Does Evolution Matter?

[Oncedeceived]

lewis needs to have his "backdoor" henchmen to publicly address me on the posts i made.
how about it lewis?

Hmmm. Interesting.

 

[whois]

Hmmm. Interesting.

i don't look for it to happen though.
this alone should tell lewis something
only cowards remain faceless when they have a chance to go one on one.

 

[sandybay]

Do you have problems with scientific studies that test whether or not evolution is sufficient for evolutionary methods?

Absolutely none as long as they are genuine, anyone can say 'A' is wrong but just saying it is not enough you must show how or why 'A' is wrong.

Creationism is more than welcome to put forward a case just as long as that case is backed by something other than rhetoric, just saying something is true does not make it true.

 

[whois]

Absolutely none as long as they are genuine, anyone can say 'A' is wrong but just saying it is not enough you must show how or why 'A' is wrong.

how about these 2 sources?:
icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/148.full
Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Suzan Mazur

comments?

BTW, lewis referred to the above sources as "creation science" and depicted them as cartoon characters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Absolutely none as long as they are genuine, anyone can say 'A' is wrong but just saying it is not enough you must show how or why 'A' is wrong.

Creationism is more than welcome to put forward a case just as long as that case is backed by something other than rhetoric, just saying something is true does not make it true.

I agree 100% and claiming by just so stories that an alternate premise is refuted does not make that true either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

how about these 2 sources?:
icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/148.full
Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Suzan Mazur

comments?

BTW, lewis referred to the above sources as "creation science" and depicted them as cartoon characters.

These look to be very interesting articles. I hope I have some time today to read them through. Thanks

 

[Oncedeceived]

However, let's show some respect for the OP and get back to that.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I don't find the need whatsoever. I was using it as an example. Do you have problems with scientific studies that test whether or not evolution is sufficient for evolutionary methods?

If and that is a big if. If it is and it is not packaged as another way to promote Creationism, then sure, who's going to keep genuine Biology out of a Biology class.
I've already invited you to participate in The Scientific Method & Macroevolution (link to follow: last post) , so if you do, I'd love to read 'em and weep.

Peace,
Lewis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If and that is a big if. If it is and it is not packaged as another way to promote Creationism, then sure, who's going to keep genuine Biology out of a Biology class.

Even in the case of Dover Biology was not to be replaced and that was not the motivation behind the issue.

I've already invited you to participate in The Scientific Method & Macroevolution (link to follow: last post) , so if you do, I'd love to read 'em and weep

Explain what you mean about this.

 

[sandybay]

However, let's show some respect for the OP and get back to that.

You are right............

Evolution does not matter as far as evolution is concerned because it will continue to do it's thing regardless of how we think or feel, evolution dictates that I will die one day no matter how I feel about it or wish it was not going to happen.

 

[whois]

You are right............

Evolution does not matter as far as evolution is concerned because it will continue to do it's thing regardless of how we think or feel, evolution dictates that I will die one day no matter how I feel about it or wish it was not going to happen.

you asked for legitimate sources, and i gave them to you.
the first source practically kills darwinism as a theory.

 

[bhsmte]

You are right............

Evolution does not matter as far as evolution is concerned because it will continue to do it's thing regardless of how we think or feel, evolution dictates that I will die one day no matter how I feel about it or wish it was not going to happen.

Indeed.

Evolution will continue on it's merry way, whether some choose to learn and understand it or not.

The trend is clear though, more and more people do accept the theory and there is a high correlation between higher levels of education and accepting it, which makes perfect sense.

 

[whois]

If and that is a big if. If it is and it is not packaged as another way to promote Creationism, then sure, who's going to keep genuine Biology out of a Biology class.
I've already invited you to participate in The Scientific Method & Macroevolution (link to follow: last post) , so if you do, I'd love to read 'em and weep.

Peace,
Lewis.

tell me, why would oxford university "package" something to resemble creationism?
is there a particular reason you refuse to read my material and comment on it?

 

[bhsmte]

you asked for legitimate sources, and i gave them to you.
the first source practically kills darwinism as a theory.

Is Darwin's theory dead?

 

[whois]

Is Darwin's theory dead?

basically, yes.
if there is something in my sources you dispute then let's hear it.

if you do happen to read the noble piece, then pay close attention to what noble says about franseco "i didn't say it" ayala said.

 

[bhsmte]

basically, yes.
if there is something in my sources you dispute then let's hear it.

if you do happen to read the noble piece, then pay close attention to what noble says about franseco "i didn't say it" ayala said.

Science would disagree with you, as they theory has only grown stronger as time has gone on and further discoveries have been made.

Likely, your personal confirmation bias is getting in the way of realizing this.

Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project comments below:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[whois]

tell me, why would such a credentialed man from oxford say a replacement is necessary, and explains why it's necessary?

any comments at all on the integrative biology source?

 

[sandybay]

Is Darwin's theory dead?

basically, yes.
if there is something in my sources you dispute then let's hear it.

Is the scientific community {especially the biologists} taking any notice of the sources you site or is it just you?

Let me put it this way, not being a biologist myself if someone who has studied the subject for all of their working life tells me that something is true I must admit I will more than likely believe them, especially if lot's of other people who have also studied the subject agrees with them, I do not go to the local florist to have them inspect my teeth likewise I would not go to the local vicar or pastor to find out about evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Is the scientific community {especially the biologists} taking any notice of the sources you site or is it just you?

Let me put it this way, not being a biologist myself if someone who has studied the subject for all of their working life tells me that something is true I must admit I will more than likely believe them, especially if lot's of other people who have also studied the subject agrees with them, I do not go to the local florist to have them inspect my teeth likewise I would not go to the local vicar or pastor to find out about evolution.

Well, maybe the poster in question will be able to one day, disprove evolution and walk away with the Nobel prize.

Never mind that the people who do this for a living, have not been able to for 150 years and in fact, acknowledge the theory has only been getting stronger.

The power of denial, is something to behold.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed.

Evolution will continue on it's merry way, whether some choose to learn and understand it or not.

The trend is clear though, more and more people do accept the theory and there is a high correlation between higher levels of education and accepting it, which makes perfect sense.

College graduate: "Hey, I paid good money to believe this stuff."