Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.
Where were you taught that?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
i did, how do you think i found out i was lied to?
the situation that surrounds this little charade smells like pig shit enmos.
You're trying to spread the word that evolution is a lie. You're never honest about what you think the alternative is. I get that it's something religious, but you've never said what.
Since you don't actually know much about evolution, what you are doing is just preaching the word that evolution is "nothing but a flat out lie, period" with no actual knowledge of it. It's just a religious faith you have that evolution is a lie. Nothing more.
Your continued fixation on one source from 1982 (or whenever it was), combined with your refusal to look at any other sources, shows that you're not really interested in what any respected science source has to say about evolution. All you're interested in it anything that suggests that evolution is "nothing but a flat out lie, period". And when it comes to those sources, you're not at all picky. Any source at all will do.
Tell me the truth, then, leopold. How did life on earth get to be how it is?
I know what you'll say, of course. You'll wimp out with "I don't know." So, having dismissed evolution, you'll have us believe that you have no alternative idea in mind. Just a blank nothing.
And if that is true, then you should agree that evolution is a better theory than nothing. Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Isn't that what science does - takes the best theory at any given time? Will you agree that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for life on Earth, then, leopold?
Who taught you about evolution? Some religious websites? Your local guru or preacher? A religious tract written hundreds of years ago, perhaps?
correct, and i'll post the volume and issue number if you wish.
correction, evolution as i was taught in school, uh, by my guru.
Weeeeeeeeeell.. You are on a science based site and you repeatedly try to peddle the 'evolution is a lie' line. You do it religiously. So you are either religious and trying to tell us god did it, or your beliefs belong more to the '9/11 truthers' kooks. Which is it?
Yes. "A" source. One source. One article. From 1985, which the author later explained and qualified and you have point blank refused to acknowledge it.
It is plainly obvious that you focus on that one article, you "source" as you claim it, because it is the only thing you have to try to support whatever view you wish to keep lecturing us about. Even though the article does not deny evolution or claim it is a lie.
You are a denier of evolution and you act like one of those truther's.. You act as if it is a conspiracy. For example:
You know what?
I absolutely believe you. I firmly believe that evolution as you were taught it is wrong.
Because no one could have been taught evolution and thought that a rat could turn into a rabbit or could have even come up with such an argument.
So it is more than obvious that you were never really taught evolution. Well, not real scientific evolution.
Which explains why you grasp that 1985 article like it is a lifeline.
You want proof or evolution? Look at influenza and why the flu vaccine is not always effective.
You want proof of transitional fossils? Look in the mirror.
where oh where did science publish ANY errata concerning this article?
errata, such as misquotes etc.
quite a few people wrote to science concerning this article, i've seen NONE from ayala.
well, when i'm told that diversity is the result of small accumulating changes (with "proof" i might add) and then i find out that is not the case, i consider that a lie bells.
the little charade surrounding this situation is even worse.
BTW, this has nothing to do with religion, so stop trying to make it such.
my honest opinion?
the concept of "things becoming alive" is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.
human intelligence bootstrapping itself from a "pond of goo" is ludicrous.
i honestly don't know what to think.
i sometimes think i might be missing something, but i don't think so.
according to that article it was.
Why would you and why would they?
Perhaps you feel connected to that one quote from Ayala because he is a Christian and former priest and he still believes in God.
But make no mistake, Ayala is an evolutionist. So your continued misrepresentation of what he believes is really unwelcome and silly.
But it is the case. And there is proof of it.
As I noted previously, do some research in influenza and why the flu vaccine is unable to provide protection for all types of influenza. It is because the virus evolves so rapidly. If you want proof of evolution, then viruses provide proof that evolution happens on a day to day basis.
Then perhaps you should stop making religious arguments often attributed to those who believe in Adam and Eve.
Why is it ridiculous to you?
How do you think we came to be?
Actually, our brain stem, the start of it all when it comes to our intelligence evolved in a type of worm about 500 - 600 million years ago. Which makes sense:
Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75 percent have matches in the worm, Collins said.
The human genetic pattern, or genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs. About 7 percent of the human genome has been mapped, Collins said.
The worm is a clear-skinned creature whose biological functions can be easily monitored by microscope. A dozen of the animals could perch on a pinhead, but within each is a complex world of genes that perform the same functions as in humans.
``With modern techniques, you can actually watch the action of individual proteins inside this worm,'' said Waterston. ``If that function happens in the worm, then you know the same thing is happening in humans.''
Some worm genes are so similar to human genes that researchers have experimentally inserted human genes into the animal and watched as the implant worked perfectly, he said.
Genes for muscles ``map almost one to one'' when comparing human and worm, Waterston said. In the nervous system, some genes discovered first in the worm were later found to be in humans, even though the worm has only 302 neurons compared with a human's millions.
Scientists began studying the worm after a British researcher identified it as an ideal way to study the nervous system. It has only 959 cells yet reproduces, grows into a mature adult, eats, excretes and dies with many of the cellular interactions of other animals.
Since the studies began in the 1960s, researchers have plotted the development and demise of virtually every cell in the worm's body. They have monitored worm embryos as they grew, cell by cell, into an adult and then have watched the cells age and die.
Such work, Collins said, provided insights into basic functions common to virtually all multicelled creatures.
There is a reason why we share DNA in some way, shape or form, with everything on this planet Leo.
I think you find it offensive that life on this planet started as what you view as a "pond of goo". Perhaps you find it demeaning, not grand enough for your intelligence. Do you think it is beneath you?
Oh I don't think you are missing something. I know you are.
Well yes. The article was discussing evolution. You are discussing Adam and Eve and theology and trying to pass it off as evolution. So you pick one line, that was misrepresented in that article and is quote mined by theists around the web. Taken out of context, of course you are going to think that Ayala is saying what you personally believe. That he wasn't and had you read any of the rest of Ayala's work, his other articles, books, listened to his lectures, you'd have quickly realised just how and why you are wrong. But you won't. Because to admit that would mean going against your personal religious beliefs.
shut up bells, you never read the article
Probably leopold went to a school where some kind of creationist parody of evolution was taught, if it was taught at all. I must say that I personally can't remember being taught anything about evolution at school. I don't think I really knew anything much about it until I read The Selfish Gene as a teenager (and I'm very happy to have a copy of that book sitting on my shelf that Richard Dawkins was kind enough to autograph for me.)
I read the article. If I remember correctly, I don't think that it misquoted Ayala, so why would he complain about that to Science (or anybody else)?
The complaint that Ayala had, later, was that some creationist types had misinterpreted what he said and, as creationists so often do, took it out of context and used it to try to debunk evolution. Ayala himself is an "evolutionist", so why would he try to discredit the theory that he believes is true? Think about it. It doesn't make sense.
Moreover, as you are well aware, Ayala himself has publically commented on the false creationist "controversy" around the quote that you believe is so crucial to whether evolutionary theory stands or falls. And guess what? He unequivocally repudiated the creationist reading of it and supported the theory of evolution.
But again we have the leopold double-standard. On the one hand, leopold accepts without question the authority of Ayala's original quote, which leopold believes disproves evolution (even though it does no such thing, even on a misreading). And on the other hand, leopold absolutely refuses to accept Ayala's clarification about what he meant and how the creationists misinterpreted him.
Does your intellectual dishonesty ever give you a niggling sense of guilt, leopold? Or does your religion more than compensate for your dishonesty?
I've walked you through this previously. I took the time to read the article. I and others pointed you towards Ayala's comments on the article you think is so important. And yet, here you are, years later, still relying on the same bullshit you relied on at the start. What does that say about you?
Apparently, only a printed retraction by the editors of the journal Science would make you change his mind. Or so you say. However, science and Science have both moved on in the past 30 years. The article goes unmentioned today not because of the Great Scientific Conspiracy, but because the truth of evolution does not hinge on a minor report written about a conference that took place back in 1985.
Every issue of Science that is published contains more evidence for the theory of evolution. But you won't even look at any of that, will you leopold? You're not interested. Your mind is closed. If you took a poll of the editors of Science as to whether they believe in evolution, what do you think they'd say, seeing as you trust them so much as authorities and all?
Your 1985 article is important only to you, leopold. And it's only important to you because you're desperate to cling to a misinterpretation of something a biologist said 30 years ago. Why? Because you're desperate for there to be some kind of scientific backing for your disbelief in evolution. I think you actually have some respect for science, but you have this internal conflict because everything in this particular area of science so clearly goes against what you believe as a result of your religion. So you desperately grasp at a straw that you think can save you from drowning in the sea of scientific data that contradicts your creationist beliefs. And you deny the obvious point that you don't even understand what the article you so rely on was about.
How else would diversity come about?
You constantly dodge this question. Don't think I didn't notice that you avoided all the questions I asked you in my previous post. That's typical dishonest behaviour from you, leopold.
And you'll ignore this one, too, won't you? Or give your weak "I don't know" response.
You know it has everything to do with your religion. Only a religious zealot could be so wilfully blind when presented with facts like these.
Who cares what you think, leopold? You're ignorant and you don't even want to learn. You've as good as admitted it in this thread. Your opinion on evolution is about as valuable as the opinion of a goat herder on quantum cryptography. (My apologies to any physicists who herd goats in their spare time.)
You see the end of twig. You don't realise that there's not only a branch, not only tree, but a whole forest out there, if you'd only bother to look at it.
how dare you to come off with this bullshit james.
the rest of your post is, likewise, garbage, AND YOU KNOW IT.
i know that you know the story.
you are NOT going to bullshit me.
leopold, whatever inferences you've accumulated from the "Alien astronauts" proposition, it could not possibly serve as a real counter to evolution. Let's say for a moment that it's correct: even if aliens appeared and helped our ancestors, even guiding human evolution, it could have no bearing whatsoever on the totality or particularity of macro-evolution in the long ages of innumerable other taxa leading up to that date over several hundred million years. Even if a bunch of aliens guided every aspect of human physiology for the exceedingly long interval of a couple hundred thousand years, it has nothing at all to do with evolution from the inception of life on Earth.
Going one further, let's say that you claim that all evolution was guided by these aliens again: over a billion years of terrestrial natural history? What the hell for? To get Jodie Foster? It's absurd, leopold. Are they lonely for other intelligent life? Why would you make new life just to talk to it? (One has the same question about God, I suppose.) And they have been monitoring and taking care of everything, all this time? The complexity of their mainframes must be staggering to behold.
It's just beyond belief, leopold, beyond reason. When a theory requires so much credulity in such enormous parcels, one has to reject it. I'm sorry. It's just not plausible as an explanation for evolution. Now, if you want to say that aliens built the pyramids etc, then by all means I'm open to odd suggestions so long as there is truly convincing evidence: and for that, you'd need a lot.
Can you at least link your sources?
To think that our brain started development in a worm is ridiculous, pure sci fi. Do you like Star Trek Bells?
Of coursewe share DNA... how did DNA evolve? Because surely DNA would have to come before the animal for example.
This is your only response to what I wrote? Really? An assertion that I'm spouting bullshit?
As usual, you're wasting my time, leopold. Stay ignorant. I've had enough of you.
are you talking about the book i referenced?
i never said i believed any of it.
i mentioned it in relation to a group of people lana refers to as saganites.
i am now really curious about that and the connections it might have with the current discussion.
BTW, i can't explain ANY of this, all i can do is throw into the ring what i know.
also, contrary to popular belief, i am not pushing a "divine intervention" or somesuch.
OTOH, i am more than what physical laws can explain.
so, there it is.
We're all more than physical laws can explain WRT our psyche or personality, leo. A real reductionist - and, admittedly, I am one - would say something like oh well, that's all just the side-band from your complex forebrain but I also don't like that explanation as it dismisses the greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts experience of humanity. Sure, we're more than just physical laws. We're special and unique. It's just that we got here via those physical laws, at the core of it. You are not just an evolved ape with a stiff taboo against capitalisation at the start of a sentence, leopold, and neither am I. We are more than just those things. We all are.
Regarding that book, though, I thought your posted link said that it was interesting and explanatory, or something.
You are very defensive about how your personal beliefs appear to others.
I did read the article.
However, I did not take denial of evolution out of it. Far from it. Perhaps you did not read it properly?
I find it interesting that you again ignore further proof and evidence of evolution. Further denial.
They are linked. The underlined words are the links.. Mouse over them and you will see.
What does sci fi or whether I like Star Trek have to do with it?
Where do you think the human brain evolved from?
Are you going to deny scientific fact? I would strongly suggest that you provide scientific proof of where the brain stem did evolve from.
well, what was your reaction when you found out you were lied to in high school bells?
your response to this post will tell me a lot about you.
my aim here is not to "tear down evolution" but to point out some glaring irregularities.
i was led to believe lifes diversity was the result of accumulating changes.
they even had "transitional fossils" to "prove" it.
i now find out that that is not the case at all and furthermore these people KNEW they weren't spelling out the straight shit to our students.
this explains why the majority of US high school teachers are reluctant to teach evolution.
the charade that surrounds this particular situation smells even worse.
hasn't communism always wanted to destroy religion?
Apparently I read that wrong.
Where did you get your information?
oh "scientific fact" what's a matter, scientific theory not a good enough word for you?
So there was a big pond full of DNA which was created by chance... a worm crawled out of it that ALLAH we have brains.
Separate names with a comma.