Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Loudmouth]

uh, facts, not allegations.

You can't even show how McClintock's findings challenge evolution in any way.

what exactly are you saying here?
these people weren't only sceptical, they were sceptical to the point where she quit publishing.
why would they do that if it wasn't a challenge?

Why would it need to be a challenge to evolution in order for geneticists to be skeptical of her work?

I showed you the example of Marshall and Warren's work with H. pylori and peptic ulcers. Their findings didn't challenge evolution, and scientists were skeptical of their work at first.

the bottom line is barberas work went against the established dogma of the time, and they refused her work even though she had the evidence, evidence that won her a nobel prize 40 years later.

They gave her a Nobel Prize for disproving evolution? Is that what you are saying?

 

[whois]

They gave her a Nobel Prize for disproving evolution? Is that what you are saying?

can i ask you a serious question?
do you always play this stupid?
go patronize someone else.

 

[Loudmouth]

can i ask you a serious question?
do you always play this stupid?
go patronize someone else.

Go make baseless allegations against scientists somewhere else, then.

 

[JacksBratt]

It is not just a fossil, it is where the fossil is found. Paleontologists use a principle called Stratigraphy. Look it up.

Yes, stratigraphy, where the fossil age is determined by the strata it is found in and then the stata age is determined by the type of fossil found in it. Very circular. Then you have a tree, fossilized, going right up through all of it.

Ya, very scientific.

Extrapolation, yes... even some speculation and interpretation. It is called inference. Many inferences turn out to be wrong. Evolution is just not one of those.

Inference extrapolation, speculation and interpretation cannot prove transition or anything else. In fact, it is used to guess intelligently. I use it at work all the time. We extrapolate a tiny bit of data to get us in the ballpark. No client of mine will bank on the extrapolated data. It guides us for further study. Even if a hundred or a thousand doctors say so, it's not truth. It's someones guess.

Evolution is someones guess and all the data is squished to fit into the mold. If something doesn't fit they stretch the mold, change the definition, through out the old part that used to be solid truth and splice on the new piece. Just stay as far away from ID as you can.

No what it means is he/she has studied what you guys are sitting at your computer speculating about based on nothing but your own biases and religious dogma.. not to mention fear. Juvie said it best, when he claimed that if evolution were true, he would loss his faith in God. That is what you are afraid of.

No, I will never lose my faith in God. I am not worried in any way. I am also certain that evolution will never be proven to be true.

The more bullying it takes to keep a myth alive, the more of a fable it is.

No, science is not a democracy. In science if you make a conclusion, you had better be prepared to defend it with facts. Not all opinions or ideas are treated equally. If you can't back it up, you will get trashed.

I stated that truth is not a democracy. Obviously science is. Just ask one scientist to state something that goes against the rest, the shenanigans that would take place next is like bringing a lit match into a powder keg. Whether the scientist is presenting truth never even matters. The masses will always protect their pre-orchestrated, pre-accepted, never to be disputed or contradicted scenario at all costs.

In science we use criticism and peer review to counter biases. we tear into each other with a rigor that would make most creationists here cry. In creationism, all ideas are treated the same, because there is no way to differentiate the reality of any of them. Creationists also tend to a "big tent" approach where you all fight "the good fight" for Jesus against evil man-made science.

Thing is, if a scientist or professor stood up in his university and declared that he has decided that the truth points to evolution being a myth, hoax, farce.... he would be demoted fired and tossed out.

This is more than the criticism of peer to peer discussion and debate that you call "tearing into each other. Everyone still goes home with their job, their funding, their accreditation etc. Unless of course you are mentioning the logic of creation.

There are many discussions within creation. I don't believe there is a doctrine out there that has none.

I do like the dig about how "creationists would cry". This is because evolutionists are "no girly man"? Very mature.

Bull. Like I said, in science we deal with criticism all the time. You guys can't stand the slightest amount without crying, "I'm being oppressed!!" "I'm being persecuted!" "Ad Hominem attack!!"

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand and deny it. It is there and real. There is no crying just utter pity for the system that wants their status quo and don't muddle things with truth.

Bull once again. Your narrow-minded interpretation of scripture is not "Truth."

Sorry don't see any scripture in my post. Can you explain how I've interpreted something that is not there?

 

[whois]

i have googled on barberas name for a liitle info into this charade.
all i found was articles extolling her virtues, what a genius she was, her accomplishments.
i find nothing on how she was scorned to the point of stopping her work.
it seems someone is very busy at rewriting something.

you can find this info in the following cite:
Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243

 

[Loudmouth]

i have googled on barberas name for a liitle info into this charade.
all i found was articles extolling her virtues, what a genius she was, her accomplishments.
i find nothing on how she was scorned to the point of stopping her work.
it seems someone is very busy at rewriting something.

It would appear that the worst McClintock suffered was that people were not interested in her initial work.

In a 1950 Classic PNAS article, Barbara McClintock summarized and interpreted what had already become a large volume of data on the behavior of loci either harboring or affected by activity of the first transposon family she discovered and studied, called the Activator-Dissociation family (1). Noting that the genetic data were already too voluminous to present in detail, McClintock sought to communicate her most important inferences and insights. McClintock published relatively few papers on transposition in the conventional scientific literature. As required by her employer, the Carnegie Institution of Washington (now the Carnegie Institution for Science), she published summaries of each year’s work in the Carnegie Year Books. The 1950 PNAS article was one of the several efforts she made to communicate her findings on transposition in the wider scientific literature. Back before e-mail and portable document format (PDF) files, colleagues who were interested in an article generally wrote the author or sent a postcard requesting a reprint. McClintock received so few reprint requests for her 1950 PNAS article that she concluded that there was little interest in her work, so she filed her detailed analyses of her observations and went back to publishing just her annual summaries, containing just a fraction of her voluminous primary genetic data, in the Carnegie Year Books (McClintock, personal communication). To understand the lack of interest in what turned out to be a momentous discovery, it is important to reconstruct and understand the context of the time.
McClintock?s challenge in the 21st century​

In fact, you can find people who have carried on McClintock's work, and you can find their papers in journals that deal with plant evolution:

Wiley: Plant Transposons and Genome Dynamics in Evolution - Nina V. Fedoroff

 

[whois]

the fact still remains, her findings went against the current evolution dogma.
and they didn't want to hear it, even though it was backed by evidence.

conclusion:
if your work goes against what we think we know, even though it has proof, we don't want to see it.
read the above sentence until it is etched in your brain, because that is EXACTLY what happened.
and to top it all off, this was a monumental discovery.
this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning this type of thing.

if your paper has tons of evidence and it puts evolution in a bad light, it's a safe bet it won't get published.

 

[Loudmouth]

the fact still remains, her findings went against the current evolution dogma.

How so?

 

[whois]

How so?

i gave the cite, read it.

 

[Loudmouth]

i gave the cite, read it.

I did. It speaks of how McClintock's findings were important for understanding how evolution works. Far from challenging evolution, her work helped us understand evolution even better.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

 

[JacksBratt]

I know, right?Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. That's not a good point for you.

Not knowing why people do things doesn't mean they don't do that particular thing. It means, to me, it is pointless but still happens.

But they already HAVE creation. You're basically saying that they're creationists who are trying to promote evolution, because...reasons.

The people that force evolution don't "have" creation. It's like a knife in their gut. Creation is what they are trying to kill. They cannot kill the story of creation unless they have something to replace it with. You cannot say "we are so smart, we know that the story of creation is false but we are not smart enough to know what really happened.

Darwin's finding go back to the 1800s. Funnily enough, there were guys that talked like you even back then.

Look at what you said. "Darwin goes back to the 1800's" followed by "people believed in a 6000 year old book even 5800 years after it was written."

Yep, that's funny. People believed the Bible, even in the 1800's.

I'm guessing that they believed it in 600BC too. Wow Hilarious.

That idea's been around for a while, and it's not taken much more seriously than creationism.

Oh please. Just take a look. UFO sightings are on the increase all over the globe. The use of cell phones for video and camera's has greatly increased the phenomenon. The US government is coming clean and many retired military men are stepping out.

I bet this will be even more of a factor than creation due to the fact that it is everywhere, recorded, the objects are common to all reports, function the same and display the same characteristics.

I'm not saying they are aliens from another planet, but whatever they are, they are there, no doubt.
Try to organize that over the globe.

Such as...?

To say there isn't any is like saying the sun won't rise tomorrow.

America's Stonehenge is an archaeological site consisting of a number of large rocks and stone structures scattered around roughly 30 acres within the town of Salem, New Hampshire in the northeast United States.

Draw a line through this site, lining up its keystone and the line goes precisely through stone henge in Wiltshire England. The line continues through a megalith in Lebanon.

That's three things a world apart perfectly aligned with no GPS, satellites, aerial capabilities....

Another is "Athos of Romania"
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][FONT=arial,sans-serif]Gilgal Rephaim
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif] Baalbek,Lebanon[/FONT]Bhima's Stove


The megalithic structure at Sacsayhuaman in Peru

 

[whois]

I did. It speaks of how McClintock's findings were important for understanding how evolution works. Far from challenging evolution, her work helped us understand evolution even better.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

cherry pick much?

. . . She won her prize for physiology
or medicine in 1983 over 40 years after she had made the
ground-breaking discovery of chromosome transposition
(now called mobile genetic elements). She worked on
maize, and early reactions to her work were so sceptical
that she stopped publishing her research in 1953 (Keller,
1983).The consequences for evolutionary theory were also
ignored, because the phenomenon was not thought to
occur in animals.

there you have it in black and white.

 

[crjmurray]

Not knowing why people do things doesn't mean they don't do that particular thing. It means, to me, it is pointless but still happens.



The people that force evolution don't "have" creation. It's like a knife in their gut. Creation is what they are trying to kill. They cannot kill the story of creation unless they have something to replace it with. You cannot say "we are so smart, we know that the story of creation is false but we are not smart enough to know what really happened.



Look at what you said. "Darwin goes back to the 1800's" followed by "people believed in a 6000 year old book even 5800 years after it was written."

Yep, that's funny. People believed the Bible, even in the 1800's.

I'm guessing that they believed it in 600BC too. Wow Hilarious.



Oh please. Just take a look. UFO sightings are on the increase all over the globe. The use of cell phones for video and camera's has greatly increased the phenomenon. The US government is coming clean and many retired military men are stepping out.

I bet this will be even more of a factor than creation due to the fact that it is everywhere, recorded, the objects are common to all reports, function the same and display the same characteristics.

I'm not saying they are aliens from another planet, but whatever they are, they are there, no doubt.
Try to organize that over the globe.





To say there isn't any is like saying the sun won't rise tomorrow.

America's Stonehenge is an archaeological site consisting of a number of large rocks and stone structures scattered around roughly 30 acres within the town of Salem, New Hampshire in the northeast United States.

Draw a line through this site, lining up its keystone and the line goes precisely through stone henge in Wiltshire England. The line continues through a megalith in Lebanon.

That's three things a world apart perfectly aligned with no GPS, satellites, aerial capabilities....

Another is "Athos of Romania"
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][FONT=arial,sans-serif]Gilgal Rephaim
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif] Baalbek,Lebanon[/FONT]Bhima's Stove


The megalithic structure at Sacsayhuaman in Peru

 

[JacksBratt]

Why?



No, it doesn't. Proteins are required for DNA repair.

Proteins are required, period. The DNA is an amazing storage system for reams and reams of data, it needed complex compounds called proteins to even exist let alone exist with all the data in all the right places.....

Plug your ears, I can hear the DNA screaming "Designer".

 

[whois]

. . . it needed complex compounds called proteins to even exist let alone exist with all the data in all the right places....

wait a minute.
DNA requires proteins to exist?
you are essentially saying a strand of DNA cannot exist on its own.
harvard, above, seems to think it can.

 

[bhsmte]

You can't even show how McClintock's findings challenge evolution in any way.



Why would it need to be a challenge to evolution in order for geneticists to be skeptical of her work?

I showed you the example of Marshall and Warren's work with H. pylori and peptic ulcers. Their findings didn't challenge evolution, and scientists were skeptical of their work at first.



They gave her a Nobel Prize for disproving evolution? Is that what you are saying?

Seems to be a pattern with this poster.

I am still waiting for her to show the laws she claims exist, that force the teaching of evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

Demonstrate to us why.

If these faithful people of the theory of evolution can swallow the faith that a single cell being, once formed somehow somewhere and gradually turned into all the creatures on the earth, cannot tell me where life came from or won't "go there". Then I gotta think that it's pretty far fetched.

So, then something must have produced it.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is a minor point, but you should remember that very few members of a species (perhaps only one in a million) become fossils. Behind every fossil animal stand the shades of thousands or millions of members of the same species that were not fossilised. Although we cannot say that the individual owner of a fossil skull or other bone had any children, it is obviously unreasonable to infer that all of the unfossilised thousands or millions of other members of the same species died without leaving any offspring.

Yes, very few are fossilized. Thank you. So you have even more limited data to what actually happened than what did happen. You are guessing and you have barely any of the information at all. It weakens the argument even more.

The earth has billions of humans on it. They are all, still humans. Your data is sadly incomplete. In reality it hasn't even reached the point of a representative sample.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are claiming that scientists are altering fossils? Really?

Your saying they haven't?

 

[JacksBratt]

The theory of evolution predicts what these bones should and shouldn't look like. Bones that fit the predictions made by the theory are evidence for that theory. The lack of bones that do not fit those predictions also helps confirm the theory.

Exactly, evolution only "predicts" that's it. Then the bones fit the predictions. It's still predictions. Not fact. If bones are found that don't fit the prediction, then the prediction changes or the bones are lost, destroyed or dismissed as a hoax.

What you are ignoring is that the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of features you should and shouldn't see. ID doesn't do that. Creationism doesn't do that. Evolution does.

Creation doesn't have to predict anything. It is observed exactly as it was created.

We don't need to prove who the ancestors and descendants of a fossil are in order to evidence the theory of evolution. That is what you keep ignoring.

What if someone proved that the ancestors and descendants were always all the same? Then evolution would be dead. So, yes, you do have to prove that they were different or they never evolved.