 AM
either way it is 99.9999999999999% of the time a bad thing

Did you know that 99.9999999999999% of statistics are made up on the spot?

jnkbortka
07-29-2011, 10:49 AM
Did you know that 99.9999999999999% of statistics are made up on the spot?

:rotfl:

jnkbortka
07-29-2011, 10:51 AM
according to wikipedia it's 70% are harmful and the others are neutral or weakly beneficial

fettpett
07-29-2011, 11:25 AM
Did you know that 99.9999999999999% of statistics are made up on the spot?

yeah, probably :p

fettpett
07-29-2011, 11:26 AM
according to wikipedia it's 70% are harmful and the others are neutral or weakly beneficial

so bad and/or doesn't do anything worth while

Wei Wu Wei
07-29-2011, 03:10 PM
It's not that it doesn't do anything worthwile, it's just that the changes are small. Mutations are not like they show on XMEN, they are tiny changes, that, when accompanied by forces such as natural selection and genetic drift, can alter the gene pool of a population.

Even if only 10% are beneficial, that's plenty with natural selection to change a species.