Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[Total Power]

Once again: Any & all data is 'slanted' towards 'agreeing' with the over-arching hypotheses of evolutionary theory....

Lol hypotheses of evolution theory. Well i am glad you agree with William Dembski, you should try reading some of his "science" there is not a single mainstream scientist that reads anything he writes...only the readers who are desperate do.

 

[Total Power]

After your embarrassing efforts in trying to discredit evolution i dont expect to see a serious source, but if you do come across do post it here then we might start thinking you are not try-hard lol@your knowledge of evolution. The lesser you speak about science the better it is, trust me mate, stick to your fantasies

 

[Total Power]

The irony of linking to a blatantly pro-creationism site and complaining about 'slanted evidence'

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

I dont even think he understands what he is quoting. On one hand he is complaining about confirmation bias, next minute he quotes a website that openly admits to bias. Now if i can quote that right wing website for my facts about Islam, wouldnt it be great?

I have tried asking for evidence against evolution but theres none coming except "its not a fact", ok so its not a fact, so state your case and provide evidnence for your argument. Evidence does not include faux scientists like Dembski.

I guess all this is too hard for him to understand. Theres no point trying to reason with him, he is lost

 

[Total Power]

Fascinating read on the development of Human limbs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/s...ntists-discover-a-deep-evolutionary-link.html

The new study was important because it revealed that the development of fins and limbs follows some of the same rules, said Matthew P. Harris, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. In both cases, the Hox genes tell a clump of embryonic cells that they need to end up at the far end of an appendage. “The molecular address is the same,” said Dr. Harris, who was not involved in the study.

In zebrafish, the cells that get that molecular address end up making dermal bone for fin rays. In tetrapods like us, the research indicates, the same cells produce endochondral bone in our hands and feet.


The new discovery could help make sense of the intermediate fish with limb-like fins that Dr. Shubin and his colleagues have unearthed. These animals still used the molecular addresses their ancestors used. But when their cells reached their addresses, some of them became endochondral bone instead of fin rays. It may have been a simple matter to shift from one kind of tissue to another.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

This has gone to next-level stupidity. I can only assume he's been trolling all along.

 

[chelseacarlton]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

I'll just leave this here for the evolutionary acolytes perusal....Don't go having a coronary now peeps.

From the Introduction

"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."1 Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education's 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are "fact." Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide -- you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.2 Such bullying is enough to convince many that it's much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence.

This chapter will review some of this literature, and show that there are numerous legitimate scientific challenges to core tenets of Darwinian theory, as well as predominant theories of chemical evolution. Those who harbor doubts about Darwinism need not be terrified by academic bullies who pretend there is no scientific debate to be had.

In other words, What alot of us intuitively suspected all along.

Darwinism & the s0-called 'theory of Evolution' is full of holes, gaps & logical lacunae; yet to be adequately explained or legitimized.

For those of us who still think for themselves: enjoy it.

No.8 Sea Monkeys
Lol

 

[Total Power]

This has gone to next-level stupidity. I can only assume he's been trolling all along.

The scary thing is, he wasnt

 

[Pie eyed]

Same shit from the idiot?
Needs an injection of lead.

 

[Procrastinator35]

This has gone to next-level stupidity. I can only assume he's been trolling all along.

Wow....Whole new other level hey....That's quite some achievement.

I'm familiar with your posting & use of rhetorical devices to get your point across....But it'd be a whole lot more honest to just say that you disagree.

I accept my position goes against the tidal-wave of opinion & openly acknowledge my role as that of the 'devils advocate' so to speak.

I'll respect your right to your opinion, but bet at the same time, you never even read the articles I posted here.

 

[Total Power]

I'll respect your right to your opinion, but bet at the same time, you never even read the articles I posted here.

Would you read articles from a right wing website about Muslims? why on earth do you even bother to read articles about science from a website that actively promotes pseduo-science and admits it wants to replace science with creationism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns

Have a read, this sounds eerily similar to everything you talk about. They are a christian fundie group, actively and shamelessly admit on promoting pseudo science when mainstream christian scientists have rejected them.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17203-christians-battle-each-other-over-evolution

You are all alone with this unfortunately, the fact that you quoted Discovery institute and william dembski, shows you have clueless about science and evolution, please stop talking about things you do not understand.

You are out of your closet as an evolution denier, just admit you are a fundamentalist christian now.

 

[Procrastinator35]

"Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution".

I've got no issue with this skeptical position.

You're clearly one of the converted TP....I'M happy for you to be comfortable with that position....And, No, I'm not a christian....Sorry to once again, disturb your black/white perspective.

 

[Total Power]

"Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution".

I've got no issue with this skeptical position.

You're clearly one of the converted TP....I'M happy for you to be comfortable with that position....And, No, I'm not a christian....Sorry to once again, disturb your black/white perspective.

I have no problem with "critical" analysis of "science" if you are NOT using pseudo science to disprove it, the first line from your link:

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle ofintelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism,


ffs. If you are going to talk about science, then stop talking about things which are not science. You are a closet christian, cause no one else believes in Discovery Insitute and their rubbish

Stop talking about things you dont understand, science cannot be disproved by pseudo science. If you want to disprove evolution, lets see some evidences, which are scientific, not made up on spot by hobby scientists who often misquote scientists to brainwash people. Read up on Dembski and Discovery insitute, ffs they are often investigated for lying and misquoting scientists.

Here from your own link

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.[15][16][17] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[15][16][18][19]McGill University Professor Brian Alters, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution",[20] whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[21][22] In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".[23] The Dover ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.[24]


So if you want to discuss science, stop quoting the witch doctors, stop quoting the ones who are brainwashing you.

 

[Procrastinator35]

If it's O.K with you TP, I'll reserve my right to remain skeptical about Evolutionary theory, all the same....

Though I'm happy for you to be 'comfortably satisfied' with it......As for it being proven?....Now that's pseudo-science.

 

[Total Power]

If it's O.K with you TP, I'll reserve my right to remain skeptical about Evolutionary theory, all the same....

Though I'm happy for you to be 'comfortably satisfied' with it......As for it being proven?....Now that's pseudo-science.

Yes its proven, 99.99% of the scientists approve it,, now you are telling me even you know more about science than scientists themselves? maybe you know about evolution than dawkins. There is not a single evidence out there than disproves evolution. Not a scientific one anyway, but having said that, what you believe in is your issue, the fact that you quoted discovery institute as your defence shows your confirmation bias and any opinion you have is really irrelevant as far as science is concerned, its like asking spartanwa about buddhism

 

[flashmanvc]

The thing about evolution of species through natural selection is that when you think about it - whether briefly or deeply - it just makes so much sense.

I mean, animals and plants change with every generation. I can see that with my golden retriever (got him off a mate who has the mum and dad; my dog is different to both his parents), and i can see it with my collection of native orchids, which are constantly producing new versions of themselves.

(And was reading an interesting piece in one of the old man's bird books recently about sub species of Crimson Rosellas along the Murray-Darling system, and how individuals from each neighbouring population can breed, but apparently you can't take one from Queensland and get it to successfully mate with one from South Australia.)

Would reckon it stands to reason that individuals in each new generation would be better or worse off, or no worse off, in dealing with the pressures in their environments. Would further reckon it stands to reason that those who were better off would be more likely to breed, and pass on those successful traits to their offspring. Do this often enough, for long enough, and species would, sheesh, I dunno, evolve.

Apologies for dumbing down the conversation, but reading the headbutting in this thread has almost made my eyes bleed, and I thought it would benefit from getting back to first principles. The above are the fundamentals of evolution through natural selection (albeit poorly laid out) - if you can't find the obvious truth in that you are kidding yourself.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I'm familiar with your posting & use of rhetorical devices to get your point across....But it'd be a whole lot more honest to just say that you disagree.

It's not that I disagree, it's that you are wrong.

You are allowed to have your own opinion, but you are not allowed to have your own facts.

 

[Long Live HFC]

If it's O.K with you TP, I'll reserve my right to remain skeptical about Evolutionary theory, all the same....

Though I'm happy for you to be 'comfortably satisfied' with it......As for it being proven?....Now that's pseudo-science.

species changing over time is fact. the explanation for how/why this happens, is always open for revision and improvement.

 

[Total Power]

species changing over time is fact. the explanation for how/why this happens, is always open for revision and improvement.

Dont confuse him, his sources tell us god did all this with his magic wand

 

[Long Live HFC]

Dont confuse him, his sources tell us god did all this with his magic wand

in his defence, he has started using "hypothesis" in his posts. poorly, granted, but credit where credit is due!

 

[Total Power]

in his defence, he has started using "hypothesis" in his posts. poorly, granted, but credit where credit is due!

Unintentional lol i bet he doesnt know what hypothesis is , i tried to explain it to him what a theory is and a scientific theory doesnt mean its a hypothesis without verifiaable evidence lol but he wont budge

 

[Total Power]

Anyone read this? tassie devils have evolved to resist facial cancer that has devastated their population by 90%

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/tasmanian-devils-evolve-resistance-to-facial-cancers

 

[Long Live HFC]

Anyone read this? tassie devils have evolved to resist facial cancer that has devastated their population by 90%

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/tasmanian-devils-evolve-resistance-to-facial-cancers

certainly better news than:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...led-on-road-days-after-being-released/6816966

yeah, i laughed at the time, but im a horrible person.

 

[Total Power]

certainly better news than:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...led-on-road-days-after-being-released/6816966

yeah, i laughed at the time, but im a horrible person.

it will be interesting to research how this resistance was developed and which genes were responsible for it, can shed new light into how we totally new function can be developed when there is existential threat

 

[Long Live HFC]

it will be interesting to research how this resistance was developed and which genes were responsible for it, can shed new light into how we totally new function can be developed when there is existential threat

definitely. fascinating!

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Anyone read this? tassie devils have evolved to resist facial cancer that has devastated their population by 90%

Nice work, God.