"Some Definitions
First we should clarify some terms, for no small part of the problem relates to what is meant by such words as "evolution," "theory" and "scientific." Both sides of the controversy often use different definitions so as to capture the semantic high ground. While this may be a valuable tactic in debate and public relations, it frequently means that understanding becomes the casualty rather than one's opponents.

We will here use theory as a generic term for a suggested explanation of observed phenomena. No attempt will be made to distinguish "theory" from such terms as "hypothesis" or "law," as was common a generation ago and as is still seen in some textbooks on science. Nor is "theory" to be understood as necessarily in contrast to "fact." A theory may be either factual or mistaken. We will assume that a theory is an attempt to describe reality rather than merely a technique for reproducing observations. (For instance, we will not call locating a star in the sky by earth-centered coordinates a theory, even though this system was developed when it was thought the earth stood still and the stars crossed the sky daily.) We are thus adopting a more-or-less realist approach to science when we seek to judge whether or not a theory is actually describing reality."

More here: http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/newman.htm

It is if they all eventually become immune to pesticides. You are selecting for those few fruit flies that have a mutation that allows them to survive a certian pesticide. You have mutation and natural selection, thus you have evolution.

What part of the evolutionary theory says that life came from non-life? It doesn't say that, that's an entirely different theory called abiogenesis. You can't mix the two together and claim they're the same thing, they're not. I dare you to tell a biologist, any biologist, that evolution describes how life began. It'll take him about a nanosecond to tell you that you're wrong. Go on, go to your nearest college or university, find a biologist and tell them that. I double dare you. I triple dare you.

It was, when we had nothing but a turnip to eat, it was a way of keeping us from starting a revolution, when we thought, ok its shit now, but later Ill get my pay back.

"Religion is the opium of the people" Karl Marx

I believe in the Matrix.

You couldn't possibly believe in biology then.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky, Geneticist

Dobzhansy was a giant in genetics. Listen to him.

Thank you again, Colin. :)

Can you answer my other question? What's the difference between scientific theory and scientific law?

Ahhhh sacX is thinking.

To a point I do. If their is person A and person B and they're both in the same environment. The environment changes and favors person A because they can handle say cold weather better, person A may survive while person B dies.

Yeah, if we call that natural selection it works. That's different from evolution as you and I both know.

THE POPE, the guy who heads the church that used to persecute scientists, accepted evolutions as a fact and was "undeniable" due to "overwhelming evidence". The pope accepts evolution as a fact, but you can't?

:1orglaugh

Mike, what do you mean by "it doesn't fit".
Why, once DNA was discovered, did we find that human DNA was more similar to chimpanzees than any other creature - as predicted by evolution? Why is the DNA of humans more similar to chimps than mice? Why is the DNA of all mammals more similar to each other than to birds? Don't you find that remarkable?

Thank you, Joe :)

The pope accepts God and you can't?

It is a part of the mechanism of evolution.
You have a population that varies, the environment changes. Those that are best adapted to the new environment survive and reproduce, the new population is different.

So you believe that organisms can change to fit their environment better but that it is not possible for them to change and no longer be capable of producing fertile offspring with separated members of the original species. Correct?

'Nuff said. This guy is trying to equate abiogenesis with evolution and they are 2 different theories. One discusses the possibility of life emerging from non organic matter. The other discusses how life changes through the natural selection of random mutations for better survivability in its environment.

Why? He is an authority on all the laws of nature because he was a brilliant geneticist? He is infallible? Should I believe the philosophies of all scientists? Should I have taken Einstein's advice on fashion?

He can choose to believe that, but there is no evidence for that claim.


I could throw it back at you. The Pope is close to God, believe what he says about God. See how weak it is? Don't believe in God because somebody else does. God is bullshit no matter who tells me to believe in him.

I always hate it when people use that quote from Marx because everyone ALWAYS gets it wrong.

This is the whole thing: 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. '

So it should be: "Religion... is the opium of the people.'

:winkwink:

Just to clarify. I used to be a born-again christian. But I kept listening to people smarter than me and now I'm an atheist.

Maths, not Biology. Probability :)

Go to school. Talk to a biologist. Most college or university professors are more then happy to answer most any question you have. Most of them will go out of their way to find source material for you to read. Please, go to school, find a biologist and question him to death, he'll love you for it and maybe you'll better understand the world you live in.

sorry :(

No. Careful. I said that Person A and Person B. They were both different people. One of them was more resistant to cold weather. He did not change to fit his environment. He was already as he was and was able to survive better on that alone.

That author is a creationist and you've already proven that you know squat about squat. :glugglug

Touche :1orglaugh

Maybe he did.

Quote from the beginning of the thread:

Even the biology teachers dont always teach it. In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).

Would you quit posting this pseudo-scientific creationist crap? A link will be sufficient if anyone cares to let their mind turn into jello through reading this garbage.

You're obviously too smart to be a born again Christian. :winkwink:

Have you ever heard of Dan Barker? He was a fundamentalist preacher turned atheist and now he's involved with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

He wrote a great book, you should read it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

You read the thread. The person who's post I quoted is religious and theking has posted tons of religious crap.

Burn me at the stake because I don't agree with your tentative unfounded beliefs. The new leftwing religion witch hunt is on!

[QUOTE]Even the biology teachers dont always teach it. In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).[QUOTE]

Not becuase they dont beleive it, but because they are to scared, with all the religious nutters

theking:

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

You are dismissed.

Yes, and would you agree that the organisms (people) that survived would more likely pass down the gene that gave the surviving organism a "cold advantage" down to the next generation?

You're the one who can't back up what he says. You have been provided scientific links, but you refuse to read them. You are willfully ignorant. I hope you are happy in your world, just hang out with the red necks and you'll get along with them just fine. If you try to hang out with someone who appreciates knowledge and science, you'll find yourself being looked at queerly for all the crap that comes out of your mouth and the lack of information going into your ears and eyes.

I don't know. Why is our DNA 99% similar to chimps yet they can climb trees and we can't, we can talk and they can't, we can problem solve and they can't, we can build and innovate but they can't.

A lot of unknowns, eh?

Mike33 think about it on a population basis. Do you believe organisms different characteristics are at least partly determined by genes?

In your hypothetical example if some organisms in a population are more resistant to cold weather they would be more likely to reproduce and lead to a population that is more resistant to cold weather.

I'm not getting what doesn't fit for you?

Then go read the literature. The pope HAD to accept evolution due to the "overwhelming evidence". If the pope of all people can accept evolution, then why can't you?

I'm not smart. I'm just good with words.

My brother has a PHD in environmental science. I had these arguments years ago. I just couldn't ignore the logic.

I've not read that author. I might some day. I'm more interested in pre-history, particularly the paleolithic era. I think the downfall of humanity is directly tied to the invention of shoes :winkwink:

Burn bitch Burn :feels-hot

Yes, that's natural selection, not evolution. And there is no gaurantee that such genes would be passed down.

Due to the fact that you insist on smearing creationist fecies all over the board instead of just providing links, you've earned a one-way ticked to my ignore list. Congratulations! Now go play with something sharp.