davidm

Vanderzyden, do you ever actually RESPOND to people who refute your idiotic assertions? You started this thread with a lot of blather that could have easily been boiled down into a single sentence: "I hate evolution, because it makes me, venerable Vanderzyden, seem unimportant." That is all your position amounts to. But you also challenged people to name one technological advance that is the result of the macroevolutionary "hypothesis." (It's not an hypothesis, by the way, it's a fact.) And at least half a dozen people here have met your challenge with detailed responses, ranging from genetics to genetic algorithms to medicine. Isn't it time for you to respond to those responses? A simple "yes, I'm wrong, and I made a fool of myself, because of my ignorance" would suffice.

It amazes me how theists come here with half-baked arguments, get their asses handed to them by scientific experts, and then never have the courtesy to admit that they were wrong or even to RESPOND when their positions have been annihilated.

RogerLeeCooke

General relativity also doesn't withstand non-scientific probing very well, nor does quantum mechanics. Both are opposed to what common sense seems to tell us. They have the "ring of truth" only for the very few people who have mastered the mathematics and physics involved.

It's not hard to ask tough questions. A completely ignorant person can do that and, not understanding the answer received from a competent person, proclaim himself unsatisfied. I'm glad such people aren't the arbiters of science.

RogerLeeCooke

And what happened to the Trilobites was even worse!

Albion

The problem is, they're trying to become the arbiters of science, and they're trying to use public opinion to make it so. The basis of all these movements is political even more than it's theological.

hezekiah jones

If evolutionary theories had the "ring of truth," then they would also withstand non-scientific inquiry.

wtf is that supposed to mean?!

Anyway they have withstood "non-scientific inquiry." Haven't you ever read a creationist website?

Many who ask tough questions find themselves unconvinced by evolutionary hypotheses. They continue to wait upon substantial unfabricated evidence. Perhaps the Darwinists are onto something, but it has yet to be demonstrated.

Yes, well, you know those damned "Darwinists," doomed to forever wallow in insubstantial fabricated evidence.

This has to be a joke. Please tell me this is all a funny joke.

scigirl

Well I can think of plenty of uses for the theory of Evolution:

1) Makes a great door stop

2) Gives scigirl something to do on a lonely thursday night in Denver

If V comes back and actually starts posting something of substance, I'll post something of substance as well.

scigirl

CRDbulldog

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a famous paper for biology instructors and the general public in 1973 entitled “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. It can be found on the internet at <a href="http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml." target="_blank">http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml.</a> I would recommend you read it. Dobzhansky points out that evolutionary theory is the CORE THEORY underlying all of biology. It is a basic science as opposed to an applied science. Basic sciences form the foundation of the knowledge base that people use when they come up with applications. Since it forms the foundation of that knowledge base EVOLUTIONARY THEORY HAS MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO VIRTUALLY ALL ADVANCES MADE IN THE LIFE SCIENCES FOR THE PAST 100 YEARS.

Some of the more direct contributions of evolutionary theory can be seen (1) in the techniques used to produce improved crops. (2) The use of plasmids (vectors responsible for adding genetic material in bacteria) have been used to insert genes for human insulin into bacteria leading to human insulin being available to people suffering from diabetes (previously pig insulin was used). (3) Evolutionary theory has led to better screening for certain diseases, saving an untold number of lives. (4) Evolutionary theory has been very important the conservation of endangered species. (5) Predator-prey relationships have been used to help control pests as diverse as rabbits in Australia and kudzu (an imported vine from Japan [as I recall]) in the southeastern US. (6) Sexual attractants and hormones have been used to control certain insect pests. (7) Bacillus thorengensis has been commercially used as an insecticide.

My personal opinion is that evolutionary theory has added to our understanding of nature. We are related to all forms of life, the noble and the slime. There is a connectedness to all life. It has shown us that lifeforms can be extinguished. It has shown us that there is little hope for getting these extinguished forms back. It has shown us that when these forms go we have lost something precious. In short, it has given us a TRUE respect for nature. It means that we must not try to dominate nature but instead work with nature. It has shown us that in the long run the biblical proscription of Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Is a poor strategy.

[QUOTE}Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
<strong>The non-rational animals may be unconcerned. But this question is very critical to us humans, since many of us value our precious time. We treasure our aspirations, hopes, and dreams. We have interesting work to do, friends to make, and places to go. Most importantly, there is love to give and to receive. There is living to do! But, you see, the so-called “theories” of evolution add absolutely nothing to the human experience. Unlike most proper scientific endeavor, evolutionary hypothesis and “research” contribute nothing positive to the human experience. If anything, it subtracts mightily from it--at least in the present form. In essence, biological macroevolution declares that we are just slightly physically superior to the chimpanzee, and as such it makes a mockery of any human notions of significance. So, then, what good can we ascribe to it? </strong>[/QUOTE]

This is spoken like someone who doesn’t have a clue. Evolution is a well-tested, well-accepted theory of science. It is the way nature is. You want to believe that it takes some beauty out of life. Poppycock! Since you are so fond of quoting Charles Darwin, let me give you one. It is the last paragraph in On the Origin of Species:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction: Inheritance which is almost implied reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ration of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Evolution does not subtract from the beauty of life for me. It adds to it. I thank evolution for instill in me the emotion to love. I don't care that evolution did it only because that feeling of love helped my ancestors reproduce more effectively.

This is completely ridiculous. Pardon me for be a little less than gracious here, but you are acting like a twit of the utmost magnitude. IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS TRUE THEN GOD IS THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERER OF ALL TIME, you freaking hypocrite! He killed off everybody except a wino (Noah) and his immediate family. NOW THAT’S GENOCIDE FOR YOU -- OK, I’ve calmed down now.

OK, I’m pissed again. You are a doofus if you don’t acknowledge the existence of genocide in the past. You are a #!@*% doofus if you think evolutionary theory suggests that genocide is a good idea. You are a pathetic doofus if you think that a belief in God will prevent genocide. You are an irresponsible doofus if you don’t think we should study the causes of genocide and do everything to prevent it in the future.

I can hardly wait.

That line is from my post. I expressly asked you to try to understand what I was saying and not look for sound bites. In case you didn’t realize it, that is exactly what you did here. Please show more integrity and don’t do it again.

Goddidit is intrinsically useless as a scientific explanation! It is intrinsically useless because it can be used to explain ANYTHING. There is no way it can be falsified. Since it could be used to explain ANYTHING it predicts that ANYTHING could happen. Since anything could happen IT IS OF NO PREDICTIVE VALUE. THAT IS USELESS … at least scientifically.

Now if you disagree with that assessment, then give us something other than your childish blather and explain where I am wrong.


Yes, the consequence in believing in methodological naturalism has led us from a world dominated by demons and magic to one in which we understand pretty well. It has cured sickness. It has lead to the highest standard of living the world has ever known. It is our best hope for the future as well. I'll take those consequences anyday.

This is truly pathetic. Please make a statement that you think you can back up with facts. To this point your opinions have been pure drivel.

You are going to have to look some place other than your creationist websites. They tend to avoid this one.

Been there, done that. See the beginning of this post.

Er... antibody-resistance is often caused by the incorporation of a plasmid containing genes for the resistance into an organism. This is a well documented method of speciation in bacteria. It is also well documented that a similar event took place about 2.1 billion years ago and lead to the production of eukaryotic organisms -- Hint on the importance: you are a eukaryote.

Finch beaks show the power of natural selection even over a short period (a single year) during times of high selection pressures. Its importance for macroevolution is to show what could happen if that selection pressure were maintained over a prolonged period of time.

You see, this is a great example of what I mean when I say you have no apparent knowledge of what you are talking about. Why would you expect complex emotional reactions to be a serious challenge to evolution? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I wish a desire to understand were one of them.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Quantum Physics
[quote]

RufusAtticus

Please everyone, lets keep the emotions under control.

RufusAtticus
E/C Moderator

Skeptical

Vander, I really do hope your still out there. I tried to be civil to you in my last post in this thread and I believe I gave you a legitimate response to your original question.

I have asked what I believe is another legitimate question for your response, so I hope to hear back from you.