Over half of Americans dont believe in evolution - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

ADL Colin · 11-05-2004, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
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.

Well, chimps do solve problems and we can climb trees. ;-)

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23
lol, what do you expect? Should I read that entire thing and respond afterwards? What you accept as evidence I don't. Too many assumptions come into play.

You didn't even read it! You have no idea what it is you're blowing off.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CET
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.

Keep believing because everybody else does. I'm schooled. I'm no redneck. I have nothing in common with rednecks. I'm not religious. I'm scientifically grounded. Science is #1 in my book. I wish I could include Evolution into in one day. Maybe when their is evidence for it, I will include it among the other sciences.

BRISK · 11-05-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I don't know. Why is our DNA 99% similar to chimps yet they can climb trees and we can't

ummmm

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Are you sure you guys aren't religious zealots disguised as evolutionists? The close-mindedness and arrogance is striking and frightening.

How you doin kettle?

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by titmowse
okay. another question from me:

A scientific theory doesn't mean there's no proof. It means there's a lot of proof, just no absolute proof like there's proof of gravity, right?

Gravity has not been absotely proven, we have yet to find the graviton.

titmowse · 11-05-2004, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CET
Gravity has not been absotely proven, we have yet to find the graviton.

Yes. Thank you ;)

sacX · 11-05-2004, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Keep believing because everybody else does. I'm schooled. I'm no redneck. I have nothing in common with rednecks. I'm not religious. I'm scientifically grounded. Science is #1 in my book. I wish I could include Evolution into in one day. Maybe when their is evidence for it, I will include it among the other sciences.

How do you explain bacterial resistance to antibiotics if not by evolution?

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Well, chimps do solve problems and we can climb trees. ;-)

Oh yeah? Strange, I don't see that very often. I'd like to see where chimps are able to problems solve.

Also strange how you left out the part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

They are 99% similar to us after all.

sacX · 11-05-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Oh yeah? Strange, I don't see that very often.

Also strange how you left out the part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

They are 99% similar to us after all.

Their DNA is 99% similar, not "they" are 99% similar.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
Their DNA is 99% similar, not "they" are 99% similar.

Exactly my point.

What you're looking at in terms of genetics or dna isn't the end all be all. It obviously isn't.

ADL Colin · 11-05-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Yes, that's natural selection, not evolution. And there is no gaurantee that such genes would be passed down.

Right, it's a probability.

If a gene is in just one of your parents then you have about a 50% chance of receiving that gene minus about a one in a million chance of a mutation. If both parents have the gene you have a 100% - 1 in a million chance of mutation of receiving that gene.

If a population has a number of organisms with Gene A and Gene B and Gene A organisms have a better chance of surviving than the Gene B organisms then the chances increase that both of your parents carried the gene.

Overall, this leads to a greater probability of Gene A being passed to the next generation and for a group of organisms you will find that Gene A increased its frequency in the next generation.

Would you agree with that?

theking · 11-05-2004, 04:29 AM

People are using the word "believe" as in do you "believe" in evolution. There is alot of evidence to indicate that micro-evolution has taken place. There is far less evidence (if any) to indicate macro-evolution has taken place. There is zero evidence to indicate that abiogenesis has taken place. The book is still open on "evolution" and "believe" is the proper word to use...just as "believe" is the proper word to use for "creationism".

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
CET, we're talking about evolution for goodness sake. Not medicine. I'm a believer in just about ALL the other sciences. Evolution doesn't fit.

You said that lots of people die in hospitals because they trust their doctor. You bruoght it up, I called you on it.

BTW, evolution is very important in medicine, that's why doctors have to know what antibiotics you've had before. That's also why there's a different flu vaccine every year.

stocktrader23 · 11-05-2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CET
You didn't even read it! You have no idea what it is you're blowing off.

I didn't say I wouldn't read it. Don't have time now, it's a mile long.

BRISK · 11-05-2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I don't know. Why is our DNA 99% similar to chimps yet they can climb trees and we can't

What the crap? How are they doing that?! We can't do that!

Johny Traffic · 11-05-2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Keep believing because everybody else does

Half of Americans don't

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23
The pope accepts God and you can't?

The pope wasn't diametrically opposed to god, but he was to evolution and had to change the official church position due to "overwhelming evidence".

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Right, it's a probability.

If a gene is in just one of your parents then you have about a 50% chance of receiving that gene minus about a one in a million chance of a mutation. If both parents have the gene you have a 100% - 1 in a million chance of mutation of receiving that gene.

If a population has a number of organisms with Gene A and Gene B and Gene A organisms have a better chance of surviving than the Gene B organisms then the chances increase that both of your parents carried the gene.

Overall, this leads to a greater probability of Gene A being passed to the next generation and for a group of organisms you will find that Gene A increased its frequency in the next generation.

Would you agree with that?

Yes I agree with that.

Let's take for example being in a theatre and their is a fire. The smart guy runs for the exit door first....everybody else gets burned alive and dies.

Now, will this "gene" of avoiding fire be passed on since it is what allowed the smart guy to adapt to the situation rather than die? No, there is no evidence for this.

You see what I'm saying. We can isolate certain facts and twist them to suit our theory while ignoring other ones that contradict it.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
What the crap? How are they doing that?! We can't do that!

hey, they're not swinging from vines and jumping to other trees now are they?

Also strange how you failed to address the other part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
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.

You should take a biologist's word for it before you take a preacher's word for it.

sacX · 11-05-2004, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
People are using the word "believe" as in do you "believe" in evolution. There is alot of evidence to indicate that micro-evolution has taken place. There is far less evidence (if any) to indicate macro-evolution has taken place. There is zero evidence to indicate that abiogenesis has taken place. The book is still open on "evolution" and "believe" is the proper word to use...just as "believe" is the proper word to use for "creationism".

what's the fossil record and vestigial organs limbs.. Microevolution itself is evidence for macroevolution..

Johny Traffic · 11-05-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Also strange how you left out the part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

Of course they cant, they havn't evolved as much as us yet

theking · 11-05-2004, 04:34 AM

"Creationism" does not require a belief in the Bible or any other religious writings. Without proof of abiogenesis having taken place..."creationism" is more than viable.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CET
You should take a biologist's word for it before you take a preacher's word for it.

Maybe, but both can be wrong, no?

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
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.

Thus you have to accept at least micro-evolution, because person A is now fit and person B is not. Person A will reproduce and have children that are more fit for their environment then person B would have.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
Of course they cant, they havn't evolved as much as us yet

lol

Joe Citizen · 11-05-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
People are using the word "believe" as in do you "believe" in evolution. There is alot of evidence to indicate that micro-evolution has taken place. There is far less evidence (if any) to indicate macro-evolution has taken place. There is zero evidence to indicate that abiogenesis has taken place. The book is still open on "evolution" and "believe" is the proper word to use...just as "believe" is the proper word to use for "creationism".

You are wrong Sgt. Speedbump and you clearly know nothing of the subject at hand.

The evolution for macroevolution is exceptionally well documented. I have given a link multiple times in this thread. If you are intereested, click it.

Abiogenesis is not the subject under discussion this evening.

Now kindly fuck off.

sacX · 11-05-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Yes I agree with that.

Let's take for example being in a theatre and their is a fire. The smart guy runs for the exit door first....everybody else gets burned alive and dies.

Now, will this "gene" of avoiding fire be passed on since it is what allowed the smart guy to adapt to the situation rather than die? No, there is no evidence for this.

You see what I'm saying. We can isolate certain facts and twist them to suit our theory while ignoring other ones that contradict it.

You keep thinking of things from a one person perspective, in a single episode. You need to think over the population.

Like in Africa people who have sickle-cell trait are more resistant to malaria.
This trait provides an advantage in this population and IS a gene and IS passed on.

titmowse · 11-05-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
hey, they're not swinging from vines and jumping to other trees now are they?

Also strange how you failed to address the other part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

I've watched enough Jane Goodall to know this one. Chimps make tools and have a language. Maybe not as advance as man but "similar" to man.

Joe Citizen · 11-05-2004, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
"Creationism" does not require a belief in the Bible or any other religious writings. Without proof of abiogenesis having taken place..."creationism" is more than viable.

You continue to speak shit.

There is no scientific basis for 'creationism'.

ADL Colin · 11-05-2004, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Oh yeah? Strange, I don't see that very often. I'd like to see where chimps are able to problems solve.

Hang a banana from a ceiling and put boxes in a corner. A chimp will go pick up the boxes and stack them in such a way as to be able to climb the boxes and reach the banana.

There are thousands of such examples in the literature. If you're interested in some fascinating books on chimp behavior Frans De Waal's books are very good.

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
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).

1. I have trouble believing the stats given, they're way too far fetched and they were never substantiated.

2. Just because it is not taught does not mean it was the teacher's idea. Teachers have to use the cirriculum given them by their district board, and non-scientists and parents sit on those boards and vote for what the cirriculum is going to be.

Conclusion: Even if those stats are true, they prove nothing outside of the fact that idiots run school districts, which we already know.

theking · 11-05-2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
what's the fossil record and vestigial organs limbs.. Microevolution itself is evidence for macroevolution..

If you are willing to take take the leap of "belief"...for there is little...if any...evidence of macro-evolution.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Hang a banana from a ceiling and put boxes in a corner. A chimp will go pick up the boxes and stack them in such a way as to be able to climb the boxes and reach the banana.

There are thousands of such examples in the literature. If you're interested in some fascinating books on chimp behavior Frans De Waal's books are very good.

I was almost certain the opposite was true. The chimp never gets the banana.

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Burn me at the stake because I don't agree with your tentative unfounded beliefs. The new leftwing religion witch hunt is on!

"I'm so persecuted because someone disagrees with me! Boo hoo!"

You do a terrible job at playing the victim.

sacX · 11-05-2004, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
If you are willing to take take the leap of "belief"...for there is little...if any...evidence of macro-evolution.

right, and so what is your contention with the fossil record? microevolution? vestigial limbs. Surely you must have some better explanation, or at least a good reason for doubting it?

I'm in no way saying evolution is rock solid, but it is FAR better than any other current explanation.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
You keep thinking of things from a one person perspective, in a single episode. You need to think over the population.

Like in Africa people who have sickle-cell trait are more resistant to malaria.
This trait provides an advantage in this population and IS a gene and IS passed on.

sickle cell may make them more resistant to malaria, but you're certainly not saying we should all hope to have a sickle cell trait are you? Blacks seem to have problems with that sometimes.

It's a gene that is passed on. Yes I agree. What does that have to do with evolution?

theking · 11-05-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
You continue to speak shit.

There is no scientific basis for 'creationism'.

Just as there is zero scientific basis for the origin of life..."abiogenesis". Thus "creationism" is as good an alternative that can be preseneted...at this point in time.

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Yes, that's natural selection, not evolution. And there is no gaurantee that such genes would be passed down.

Then you have to deny genetics and that you share all of your genes with your mother and father.

ADL Colin · 11-05-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
hey, they're not swinging from vines and jumping to other trees now are they?

Also strange how you failed to address the other part where I mentioned "we can build and innovate but they can't, we can talk and they can't"

No, they are not swinging from vines. Chimpanzees and humans are similar, not the same. i.e. related. 7 million years of being separate species is quite a bit of time.

It wasn't strange. I just didn't take the time. Chimps do use language and they (along with gorillas) can be taught sign language. As titmowse said, hit the Goodall literature. Also De Waals.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CET
1. I have trouble believing the stats given, they're way too far fetched and they were never substantiated.

2. Just because it is not taught does not mean it was the teacher's idea. Teachers have to use the cirriculum given them by their district board, and non-scientists and parents sit on those boards and vote for what the cirriculum is going to be.

Conclusion: Even if those stats are true, they prove nothing outside of the fact that idiots run school districts, which we already know.

I don't know where the stats are from or how they were collected. Ask Johnny he posted them.

BRISK · 11-05-2004, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Oh yeah? Strange, I don't see that very often. I'd like to see where chimps are able to problems solve.

http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/chi...URE4/4prob.htm

CET · 11-05-2004, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Keep believing because everybody else does. I'm schooled. I'm no redneck. I have nothing in common with rednecks. I'm not religious. I'm scientifically grounded. Science is #1 in my book. I wish I could include Evolution into in one day. Maybe when their is evidence for it, I will include it among the other sciences.

Then stop being willfully ignorant and read the scientific literature!

BTW, what you have in common with red necks is your non-acceptance of evolution. It's interesting that most of the people, not all but most, that don't accept evolution are usually at the shallow end of the gene pool.

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
No, they are not swinging from vines. Chimpanzees and humans are similar, not the same. i.e. related. 7 million years of being separate species is quite a bit of time.

It wasn't strange. I just didn't take the time. Chimps do use language and they (along with gorillas) can be taught sign language. As titmowse said, hit the Goodall literature. Also De Waals.

I was almost certain the recent studies indicated the opposite with regard to sign language.

With regard to language, you and I can't make heads or tales out of screaming they produce as a viable language for them. It's communication, but I wouldn't go as far as language.

titmowse · 11-05-2004, 04:44 AM

Well fellas, it's been fun to be the chick in this little intellectual gang bang but I must be off to do the duties of a mom.

GFY night shift is the best shift!

Joe Citizen · 11-05-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Just as there is zero scientific basis for the origin of life..."abiogenesis". Thus "creationism" is as good an alternative that can be preseneted...at this point in time.

We are not arguing abiogenesis and this has been explained to you more than once.

Like I said, 'creationism' is not scientific.

Heard of the scientific method?

theking · 11-05-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
right, and so what is your contention with the fossil record? microevolution? vestigial limbs. Surely you must have some better explanation, or at least a good reason for doubting it?

I'm in no way saying evolution is rock solid, but it is FAR better than any other current explanation.

Who said that I "doubt it"? I am just like you and the rest of the entire population of this earth...I don't know. One can "believe" but belief is not a substitute for fact.

Johny Traffic · 11-05-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

I was almost certain the opposite was true. The chimp never gets the banana

I guess it depends how hungry the hairy little fucker is

Drake · 11-05-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
No, they are not swinging from vines. Chimpanzees and humans are similar, not the same. i.e. related. 7 million years of being separate species is quite a bit of time.

It wasn't strange. I just didn't take the time. Chimps do use language and they (along with gorillas) can be taught sign language. As titmowse said, hit the Goodall literature. Also De Waals.

So they just happened to not evolve over 7 million years while we did and they live in the same areas as many of us? Hmmm

11-05-2004, 04:29 AM	#213
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	People are using the word "believe" as in do you "believe" in evolution. There is alot of evidence to indicate that micro-evolution has taken place. There is far less evidence (if any) to indicate macro-evolution has taken place. There is zero evidence to indicate that abiogenesis has taken place. The book is still open on "evolution" and "believe" is the proper word to use...just as "believe" is the proper word to use for "creationism". __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

11-05-2004, 04:34 AM	#224
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	"Creationism" does not require a belief in the Bible or any other religious writings. Without proof of abiogenesis having taken place..."creationism" is more than viable. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

11-05-2004, 04:44 AM	#246
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	Well fellas, it's been fun to be the chick in this little intellectual gang bang but I must be off to do the duties of a mom. GFY night shift is the best shift! __________________ I still love everybody