On June 1, '11 I fired up tweetdeck to see what follows in my timeline. To be honest, I expected something of the sort. I had communicated with this individual the night before. I am sorry to say creationism isn't dead, yet! What I want to do here is bring into stark relief the number one intuitive oversight that is displayed by the typical creationist. They don't seem to realize that creationism, like religion in general, is worthless because it has no supportive relationship with any epistemological endeavor. It doesn't help in medical research, zoology, biology, anatomy, even botany or anything else for that matter. It is not supported by any scientific claims, at all. Furthermore, fact is creationism doesn't even support the claims of the Bible for which it was contrived to support. This new-ish ID only wants to make religion more scientific[ee] by discrediting scientific claims. They want to replace science with religion like in the good old days of the Dark Ages. Creationism stands as another belief system, just something else to take on faith, which is nothing more than denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I know I've debunked these same claims hundreds of times. Only, it fascinates me that the religiose, in general, and creationists in particular seem not to comprehend the fact that the truth of a claim is directly related to its supporting evidence, and to the claims of which it stands in support, but the true strength of a claim is in its predictive power. Since religion's core claims have no veracity, are supported by absolutely no evidence, and since creationism shares this weakness while not being able to make any predictions that can be used in medicine, say virology for example, it seems clear to me that the only reason the two exist is to support each other in flim-flamming the credulous. Now, I know these are obvious claims, but I have lately been thinking about the implications of this resurgence of the two in concert, worldwide. Considering the last time this happened in world history was in Nazi Germany with Herbert Spencer's elitist eugenics, a spin-off from Lamarckian evolution by acquired traits, in concert with Hitler's fundamentalist Christian Supremacy, I see something horrendous building in the atmosphere. If you are familiar with the creationist's arguments, you may as well stop reading after this introductory paragraph because it is the same claptrap that creationist demagogues have been proffering for decades.
What follows is a long tweet in response to a video [below] I sent to... well see for yourself. But like I said, we have had previous conversations. I have edited it for clarity, only.
From: @TertiusIII Top Ten Creationist Arguments Enjoy! <-- Cute, but not really very enlightening. It was also a little confusing as whose arguments were being presented against what. It was called the Top Ten Creationists arguments, but it wasn't clear if the point was really theist arguments against atheism or creationism arguments against evolution or what the real point was. It just seemed to take claims that some (may have) made in the past against either atheism or evolution. But for the purposes of engaging in honest discussion, I will note that there were a couple of 'creationist' claims that I personally would never make, such as if evolution were true, why are there still monkeys. I have never heard a creationist make that argument, though honestly, I do remember having that question asked in a high school biology class where we were taught evolution and had to explain why we really do have monkeys, and why we don’t have monkeys turning into humans continuously. In my mind, this is not an argument against evolution. Nor is the argument that Hitler was an atheist an argument against atheism. The video did (correctly) note that Hitler's true religion is still in dispute, but clearly to imply atheism is somehow false or necessarily evil because Hitler may have been one is not a valid argument against the veridicality of either atheism or evolution. Now, having said all that, several of the arguments (I believe) are legitimate arguments against evolution, (up to now, we haven't been debating the merits of theism vs atheism, we can do that if you want, though I would prefer to defer that one until after we have vetted this one further). Let's look at some: 1. Radiometric dating methods are not valid. The video basically said 'yes they are and scientists use them all the time.' Actually, while it is the case that scientists use them, this does not negate the fact that ALL radiometric methods are based on several assumptions which, to the extent that they are reliable, will produce accurate dates, but to the extent that they are unreliable, will produce faulty dates. These assumptions are:
a) We know the rate of decay and it has always been constant. For uranium-lead with a multi-billion year half life, which we've only been measuring for 75 years or so, we cannot possibly know it's been constant for 4.5 billion years. But of all the assumptions, this one's probably the safest.
b) We know the ratio of parent to daughter elements when the rock formed. This is critical, because to the extent that daughter elements are present at the rock's 'birth' the results will be biased towards greater age. Since the decay process occurs when the elements are both embedded inside a rock or when free outside the rock, this is a highly suspect assumption since a rock, when solidifying may trap numerous previously existing daughter elements as it hardens.
c) Over the life of the specimen, there has been no migration of parent elements or daughter elements into or out of the rock. Ours is an extremely dynamic planet and this assumption is absurd on its face. To assume that the specimen has been sufficiently isolated from its environment to prevent highly mobile elements from this migration becomes even less likely the older we assume the planet to be. The fact that we find sea shells on mountain tops is a pretty clear indication that there are few places on our planet that were not once very different in the past. (But then, I believe in a global flood, a fact which these sea shells tend to support.)
d) When a rock is born, it can be dated and will be shown to be 0 years old. Of all the assumptions, this is the only one that can actually be tested as there are numerous active volcanoes today producing rocks we can examine. Your own local University of Hawaii tested this a number years ago with rocks known to be produced recently by local volcanoes and all tested out to be many millions of years old. This is pretty clearly a false assumption.
The truth is, when a rock is dated, the geologist (technician) doesn't simply take a sample with instructions to "please date this for me." The specimen is described by the scientist who also identifies the layer in the geologic column from which the specimen was taken. Since the column was constructed assuming evolution is true, the rough age of the specimen is already known by the technician before the 1st radiometric test is performed. The technician will then use numerous radiometric methods which will typically give a very wide range of ages, all of which are discarded except the ones consistent with the layer in which the rock was found. Hence evolution is used to prove an old earth which is necessary to prove evolution. This is absolutely how it is done. Verify this. It is very circular and very bad science.
Now, as it turns out there are other fundamental weakness of radiometric methods and that is that they are necessarily local in nature. I.e. at best they may tell us something about the local environment from which the specimen was taken. There are however other, global phenomena called 'geo-chronometers', almost all of which yield significantly younger ages for the earth. A couple of examples include the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of salt in the oceans, the rate at which the moon's orbit recedes from the earth, the decay of the earth's magnetic field intensity and magnetic field reversals, and on and on.
2. Next, chance. To claim that evolution is not supposedly driven by chance is lunacy. Yes, since the fall of man, the competition for scarce resources is fierce, so what you call natural selection is observed (it is after all a tautology - what are the 'fittest' if they are not the ones that 'survive'?), however what are random mutations if not chance events? 3. Thermodynamics - As I have already tweeted numerous times, even Stephen Hawking argued in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the 2nd law doesn't always hold. The fact that neither most creationists, nor most atheists, nor most evolutionists in general can recite the other laws of thermodynamics is completely irrelevant. And while it is the case that the earth is not a closed system, the universe is, and yet we see an incredible order present in the structures of the universe. In fact, part of what the big bang cosmological model seeks to explain is how these structures developed (i.e. how we got this order we see.) There are other flaws in the video I could address, but as this tweet is already too long, I'll just leave it at that.
A subsequent comment:
From: @TertiusIII It is easy to understand why a people of one book; the Bible, Qur'an, etc., would not comprehen… (cont) <-- Very foolish tweet @beechbum. The Bible explains my theology, but to claim that Christians reject science is tantamount to the "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument." As your (otherwise) silly video showed, many prominent scientists of the past were Christians. Then, to further indict yourself, you claim: "evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact." Dude, I'm sorry, but 'a theory supported by many facts makes it stronger than a fact' - that's just plain stupid. You need to start trying to be honest in our debate. I invite the others who have been following our tweets on this topic to weigh in on this one. Is a theory supported by many facts made stronger than a fact?
To which I replied:
To: @TertiusIII Your whole argument against radiometric dating displays the number one weakness of AiG and ICR based assumptions as suffered by all would-be creationists and religionists, the mindset of one book, you do not want to accept the strength, through support via corroborating results, of multiple testing procedures (see listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating ) many different types (eg. ice cores, tree rings, varves, annual-layering methods, thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic Ray Exposure Dating) of dating methodologies, each of which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating and our understanding of the geologic column due to the cross corroboration. What I am saying is: you are in denial, as is, every creationist I have encountered to date. Alas, since you don't want to accept the evidence as proffered by an atheist, then, try this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html a Christian perspective. Also, you underestimate me in that you do not seem to realize that all of your claims have been refuted by me and many others over the years. Oh, and one more thing, sea shells don't float which means that mountains were once at the bottom of the oceans. It also means that the trilobites are a direct refutation of your world view http://goo.gl/69KhT and your disdain for fossil evidence for evolving phyla. What you and your ilk do not want to apprehend is that we use evolutionary theory to understand fossils, so much more than, we use fossils to substantiate evolutionary theory; the Genome Project does a far better job at that endeavor.
Your claim about some University of Hawaii tests is a fabrication of the Discovery Institute, ICR, if it is the tale I have encountered before. Details of those tests were, in fact, manipulated by means of contamination, but were actually discovered and corrected by subsequent tests of various methods to bring the dates to a more accurate conclusion. Also, of course, there are test results that give erroneous results, those are thrown out when they are not corroborated by many other testing means; it is these discarded test results that ICR et al. jump on in an attempt to discredit radiometric dating, to no avail.
This "when a rock is dated" testing scenario you anecdotally proffered in the next paragraph is so familiar, and inaccurate, that I'm sure it is born of the Discovery Institute, via AiG or Conservapedia (and uh, no! that's not how it is done). The funny thing is, creationists never attempt to contradict the findings with data, nor do they submit, for peer review, findings of their own (you know, we found this fossil in the ground and... uh, god did it). It is a simple process, anyone is able to test the results of scientific findings for themselves (see Dr. Richard Lenski's work with E. coli verifying evolution by natural selection via observed data and the conflict with that fraud at Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly). It also neglects the fact that many paleontologists, for example, are in competition with each other and at the same time in cooperation all across the world making discoveries and corroborative links to past and contemporary findings that overlap, even intertwine. Also, a young scientist (as most post-docs see themselves) would like nothing more than to correct a Senior member of the faculty, talk about keeping the findings honest. A factual anecdote: tree rings from petrified trees correspond to rings in ice cores which line up with climatic events as recorded in strata via particulate fossils (eg. pollen, etc.) showing archaeologists clues as to, say, why a people migrated to the coast some 9-12,000 years ago across the Andes Mountains. This is also how Israel Finkelstein developed very strong evidence against the historicity of the tales about David and Solomon and most of the rest of the Old Testament. Hell, we have trees that are older than YEC creationists, like you, think the entire Earth is: http://bit.ly/j4J58E This is why people laugh at creationists.
Only, this corroborative power is nothing compared to the predictive power of the dating methodology as it is being perfected today. Few instances exemplify this better than the discovery of the specimen Tiktaalik roseae which was discovered in the Devonian strata as stratigraphy, zoogeography and paleontology predicted (see Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ ). And this transitional (as if any fossil could be anything else) fossil is at the cusp of sea-to-land animal transition and it already shares many anatomical features of most extant animals in its lineage. Very strong evidence for the accuracy of our dating methodology—if you're asking me.
Geochronometers, which is what we've been talking about all along, have nothing to do with your connivance with ICR knavery. Let's take the helium falsehood first, shall we. It is a lie. To you and most other creationists they have lied. Like every other word that has spewed forth from those mountebanks of mythology. The claim is that helium doesn't escape from the exosphere as put forward by one L. Vardiman and Morris in 1974, but the truth of the matter is that helium does escape from the atmosphere at the rate of 2 to 4 x 10 ^6 ions/cm^2.sec of 4He. This is almost exactly the same as the decay rate production flux of (2.5 ± 1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2.sec Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. And since there is also another possible escape mechanism of direct interaction of the solar winds with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing, Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." —Dalrymple, 1984, pg. 112.
I'm afraid the rest of the creationist flimflam falls under the weight of similar scrutiny. An example in my opinion, would be the mere mention of saltwater should be avoided by creationists due to the fact that it puts the fatality of saltwater fish getting emersed in rainwater and vice versa, in stark relief. Which, of course, eliminates Noah's flood as an excuse for sea shells floating up the side of a mountain, which they don't, of course. Such as your claim that fittest and survive are somehow a tautology, which it is not, especially in the context of reproductive fitness and survival of the genome; that is, in the context of evolutionary theory.
Or, as I wrote earlier concerning your bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Stephen Hawking was expressing, on page 103 of his A Brief History of Time, the relationship of entropy as a closed system passed over the event horizon of a black hole. At that point the entropy may decrease. These are not Laws that someone or something makes the universe follow, but descriptions of parameters that nature appears to follow as matter interacts. As it seems your idea of entropy is somehow related to visible order in the universe, which only displays your lack of understanding of entropy, generally, and the 2nd Law specifically, I would urge you to read Peter Atkins on the subject. Simply stated, the entropy described in the 2nd Law is the decay of the quality of energy through its dispersal. This means that the 2nd Law in no way supports creationism nor weakens evolutionary theory.
Regarding your next assertion in which you claim that I "claim[ed] that Christians reject science" is unfounded and misses the point, because my statement was: "It is easy to understand why a people of one book ... would not comprehend the incredible strength of many books ... being in full and complete agreement, ... ." This is not me stating that Christians reject science; this is me stating that fundamentalist Christians in general, and creationists in particular, are so enamored with the idea that the claims expressed in the Bible as being the absolute truth, and the idea of absolute authority generally (which is 'tantamount' to evidencing a very real (and low) upper limit to the ratio of honest analytical capabilities to the overriding cognitive compartmentalization due to the cognitive dissonance present in a mind torn between wishful thinking and the observable facts), that they can't comprehend a concept which holds that the more supporting evidence there is concerning a claim, the more likely, the more powerful the veracity, of that claim, of a theory, of an observation becomes.
This agreement, this corroboration across all sciences, across all epistemological disciplines is exactly what makes the Theory of Evolution so powerful, and such an untenable state of affairs for science deniers (typically they only deny the facts that are inconvenient, which is where the charge of hypocrisy comes into play), like creationists. Notice that I didn't write Christians. Further, claiming this is tantamount to "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument" is totally unrelated and untenable for many reasons; the first of which is, obviously, that I am concerned with the creationist's lack of understanding regarding the accumulation of facts as evidence in ever increasing support of claims made. This is exactly the methodology in our legal system. Second, I am not claiming to know the opinions in a dead man's mind (see note 1 below), nor am I generalizing one person's presumed beliefs across a whole group of people. It seems you have also incorrectly labeled atheists with a philosophical identity, by the way. Atheism is not a belief, so it cannot be false or bad.
This "scientists of old were religious" assertion is usually a very telling claim. Of course, many scientists of the past were Christians, Muslims or Jews, or at least claimed to be. In those years before the Enlightenment, even for many years afterwards, one would be the evening's entertainment for claiming otherwise. If one had the smell of burning heretics in their nostrils, yet none of the evidence that we have garnered since the days when philosophers regarded intuition and introspection more reliable than observation and experimentation (per the Church's insistence, of course), ie. Newtonian physics, Darwin's natural selection, the scientific method's track record of success, Einstein's Relativity, or space travel, etc., it would be a fatalistic act of defiance to claim what would have been an illogical, and not an evidentiarily supported view. Your claim displays a projecting of today's knowledge back on historical figures, first. This, in turn, shows you know the strength of knowledge as garnered by science today. As if claiming, "scientists know all this stuff, and they still believe"; or as you've projected, "they're scientists, and they were religious"; thereby, empowering the very discipline you are illogically attempting to refute using religious means. Yes, very telling.
What you did concerning my statement, "at your level of understanding, evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact" is known as quote mining. It is a typical creationist ploy when attempting to cloud an issue or an idea. It is an evasion of honest discourse, a lie, and should be derided as such.
Concerning the matter at hand, a claim of innocence by the accused, in a court of law, is ever more substantiated as evidence accumulates in support of that claim, a theory as substantiated by more and more facts; making your assertion pathetically absurd through example. Evolutionary theory like electrical theory, gravitational theory, and cosmological theory, etc. etc., is solidly substantiated by facts at all but the very cutting edge of new knowledge on the subject. Moreover, this, much like your previous claims, is an example of a mindset; you seem to have a cognitive block regarding evidence that is not in support of your views, again, very telling.
You know @TertiusIII on a personal note, as I read your writing, I am reminded of an observation shared by the wickedly astute Dr. Peter Medawar about the spread of secondary, and latterly, of tertiary education which has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.
Notes:
1. Hitler was not an atheist by any evidentiary model of which I am aware. (Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian acting as a soldier of god in eliminating the Jews according to his own words and writings in Mein Kampf. http://bit.ly/kcyKWK & http://bit.ly/laRWck & http://bit.ly/k2ksoO This is what most would call evidence that Hitler was by no means an atheist. You see, the only reason there is any controversy concerning Hitler's piety is, again, Christians are in denial. That is, Hitler's religiosity is just another denial that Christians cling to in a feeble attempt to defend their delusions. Only, what they seldom want to talk about is the fact that, regardless of Hitler's views, the people of early 20th century Germany (and surrounding countries) were enthusiastic about putting him in power, complicit in horrendous atrocities because they were motivated by dreams of National, racial, and Christian Supremacy into supporting his agendas. Furthermore, the Catholic, that is Universal, Church was complicit in many of those atrocities as the exemplar (Spanish Inquisition), as an accomplice and supporting authority (Concordat of 1933 with Hitler's regime) and the active involvement of the church through the atrocities committed by the likes of Fr. Jozef Tiso and Ante Pavelić, and after the fact, via the Rat-Lines through which the Vatican shuttled Nazis out of Europe to places like America by way of South America. Point being that regardless of Hitler's personal views (about which I have no doubt based on the overwhelming evidence), Christianity, by way of its claims of divine authority, played a major role in the atrocities of the mid-twentieth century, not to mention the entirety of its history of inhumanity.
I know this is uninteresting to most people, but if it gave you some ideas or information you didn't know before maybe it was worth the trouble. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Monday, July 5, 2010
I Found Something as Primitive as Tiktaalik
I found this site by following a link given to me from twitter. I have heard of these evolution or rather, science deniers but I never thought I would actually see one. So, if you would like to see it too, here is: Is Evolution an Outdated Theory? by Josh Greenberger from Feb 14, 2006
And my response:
You start with PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY, to which I must comment that it seems to be the simplest of minds that insist on this all capitals as a style of writing. As for the content of the section itself I will get back to it shortly. But, I would like to add at this point that it is safe to say, you don't read much news or anything else for that matter.
Josh, you continue this derision of science, evolution, knowledge etc. in THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN by blaming it for the political and media hoax that was actually uncovered by science - linguistics to be specific.
These are claims made by you, the media, and even the logging industry had a hand in the story - not science, and besides, this has nothing to do with evolution in any case. Science did not bring this to the attention of the world, but the media did. Did science perpetrate this fraud? No! A politician did. This immediately shows your bias against science. But why? Is it because science has also shown your religion to be a fraud? That is what I think. Only, let's be clear, I know religions are fraudulent. I am only trying to discern your claim against evolution. Does science have a history of some oddball hypotheses, of course it does. But unlike religion, where the conclusions can't be questioned, in science, all findings are peer reviewed. And the claims stand, or fall, on their own merit. This is how the hoax was revealed in 1986, when Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were removed from power and the politician, Manuel Elizalde, that perpetrated the hoax left the country. But even before that, some investigators had their doubts based on clues garnered by those brave enough to circumvent the armed guards who held positions at the access points in the wall that was built to keep out those that were not hand picked by Elizalde himself. Words like 'roof' that should not have been part of a cave dweller's vernacular, initiated further investigations, by scientists, if what I read here is correct. It was science that revealed the hoax, similar to the case of superstitions and religions.
This 'Evolution of Evolution' section would be humorous if not for the fact that so many scientifically illiterate people actually buy into it, as though it has anything to do with facts. It is obvious that you could use some science 101 here. First, evolution is a fact every bit as much as the claim, Paris is a city in France, is a fact or the electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc. The claim you allude to with term "versions" I see as your attempt to obfuscate the fact that scientific method allows for, even, insists on peer modification for the accuracy of the hypothesis. Like aiming artillery, one can usually get the accuracy to target, knowledge or understanding, more perfect. So it's not a falsification of the information but more like focusing, a fine tuning of the knowledge garnered. But we both know you could care less about actual science, for your strawman is easier to attack, which is of course, your main goal.
The comment by Ben Morrish:
is correct; everything is a transitional form, but to know this you would have to know that the concept of 'species' is a human construct that designates whether specified life forms can breed successfully. The life form itself doesn't know or care that is has diverged from it's ancestors to the point that it couldn't conceive a viable or fertile embryo (eg. Mules - horse donkey cross, Liger - a cross between lions and tigers huge but both are sterile). Furthermore, at no point in any species' genetic line does the offspring not carry the traits of the parents and/or grandparents, remember gradual changes, very gradual. You may be suffering from the "chicken or the egg" syndrome, in which religionists intent on disproving evolution can't seem to fathom the idea that at no time in the chicken's evolutionary history was there a "first chicken" or a last dinosaur. The fact is that every egg contained a dinosaur that had just a few more chicken-ish traits than its distant relatives. So to say that you may have dino eggs for breakfast is accurate as well as fascinating. Although, I'm sure you could not care less about the actual facts, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a great story, they didn't stop early religionists or the authors of the canonized books of the Bible.
Your strawman concerning "punctuated equilibrium." Which is a property of evolution that is held by some scientists who see the gradual accumulation of adaptations as too slow for some situations such as island adaptations. Punctuated equilibrium does not say, "species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct" as you claim. But what are a collection disingenuous remarks like this to someone who sees lying as just another form of communication? No! Punctuated equilibrium is what it sounds like, species evolve to a point of ecological equilibrium at a rate proportional to their fit, or lack thereof, to the niche to which they avail themselves. This is an associated driver of evolution like natural selection. Which is the Darwinian innovation that superseded Lamarckian "guided, progression of acquired traits." A form of evolution very popular with religionists in their 18th century version of creationism. And, as such, has nothing to do with that lame symptom of the "chicken or the egg" syndrome; a need for "missing links," which is another simple minded, media concoction. But hey, what are a few facts to a guy like you? We can't have a theory that is the basis of biology, pharmacology, genetics, zoology, modern medicine and on and on; get between the religiose and their god delusion or that ever important failed god hypothesis, now can we. But if you are interested in actual knowledge try "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins or anything of his, like "The Selfish Gene" or maybe Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" or E.O.Wilson's "Sociobiology" ah, hell - anything but Genesis.
If nothing else, you will not be so quick to put your ignorance on display, for all to see, but I digress.
BORN OF IGNORANCE is the next fallacy, I mean...
I could not have put it better myself. Your ignorance has to be inherited, oh wait, apparently that isn't what your alluding to - just yet, anyway. It's a Lamarckian thing anyway - so it wouldn't work! You are right Charles Darwin was ignorant of genetics, but he didn't need an understanding of genetics to clarify a theory based on taxonomic properties of observed species. It was Darwin's theory that initiated inquiries into, what would become genetic principles of, hereditary traits. Although in 1865, Gregor Mendel, a monk in an Austrian Roman Catholic monastery concluded that "discrete hereditary elements" (not called genes until the 1900's when those like Oswald T. Avery discovered that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was the blue print of embryonic development) as postulated during his work with peas some years earlier, were responsible for communicating inherited traits. But the lie in your assertion comes with the claim that genetics shows that evolution doesn't work. Quite to the contrary, genetics has shown just the opposite - very powerfully in fact. We now know that we share 98.5% of our DNA with our cousin the chimpanzee and less but still some of our DNA with fish, field mice and cucumbers. I know the only reason you don't know this is because you don't want to. But hey, what's a little convenient ignorance for your beliefs, right?
You really should read some science books, though, really! Maybe "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin for a start. Although, I am enjoying the humor of your lunacy, it's just that... well, evolution is so basic to so many fields of biological science. For someone actually educated in the field, of your obvious ignorance, the assertions are delusional at best - I feel like I'm laughing at someone who's mentally handicapped. The fact that Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is traceable and shows with few exceptions that our tentative conclusions based on the fossil record are, in fact, very accurate. Which shows that we can be reasonably sure that our assimilative practices are sound with regard to phenotypic relatedness of species. I mean it has gotten so well refined that Tiktaalik, was predicted to be discovered in the strata and with the features it was in fact found in and with. For further reading on the subject see Tiktaalik roseae from the University of Chicago. If there is a stronger way to verify a method of inquiry and explanation, I don't know of it.
How about that abiogenesis, well since you originally wrote this blog we have the replication of RNA ribonucleic acid (ribonucleotides), under laboratory conditions of course. That's inanimate to something deemed animate, as though there is that distinction at that level of complexity. Or the evidence of recent evolution from the altitude acclimation of the indigenous peoples of the Himalayan Mountains, (i.e. Ethnic Tibetans). But I just know you are going to give me some crap about a "link" between species which as Ben Morrish and I have explained and I'm sure you can find elsewhere is, like the god concept, the product of an overly simplistic understanding of living organisms. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation is a wonderful topic to study. Like Three Spined stickleback fish that has developed into fresh water varieties with fin variations etc. since the last ice age. The variation within the porpoise family, with dynamic differences in the Pacific and Atlantic species. But this isn't what you are talking about is it? You are looking for the evidence of macro-evolution when in reality it's nothing more than micro-evolution over a long period of time, many millions of years, but with mtDNA we have the ability to see back in time for eons. And with the feather covered dinosaurs discovered in China we have phenotypic evidence that birds are dinosaurs. Only, if you are looking for something along the lines of a "crock-o-duck" that is the figment of a fundamentalist's mind virus. The evidence is out there just Google it.
Don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have made many unsubstantiated assertions without the first iota of evidence or an alternative theory of your own, oh wait, are we to assume the "god did it" failed hypothesis of a bronze age desert goat herder myth variety - I await with bated breath for the new evidence in that field of inquiry. Not!
For those having trouble following along, I have taken the liberty of combining some of Josh's many asinine assertions into one relatively coherent rebuttal because so many minor sections are not actually differing thoughts. Some even go so far out that I am convinced he is totally clueless as to what genetic, random mutations are actually. And it is this misconception of what random mutations are with respect to evolution, how they are involved with reproduction, propagation even DNA that has clouded Josh's comprehension of evolution. Only, even forgiving him for this misconception doesn't release him from his responsibility for talking crap about something he knows nothing about. But I will attempt to reel these topics into something other than a semblance of coherency. Josh's more entertaining, yet asinine, claims only rate ridicule in groups. Such is the state of the rest of the assertions, which I must say displays an ignorance of genetic processes that I didn't think possible. Therefore I will deal with them as one grand misconception which is as generous as I can get with this garbage, honestly.
Alas, Josh, you were so close writing about genetic manipulation, "gene splicing" correctly noting that it's not evolution, but that's baby brain stuff. Why didn't you remark on the overwhelming evidence from genetics in support of evolution? It's not that religious blind spot is it, pandering maybe, hypocrisy? Don't forget that unnatural selection has been going on for maybe ten thousand years, domestication of the dog for one, chickens and more recently bananas as well - just a shout out to the Banana Boys, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. But I will agree that gene splicing has little to do with evolution. But knowing of no professional in the field that claims it does, leaves me only minimally interested as to why you would even conflate the two.
But that doesn't keep you from jumping off the deep end does it Josh, where is your evidence for your claim that genetics deals a devastating blow to evolution. I think you have just proven yourself intellectually negligible. All the evidence is actually in the other direction my poorly educated, or at least inculcated and ignorant friend. But please, I beg, show some conformation for this absurdity. Got another one for you, Michael Ruse's "Evolution" is a good compilation of data. Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical. The ones that live to reproduce are the specimens that are most acclimated to the environment in which they find themselves. So, let me emphasize by stating that again; Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical.
And the absurdities just keep coming. Josh Greenberger please read a book on evolution, it is obvious you have no idea what you are writing about, at all, not even close. In the first place you are obviously conflating random mutation with cellular destruction, which is what radiation exposure actually does. It also shows just how lame your argument is, when no one has even bothered to shred it in 4 years. The display of blatant ignorance is absolutely pathetic. If it wasn't for the link to this site some misguided young lady gave me I would never have known people could be so misinformed about how evolution works or genetics, genes, crossover, chromosomes, genetic drift, selection pressure etc. amazing. The first chance you get, look into the concept of genetic crossover which is one place for a random mutation to slip in. But these are not random molecules or even random base pairs. It is not even random genes, but the exchange of homologous chromosomes during meiotic recombination preceding embryogenesis.
Cellular destruction aside, even chromosomal destruction via radioactive exposure would only end in an inviable embryo which would have a minimal chance of survival. This is because the destruction that you are conflating with random gene selection (mutation) is similar to taking a hatchet to one's DNA, not even the random recombination of distinctive genetic traits as observed with respect to reproduction. Really, look into what random mutation is, might I suggest "Genome" by Matt Ridley, or, and I can't stress this enough, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but any of the books I listed so far will get you further than you are now with at least some understanding of evolution. And don't forget there is not one scientific organization on the planet that doesn't accept evolution as fact, not one. What you obviously haven't taken into consideration is that the randomness and mutations, that you seem to be overly focused on, have had billions of years to become viable genomes. Even gene clusters that have already been tested otherwise your parents, or anyone else, wouldn't be carrying them. In fact, you are over emphasizing the whole randomness aspect almost as much as you misunderstand what is meant by mutation, really it's beyond believability. But, your argument in this regard isn't anymore thought out than has been exemplified in the rest of this blog. Then there's this:
"To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy."
What you don't understand is that I absolutely agree, but the only people in the world that would assert something like that is a preacher or a pious devotee of some back woods superstition. There is almost nothing accidental about evolution, the randomness you are so fond of involves a choice from a bracketed group of preformed genetic groups, this is high school stuff. The mutations come from chromosomal packets that have been correctly copied otherwise we don't get a viable embryo. Again, elementary, sustaining my original take on your diatribe - as religiously motivated, complete with blinkered thinking. But, for someone who obviously has absolutely no training in science to claim that evolution is a "product of the imagination" proves my theory that arrogance is, with out question, a property of ignorance.
If you don't think creativity is a part of our evolutionary history then your understanding of the hunter-gatherer is also lacking. Only, how could anyone with as little background in science, anthropology, especially, even claim an opinion - arrogance? It's like your misunderstanding of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' I'm sure, since I know the story of how Darwin was persuaded to use that phrase, and its subsequent misused in certain circles - that reproductive fitness is not what you have in mind at all. In other words you are using the phrase out of context. And because of this blinkered view, you are retarding your ability to comprehend how humor, art, music and many other attributes that you see as unproductive regarding survival are, in fact, a product of our evolutionary history. The truth of the matter is reproductive fitness includes many altruistic traits producing our morality, compassion, love, feelings and from these are derived our need to create, rejoice in happiness, protect and teach our families.
Now as I promised at the beginning of this response I would like to comment on your assertion that the theory of evolution is primitive, which, even if it were true, has no relevance. I think your blathering is just a simpleton's attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy. Didn't Galileo discover the moons of Jupiter in the 1400's and wasn't the Calculus created in the 1700's at the same time gravity was described and by the same man that described it along with many other forces, you know Newton. But I think your main problem is that, due to your religious mind set, you fail to see the scientific method as a growing and evolving accumulation of data and improved methodologies. Hence the rudimentary theory that has actually stood up very well to every attack by everyone from rival scientists to threatened theologians, ill-equipped educators, misinformed Sunday school teachers and fearful fundamentalists, has actually grown to be a very powerful basis for thousands of theories that encompass concepts ranging from behavior science, ethology, psychology along with physiology and anthropology to theories relating to the evolution of solar systems, galaxies etc., not to mention genetic therapy relating to viral evolution, antibacterial evolution, and manipulation through cross breeding.
Then you have the audacity to claim, without a shred of evidence - I might add, that, along with trying to stir the magical thinking of religion and superstition into a mix with evolution, which is science - regardless of your comprehension of such, the following is anything other than a statement of your delusion:
And, this "hoax" as you call it, has produced 99% of the medical advancements of the last century, infinitely increased our understanding with regard to living organisms, and systems in general. So, your blatant stupidity has only emboldened my original feeling that you are another "Liar for Jesus" unless you can come across with any evidence of what you assert. Also, as evidenced by your, I think intentional, misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, how nuclear force could have some sort of relationship with evolution, by causing random mutations(?) or whatever, and that genetics has only validated evolution while increasing our understanding of it, including our relationships to everything else on the planet, in addition to the stars and planets themselves. I conclude you have an agenda and are most likely clueless as to the actual facts supporting evolution, of which, there is literally tons.
But if I thought for a moment that you actually cared about the truth, I would take the time to enlighten you with ... never mind. All these authors I've listed have sites on the net, very good ones, look into them. And if you need additional evidence for what I've asserted, I have spelled everything correctly, Google it.
Continually combating despotic suppression of the freedom and brilliance of the human mind, by fervently guarding against dogmatic superstition - a product of the arrogance of ignorance.
~ Brian
And my response:
You start with PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY, to which I must comment that it seems to be the simplest of minds that insist on this all capitals as a style of writing. As for the content of the section itself I will get back to it shortly. But, I would like to add at this point that it is safe to say, you don't read much news or anything else for that matter.
Josh, you continue this derision of science, evolution, knowledge etc. in THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN by blaming it for the political and media hoax that was actually uncovered by science - linguistics to be specific.
"And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyed over a decade of "historical significance" before turning into a "major historical fraud." And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the "anthropological find of the twentieth century" in history books."
These are claims made by you, the media, and even the logging industry had a hand in the story - not science, and besides, this has nothing to do with evolution in any case. Science did not bring this to the attention of the world, but the media did. Did science perpetrate this fraud? No! A politician did. This immediately shows your bias against science. But why? Is it because science has also shown your religion to be a fraud? That is what I think. Only, let's be clear, I know religions are fraudulent. I am only trying to discern your claim against evolution. Does science have a history of some oddball hypotheses, of course it does. But unlike religion, where the conclusions can't be questioned, in science, all findings are peer reviewed. And the claims stand, or fall, on their own merit. This is how the hoax was revealed in 1986, when Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were removed from power and the politician, Manuel Elizalde, that perpetrated the hoax left the country. But even before that, some investigators had their doubts based on clues garnered by those brave enough to circumvent the armed guards who held positions at the access points in the wall that was built to keep out those that were not hand picked by Elizalde himself. Words like 'roof' that should not have been part of a cave dweller's vernacular, initiated further investigations, by scientists, if what I read here is correct. It was science that revealed the hoax, similar to the case of superstitions and religions.
THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION
See, this is the problem of a limited intellect, in replacing ignorance with something similar to a guess, an unsubstantiated assertion, or some supernatural explanation in lieu of an actual evidenced based conclusion, the simpleton shows that he is quite uncomfortable with open ended or unanswered questions. Science, and in this case the science of evolution, almost always produces more questions than answers. By answering certain questions, we are prepared to ask new ones with the knowledge garnered. That is the battle between religion and science, those asserting unsupported answers that can never be questioned vs. those that never stop asking questions based on the evidence previously gained and finding actual answers supported by evidence. See, science is also an evolving system of questions and answers that breed more questions.
This 'Evolution of Evolution' section would be humorous if not for the fact that so many scientifically illiterate people actually buy into it, as though it has anything to do with facts. It is obvious that you could use some science 101 here. First, evolution is a fact every bit as much as the claim, Paris is a city in France, is a fact or the electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc. The claim you allude to with term "versions" I see as your attempt to obfuscate the fact that scientific method allows for, even, insists on peer modification for the accuracy of the hypothesis. Like aiming artillery, one can usually get the accuracy to target, knowledge or understanding, more perfect. So it's not a falsification of the information but more like focusing, a fine tuning of the knowledge garnered. But we both know you could care less about actual science, for your strawman is easier to attack, which is of course, your main goal.
The comment by Ben Morrish:
"Transitional fossils have been found, indeed almost all fossils are transitional (the only exceptions being fossils of organisms that did not have any descendants)."
is correct; everything is a transitional form, but to know this you would have to know that the concept of 'species' is a human construct that designates whether specified life forms can breed successfully. The life form itself doesn't know or care that is has diverged from it's ancestors to the point that it couldn't conceive a viable or fertile embryo (eg. Mules - horse donkey cross, Liger - a cross between lions and tigers huge but both are sterile). Furthermore, at no point in any species' genetic line does the offspring not carry the traits of the parents and/or grandparents, remember gradual changes, very gradual. You may be suffering from the "chicken or the egg" syndrome, in which religionists intent on disproving evolution can't seem to fathom the idea that at no time in the chicken's evolutionary history was there a "first chicken" or a last dinosaur. The fact is that every egg contained a dinosaur that had just a few more chicken-ish traits than its distant relatives. So to say that you may have dino eggs for breakfast is accurate as well as fascinating. Although, I'm sure you could not care less about the actual facts, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a great story, they didn't stop early religionists or the authors of the canonized books of the Bible.
Your strawman concerning "punctuated equilibrium." Which is a property of evolution that is held by some scientists who see the gradual accumulation of adaptations as too slow for some situations such as island adaptations. Punctuated equilibrium does not say, "species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct" as you claim. But what are a collection disingenuous remarks like this to someone who sees lying as just another form of communication? No! Punctuated equilibrium is what it sounds like, species evolve to a point of ecological equilibrium at a rate proportional to their fit, or lack thereof, to the niche to which they avail themselves. This is an associated driver of evolution like natural selection. Which is the Darwinian innovation that superseded Lamarckian "guided, progression of acquired traits." A form of evolution very popular with religionists in their 18th century version of creationism. And, as such, has nothing to do with that lame symptom of the "chicken or the egg" syndrome; a need for "missing links," which is another simple minded, media concoction. But hey, what are a few facts to a guy like you? We can't have a theory that is the basis of biology, pharmacology, genetics, zoology, modern medicine and on and on; get between the religiose and their god delusion or that ever important failed god hypothesis, now can we. But if you are interested in actual knowledge try "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins or anything of his, like "The Selfish Gene" or maybe Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" or E.O.Wilson's "Sociobiology" ah, hell - anything but Genesis.
If nothing else, you will not be so quick to put your ignorance on display, for all to see, but I digress.
BORN OF IGNORANCE is the next fallacy, I mean...
I could not have put it better myself. Your ignorance has to be inherited, oh wait, apparently that isn't what your alluding to - just yet, anyway. It's a Lamarckian thing anyway - so it wouldn't work! You are right Charles Darwin was ignorant of genetics, but he didn't need an understanding of genetics to clarify a theory based on taxonomic properties of observed species. It was Darwin's theory that initiated inquiries into, what would become genetic principles of, hereditary traits. Although in 1865, Gregor Mendel, a monk in an Austrian Roman Catholic monastery concluded that "discrete hereditary elements" (not called genes until the 1900's when those like Oswald T. Avery discovered that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was the blue print of embryonic development) as postulated during his work with peas some years earlier, were responsible for communicating inherited traits. But the lie in your assertion comes with the claim that genetics shows that evolution doesn't work. Quite to the contrary, genetics has shown just the opposite - very powerfully in fact. We now know that we share 98.5% of our DNA with our cousin the chimpanzee and less but still some of our DNA with fish, field mice and cucumbers. I know the only reason you don't know this is because you don't want to. But hey, what's a little convenient ignorance for your beliefs, right?
You really should read some science books, though, really! Maybe "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin for a start. Although, I am enjoying the humor of your lunacy, it's just that... well, evolution is so basic to so many fields of biological science. For someone actually educated in the field, of your obvious ignorance, the assertions are delusional at best - I feel like I'm laughing at someone who's mentally handicapped. The fact that Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is traceable and shows with few exceptions that our tentative conclusions based on the fossil record are, in fact, very accurate. Which shows that we can be reasonably sure that our assimilative practices are sound with regard to phenotypic relatedness of species. I mean it has gotten so well refined that Tiktaalik, was predicted to be discovered in the strata and with the features it was in fact found in and with. For further reading on the subject see Tiktaalik roseae from the University of Chicago. If there is a stronger way to verify a method of inquiry and explanation, I don't know of it.
How about that abiogenesis, well since you originally wrote this blog we have the replication of RNA ribonucleic acid (ribonucleotides), under laboratory conditions of course. That's inanimate to something deemed animate, as though there is that distinction at that level of complexity. Or the evidence of recent evolution from the altitude acclimation of the indigenous peoples of the Himalayan Mountains, (i.e. Ethnic Tibetans). But I just know you are going to give me some crap about a "link" between species which as Ben Morrish and I have explained and I'm sure you can find elsewhere is, like the god concept, the product of an overly simplistic understanding of living organisms. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation is a wonderful topic to study. Like Three Spined stickleback fish that has developed into fresh water varieties with fin variations etc. since the last ice age. The variation within the porpoise family, with dynamic differences in the Pacific and Atlantic species. But this isn't what you are talking about is it? You are looking for the evidence of macro-evolution when in reality it's nothing more than micro-evolution over a long period of time, many millions of years, but with mtDNA we have the ability to see back in time for eons. And with the feather covered dinosaurs discovered in China we have phenotypic evidence that birds are dinosaurs. Only, if you are looking for something along the lines of a "crock-o-duck" that is the figment of a fundamentalist's mind virus. The evidence is out there just Google it.
Don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have made many unsubstantiated assertions without the first iota of evidence or an alternative theory of your own, oh wait, are we to assume the "god did it" failed hypothesis of a bronze age desert goat herder myth variety - I await with bated breath for the new evidence in that field of inquiry. Not!
For those having trouble following along, I have taken the liberty of combining some of Josh's many asinine assertions into one relatively coherent rebuttal because so many minor sections are not actually differing thoughts. Some even go so far out that I am convinced he is totally clueless as to what genetic, random mutations are actually. And it is this misconception of what random mutations are with respect to evolution, how they are involved with reproduction, propagation even DNA that has clouded Josh's comprehension of evolution. Only, even forgiving him for this misconception doesn't release him from his responsibility for talking crap about something he knows nothing about. But I will attempt to reel these topics into something other than a semblance of coherency. Josh's more entertaining, yet asinine, claims only rate ridicule in groups. Such is the state of the rest of the assertions, which I must say displays an ignorance of genetic processes that I didn't think possible. Therefore I will deal with them as one grand misconception which is as generous as I can get with this garbage, honestly.
Alas, Josh, you were so close writing about genetic manipulation, "gene splicing" correctly noting that it's not evolution, but that's baby brain stuff. Why didn't you remark on the overwhelming evidence from genetics in support of evolution? It's not that religious blind spot is it, pandering maybe, hypocrisy? Don't forget that unnatural selection has been going on for maybe ten thousand years, domestication of the dog for one, chickens and more recently bananas as well - just a shout out to the Banana Boys, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. But I will agree that gene splicing has little to do with evolution. But knowing of no professional in the field that claims it does, leaves me only minimally interested as to why you would even conflate the two.
But that doesn't keep you from jumping off the deep end does it Josh, where is your evidence for your claim that genetics deals a devastating blow to evolution. I think you have just proven yourself intellectually negligible. All the evidence is actually in the other direction my poorly educated, or at least inculcated and ignorant friend. But please, I beg, show some conformation for this absurdity. Got another one for you, Michael Ruse's "Evolution" is a good compilation of data. Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical. The ones that live to reproduce are the specimens that are most acclimated to the environment in which they find themselves. So, let me emphasize by stating that again; Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical.
And the absurdities just keep coming. Josh Greenberger please read a book on evolution, it is obvious you have no idea what you are writing about, at all, not even close. In the first place you are obviously conflating random mutation with cellular destruction, which is what radiation exposure actually does. It also shows just how lame your argument is, when no one has even bothered to shred it in 4 years. The display of blatant ignorance is absolutely pathetic. If it wasn't for the link to this site some misguided young lady gave me I would never have known people could be so misinformed about how evolution works or genetics, genes, crossover, chromosomes, genetic drift, selection pressure etc. amazing. The first chance you get, look into the concept of genetic crossover which is one place for a random mutation to slip in. But these are not random molecules or even random base pairs. It is not even random genes, but the exchange of homologous chromosomes during meiotic recombination preceding embryogenesis.
Cellular destruction aside, even chromosomal destruction via radioactive exposure would only end in an inviable embryo which would have a minimal chance of survival. This is because the destruction that you are conflating with random gene selection (mutation) is similar to taking a hatchet to one's DNA, not even the random recombination of distinctive genetic traits as observed with respect to reproduction. Really, look into what random mutation is, might I suggest "Genome" by Matt Ridley, or, and I can't stress this enough, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but any of the books I listed so far will get you further than you are now with at least some understanding of evolution. And don't forget there is not one scientific organization on the planet that doesn't accept evolution as fact, not one. What you obviously haven't taken into consideration is that the randomness and mutations, that you seem to be overly focused on, have had billions of years to become viable genomes. Even gene clusters that have already been tested otherwise your parents, or anyone else, wouldn't be carrying them. In fact, you are over emphasizing the whole randomness aspect almost as much as you misunderstand what is meant by mutation, really it's beyond believability. But, your argument in this regard isn't anymore thought out than has been exemplified in the rest of this blog. Then there's this:
"To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy."
What you don't understand is that I absolutely agree, but the only people in the world that would assert something like that is a preacher or a pious devotee of some back woods superstition. There is almost nothing accidental about evolution, the randomness you are so fond of involves a choice from a bracketed group of preformed genetic groups, this is high school stuff. The mutations come from chromosomal packets that have been correctly copied otherwise we don't get a viable embryo. Again, elementary, sustaining my original take on your diatribe - as religiously motivated, complete with blinkered thinking. But, for someone who obviously has absolutely no training in science to claim that evolution is a "product of the imagination" proves my theory that arrogance is, with out question, a property of ignorance.
If you don't think creativity is a part of our evolutionary history then your understanding of the hunter-gatherer is also lacking. Only, how could anyone with as little background in science, anthropology, especially, even claim an opinion - arrogance? It's like your misunderstanding of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' I'm sure, since I know the story of how Darwin was persuaded to use that phrase, and its subsequent misused in certain circles - that reproductive fitness is not what you have in mind at all. In other words you are using the phrase out of context. And because of this blinkered view, you are retarding your ability to comprehend how humor, art, music and many other attributes that you see as unproductive regarding survival are, in fact, a product of our evolutionary history. The truth of the matter is reproductive fitness includes many altruistic traits producing our morality, compassion, love, feelings and from these are derived our need to create, rejoice in happiness, protect and teach our families.
Now as I promised at the beginning of this response I would like to comment on your assertion that the theory of evolution is primitive, which, even if it were true, has no relevance. I think your blathering is just a simpleton's attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy. Didn't Galileo discover the moons of Jupiter in the 1400's and wasn't the Calculus created in the 1700's at the same time gravity was described and by the same man that described it along with many other forces, you know Newton. But I think your main problem is that, due to your religious mind set, you fail to see the scientific method as a growing and evolving accumulation of data and improved methodologies. Hence the rudimentary theory that has actually stood up very well to every attack by everyone from rival scientists to threatened theologians, ill-equipped educators, misinformed Sunday school teachers and fearful fundamentalists, has actually grown to be a very powerful basis for thousands of theories that encompass concepts ranging from behavior science, ethology, psychology along with physiology and anthropology to theories relating to the evolution of solar systems, galaxies etc., not to mention genetic therapy relating to viral evolution, antibacterial evolution, and manipulation through cross breeding.
Then you have the audacity to claim, without a shred of evidence - I might add, that, along with trying to stir the magical thinking of religion and superstition into a mix with evolution, which is science - regardless of your comprehension of such, the following is anything other than a statement of your delusion:
"In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science."You have yet to come forth with any evidence for any of your assertions, so I'm not holding my breath on this one either, but I'll ask anyway. Is it because the friggin' Pope has excepted evolution as a validated theory? Where is your evidence that evolution is loosing credibility? Where is there any evidence that this scientific fact has even wavered in its strength or for that matter, done anything but get substantially stronger - where?
And, this "hoax" as you call it, has produced 99% of the medical advancements of the last century, infinitely increased our understanding with regard to living organisms, and systems in general. So, your blatant stupidity has only emboldened my original feeling that you are another "Liar for Jesus" unless you can come across with any evidence of what you assert. Also, as evidenced by your, I think intentional, misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, how nuclear force could have some sort of relationship with evolution, by causing random mutations(?) or whatever, and that genetics has only validated evolution while increasing our understanding of it, including our relationships to everything else on the planet, in addition to the stars and planets themselves. I conclude you have an agenda and are most likely clueless as to the actual facts supporting evolution, of which, there is literally tons.
But if I thought for a moment that you actually cared about the truth, I would take the time to enlighten you with ... never mind. All these authors I've listed have sites on the net, very good ones, look into them. And if you need additional evidence for what I've asserted, I have spelled everything correctly, Google it.
Continually combating despotic suppression of the freedom and brilliance of the human mind, by fervently guarding against dogmatic superstition - a product of the arrogance of ignorance.
~ Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)