Scientists Find Charles Darwin’s Lost Fossils — 165 Years Later
- Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:40am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
This image shows a polished section of fossil wood from the cabinet of Reverend John Henslow, Charles Darwin's mentor at Cambridge, comprising a 150 million years old tree. (AP Photo/Royal Holloway, University of London, Kevin D'Souza Ho)
LONDON (The Blaze/AP) — British scientists have found scores of fossils the great evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin and his peers collected but that had been lost for more than 150 years.
Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang, a paleontologist at Royal Holloway, University of London, said Tuesday that he stumbled upon the glass slides containing the fossils in an old wooden cabinet that had been shoved in a “gloomy corner” of the massive, drafty British Geological Survey.
Using a flashlight to peer into the drawers and hold up a slide, Falcon-Lang saw one of the first specimens he had picked up was labeled ‘C. Darwin Esq.”
“It took me a while just to convince myself that it was Darwin’s signature on the slide,” the paleontologist said, adding he soon realized it was a “quite important and overlooked” specimen.
He described the feeling of seeing that famous signature as “a heart in your mouth situation,“ saying he wondering ”Goodness, what have I discovered!”
Falcon-Lang’s find was a collection of 314 slides of specimens collected by Darwin and other members of his inner circle, including John Hooker – a botanist and dear friend of Darwin – and the Rev. John Henslow, Darwin’s mentor at Cambridge, whose daughter later married Hooker.
The first slide pulled out of the dusty corner at the British Geological Survey turned out to be one of the specimens collected by Darwin during his famous expedition on the HMS Beagle, which changed the young Cambridge graduate’s career and laid the foundation for his subsequent work on evolution.
Botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, Charles Darwin's best friend (Image Credit: British Geological Survey)
Falcon-Lang said the unearthed fossils – lost for 165 years – show there is more to learn from a period of history scientists thought they knew well.
“To find a treasure trove of lost Darwin specimens from the Beagle voyage is just extraordinary,” Falcon-Lang added. “We can see there’s more to learn. There are a lot of very, very significant fossils in there that we didn’t know existed.”
He said one of the most “bizarre” slides came from Hooker’s collection – a specimen of prototaxites, a 400 million-year-old tree-sized fungi. You can view part of the collection here.
Hooker had assembled the collection of slides while briefly working for the British Geological Survey in 1846, according to Royal Holloway, University of London.
The slides – “stunning works of art,” according to Falcon-Lang – contain bits of fossil wood and plants ground into thin sheets and affixed to glass in order to be studied under microscopes. Some of the slides are half a foot long (15 centimeters), “great big chunks of glass,” Falcon-Lang said.
“How these things got overlooked for so long is a bit of a mystery itself,” he mused, speculating that perhaps it was because Darwin was not widely known in 1846 so the collection might not have been given “the proper curatorial care.”
British scientist Charles Darwin (Image Credit: AP)
Royal Holloway, University of London said the fossils were ‘lost’ because Hooker failed to number them in the formal “specimen register” before setting out on an expedition to the Himalayas.
In 1851, the “unregistered” fossils were moved to the Museum of Practical Geology in Piccadilly before being transferred to the South Kensington‘s Geological Museum in 1935 and then to the British Geological Survey’s headquarters near Nottingham 50 years later, the university said.
The discovery was made in April, but it has taken “a long time” to figure out the provenance of the slides and photograph all of them, Falcon-Lang said. The slides have now been photographed and will be made available to the public through a new online museum exhibit opening Tuesday.
Falcon-Lang expects great scientific papers to emerge from the discovery.
“There are some real gems in this collection that are going to contribute to ongoing science.”
Dr. John Ludden, executive director of the Geological Survey, called the find a “remarkable” discovery.
“It really makes one wonder what else might be hiding in our collections,” he said.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 584 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (278)
SamIamTwo
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:49amShow me the intermediate fossils that would make me believe in macro evolution? You can’t. There has always been slight micro evolution within a species…still yet a dog is a dog is a dog no matter what breed it comes from or changes from…
I love the comment that all scientist or most scientist believe this…give me a link to prove your statements.
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:16amEvolution has a more evidence than do theories of gravity, yet some people will continue to refute that evidence.
Report Post »This isn‘t a challenge to anyone’s faith. This is merely science trying to figure out how things work.
A very good text on the subject is Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. Since you asked for a link, try this one:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
Donald Dunnam
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:24amAfter studying E Coli for over 50,000 generations, it remained E Coli. No macro evolution has ever been recorded.
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:25amGravity is a law. Evolution is a theory. There are many questions about evolution that have gone unanswered. Any questions about apparent contradictions to the law of gravity are easily explained.
How much longer do we have to put up with this nonsense?
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:02pm@samIamtwo… Show me the intermediate relics of cell phone models over the last 30 years. You can’t! To you they don‘t exist and you won’t find them. They are buried deep in old drawers in motorola labs or the garages in engineers homes that will be lost forever. Many transitory parts or inspirational parts have been lost or thrown away (ie not fossilized). Creationists are ridiculous.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:02pm“Gravity is a law, evolution is a theory.”
No, gravity is a fact. There has been a succession of theories explaining it, of which Einstein’s general relativity is the reigning champion, though it remains to re reconciled with quantum theory.
Similarly, evolution is a fact, best explained, so far as real scientists have been able to determine, by Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:05pm@ donald.. yea smart guy, uh that was done in a laboratory… there is no way to mimic all the of the known and unknown selective pressures that result in gradual speciation changes over millions of years.
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:07pmI’ll ask you, Nelbert because Pontiac just wants to be divisive. Can anyone explain how the human eye developed? Or how the irreducible complexities of the motor parts of the bacterial flagellum developed? Or how the bombadier beetle survived its first explosion?
There are many unanswered questions, but the faithful evolutionists never answer them.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:16pmA dog is a dog. You’re absolutely right! A dog is a dog, and its genetically different from a wolf. However, there was a time when there were no dogs and only wolves. Dogs were created through a process of controlled, articificial selection called domestic breeding, which was a sped-up version of the natural processes that, for example, differentiated a wolf from a coyote.
Game. Set. Match.
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:18pmExplain the giraffe, the woodpecker, the bee, etc.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:27pmFROM the article: “It really makes one wonder what else might be hiding in our collections,” he said.
If you really want to know what dirty secrets are lying in those collections, read Forbidden Archeology http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949
Piles of evidence that shred the credibility of the evolutionary model that was foisted upon American anthro students for decades. The Politics of Science are just as ugly and corrupt as the politics of the District of Columbia.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:27pm“there is no way to mimic all the of the known and unknown selective pressures that result in gradual speciation changes over millions of years.”
of course not….its called faith, not science.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:31pm@ Nicky Louse:
Report Post »A mammal, a bird, and an insect. Next question?
rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:33pm“Dogs were created through a process of controlled, articificial selection called domestic breeding, which was a sped-up version of the natural processes that, for example, differentiated a wolf from a coyote.
Game. Set. Match.
”
better known as intelligent design
game set match.
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:56pmI don’t think dogs were initially selectively bred for. As I recall, wolves started to become domesticated as humans gathered in groups, resulting in trash depositories or landfills. The wolves with the shortest flight response to the nearby humans were the wolves that were better adapted to this new food source (humans and their garbage). From there, humans selectively bred dogs into different breeds.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:04pmPubliusPencilman, NickyLouse will just keep asking everyone to explain this, explain that. It’s a never ending loop of creationist idiocy and their ego will win every time because they will simply dismiss what you say and relish in the fact that you acknowledged them. You can’t fix this kind of emotional stupidity, like liberals they have too much of their ego invested in it. Religion is their crutch, if you were to take it away and they would likely have an emotional breakdown.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists
Report Post »spirit of freedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:08pmnelbert,
Report Post »you said it correctly TRYING to prove. problem is none of it is believable or proven. but that does not stop them from touting it as the absolute truth and even teaching the falisy to our children as truth. until the next “big discovery” tomorrow that the next science clown comes along and portrays as the “truth.“ and then the next ”discovery.“ How can each one be the truth but then contradicted or changed with the next ”discovery” these Clowns have no integrity and deserve no respect. – NEXT!
Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:42pm@NickyLouse Irreducible complexity is one of the many arguments from ignorance creationists make… It is like a catch phrase for them and other people who have little to no education on the subject of cell biology, biochemistry, molecular biology or evolution biology for that matter. .. and yes, this includes many biology limited MDs
Report Post »dhwedlake52
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:45pmI can’t agree more. It takes far more faith to believe that the incredible complexity of the universe happen by accident then to believe that an omnipotent God masterfully created everything we know. The true problem is that to admit that would bring one to the need to face ones eternal destiny! Heaven or Hell !!! The religion of evelotion allows one to remain in thier sin and feel comfortable while refusing to be set free from it by the sacrifice for our sin by that same omnipotent God.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:10pm“Religion is their crutch, if you were to take it away and they would likely have an emotional breakdown.
”
dawkins won’t debate because creationists and IDers make him look stupid every time…
Rabbi Schmuley Boteach tells us,
Beginning in about 1990 I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who appeared several times, and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex, who, at the time, was regarded by many as the greatest living evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Richard Dawkins at Oxford which he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online where Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side but actually loses the debate in a student vote at the end. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rabbi-dawkins-claimed-that-a-debate-he-lost-had-never-occurred-until-it-was-posted-online/
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:32pm“better known as intelligent design”
Nope! The only difference between natural selection and aritificial selection is the mode of selection, which creates large differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves are adapted to survive and produce the best offspring. Since survival and the ability to hunt for food is not a criteria that humans used when breeding dogs, dogs became very different.
There is a clear difference in the animals between natural evolution and domestic selective breeding, which proves rather than disputes the idea that natural selection is driven by the imperatives to survive and mate, rather than any specific “intelligent” agenda like the breeding the created domestic dogs.
However, in another sense the breeding that created dogs cannot be considered intelligent design either, since there was no teleological goal to which early humans were headed when they domesticated wolves. They bred dogs for individual traits, and dogs in turn became better adapted to their symbiotic relationship with humans, but nomadic humans did not have the image of a Dachshund in mind as the end goal. Nor did a Dachshund suddenly appear.
Again. Game. Set. Match. It’s better if you just stay down this time.
Report Post »marvel
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:40pm@PubliusPencilman
Domestic dogs are selectively bred wolves… Same species, as they can breed with one another. That only shows that there is truth to some aspects of evolutionary biology.
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:00pmAgain, I’m pretty sure wolves domesticated themselves.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:02pmAnd it also doesn’t disprove any facts about evolutionary biology, so the balance goes to evolution.
I’ll admit that there is controversy over the dog/wolf species divide, but that merely reflects the fact that “species” is a constructed category. Can you deny that there are fundamental differences in the adaptations that wolves gained through natural selection and the adaptations that dogs gained through directed artificial selection?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:05pm“Nope! The only difference between natural selection and aritificial selection is the mode of selection, which creates large differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves are adapted to survive and produce the best offspring. Since survival and the ability to hunt for food is not a criteria that humans used when breeding dogs, dogs became very different. ”
laughable…who does the breeding??? oh yeah man..and most of have intelligence….animals and plants are bred using intelligence towards a predetermined end…
it has NOTHING to do with evolution….
“, since there was no teleological goal to which early humans were headed when they domesticated wolves”
and just how the hell do you know? cattle are bred towards a ‘teleological goal’…and so is every other plant and animal we breed.. Puhleaze
“but nomadic humans did not have the image of a Dachshund in mind as the end goal. Nor did a Dachshund suddenly appear. ”
no it takes a while to produce these different breeds, but someone had a dachsund in mind…thats why PEOPLE bred them…duhhhhhhhh
GAME SET MATCH… LOL
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:08pm“And it also doesn’t disprove any facts about evolutionary biology, so the balance goes to evolution.”
to you and your fellow darwiniacs, nothing disproves evolution, making it a faith, not science…
breeding shows that there are limits to the plasticity of animals…beyond which we cannot go…yet you have faith your evolution is smarter than human breeders and can somehow *magically* produce a new type of animal. right.
Report Post »IMAWAKENOW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:43pmI always thought the charactors from the wizard of oz were made up but looking at the picture of ******,,,,, Can you say munchskin mayor?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:37pm“to you and your fellow darwiniacs, nothing disproves evolution, making it a faith, not science…”
Any scientist will tell you that it is always possible to disprove a theory or law. Plain and simple. That’s called scientific skepticism, and its the entire basis of scientific process. Just because your attempt to post links you apparently found in a ten-second google search has not been successful in bringing down the overwhelmingly dominant theory in modern science doesn’t mean that scientists are faith-based fanatics. Stop having a temper tantrum.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:44pm“scientific process. Just because your attempt to post links you apparently found in a ten-second google search has not been successful in bringing down the overwhelmingly dominant theory in modern science doesn’t mean that scientists are faith-based fanatics. Stop having a temper tantrum.”
looks like you are the one having a temper tantrum….the truth hurts doesn’t it? LOL
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:30pmBelievers in Intelligent Design are said to be so unscientific. Yet it is evolutionists who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics. Somehow matter and energy is supposed to have created itself out of nothing. Also, evolutionists deny the Law of Biogenesis, believing that life came into existence out of non-life, despite any evidence that such a thing has ever happened or ever could happen. Talk about a medieval belief–spontaneous generation of life is something that alchemists believed in the Dark Ages. Also, the universe is not old enough for the required number of positive mutations to have occurred which would be necessary to bring all current life into existence from one primitive cell. Not to mention, where are all these positive mutations? When was the last time you heard a parent say, “Hurray, my baby was born with a genetic mutation?” We hold telethons seeking cures for mutations. Genetic mutations are negative, not positive, occurrences.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:16pm@SCHOENETANTE Life and evolution do not defy the laws of thermodynamics! That is another example of the backward bumpkin thinking of believers. The only way life works if because of the laws of thermodynamics are adhered to. Because life and cells are organized by energy input doesn’t mean entropy is opposed. Life is fueled by the energy in the universe such as that from the sun and the earth. Just as small graisn of sand have been sorted from larger rocks. Is that not more highly organized than the small grains mixed with the large ones? It took energy input for that to happen.. but the sun will use up it’s fuel and in the end entropy wins just as it has been constantly since the beginning of the universe expansion. If life reversed entropy, then you could survive without eating food.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:20pmSchoenetante,
Perhaps I can help clear up a few areas where you seem to be confused.
1) The Big Bang theory does not (and does not claim to) explain the origin of matter itself. It merely explains the development of the universe up to this point. The Big Bang theory is widely believed by scientist to be the most plausible current theory to explain phenomena like the presence of background radioation throughout the universe and the fact that the universe is expanding in such a way that the “outermost” galaxies are moving away from the center faster than the “innermost” galaxies (observable by comparing the “red shift” [spectrum shift due to the doppler effect] from the light of all surrounding galaxies).
2) While science has discounted “spontaneous generation” as believed in the Middle Ages, the so-called “Law of Biogenesis” is not actually a scientific law like the laws of gravity. In fact, in 2010, scientists were able to artificially create DNA by combining amino acids and use that DNA to “animate” a cell.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
The “Law of Biogensis” was never actually a law, and even if it was, current science has found exceptions to disprove it.
Continued in next post…
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:22pm3) And where are the positive mutations? Well, when a baby is born with six fingers or is an albino, it’s called a mutation. However, when a child is born taller than his/her parents, or with better eyesight, or more athletic ability, that person is not stigmatized as a mutant. Even when these mutations (for example, Michael Phelps and his abnormally large hands) give the person an advantage over others.
I hope this helps clear up your confusion.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:26pm[First Law of Thermodynamics. Somehow matter and energy is supposed to have created itself out of nothing. ]
Not entirely nothing. Read up on Dark Energy. If people always limited themselves to physics they learned in elementary school we wouldn’t have moved beyond the horse and buggy…
[medieval belief–spontaneous generation of life is something that alchemists believed in the Dark Ages.]
I would hardly call life spontaneous. Though creationism would certainly fall into the category of spontaneous and the dark ages.
[Also, the universe is not old enough for the required number of positive mutations to have occurred which would be necessary to bring all current life into existence from one primitive cell.]
Report Post »Yeah, not in 6000 years. That is why the earth is a great deal more than 6000 years old. Are you a “flat-earther” as well as an flaming ignoramus?
SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:41pm@publiuspencilman. The universe is currently estimated to be between 10 and 20 billion years old, isn’t it? How many trillion mutations do you think it took to get from a single cell to all species ever to exist? How long do you think it took to get the right combinations along the way to get to where we are? Not even counting all the dead-end extinctions along the way from miscues. It would take trillions of years for that to happen.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:45pm@cesium I never said “Life and evolution defy the laws of thermodynamics!” I said the creation of matter and energy out of nothing defies the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing existed, and then somehow exploded, and all matter and energy was then created from nothing.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:54pm@Pencilman. I‘m not such an ignoramus that I don’t know the difference between a genetic mutation and the expression of a recessive gene that causes a person to be taller than his parents. Do you really believe that being taller than your parents is caused by genetic mutation? BTW, Why do you immediately resort to hostility and name calling?
Report Post »me85
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:55pm@NELBERT
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:01pm@SCHOENETANTE Who ever said energy had to be created? Just because you as a human conceptualize reality with that which assumes everything has a beginning and end doesn’t make it so. There is a beginning and end to our lives but I wouldn’t be able to say something must have created energy/matter/anti-matter at some point in time. If energy has always been, there was no beginning to it and it’s not something a human can conceptualize. Time does not exist the way you think it does everywhere. In this universe, before the expansion time did not exist.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:06pmyou also have no knowledge about mutation rates… mutation rates can change quickly… DNA repair mutation rates aren’t the only source of mutation. Retroviri, transposons, cosmic radiation bursts, environmental natural toxins that mutate the DNA of organisms and that of viri that infect organisms and add genetic information. There is no single number for mutation rate for all the things that can cause mutation.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:08pm@Cesium Why is it any more difficult to believe that God has always existed than it is to believe that energy has always existed?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:09pmSchoeneTante,
While evolution certainly occured at an uneven pace, one determinate is the frequency of reproduction. Simple organisms like bacteria can reproduce as often as three times an hour. That’s 72 times a day. That’s 26,280 generations a year. Or 2,628,000 generations in a hundred years (which is a very short period of time in geological time). Now, assuming very conservatively that a particular population contains, say one million bacteria. In a hundred years, that population could reproduce 2,628,000,000,000 times. Keep in mind, the actual number would be much much much higher due to exponential growth (after the first reproduction, for example, the population would have 2 million in it rather than 1), but I have neither the time nor the energy to record that many zeroes for you right now.
This is obviously an extreme case, but it simple organisms can reproduce that much in a mere hundred years, the potential for mutation is very high. This process was certainly slower with later animals, who only reproduced perhaps one a year. However, the vast majority of animals (particularly the fish, amphibians and reptiles that were prevalent in the earlier stages of evolution) either reproduce very frequently or produce many many young each time.
So, your assertion that evolution must have taken longer than the age of the universe (or the Earth, which is assumed to be approx. 4.5 billion years old) does not necessarily hold water.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:10pm“That’s called scientific skepticism, and its the entire basis of scientific process”
really? and those skeptical of darwinism find themselves harassed, silenced, and fired, like crocker and sternberg…yeah nothing like that ‘scientific open mindedness’
unless you go against most holy darwin…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:18pm“However, when a child is born taller than his/her parents, or with better eyesight, or more athletic ability, that person is not stigmatized as a mutant. Even when these mutations (for example, Michael Phelps and his abnormally large hands”
this isn’t a mutation. this is just genetics…..virtually all mutations are harmful…even positve mutations can be harmful…
Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.abstract
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:21pmWho was calling names? I merely said you were confused, which is why you were misrepresenting a number of scientific concepts.
Recessive genes are one thing, but where do you think these genes come from in the first place? If you think that genetics is true, then how can you not recognize mutation? How else would you explain the difference between the appearance of Swedish people and Congolese people and Chinese people? Is the Bible is right and somehow everyone descended from Adam and Eve, how else would people end up looking so different from each other?
But mutations can and do occur. As I suggested, look no further than Michael Phelps and Marfan’s syndrome. That IS a mutation. While there are downsides to this mutation, there are also clearly benefits.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:31pm@publiuspencilman. My apologies, pencilman. It was not you but Pontiac who called me names. This thread is getting a little long and I conflated the two of you.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:33pm“This is obviously an extreme case, but it simple organisms can reproduce that much in a mere hundred years, the potential for mutation is very high. This process was certainly slower with later animals, who only ”
there is no there there…
T]he most significant implication comes not from how the two cases contrast but rather how they cohere — both showing severe limitations to complex adaptation. To appreciate this, consider the tremendous number of cells needed to achieve adaptations of such limited complexity. As a basis for calculation, we have assumed a bacterial population that maintained an effective size of 109 individuals through 103 generations each year for billions of years. This amounts to well over a billion trillion opportunities (in the form of individuals whose lines were not destined to expire imminently) for evolutionary experimentation. Yet what these enormous resources are expected to have accomplished, in terms of combined base changes, can be counted on the fingers.
(Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1-10.)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:34pm“109 individuals through 103
”
thats 10 to the 9th and 10 to the third….
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:38pm@pencilman. Marfan’s syndrome? Where on earth did you come up with the idea that Michael Phelps has Marfan’s syndrome? Marfan’s causes defects of the heart, lungs, and connective tissue. No way Phelps has Marfan’s syndrome.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:45pmNot only did a single-cell asexual organism have to evolve into a sexually reproducing multicelled organism, it had to do so twice. There had to be a male and a female, and they both had to evolve at the same time so that they could breed.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:19pmPencil, you gave a lot of words, but you never really answered my question. First of all, what are the estimates of the number of positive mutations required to get to where we’re at? Surely scientists must have some number in mind. Be sure and include the fact that there would have to be at least as many, and probably many more, negative mutations which would wipe out the whole line and require starting over. Then, average that into 4.5 billion year. How often would the positive mutations have to occur to give us humans and dogs and elephants and on and on? And you have yet to name any true genetic mutation that has led to anything positive.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:19pm@SCHOENETANTE The human consensus is pretty much all on board with energy existing, not so much with god. Faith is a euphemism for “wishful thinking.” I didn‘t say I know god doesn’t exist but I have no reason to expect it’s true. In my view, energy is god. That is all everything is, to look beyond that is useless. Only physicists collect information on the knowledge of existence (energy and matter) while the religious satisfy themselves with comfortable baseless answers. The mysteriousness of reality is supernatural enough in itself. ie (natural) Reality, life is supernatural. The very word “supernatural” doesn’t even make any sense. If this intelligent designer god exists than obviously that is natural. but who created the intelligent designer? “Religion takes the sting out of death..” R. Dawkins. Imagine devout muslims or other religious nuts ending the assumption that the death of others and themselves continue in an afterlife. Raises the value of life to a much higher level after you consider taking a life means totally eradicating the consciousness of a person.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:27pmMy bad–I mislabeled Phelps as having a mild version of Marfan’s syndrome–it was something I heard a while ago and did not properly confirm. Regardless, Phelps himself does have unusual proportions, and I stand by this as evidence of mutation.
Rush,
I certainly don‘t have the expertise to discredit Axe’s findings, although a little research into BIO-Complexity casts doubt on the journal’s credibility. The journal explicitely states that its policy is to forward the doctrine of Intelligent Design. The journal’s publication policy states that it publishes articles on a rolling basis when they are completed, but apparently they get very few submissions. in 2010 and 2011 they have five articles published in total. Three of these five articles were written by or in part by Dr. Douglass Axe, who also happens to be the managing editor.
If Dr. Axe’s work does indeed disprove the theory of evolution, then I would have no choice but to change my views on the subject. However, this research would have to be reviewed and corroberated in a more reputable scientific journal.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:42pmI’ve been very much enjoying this debate, but unfortunately I have other things to do, so I’m afraid I will have to duck out for a while.
Anyway, in answer to the question of how many mutations could it take–this is a highly contested area of evolutionary science, and there is no consensus among evolutionary biologists. There are many different theories that attempt to reconstruct the “pace” of evolution. I cannot myself give you a number, although a number of recent studies have shown that certain evolutionary steps occur at a must faster pace than first suspected.
However, my inability to give you a definite number of mutations it would take to produce a human does not outweigh the fact that it would be a far far greater leap scientifically to assume that this is proof of an intelligent designer.
Report Post »SchoeneTante
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:51pmPencilman, sorry, you were right. I did what I should have done first and checked, and Phelps does have a mild form of Marfans, for which he is constantly monitored to make sure he doesn’t drop dead. The aorta of a Marfan’s sufferer slowly dilates over timeFlo Hyman the Olympic volleyball player actually dropped dead during a match from undiagnosed Marfans. I am not sure I would call sudden death a positive trait.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 11:30pmShhh. Look closely kids, you’re seeing a hoard of viciously ignorant species called creationactylus throwing a hissy fits before they go extinct.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:43amNow if only they could find Jesus bones. Or Moses bones. Or Abraham’s bones. Or Mary;s bones. Anybody’s bones. Anybody?
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:22amWell, it would be hard to find bones of a specific individual with much certainty. That said, there is abundant research out there that supports the probable existence of many of these individuals (and I know of very few who would deny Jesus existed). That isn’t to say there are no disputes, but scholars have learned not to be too dismissive either.
Report Post »Steve Neiling
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:32amShow me the bones of Socrates, Aristotle, Attila the Hun, Nebuchadnezzar, etc. Or do you not believe they existed either? How do you know whether or not John Smith, Massasoit and Squanto were real? Is all history fiction to you unless you have bones to prove it? Come on, Sensei, bones aren’t the only artifacts historians use to prove the veracity of their findings. Their is ample corroborating evidence, from contemporary believers and non-believers regarding the the historical veracity of the Biblical figures you mentioned.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:05pmIt’s hard to say about Abraham or Moses, but if you‘re implying that the historicity of Jesus is in question because we don’t have his bones, you need to consider that, if there had been the slightest possibility that Jesus hadn’t been a real man, early Christianity’s Roman and Jewish opponents would have jumped all over it. They offered plenty of objections to Christianity, but never that Jesus wasn’t real.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:14pm@your sensei
Jesus rose again on the third day (his bones went with him). He will return again.
You will not find the bones of my God, because he is not dead. You can find the bones of Confucious, Muhammed, and the rest of the fake gods, and fake religion starters though.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:01pm@SENSEI
You left the door so wide open for a sarcastic remark that even I won’t walk through it.
But hopefully someone else will.
Report Post »me85
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:01pmWhy are there liberals on this site really? Do they like to cause trouble and fights? Or is that something deep down inside them telling them that this news that is on here might be true? Well anyways, I’m sure there is a liberal news site just for them. Where they can be around like minded people, and enjoy themselves.
Report Post »vaman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:40amThe Blaze only posts articles like this to get people fired up. It’s silly. I look at it this way, which concept is more ludicrous…the Big Bang or that humans were created from an invisible man in the sky, who decided to create woman from the mans rib and everything was great until they ate an apple. Take your choice.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:07amVAMAN,
Report Post »It‘s question of faith as for the biblical definition of creationism I don’t believe it word for word . I do beleiev God palced us here and I do believe the garden of eden was the blissfulness of ignorance in paradise. The apple was self-awareness. The bible is more paribles than literals in it passages.
So i put my faith in God which I can’t prove. And other put faith ina big bang and other theories that can’t be proven.
mycomet123
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:53amVAMAN, I actually find it harder to believe the “Big Bang”. Did the “Big Bang” just occur out of NOWHERE. What caused the “Big Bang”? Nothingness??
Report Post »Timothy_Reid
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:29pm@vaman You have a point. Definitely the big bang. On one hand you have (regardless of how the story goes) a concept that says things were to complex to happen by chance. On the other you have a concept that says an immeasurable number of things that had to happen which are scientifically impossible, in such timing that is scientifically improbable. You definitely have a point and I agree with you, The story of creation is FAR more viable as an explanation. Occams razor is a sure fire acid test on this one.
Report Post »BONETRAUMA
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:39amI have found the alien eggs from roswell new mexico. How’s that?????
Report Post »semihardrock
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:38amRIDDLE ME THIS BATMAN: With modern technology, is it possible to create a material which has the same substance of an artifact 3 million years old?
SECOND QUESTION: If YES to #1, Would a government use this to promote laws in favor of their views?
Report Post »MrOVW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:38am@ Rush Is Right
Uh oh Somebody knows how to use Google! unfortunately your dumb A$$ has no idea what this means…
“Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.”
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:04am“Uh oh Somebody knows how to use Google! unfortunately your dumb A$$ has no idea what this means…”
uh somebody knows how to make you look stupid…and its not very hard at all….
Report Post »dj109
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:53pmThere’s really only one difference between Creationists and Evolutionists. The Creationist admits his beliefs are a religion. The Evolutionist can’t seem to grasp the concept that his beliefs are also a religion. Both believe by faith, since neither can be proven. In my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that everything in existence came from absolutely nothing, than to believe the teachings of the bible…
Report Post »AMENDMENT
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:33am@ MrOVW Also by reading some of your responses to posters, you clearly don’t know that the bible itself is a collection of BOOKS and not A book. Maybe if you actually read the books contained in the Bible, you could have a qualified debate with those who have read not just the Bible, but also the books written by the likes of Darwin?!?
Report Post »Ephesians six thirteen stand
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:04amhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life&x=0&y=0
This will be the best 15 dollars you’ve ever spent…@MROVW-this is what genuine credible scientists have found.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:58amIn the works of Charles Darwin I don’t recall having read the word THEORY in any of his writings. He put forth a HYPOTHESIS about the evolution of species. Essentially natural selection is what breeders do to modify a breed for color,size,stamina etc. Breeders just shorten the process. For Darwin it was an intellectual exercise, for humanists it’s become perverted dogma!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:19amIt was not just an “intellectual exercise.” The difference between hypothesis and theory here is not what you think it is. A hypothesis is what you have before you have sufficient proof to establish a systematic theory. A theory is just a hypothesis confirmed by analysis and experimentation. It is the overwhelming consensus among scientists today that Darwin’s hypothesis was correct.
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:27amAlso, what breeders do is artificial selection. Not to be confused with natural selection.
Report Post »Deputy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:10amPUBLIUSPENCILMAN and there has never been on shred of proof found that a species can evolve into a completely new species. Not one. Evolution is something that happens inside a species. A moth that changes color over time because that color is better for survival…is still a moth.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:27amDeputy,
You are ignoring the fact that “species” is a human construction–it’s a scientific classification that does not actually exist in nature as a discrete unit. Over time, scientists have changed their opinions on what the boundaries or certain species are and what constitute brand new species.
But, to answer your concern, the creation of what scientists have judged to be a new species has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
To say otherwise is to simply be in denial.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:29amAnd, to nitpick, species do not evolve into new species. Certain genes proliferate in a population that express themselves in adaptations that characterize new species. As I say in a post below, entire species don’t simple “level up.”
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:34amThank you Deputy
Report Post »There is not one, none, nada, “missing link” ever found. Some interesting fossils in the found records but they are NOT missing links. Much excitement and speculation is generated by “intellectuals” trying to hang onto Darwin’s coattails but no PROOF of the HYPOTHESIS has EVER been presented other than speculative conjecture that there has been anything other than improvements or changes within species. No species have ever been shown to have “evolved” from say a fish to a frog. That whole argument is speculative nonsense. Global Warming anyone. (hint: results were tampered with to support argument)
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:59amActually, there are many many fossils of “intermediate” species. There are many fossils of species that have been found that are known to be the ancestors of modern species, so your objection has no basis.
What you don’t seem to understand too is that finding fossils that are millions of years old is extremely rare. Typically, a coincidential convergence of a number of natural processes needs to occur in order to fossilize and preserve organic bone for so long. Given that the odds are so strongly against us, it’s a miracle that we have found a number of manlike ape fossils at all (which we have: see, for example, **** erectus).
But, in the end, the entire concept of “transitional” fossils is not scientific. Most modern species have transitional/vestigial features (tail bone in human, vestigial legs on whales), but science calls those discrete species regardless.
For example, when a scientist finds a fossil with some dinosaur-like qualities and some bird-like qualities, they name it a new species–they don’t simply call it “transitional” and leave it undefined. The idea of a discrete species is a scientific construction–animals are not found with labels on them to tell you what species they are.
I hope I explained this to your satisfaction.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:43pm“Actually, there are many many fossils of “intermediate” species. There are many fossils of species that have been found that are known to be the ancestors of modern species, so your objection has no basis. ”
oh so Gould doesn‘t know what he’s talking about huh?
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:35pmAgain Rush, Gould is talking about a refinement of evolutionary theory, rather than a refutation of it. Please, tell me how the concept of “punctuated equalibrium” refutes evolution. It is clear that you have no real grasp at all on the concept.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:50pmAnd by the way, the thesis of the “Dangers of Overselling Evolution” was:
“The essence of the theory of evolution is the hypothesis that historical diversity is the consequence of natural selection acting on variations. Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter–who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how it can disable a disease-producing organism, what dosages are required and which individuals will not tolerate it. Studying biohistory is, at best, an entertaining distraction from the goals of a working biologist.”
What this article merely argues is that the evolutionary history and biohistory are not that helpful for researchers who attempt to genetically engineer future organisms. This is because, as I said, the theory of evolution is not PREDICTIVE. It explains the past, but doesn’t predict the future. Do you even read the articles you are posting?
If you want to argue, make an argument–stop wasting my time by posting random articles.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:11pm“Again Rush, Gould is talking about a refinement of evolutionary theory, rather than a refutation of it. Please, tell me how the concept of “punctuated equalibrium” refutes evolution. It is clear that you have no real grasp at all on the concept.”
of course Gould was an athiest, he wasn’t going to come and and say the pillar of his fatih was wrong…
think about it…if evolution happens too quickly for there to be fossils, then what is the difference between ‘quick’ evolution and creation? there is none.
if there are no transitional…and you all you have in the fossil record is evidence for creation…and thats what the fossil record clearly shows, then its just a matter of faith to interpret the fossil record as supporting evolution.
you have no real grasp of it, its why I am running rings around your posts….
you’re telling me with punc equ that evolution is the intelligent designer…because to go from one form to another with no transitions means evolution packs all those changes into a very small time frame…please.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:14pm“What this article merely argues is that the evolutionary history and biohistory are not that helpful for researchers who attempt to genetically engineer future organisms. This is because, as I said, the theory of evolution is not PREDICTIVE. It explains the past, but doesn’t predict the future. Do you even read the articles you are posting? ”
in other words you agree, evolution is just a story, and is useless for science.
thanks
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:33pm“what is the difference between ‘quick’ evolution and creation? there is none.”
Well, quite a bit, since one relies on a creator and one relies on the processes of natural selection–that fundamental difference remains entirely unchanged.
You really misunderstand the whole idea of gradualism–it does not mean that evolution occurs too fast for fossils to exist. It merely means that certain periods of stasis in which a particular adaptation dominates the environment account for the fact that the greatest proportions of fossils found are from specific animals taht dominated in their period. This notion is counter to the idea that evolution occurs at a consistent pace (gradualism).
Regardless of the implications of punctuated equilibrium, we do know that the fossils we have found were descended from species before them, and are for the most part the ancestors of species afterward (unless they are an evolutionary dead end). This point remains unchanged, so, as I said, all species are really transitional species.
You keep saying that believeing in evolution takes faith, yet all your attempts to disprove it have been completely ineffective. In your mind, everything in science would take faith, because as I have said, it is impossible to completely prove anything for all eternity. That’s just how science is. Do you think that the belief in the laws of gravity or the theory of germs is also based on faith?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:47pm“Well, quite a bit, since one relies on a creator and one relies on the processes of natural selection–that fundamental difference remains entirely unchanged.”
but you have no proof, zero zip nada that natural selection was involved…in fact its impossible for natural selection…the slow gradual changes evolution requires…because the fossil record does not show this.
its just a statement of faith.
“Regardless of the implications of punctuated equilibrium, we do know that the fossils we have found were descended from species before them, and are for the most part the ancestors of species afterward (unless they are an evolutionary dead end). This point remains unchanged, so, as I said, all species are really transitional species.”
uh how do we KNOW this? we don’t, you assume it…fit the data into your theory.
New Fossils Demonstrate That Powerful Eyes Evolved in a Twinkling
ScienceDaily (June 30, 2011) — Palaeontologists have uncovered half-a-billion-year-old fossils demonstrating that primitive animals had excellent vision. An international team led by scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide found the exquisite fossils, which look like squashed eyes from a recently swatted fly.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629132546.htm
it just appeared….SHAZAM that evolution sho is clever!!!
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:48pm“You keep saying that believeing in evolution takes faith, yet all your attempts to disprove it have been completely ineffective. In your mind, everything in science would take faith, because as I have said, it is impossible to completely prove anything for all eternity. That’s just how science is. Do you think that the belief in the laws of gravity or the theory of germs is also based on faith?”
your inability to answer any of my points, other than with the same old tired darwiniac talking points speaks volumes.
now prove evolution…evolve something…take a bacteria and make it a multi-cellular animal….oh you can’t….well list the mutations that led to the eye….oh thats right you can’t…you take it on faith….
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:50pm“international team led by scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide found the exquisite fossils, which look like squashed eyes from a recently swatted fly.
”
oh and notice how that eye hasn’t changed in HALF A BILLION YEARS…
so where is the evolution?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:09pmSure Rush, if it makes you happy, we’ll say that everything in the universe is based on “faith.” The belief that if a drop something, it will fall, is faith. The believe that hostile germs will make me sick is faith. The belief in a correlation between cause and effect is entirely based on faith. Sure.
I have answered every one of your points, but I can’t do much if you want to be in denial. Regardless of how faith-based your claim evolution to be, at every juncture your answers have been far more implausible and far more illogical than mine, so what you think you are winning is beyond me.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:03pmThe belief in a correlation between cause and effect is entirely based on faith. Sure.
in other words you can’t directly dispute what I said…no surprise there.
“I have answered every one of your points, ”
uh actually you haven’t answered any of my points…you just move on to the next talking point.
“but I can’t do much if you want to be in denial. Regardless of how faith-based your claim evolution to be, at every juncture your answers have been far more implausible and far more illogical than mine, so what you think you are winning is beyond me.
”
really, so who is the one with all the references to support his position? oh yeah thats me…you just parrot talking points….
you’re out of your league.
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 4:17pmRUSH – Gould was NOT an athiest. He was a devout Jew. Darwin was a devout Christian, and Einstein believed deeply in God.
PUBLIUS – we agree on little politically, but you’re right on here.
Big Bang Theory = not a theory. Young physicists are now questioning the whole something from nothing thing and are coming up with some fascinating new ideas.
Punctuated Equillibrium is the biological equivalent of geologic Catastrophism – neither is THE answer, but both have merit via compelling evidence.
Science can actually bring you closer to God, not threaten God or the Bible – to some, the Bible is a love poem sent to you by God and, like many poems, uses allagory to express and explain that love. Science, for some, serves to reveal the deeper wonders…Acknowledging evolution only adds to the wonder.
Using reason or not agreeing with some of you all of the time doesn’t make you a lib troll, it just makes you an American.
Report Post »MrOVW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:53am150 Million Years old? But according to 80% of the TheBlaze.com Readers the earth is only 5000 years old HOW COULD THIS BE? … oh ya it’s because you are all sheeple who believe any load of crap you hear on a Sunday. Disgusting how people will follow some Christian B.S. Story about Marky Mark‘s completely crap story about Faith and then in the same Breath read something that actually is Valid in this universe like Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory. Look at yourselves you hypocritical fools, you stand for nothing because you’ll never be enlightened open minded thinkers living this kind of double standard. Your parents lied to you.
Report Post »Brainmuffin
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:01amIt requires far more faith to believe in an untestable theory than it does accounts gathered in a book.
Report Post »GodWillPrevail
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:11amYup we are the sheeple.
Keep telling yourself that. Doubt it will help you in the next life though.
If it makes you feel better. Personally I believe in God but also believe these fossils could be that old. GOD’s ways are not our ways. God rested on the seventh day. Plus what exactly is meant by God Created the earth. If I were going to do that I would choose the easiest way possible thus would use an uninhabited planet move it and reform it into what I wanted. I do not believe that throughout Eternity God only created one planet Earth. I do believe that the Bible is about one particular planet that we call Earth. We came from dust we return to dust. Fossils are dust.
Report Post »MrOVW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:12am@Brainmuffin
It’s far easier to read one simple book than it is bunch of difficult ones. And the accounts gathered in your book were written down for the first time 400 years after they happened by a king who had his own mother murdered. Have fun standing in the stupid line.
Faith is joke. Science is real.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:21amBrainmuffin,
The theory has been “tested” and found correct many times, not just through the fossil record, but through direct observation. Certain organisms have very short lifespans, which means that the process of evolution (which takes many many generations) can occur at a much faster rate. Scientists have directly observed some adaptations in small populations spread and become dominant.
So, have you changed you mind?
Report Post »MrOVW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:22am@GODWILLPREVAIL
There is no Next life. Worms will eat your eyes when you die.
LMAO how you try to incorporate the truth of science to into the myth of blind religion to make yourself feel better about being a 1/2 a$$ed believer. Break away from the fiction, you’ll feel a lot better about being a human and everyday will mean much more when you live it. Because when you are gone…you are gone.
Report Post »AMENDMENT
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:26amI agree 100% GodWillPrevail And MrOVW, Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine,” John 10:14 So yes you are right, we that believe are sheep :)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:33am“The theory has been “tested” and found correct many times, not just through the fossil record’
this is laughable…the fossil record disproves evolution…here from a peer-reviewed article…
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
Report Post »MrOVW
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:36am@AMENDMENT
oh ya I remember when he said that, he was making making my tacos.
You stupid Ba$tard$ believe some quote that has been warped thousands of times since it was originally spoken, I don’t know whether to laugh or be sick from your stupidity. Would you like me to quote Sun Tzu so you can follow that logic to as gospel, or how about Shakespeare, at least we know his words were his own, and not what your pedaphile priest told you.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:38am“Faith is joke. Science is real.”
oh you can thank that faith you hate and fear so for your precious science.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:42amEvery time I think about this I think about the recent discoveries like coffee is good for you one year and bad for you the next year. Wine good, bad, now good…sort of like a hot and cold water. They can turn it on and off based on this and that…just tells me we still don’t have any concrete clues.
As for Health Care, if you are over 70 you might as well die…that is how we have evolved…caring not about the elderly…but soon you liberals will be back into the minority. Tired of catering to the minority and getting nothing but strife and grief from them.
WA state is going to a state run bank, the occupiers love the ideal…and the tax payers hate the idea as it will add more to the state debt…idiots.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:54amRush_is_Right,
You’re so called “gotcha” moment confuses me a bit, since the article in question nowhere near attempts to disprove evolution. It merely contests certain assumptions about the pace of that evolution. The author explains the sudden evolutionary leaps strictly within the language of evolution itself:
“I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the ”explosive” pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange, such as horizontal gene transfer, recombination, fusion, fission, and spread of mobile elements. These processes give rise to a vast diversity of forms from which the main classes of entities at the new level of complexity emerge independently, through a sampling process.”
So, exactly what were you trying to prove here? Because all this proves is that scientists continue to explore and refine aspects of evolutionary theory.
Report Post »Average_JoeMN
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:58amYour teachers lied to you.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:03am“You’re so called “gotcha” moment confuses me a bit, since the article in question nowhere near attempts to disprove evolution. It merely contests certain assumptions about the pace of that evolution. The author explains the sudden evolutionary leaps strictly within the language of evolution itself:”
of course….thanks for proving that nothing will ever disprove evolution…its a faith…
‘sudden evolutionary leaps’ = creation….
“So, exactly what were you trying to prove here? Because all this proves is that scientists continue to explore and refine aspects of evolutionary theory.”
you proved it for me…thanks.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:32amRush_is_Right,
Nothing has disproven evolution, but that isn’t saying that evolution can never be disproven. Any scientific theory or law has the potential to be disproven. You’re merely projecting your own fanatical absolutism onto me. All I said was that the researcher here was confident enough that these sudden jumps in evolutions could be thoroughly explained within the framework of evolution. So… you really have no point here.
Puting an “=“ sign between ”leaps“ and ”Creation” is not considered a rational argument. It’s just childish.
Report Post »palerider54
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:36amGod did not create hell as a place to put non believers, he created it as a holding place of punishment for the fallen angels. Unfortunately for you, God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, so without the blood of Jesus to wash away your sin, God has nowhere else to put you. You send yourself to hell and later into the lake of fire when you step over the cross and refuse Jesus.
Hope you like the sound of sizzling bacon.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:38pm“Nothing has disproven evolution, but that isn’t saying that evolution can never be disproven. ”
uh huh you display evolutionary thinking…like this…
It seems that this latest study is just adding to our knowledge of the functions of the appendix. And what is the response from the Darwinists? In the words of Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald, “It makes evolutionary sense.” Oh really?
Dr. Theobald happens to have authored the notorious TalkOrigins’ “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution“ where he claims that the appendix is a ”vestige of our herbivorous ancestry” whose lack of a robust function provides evidence for macroevolution (he admits that the appendix may have “a function of some sort” but contends this is a vestige of its once-important function). But now that we’ve found robust function for the appendix, Dr. Theobald claims, “It makes evolutionary sense.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/for_decades_darwinists_have_be.html#more
“Any scientific theory or law has the potential to be disproven.
”
evolution is faith, not science….and in fact is useless for science….continued….
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:39pmIn 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin‘s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html
and if you don’t have any fossils of transitional forms…then whats the difference?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:46pmOh Rush. Yes–you are right to say that any theory or law can be disproven. It’s always possible. However, as I said, there has been no conclusive evidence to disprove evolution. Discovering the function of the appendix, or theorizing a punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism in natural selection do not disprove evolutionary theory in any way. In fact, all of these advances have just bettered our understanding of it. This is how science works.
Clearly you keep bringing up things again and again, so if you really want to argue intelligently, you will have to explain to me why your particular example disprove evolution, rather than just posting links.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:21pm“However, as I said, there has been no conclusive evidence to disprove evolution. Discovering the function of the appendix, or theorizing a punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism in natural selection do not disprove evolutionary theory in any way”
to people like you nothing would disprove evolution…no matter what the data is, it supports evolution…PRAISE DARWIN.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:29pm@Publius
I’m not taking your side here, but that photo of Darwin, ouch!!!!
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:37pmSeriously,
This whole thing had to get started when he got up one morning, looked in the mirror and said to himself……
Holy ***** I look like a chimpanzee.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:51pmIt’s true–he was not a handsome man.
Report Post »welloddyfriggindah
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:43amSo this is where the unemployed are hanging out!
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:32amYeah it seems to me that alot more of the unemployed are hanging here.Most of which aren’t that used to downturns, either, I might add.There insane bitterness and acidity shows like a neon light.
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:30amEvolution and divine intervention aren’t incompatible.Whos to say we weren’t originally from the stars.An advance race came exploring, got stuck and due to natural events devolved only to reevolve.
Report Post »Gamma blasts are known to cause genetic-dna mutations.Before any of you bash me for this consider our current capabilities.We are able to launch space probes, send man to the moon.produce clones,invitro fertilization,have computer chips so small a human hair is larger.exc exc.
This doesn‘t mean that a higher power didn’t provide the means.There are several passages in the bible that state man can’t fathom god.We wouldn’t be able to look apun him.
13th Imam
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:41amEvolution is Gods joke on Atheists. They are not mutually exclusive.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:51am“Evolution and divine intervention aren’t incompatible”
yeah I’m afraid they are….
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:22am@Rush is Right
Report Post »So you quote me the works of a annihilist and a athiest.From his work you have concluded that intelligent design is a joke or impossible.Why did I use the correct wording by calling him an annihilist?He uses relativity to lead the masses into acceptance of those things that should never be accepted.There is a big difference in forgiveness and oblivion.Basically what he teaches is that there is no right nor wrong.Oblivion personified.Done enough it defeats the morale of the citizens at large allowing an ever expanding circle of false power.The same thing allows dictators and detractors to rise to power.What did you think his work was limited to biology?Sorry to inform you it isn’t.
rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:35am“So you quote me the works of a annihilist and a athiest.From his work you have concluded that intelligent design is a joke or impossible.Why did I use the correct wording by calling him an annihilist”
I quote from a prominent evolutionist to show that evolution is atheism and incompatible with faith.
I concluded a long time ago that evolution is a racist atheist fairy tale.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:07amRacist? Actually, quite the opposite. In the nineteenth century and even up until the mid-twentieth century, some scientists attempted to prove that different races were different species, and that certain races would outcompete other naturally. However, modern evolutionary scientists have proved without a shadow of a doubt that all the races of humanity are one single species, and that we are in fact more equal than we ever assumed. There is no scientific or genetic basis for racism, so your assumption that evolution is racist is just another of your false statements.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:36pm“Racist? Actually, quite the opposite. In the nineteenth century and even up until the mid-twentieth century”
really, again post your proof…so you are telling me Gould was lying huh?
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
1.Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 127.
“However, modern evolutionary scientists have proved without a shadow of a doubt that all the races of humanity are one single species, and that we are in fact more equal than we ever assumed. ”
really? then why did watson say this?
Watson is credited with discovering the double helix along with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick in 1962.
In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
pure evolutionary racism straight from the theory…get a clue.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:58pmRush,
As I said, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, pseudoscientists embraced the idea of evolution as part of racial ideology. That has since been disproven. Gould himself wrote a book called the “mismeasure of man,” which is a history of how these misguided pseudoscientific theories.
I really am puzzled that you keep bringing up Gould, since he is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST and has made siginificant contributions to the field during his career. I am sure he would be the first to say that none of his work has contradicted
And as far as Watson goes, his remarks have drawn widespread condemnation from the scientific community–do you really think that one racist scientist means that the science itself if inherently racist? If so, I have news for you about intelligent design folks…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:52pm“As I said, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, pseudoscientists embraced the idea of evolution as part of racial ideology. That has since been disproven. Gould himself wrote a book called the “mismeasure of man,” which is a history of how these misguided pseudoscientific theories.”
of course this has nothing to do with Gould’s quote….nice try…
“I really am puzzled that you keep bringing up Gould, since he is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST ”
uh actually he was a PALEONTOLOGIST
“And as far as Watson goes, his remarks have drawn widespread condemnation from the scientific community–do you really think that one racist scientist means that the science itself if inherently racist? If so, I have news for you about intelligent design folks…”
get a clue gomer, his racist statement is directly from evolutionary theory….different groups in isolation evolving differently….thats evolution…thats racism…
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:16pm@ PUBLIOUSPENCILMAN,
You do realize that your myriad posts here are posts of ignorance…,NON?
I am asking because you seem so smug.
Science, PENCILMAN, can only go so far. That is a truism.
Science can explain how the grass grows.
Science cannot explain where the seed came from.They cannot!
Your embrace of Darwin is tres triste. It shows your ignorance. It shows your limited intellect.
Where science ends…,metaphysics begins.
Perhaps Pencilman…,before your next smug post….., you could delve a wee bit into the unseen universe.
The science you so lovingly embrace as fact can explain WHY the grass grows. Your science cannot explain where the seed came from.
Theory and hypothesis are just that. That is all science has to offer.
There IS an unseen reality.
You have much learning to do PENCILMAN. You certainly have no reason to be smug.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:44pmThe grass seed came from other grass. Or, from a hardware store.
Report Post »Are you seriously trying to convert me with a “chicken and the egg” problem?
Donttredonme
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:54pmGos is mans joke unto himself
Report Post »Bookster
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:22amHey, maybe we could look in that “gloomy corner” to see if common sense is hiding there as well. It might be sitting next to the social security “lock-box”.
Report Post »centenium
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:13amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewKtSKbWZUI
I don’t have enough sense to discount the Bible. I have to believe because science keeps falling short.
When thinking of evolution and the likelihood that 2 members of a species will have the same evolutionary gene change during a period where both male and female are alive at the same time and find each other to produce off spring that will then continue the species offshoot is like saying you can ring the state of texas with a five foot wall and fill the state with silver dollars and find the 2 coins I etched an X on to all while blindfolded.
And if that is too complex an example to figure out just imagine walking down the beach and finding a pocket watch and saying to yourself….”Wow that just came together like that in the ocean. If I stand here long enough I’ll get another one.”
Even Evolutionists have to admit that the astronomical odds mathematically are not in their favor….even one bit.
Report Post »4xeverything
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:36amTheorists are always smacked down with math, always. Atheists are nothing more than unpaid, uneducated theorists who can’t put two and two together without coming up with five repeatedly. They are just plain sad.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:47amWow. You really don’t understand genetics.
Have you ever noticed that if one parent is blonde haired and another is black haired, the offspring still might have black hair (and not something in between)? Amazingly, it does not take two black haired parents to make a black haired child. Why? Because genes can be dominant or recessive.
So, to address your question–you do not need two parents with a particular adaptation in order to create a child with that adaptation. If the gene for this adaptation is dominant, there is a good chance that the child will have that adaptation, even if only one parent carries the gene. Even if it is recessive, the child may still carry it and the adaptation may appear in the next generation.
Given that in nature particular communities of animals are often relatively small and they breed with each other (so your Texas full of coins example is way off scale), in any given population the chances are high that a large proportion of the population carry most of same recessive genes, meaning that the chance is high that these genes will “express” in the subsequent generations.
The biggest determinate in what genes get passed on and what don’t is not the chance that two animals with the same adaptation find each other (as I explain above, this is not necessary), but that an animal is able to survive and reproduce in the first place.
Report Post »CONTINUED NEXT POST
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:08amFavorable genes allow an animal to survive longer (reaching the age of reproduction and beyond) and allow the animal to reproduce more with more surviving offspring. Therefore, these genes have a greater chance to express themselves in a greater number of offspring, and those offspring have a greater chance to pass those genes on in turn. Again, even if the gene does not “express” itself in an offspring, there is a good chance it still carries this gene, and that gene may still express itself in the next generation.
I really don’t mean to be condescending. If you have any questions about what I have tried to explain, please ask. I hope that these posts clear up your confusion.
Report Post »GodWillPrevail
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:26amPubliusPencilman
Did you read his post. He hardly said what you say.
There is a reason it is called a Theory of Evolution. It is not proven correct. He simply was talking about the very long odds of two apes a male and a female having genetic mutations so severe they could no longer mate with another ape then finding each other and being able to mate. I mean humans can not mate with Apes. It is these many many dramatic changes that sinks evolution. It is unexplained how Apes became men leaving no or very very few traces behind and no intermediate species alive today. Not just Apes but millions of species that have dramatic differences.
I also do not believe Noah was able to fit them all in the Arch I believe God preserved the ones that did not fit in his marvelous to behold ways.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:03amGodwillprevail,
Your assertion that evolution is simply a “theory” and not proven is incorrect. Scientists use the word theory in a different sense than we do colloquially. For example, the idea that germs cause sickness is still called the “germ theory,” regardless of how well proven it is. A law (like the laws of gravity) is predictive. You can always predict the behavior of a falling object with certainty based on the laws of gravity. A theory like evolution is not predictive–it only explains to satisfaction what has happened, and cannot predict what will happen in the future.
None of what you said “sinks” evolutions. In fact, all of that is thoroughly explained by evolution. Below, I post on the “common ancestor”–I suggest you read that post. The reason that “intermediate” species do not walk the earth today is because those less adapted forms were outcompeted by species with more favorable adaptations. Far from being a counterpoint to evolution, its the entire basis on which the idea of natural selection exists.
Report Post »TOMSERVO
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:33pm@PublisPencilman, I’d just like to say that I am incredibly impressed by your ability to articulate your points in an intelligent and polite manner. You are excellent at explaining your views and backing them up in conversation. I agree with you, but I’ll let you run with it because you are far better at conveying your thoughts than I am. Keep it up!
Report Post »patriotteapress
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:10amMakes me wonder how big, drafty, and cluttered a building would have to be to have kept something hidden for more that 150yrs. Maybe the BGS could be featured on one of those hoarder shows.
Report Post »cyntro
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:21am!Spit my coffee out funny!
Report Post »The Woot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:22amOr see it on American Pickers….
Report Post »4xeverything
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:06amwat is upp wit da gramer polise lattley…!?,:
Report Post »mikee1
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:59amAnd now DARWIN is an old, dead fossil now. His DNA is not even evolving. LOL. God still exists in all HIS Majesty and Glory. That is the ways set before you: FOLLOW GOD OR follow Darwin into Hell.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:54pmSince Darwin had ten children, seven of whom lived to adulthood, his DNA is in fact still evolving.
Report Post »RichNGadsden
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:50amFor you atheists who worship at the alter of Darwin, maybe you should really get to know the man. Raised in a religious family he never recanted religion as he did some of his theories. It was the church and religious colleges that supported the studies and discoveries in the natural sciences. Just as the left wingers in this nation have tried to twist the meaning of the Constitution, atheists have twisted these discoveries and theories in an effort to support their very own religion. Upon Darwin’s death he was given a large ceremonial funeral and buried at Westminster Abbey. Near the graves of such as John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:55amAlter : to change or cause to change in character or composition
Report Post »Altar: a table or flat topped rock upon which sacrifices or offerings to a deity are made.
RichNGadsden
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:07amWSGAC, Damn, you mighty hero of wordsmithing. You caught me in the dastardly deed of committing a, shudder to think, a TYPO! All hale to the petty WAGAC.
Report Post »RichNGadsden
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:08amLOL, did it again.
Report Post »acovenantinblood
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:09amTheir is a reason that they had to get the church to accept his theories! Ken Ham has the answer on answersingenesis.org in the video titled A New Reformation.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:16am@ACOVENANTINBLOOD – Ken Ham? Are you serious? LOL…LOL…LOL!!!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:12amRegardless of whether Darwin repudiated religion or not, much of mainstream religion has repudiated evolution. Your attempt to flip the issues is irrelevant–I doubt atheists particularly care whether Darwin himself was religious or not.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:43am.
Report Post »At last Check Scientists were still trying to figure out, from under what rock Democrates crawled out of…..
i am satire 12
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:52amThey were also trying to find out how one can use incorrect capitalization, spelling, AND punctuation in a single statement. Scientists are baffled.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:39am@JADO1981 – You said, “The funny thing is about evolution and where we all came from is that your idea of it being a fact is wrong, it is still a theory, can’t be proven, never has, never will be.”
JADO, did you know Newton’s Theory of Gravity is still a theory? Did you know Einstein’s theory is still a theory? Do you know what the word *theory* means?
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:53amDrop the ‘Satire”,,,,,, I am 12 , fits perfectly
Report Post »beckisnutsisnuts
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:14amStill though, it was pretty funny…..
Report Post »whitewopshawn
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:31amCant wait to read all you jesus freaks commemts about how god made us and blah blah lah
Report Post »How about you read a non fictional sciene book instead of your fairy tale bible
rangerp
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:51amGood old Charlie Darwin – one of the patron saints of modern day humanism. Scientist know full well that his theory is false, but we continue to teach it in our public schools. After all these years, we still know that any species can only adapt within its set DNA. No species ever mutates and that mutation proves to be positive and passes on to the next generation. Generally a mutation kills the individual in nature. Still no fossil of that in-between animal, and still no explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The humanists are terrified to think about standig in front of a Holy God, and answering for their actions (or lack their of). This fear causes them to believe they can just think God away, and worship their own brains. Their whole – something came from nothing- concept is the real fairy tale, along with explosions and life crawling out of their imaginary slime pit.
After all their made up stories and made up science, they will still stand before a Holy God and answer for their lives. Instead of a slime pit, there will be a pit of eternal fire, and they will be cast into it.
Report Post »Doconicus
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:59amPerhaps you need to read what Darwin actually wrote…I mean what the REVEREND Charles Darwin was trying to prove, that GOD MADE ALL CREATURES TO ADAPT AND SURVIVE THE WORLD WHICH HE CREATED.
Report Post »Moronic liberal types have never really read Darwin’s work, but they just make fools of themselves using it as a weapon against people who Darwin would have welcomed religious people, (not atheists.)
Doconicus
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:00amrangerp You are totally correct.
Report Post »Seede
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:05amYou mean like the 400 million year old tree fungi that these idiots can not prove to be 400 million years old? You are as goofy as the insane Darwin to believe that this tree fungi is 400 million years old. Put up your proof that there was a 400 million years in the past and then spout your nonsense. You nor any other man or woman can prove the existence of even i million years. So God was a monkey and made monkey in his image and monkey evolved into a man? You are insane. You might have monkey ancestors but my ancestors came from Adam and Adam was created by God. After you are dead and rotted you will be a cow chip in a barnyard along with Darwin and all of these other insane idiots who deny creation.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:07am@RANGERP – you said, “Scientists know full well that his theory is false.” Oh really? It’s all just a grand conspiracy to get condoms passed out to our children at school, right?
you said, “The humanists are terrified to think about standig in front of a Holy God, and answering for their actions.” Oh really? It’s all just a grand conspiracy to remove fear and guilt, so that condoms can be given to our children in school, right?
you said, “Their whole – something came from nothing- concept is the real fairy tale, along with explosions and life crawling out of their imaginary slime pit.” Actually, no! Darwinian theory is not a theory of something coming from nothing. It’s a theory that describes the change that takes place in organisms over time, and devised for no other reason than to provide a rationale for passing out condoms to our children!
you said, “After all their made up stories and made up science, they will still stand before a Holy God and answer for their lives. Instead of a slime pit, there will be a pit of eternal fire, and they will be cast into it.” Yes, the fires of hell…all cuz we wanted condoms in school, right?
MORON!
Report Post »jado1981
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:16am… And then you believe a bunch of cosmic farts collided together to make the earth, and everything in it, then we evolved from amoebas which turned into monkeys and then humans. However those amoebas just weren’t smart enough to make it into a better species, and the monkeys just weren’t evolved enough to make it into humans… Talk about a fairy tale.
I hope it really makes your day to bash someone else’s beliefs. The funny thing is about evolution and where we all came from is that your idea of it being a fact is wrong, it is still a theory, can’t be proven, never has, never will be.
Can I ask you, who pi$$ed in your Cheerios’s this morning?
Report Post »whitewopshawn
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:21amSee what i mean low iq pawns
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:22amSorry Ranger Dan, the only thng that is false is creationism. The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence, the theory has been test and refined, but its not a creation myth no different than the creation myths of the Hindus, the ancient Greeks or any other religion.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:40amWhy must atheists always ram their lack of faith down our throats?
Report Post »LOL
encinom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:54amTomFerrari
Report Post »Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:40am
Why must atheists always ram their lack of faith down our throats?
LOL
________________________________
Why must religious zealots ram their fairy tales and creation myths down out throats? Creationism is not science it bleongs is classes that teach other myths like Norse and Greek.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:34am“However those amoebas just weren’t smart enough to make it into a better species, and the monkeys just weren’t evolved enough to make it into humans… Talk about a fairy tale.”
Now, this is just stupid. Evolution does not mean that entire species all suddenly “level up” at the same time. There is no reason to suggest that amoebas need to be a “better” species if they survive by adapting to their environment. The way one species survives and another does not is when another species out-competes them for food and survival in their environment.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Humans did not evolve from modern chimpanzees. Our species have a common ancestor, and from that ancestor, two different adaptations developed. One adaptation made it physically very strong and better at climbing, to exploit food sources in the trees. A different adaptation made our ancestor smart enough to better exploit resources on the ground, and eventually able to hunt with enough efficiency to secure a steady high protein diet, which in turn facilitated more brain growth. As you can see, both branches became more specialized, and competed less with each other. They did, however, compete with the common ancestor on the ground and in the trees. The common ancestor, which was not as adept at either, lost the competition, and that species is now extinct.
I’ll try to explain this a different way in the next post.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:39am“Our species have a common ancestor, and from that ancestor, two different adaptations developed. One adaptation made it physically very strong and better at climbing, to exploit food sources in the trees. A different adaptation made our ancestor smart enough to better exploit ”
really…well explain how this adaptation evolved….
Today, there’s also an Arland D. Williams Jr. Bridge, in Washington, D.C.; an Arland D. Williams Jr. Elementary School, in Mattoon, Illinois; and an Arland D. Williams, Jr. Endowed Professorship of Heroism at the Citadel. There’s an Arland Williams folk song and a made-for-TV movie. There’s even an Arland Williams shrine created by a woman in Japan. But as Darwin predicted, there is no Arland Williams IV.
And there never will be.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21902983/page/4/
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:45amOK–how about this for a parable:
In the olden days, the town barber also served as the town dentist. Chances are, he had not reached a terribly high professional qualification in either of those things. So, one day, there arrives in town a bonafide professional dentist, with a medical degree and everything and an understanding of the latest dental procedures. Assuming that there was no great disparity in price, who do you think people went to from that time on when they had a toothache?
Now, assume on that same day a new barber arrived in town–someone whose only job was to be a barber. Somehow who went to barber school, and genuinely cut people’s hair better than the previous barber-dentist. Now, again assuming no great disparity in price, who do you think people went to when they needed their hair cut?
So, as you can see, the new barber and the new dentist did not compete with each other–there jobs were more specialized. They both, however, competed with the old doctor-barber, who was not as good at either activity.
Hopefully, you see the point. This is how humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, not from each other. Of course, instead of a medical degree or barber school, you would substitute an adaptation that made the animal faster, or smarter, or able to climb better, etc.
Feel free to ask any questions.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:06am“OK–how about this for a parable:
”
if that was your response to me…it wasn’t a response…
my question is how did the kind of altruism the article indicates, evolve?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:22amRush_is_Right,
First of all, the altruism of modern humans has no actual bearing on our distant evolutionary ancestors out-competing each other, so once again your “gotcha” post is entirely irrelevant.
Altruism is an interesting topic, and there are many hypotheses out there. However, human heroism is almost entirely a cultural construct–it’s acquired through nurture rather than nature, and thus is not as contingent on genetics. Therefore, it really proves very little about natural selection.
Kepp trying though!
Report Post »beckisnutsisnuts
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:23amEvolution believing atheists:
You neglect to address the most important point of the debate:
THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR MACRO EVOLUTION TO HAVE OCCURRED
that is why the bogus ‘punctuated equilibrium’ THEORY had to be invented. All to cover up the fact that the fossil record is more NOAH than DARWIN! LMAO
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:45amRush, as you can see, I did respond to your post. My post before it was delayed for some reason, so appeared after your questions.
But here, since I have addressed every one of your concerns, why don’t you tell me exactly how the article you posted disproves evolution and natural selection. You burden of proof is, after all, on you to disprove evolution, which you have not gotten anywhere close to doing.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:32pm“First of all, the altruism of modern humans has no actual bearing on our distant evolutionary ancestors out-competing each other, so once again your “gotcha” post is entirely irrelevant.”
of course, what you can’t explain, you dismiss.
“Altruism is an interesting topic, and there are many hypotheses out there. However, human heroism is almost entirely a cultural construct–it’s acquired through nurture rather than nature”
how do you know? to you libs homosexuality is inborn, why not altruism? you can’t find a gay gene, but that doesn’t stop you….
then why haven’t hyenas acquired altruism?
“You burden of proof is, after all, on you to disprove evolution, which you have not gotten anywhere close to doing.”
uh yeah sure when evolution has never been proven…uh huh….I‘ll tell ya what I’ll prove gravity….take a 10lb metal weight and drop it on your foot…bet it hurts…
now prove evolution…evolve something…take a bacteria and make it a multi-cellular animal….oh you can’t….well list the mutations that led to the eye….oh thats right you can’t…you take it on faith….
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:04pmrush_is_right
It takes a whole lot more faith to believe evolution, than it ever takes to believe in creation. With creation, you just have to get past the first four words of the Bible. “In the begining God”
The evolutionists hate the though of God. They hate knowing that one day they will stand in front of him. While they try to wish him away, late at night whey they close their eyes and are alone in their own head, they know he exists, and it scares them.
Look at how many times over the years the evolutionists get cought in a lie. They pin a moth to a tree, find a monkey bone and lie and say it is something else. if their evolution is so probable, why the lies.
What would happen if the local public school system allowed open debate on creation and evolution? The ACLU would run in and shut it down. They can not allow open debate, because they know it will educate people to their lies.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:22pmCheck out this article. this man attends my church.
http://www.gospelweb.net/brineycreation.htm
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:49pmEvolution objectively observed, from the very website you got some of your own “proof.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101530.htm
Ranger,
“The evolutionists hate the though of God. They hate knowing that one day they will stand in front of him. While they try to wish him away, late at night whey they close their eyes and are alone in their own head, they know he exists, and it scares them.”
You need to spend less time fantasizes and men in their beds at night…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:52pmdid you read your article???
The pupfish evolved changes to their jaws to match their specialized diet, allowing Martin to construct an evolutionary map for the species.
oh wow they have changes to their jaws…OMG…wow…who would have thunk it???? thats just as amazing as the darwin finches changing their beak sizes….
laughable…this is the best you can do?? LOL oh and after all that evolving, they’re still what?? oh yeah pupfish.
here‘s some more ’explosive’ evolution for ya…
Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cp-ttf032008.php
all that ‘evolving’ and its still a living dinosaur..ain’t that sumthin???
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:54pm“The evolutionists hate the though of God. They hate knowing that one day they will stand in front of him. While they try to wish him away, late at night whey they close their eyes and are alone in their own head, they know he exists, and it scares them.”
evolution is nothing more than applied atheism…its a faith…and darwin is their patron saint.
Report Post »Apo
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:29amYou folks have no respect.
Report Post »rdjones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:20amI came in on a ROCKET ride !
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:59amIf you believe you evolved from an ameba or a monkey then you are as stupid as said ameba or monkey.
Report Post »piper60
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:11amditto
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:19amIf you believe that the first members of our race were fashioned out of dirt and divine breathe in a garden with a talking snake. Then you’re delusional.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:25amYes GER…I believe the BIBLE. Every lasr word of God.
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:28amYep. The theory just doesn’t hold water.
Report Post »whitewopshawn
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:29amYou should ask your gawd for a brain
Report Post »dthomps6
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:32amI hear more irrationality happen from the mention of Darwin than any other historical figure from both sides of the evolution/creation argument. I never hear anyone hypthesize that they are both right.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:48amAnother uninformed comment from a bozo interpretation of Genesis 1.
People who slam evolution 99 times out of 100 do not understand the theory, but only think they do. I doubt seriously this is what Paul had in mind when he spoke of “fools for Christ.” If he were alive today, he would distinguish between fools for Christ, and idiots for Christ….the latter of which he’d have no time for.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:24am“People who slam evolution 99 times out of 100 do not understand the theory”
really? how about this, its a racist atheist fairy tale that has no evidence to support it in the fossil record or the lab. so many of the predictions of evolution have been proven wrong, like junk dna and ‘vestigial’ organs.
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:02amBaddoggy
You do realize the bible is fiction.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:12am“You do realize the bible is fiction.”
really, post your proof. you can’t. you atheists have been trying to disprove and discredit it for years…..
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:50pmThe Bible has been proven inaccurate. The books the Bible contains have countless scientific and historical errors, and is even full of huge internal contradictions. The only so-called prophesies that have “come true” were ones that were so vague they could have applied to almost anything, or were written down AFTER the events they were supposed to predict i.e. the destruction of the Temple “prophesy” – it was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple!
Once again the bible is just a work of fiction
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:07pm“The Bible has been proven inaccurate. The books the Bible contains have countless scientific and historical errors, and is even full of huge internal contradictions. The only so-called prophesies that have “come true” were ones that were so vague they could have applied to almost anything, or were written down AFTER the events they were supposed to predict i.e. the destruction of the Temple “prophesy” – it was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple!”
BS.
yeah Israel became a nation in 1948 LONG after Ezekiel prophecied it….
moron.
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:03pmBecause of scientific and technological revolutions in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. We know various events and episodes that are in the bible i.e. the noahide world wide flood, the creation of everything in 6 days, and the creation of women from a man’s rib is absolutely false.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:15pm“Because of scientific and technological revolutions in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. We know various events and episodes that are in the bible i.e. the noahide world wide flood, the creation of everything in 6 days, and the creation of women from a man’s rib is absolutely false.”
in your dreams.
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:56pmBased on your last 2 comments I’m starting to wonder if you are even on the evolutionary chart.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:48pm“Based on your last 2 comments I’m starting to wonder if you are even on the evolutionary chart.”
you’re definately on the low end of the bell curve for intelligence…
Report Post »BlessedONE333
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:51amis it me or does Botanist Joseph Dalton ****** have psycho eyes and eye brows that look like lucifer’s horns!
Report Post »patriotteapress
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:14amEvolution my friend, evolution!
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:47pm@ENCIMORON – and what does the New Testament apocrypha have to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Try to stay on topic dope.
@SOLINVICTUS – You still haven’t demonstrated how the Dead Sea Scrolls show “selectivity” in the early church’s compilation of the New Testament. I guess you’ve stumped yourself, pretending to be knowledgable, but showing yourself a fool.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:46amI guess this is the atheist equivalent of finding the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:29amLOL. That’s funny.
Report Post »Sol Invictus
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:40amThe Dead Sea scrolls showed how selective Christians had been when they compiled the bible. These fossils show how right Darwin was. Incidentally Darwin’s father had already put forward the theory of Natural Selection – as had others. Please don’t use the cliche about survival of the fittest either – nothing to do with Darwin or the nonsense that he suggested we were descended from Apes – we had a common ancestor. By the way – loved you in the Muppet show.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:53am@SOL INVICTUS – The Dead Sea Scrolls show how selective Christians were when they compiled the Bible? You show complete ignorance. If you’re talking about the Jewish scriptures, Christians didn’t compile them. The Essenes weren’t Christian; they were a Jewish sect. If you’re talking about the Christian scriptures, why would Christians use texts from a Jewish separatist sect to include as part of the Christian scriptures? Maybe a little reading on the subject would help.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:21amWSGAC, don’t correct a liberal, either you will give them an aneurism, they will crack and start killing innocent people, or at the very least start calling you names.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:23am“These fossils show how right Darwin was”
laughable. the fossil record doesn’t show evolution…its why Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium…get a clue.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:26am“we had a common ancestor”
oh yeah name that common ancestor…you can’t….you take it on faith….
Report Post »Sol Invictus
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:27am@WSGAC
Report Post »No, you do your homework. Go away and find which books were excluded from the Church’s finally agreed Bible. Compile means putting together books to form a whole, it doesn’t mean writing them. You ask why would Christians use Jewish texts – are you serious? This thread was started by Gonzo trying to equate fossils with the Dead Sea Scrolls – have you any useful comments on the fossil history? How old do you think they are? How many went into the Ark (clue – there were 7 of the clean animals not 2 – that was the unclean ones) but “the animals went in 7 by 7” doesn’t scan really does it?
WSGAC
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:37am@SOLINVICTUS – I know which books were excluded. I even know why they were. I also know that the Dead Sea Scrolls had certain Old Testament Scriptures in them (ie. the Isaiah scroll), and other non OT texts.
Now tell us why the DSS are evidence of Christians being selective when compiling their Bible? Don’t sideskirt the question with nonsense about how many animals were on the Ark. Tell us how the Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence of Christian selectivity when compiling their scriptures.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:28am@ Sol Invictus, there is the New Testament apocrypha, such as the Gospels of St. James and St. Peter, among others. Theses books were debated and left out by the Catholic Bishops at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. The Kng James Bible is an english version of this Bible. Than there are the Gnostic and Ethiopian Christian Bibles. These Sects only loosely followed Rome in the begining of the Church, and their Bibles have additional gospels.
The Bible is nothing more than a collection of ancient stories, some included, some excluded. It is about its origins are about as divine as any other fairy tale anthology.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:36am“It is about its origins are about as divine as any other fairy tale anthology.
you mean like that atheist fairy tale…..
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
tell us what are the ‘favoured races’?
you won’t, but its in the white of your eyes
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:36amRush,
In the title, the word “races” meant “varieties.” This was one meaning of the word in common parlance at the time. Are you simply assuming that in 160 years there is no possibility that the meaning of a word has changed at all?
But please, feel free to offer any proof that Darwin meant human races here.
Report Post »Sol Invictus
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:09pm@WSGAC
Report Post »See other responses for the answer on selectivity. The comment re the animals in the Ark was not nonsense, just an illustration that many of the religious contributors to this site won‘t be aware of the correct number because they haven’t actually read the book.
Encinom and Publiuspencilman – Thanks for being here to add a touch of common sense to the discussion.
Rush is right – as Homer Simpson said “just because I don‘t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand”.
Swampy – I told you to wait in the car.
rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:28pm“In the title, the word “races” meant “varieties.” This was one meaning of the word in common parlance at the time. Are you simply assuming that in 160 years there is no possibility that the meaning of a word has changed at all?”
BS, post your proof, other than your word.
“But please, feel free to offer any proof that Darwin meant human races here.
”
ever hear of applied evolution…better known as EUIGENICS???? oh and explain this little ditty from your savior……
“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:38pmWhat you quote is from a letter Darwin sent to a friend of his, and not from the Origin of Species. Darwin himself went no further in trying to forward this theory in his scientific works. Regardless of how much you would like to discredit Darwin himself, that has no bearing on the theory of evolution itself, which stands objectively separate from Darwin the man.
And I said, several times, that the theory of evolution was used many times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century to justify racism. Hey, guess what! Religion was too! However, science has since discredited these theories (as I have already said), so there is no basis for calling evolution a fundamentally racist science.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:46pm“What you quote is from a letter Darwin sent to a friend of his, and not from the Origin of Species.”
yeah so? where do you think he got the concept of ‘lower races’ hmmm??? its rather obvious that darwin thought some races were more evolved than others…as ‘a civic biology’, the text book in the scopes monkey trial makes clear.
“that has no bearing on the theory of evolution itself, which stands objectively separate from Darwin the man.”
BS. the theory of evolution is inherently racist….groups in isolation evolve at different rates…thus the ‘lower races’ that darwin refers to.
“And I said, several times, that the theory of evolution was used many times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century to justify racism. Hey, guess what! Religion was too!”
it really doesn’t matter what you say, you have nothing to support what you say…and I‘ve already quoted Gould stating the effect of the theory of evolution on arguments for ’scientific’ racism
oh and christianity freed the slaves,…you atheists did nothing except enslave billions…get a clue…
evolutions fundamentally racist…ever hear of EUGENICS??? hmmm….,its just applied evolution…
A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,“ Review of ”Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Sc
Report Post »