views on evolution

Since the stimulus is death by being fed to fungi, removing it means they won't evolve.

Surely you don't deny that bacteria evolved their resistance to drugs?

Maybe you can't try this at home, but I'll find a scaled down kit somewhere for you:

We present a collection of 182 isogenic strains containing genetically linked antibiotic resistance elements located at approximately 1-min intervals around the Escherichia coli chromosome. At most positions both Tn10 (Tetr) and TN10kan (Kanr) elements are available, so that the collection contains a linked set of alternating antibiotic resistance markers. The map position of each insertion has been aligned to the E. coli genetic map as well as to the Kohara ordered clone bank. These strains are designed to be used in a rapid two-step mapping system in E. coli. In the first step, the mutation is localized to a 5- to 15-min region of the chromosome by Hfr mapping with a set of Hfr strains containing either Tn10 or Tn10kan elements located 20 min from their respective origins of transfer. In the second step, the mutation is localized to a 1-min region by P1 transduction, with a collection of isogenic insertion strains as donors. We discuss the uses of this collection of strains to map and eventually to clone a variety of mutations in E. coli.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, it seems that evolutionary, ahem, "theory" is all the rage and it's accepted by everybody.
nothing could be further from the truth.
if there was indeed overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence for evolution then why the following?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm

maybe atheists need to try a little harder eh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe our school system should have higher standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because there is truly no limit to how stupid people can be. There are people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Moon landing was a hoax, that the seasons are caused by the Earth getting closer to the Sun during part of its orbit, and that bats are blind. Heck, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. The fact that people believe those things does not make them true.

 

i wonder how many of those idiot biology instructors could be made to believe 2+2 does not equal 4?

if every one of those very same instructors pushed evolution you would be praising them, extolling their intellectual prowess.

the above responses from spidergoat and billvon could very well be the reason more people do not speak out about this.
in other words being ad hommed to death.

 

Pushing evolution in a high school class doesn't prove anything about their intellect other than they can follow a lesson plan. Spare us the 1984 references, evolution is established science.

 

published 2011

 

What does that mean? Who published what?

 

@leopold --

You do realize that when scientists say that a theory is universally accepted they mean "among scientists in that field", right? Because if you're one of those laymen who think that "universal acceptance" requires the acceptance of even those who can't spell "evolution" let alone accurately describe the theory, then you must live in one nice fantasy land where your mere thought can overturn reality. Evolution is the best theory out there because it fits the facts the best, not because more people like it.

Quite frankly the arguments from popularity are getting boring, can't you theists do better than that?

*Sniff* I smell a straw man argument coming on.

To be fair, if that was the case then I would merely say that getting the right result for the wrong reason is at least marginally better than getting the wrong result(such as those praising ID/creationism) for the wrong reason.

Think what you will but their responses were not ad hominem fallacies. Spidergoat's was nothing more than a sarcastic quip(something that I note that you're not above doing), and Billvon summed up your fallacy(argumentum ad populum, look it up) quite nicely and succinctly. And here's I'd have thought that one so obviously devoted to the "truth" would welcome their corrections. Alas, tis not to be.

 

it's a figment of your imagination spidergoat.
but i DID check to see if my post was deleted.

 

Oh, another 1984 reference by the party actively trying to distort reality.

 

i reread my source thinking i might have missed something.
i demand you prove my source is from 1984 or you retract your statement.

 

Well, I imagine if they really believed that "God did it" and were told "God says that 2+2=5" - they'd pretty much have to believe it.

Nope. No more than I'd praise them if they taught students that DNA carried our genetic code. It's just part of their jobs.

Good. You can believe whatever you like - but when you are paid by taxpayers to teach science, you'd better teach science and keep your religious preaching to yourself.

 

High School biology teachers are not immune to community pressure.

On evolution, many communities do have strong feelings against the teaching of evolution, which are promoted / re-enforced by some religious leaders who see theory of evolution as a threat to their weekly collection plate contributions. They often (sometimes even when knowing better) say things like: "Go ahead and believe man descended from monkeys if you want to, but I know God created man (and Eve) just as told in the Bible. - The Bible is God's word and God does not lie !" *

Many years ago when I was high school student, in W. Virginia, there was a public meeting to discuss whether or not French should be taught (offered) in high school. One old man in the audience stood up, waving his Bible and said: "No - that's a waste of money. If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it good enough for our kids too."

I bet he would like to see the biology teacher who even mentioned theory of evolution in class room promptly fired. Smart teachers would try not to antagonize the people paying their salaries. Since there are religious leaders making a good living (even via only radio broadcasts) who would lose money if theory of eolution were widely accepted by the ill educted masses, it will be many decades still of slow educational progress in the local communities before nearly all high school biology teachers will say things like:

"Evolution is not a theory, but a well established fact supported my many thousands of self consistent observations made in several quite unrelated fields. There are only faith based "facts" that contradict it."

* I did not directly hear this. I read it in the main newspaper as part of an article telling we needed to spend more on public education. Of the 48 states W.Va. was next to last in expenditures per pupil. It was not uncommon for people, when discussing this to say: "Thank God for Mississippi" (holding firmly on to the last position.)

 

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
signed by:

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

 

Although dissent against non-mainstream views is or was suppressed in some areas such as global warming and the Big Bang, nobody would openly admit that dissent against those views was not allowed. This is not the case, however, with evolution, where the opposition is blatant.

John Lennox observed:

The sheer vehemence of the protest fascinates me. Why is it so strong? Furthermore, why is it only in connection with this area of intellectual endeavour that I have ever heard an eminent scientist (with a Nobel Prize to his name, no less) say in a public lecture in Oxford: 'You must not question evolution'? After all, scientists have dared to question even Newton and Einstein. Indeed, most of us were (rightly -- dare I say?) brought up to believe that questioning standard wisdom was one of the most important ways in which science grows. All science, however well established, benefits from being periodically questioned. So why is there such a taboo on questioning evolution? Why is this, and only this, particular area of science a no-go area, fenced off from being questioned? [14]

Rodney Stark, a sociologist who has not written on the creation/evolution debate, lamented:

My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on. [15]

Exposure of dissent against evolution

Numerous cases of suppression have been documented in various print and Internet articles, but suppression has also been exposed in two significant publications. Dr. Jerry Bergman, himself a victim of discrimination, has researched many cases and has written numerous articles and two books on the topic. His second book is the 450-page Slaughter of the Dissidents, vol. 1, published in 2008. A further four volumes are planned, with volume 4 including Bergman's own case. The problem was also highlighted by the popular documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, with Ben Stein, which was released in 2008, featuring the cases of Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker, and others.
Vilification

Rather than engage solely in scientific or logical debate with creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, many critics of these positions resort to ridicule and vilification. If this vilification was directed to groups such as homosexuals, there would be a large public outcry and vilifiers would likely be prosecuted under so-called "hate speech" laws.

Naturalism is today propagated dogmatically. The alternative idea that God has created the universe is excluded by ridicule, which is hardly scientific. — Finnish philosopher Tapio Puolimatka[16]

Examples of vilification and name-calling include the following:

* A frequent tactic is to use "scare quotes" to subtly question legitimacy, as as on the British Centre for Science Education web-site, where its article about Creation Ministries International uses such "scare quotes" around the words "scientist" when referring to CMI's staff scientists[17] despite those staff members being qualified scientists.[18]
* Tom Mason (Director of the Armagh planetarium) associates the creationary view with Islamic fundamentalism, the Inquisition, and Jihad, and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".[19]
* Donald Prothero and Carl Dennis Buell favourably quote Michael Shermer likening creationists to holocaust deniers.[20]
* Richard Dawkins said that "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).".[21][note 1] He has also referred to Intelligent Design proponents as "creationist wingnuts" and "IDiots" [23]
* Isaac Asimov said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."[24]
* Widely-read blogger P. Z. Myers refers to creationists with names such as "bottom-feeders", "hucksters", "kooks", "loons", and "delusional lackwit".[25]

Extent of suppression

Although in the United States much of the controversey has been over teaching creation or Intelligent Design in schools, suppression and discrimination are not confined to those circumstances. It affects those who simply question evolution, appear to question evolution, hold beliefs other than evolution, support those who question evolution, and even those who simply pass on the message.

Critics often claim that if creationism and/or intelligent design had any scientific legitimacy, they would be published in the peer-reviewed science journals. However, the journals themselves refuse to publish such submissions. For example, the Journal of the Biological Society of Washington issued a statement declaring that they would not publish any Intelligent Design papers, citing the American Association for the Advancement of Science position on Intelligent Design.

Even papers published in these mainstream journals are considered unacceptable if they can be used to put evolution in a bad light. Teacher Roger DeHart was stopped from using articles in leading science journals because they showed evolutionary text books to be wrong.

Discrimination is often directed against a person's beliefs, not the quality of their argument. Frank Manheim was a student who wrote a term paper challenging evolution, which earned him a D minus. When his lecturer learned that Manheim actually supported evolution, and had only written the paper from a debater's position, the lecturer changed the mark on the spot to an A.

An example from the other side is Forrest Mims, a science writer and creationist. Due to his belief in creationism, Scientific American refused to hire him, even though his work would not touch on creation or evolution, and he promised to stay clear of the topic.

Discrimination is not confined to those directly challenging evolution. Caroline Crocker was a teacher who was blacklisted and therefore found it difficult to find further employment, because she presented some Intelligent Design information in her classes. However, not only was Crocker blacklisted, but also the lawyer who defended her found himself blacklisted.
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Suppression_of_academic_dissent

 

Don't be a knuckle head - he was refering to the novel 1984.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wrong.
the bible says pi is equal to 3.
i have never met a creationist teacher that would tell their students pi is anything other than 3.14159265 . . .

the more i dig into this the more i'm beginning to believe that evolution is nothing more than a sham perpetrated by atheist zealots.

 

To Leopold:

There is no evidence for ID, but lots for SD (stupid design) if one wants for no valid reason to believe people were designed instead of evolved. For example, your retina* is a very badly designed structure - that is because of the way it evolved - bad structures can rarely if ever be evolved by genetic changes as the intermediate steps are always less viable.

If the retina were intelligently designed then the photo detection cells would not be the last thing the light reaches. I.e. in the human eye, light must pass thru the mesh of retinal nerves and all the blood vessels which are in front of the final light sensitive layer. In the octopus, the retina is a well designed structure, with the light sensitive cells the first thing the light strikes. Does this mean God thinks more highly of the octopus? Or was just practicing on humans and later realized his mistake before making octopus?

I forget all the details but the giraffe evolved from a short necked creature which had a nerve (or blood vessel?) that server a part of the neck (or face?) which because of its evolutionary history passed under the collar bone. Getting to the other side, a structural change, cannot be done a little bit in each newly evolved generation.

Thus the long necked giraffe still has this stupid route: The nerve sensing in stimulation in its face goes all the way down that long neck, passes under the collar bone and then back up that long neck to get to the brain!

If "god designed", he sure must have been either (1) stupid (SD not ID) or (2) hated giraffes. If the latter, why did he make them?
ERGO: if creatures were designed, it is SD, not ID that should be taught in schools.

BTW on "pi" I often say it is 3.14 so it is NOT wrong to say it is 3. It would be wrong to say it is 3.0 My point being that every finite value is only good to the number of significant figures given. if that is one, then 3 is correct and 4 or 5 would be wrong.

---------
* All aspects of the retina which can be incrementally changed have evolved to be nearly perfect. Cells most sensitive to change cover the peripheral field of view, and directly command you attentions (turn head) when something sudden changes there. The smallest cells, the rods, have the size perfectly matched to the diffraction limits (resolution would not improve if they were smaller). The dynamic range, by iris contraction,& neural sensitivity changes,& logarithmic signal processing, & brain processing, & switching to rods only in dim light (no colors then) is amazing - much better than man has made in any one instrument without manually modifying it (changing it). I.e. you can see with only faint moon light or on the beach at noon with cloudless sky! This has all evolved by tiny incremental changes from mildly light sensitive skin such (all over the body) such as the earth worm has. But early structural errors (such as human eye with light sensitive cells blocked by blood vessels and the neural net) cannot be corrected via incremental changes.

Humans & giraffes are stuck with some very stupid structural designs (and there are hundreds of other such examples).

 

Yes, it does. Now, what would you say to a teacher who told his students that pi=3.14159 was a sham perpetrated by atheist zealots? Would you want him teaching your children?