EXPELLED -How Schools Are Hiding Real Science.

[Rusky]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

 

[emp]

Rusky, the reason I did not answer your DNA post was that

a) I was asleep. I live in a different timezone than you.
b) It is so flawed, it hardly deserves an answer.

But, alas, I will try to humour you.

I am just taking one of your key arguments here to dissect.
(I assume it is key because you have repeated it several times)

"Computer Code (website) does not evolve, how could you think it does happen in real life organisms?"

Dissect it..well.. laugh it in the face, more likely.

You are comparing apples to shaving cream.

Just because the DNA has been called the "code" of living beings, it is very, very different from computer code.

Normally, computer code lacks the ability to evolve because of its makeup (electronic signals in a specific sequence, ordering a chip to....) in comparison to real DNA that posesses the ability to evolve because of its makeup (a complex sequence of chemical molecules that react with...).

Thus, real DNA mutates and changes under specific influences.
By the way, the mutations that evolutionary theory talks about are not only the ones brought forth by cosmic radiation, etc... They occur gradually over time.

Basically, you are probably a tiny bit different from your parents DNA. (The childs DNA is not only made up of the man and woman's in question, but might also have some random changes, due to the chemical process involved in putting it together.

If one of those tiny changes (you might be a bit smarter, or have longer reach, or maybe you can touch your nose with your tongue) leads to you being better suited to your environment (earn more money, reach better food higher up in the tree, impress the ladies), and thus to being able to foster more offspring, these changes might be transferred to that offspring.

Of course, seeing these changes manifest in a big scale and a whole population will take a bit of time.

On the other hand, your thought experiment of "evolving code" has already been thought of decades ago and also been put to practice, sometimes with astonishing results.

It is one of the variations on artificial life.

Artificial life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might also be interested in trying some yourself:
Darwin@Home

For a closing note:
- You are still not asking questions, you are turning into (or already have) a believer. To believe does not mean to ask questions, it means the opposite.
As a scientist, I do not believe in anything.

- It appears as if you are going down the path of many creationists, meaning you are beginning to see "science" as a big conspiracy, as some kind of organization with an agenda.
As a scientist, I hate to tell you this, but you will never find a more quarreling bunch always at war with each other than "science".
Why do we do this?
To prove each other wrong. To find the flaws in another scientist's arguments.
Why do we do this?
To get closer to the truth. To find the theories and arguments that can not be prove wrong, no matter how hard ANYONE might try.

So far, evolutionary theory has been holding up quite well.

Regards,
::emp::

 

[Rusky]

I understand DNA code is more complex then computer Code. It was a Metaphor.


"genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material is translated into proteins by living cells"
Kind of like html and a browser work together to show us the final product on the screen.
Is this metaphor still apples to shaving cream?

This was #8 on my list.
8-At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing genes or traits, but not new genes or new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!

Now watch me, watch me. No no watch this. Modern scientific evidence from genetics support only the possibility of micro evolution or limited biological variations occurring in living things. - I bet they didn't tell you this in school.
Perfect example - 1000s of new varieties of dog breeds.
Mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits. However, the vast majority of biological variations within species are not from mutations but, rather, from new combinations of already existing genes.
Even hybridization of plans doesn't support darwins evolution. Because hybridization doesnt involve not even a zilch of new genetic information but just the recombination of existing genes.

You called me a moron. I suppose you can disprove the above statements.
Get to work chop chop.

 

[Deliguy]

To answer your question, the theory of evolution isn't a science. It's nothing more than a theory based on sciences such as geology and astronomy that get proven wrong with every single endeavor (more on that). Same with ID. Also just a theory. I think my Mormon friend put it best, you can't explain everything with God and you can't explain everything without God. Facts be faced, they're both wrong. The religion is wrong, the darwinism is wrong. Which, for any scientist, is not only acceptable but expected. Science, whether it be ID (cloaked as science to push its way into school) or theory of evolution (same thing) is always proven wrong. Which is why I believe so heavily in separation of church and state, which by everything I've seen encompasses both beliefs.

Point In Case:
1) Scientists thought the universe was expanding. Now it might be ever contracting and expanding. It might be contracting right now. We no longer have any idea how many big bangs there has been or where we stand for the next one.

2) Scientists thought the big bang started from dense matter. Now they're discovering that it might actually be antimatter or negative mass that caused it.

3) Scientists thought matter can't be created or destroyed. Now we know it gets created and destroyed all the time and we have no idea where it goes or where it comes from.

4) Scientists thought space was empty. Apparently it's very dense with dark matter.

5) Scientists thought our solar system had 9 planets. Then 10, then dozens, now 8.

6) Scientists thought Saturn had 4 moons. We now know it has 46 and we're certain there's probably even more still to be discovered.

7) Nearly everything scientists thought about the moon were found dead wrong once they landed on it. Same is happening with Mars and we've barely scratched it.

8) Biologists and oceanographers thought the bottoms of the ocean were void of life. Oops.

9) Scientists thought the world was flat. Enough said.

So feel free to continue calling your beliefs on how the universe, world and life started "science" in order to push an agenda. Oh and be sure to call anyone who doesn't believe the same as you stupid because while you're throwing around the science word to push your beliefs into schools scientists, biologists, geologists are slowly proving nearly everything in those books wrong(*reference #1, #3, #4, #5, & #6). Fuck the missing link; when you can show me a kid's science book that doesn't have any "scientific facts" that haven't already been proven wrong in it I'll believe the evolution bullshit. Until then Scientology is the only real science. I mean com'n it has the word science in it! lol

So lets all become Scientologists and end this retarded argument so we can work together to bring those digg and anonymous douchebags down :conehead:

 

[BluuueJammm]

Deliguy, so your main point is that scientists can be wrong, and that is exactly one of the points that emp was trying to make.

As a scientist, I hate to tell you this, but you will never find a more quarreling bunch always at war with each other than "science".
Why do we do this?
To prove each other wrong. To find the flaws in another scientist's arguments.
Why do we do this?
To get closer to the truth. To find the theories and arguments that can not be prove wrong, no matter how hard ANYONE might try.

So far, evolutionary theory has been holding up quite well.

However, the argument that scientists have been wrong about some things, so therefore they are wrong about evolution just isn't logical. Evolution has been verified in several different ways, including fossil records and dna, it has even been observed:
iTWire - Evolutionary trajectory of complex traits observed

work together to bring those digg and anonymous douchebags down :conehead:

Hey, I'll agree with you on that one !

 

[amateursurgeon]

The Intelligent Design argument displayed in this thread illustrates why the rest of the world both laughs at, and is terrified by "middle America".

Don't get me wrong - we Brits are very good at being stupid and ignorant too, but there's something about the addition of religious fervour and mindless optimism to the mix that makes it truly disturbing.

 

[bestcorp]

While others are providing solid evidence against Evolution, you are simply rebutting it with no facts, just semi-witty comments. Stop grasping for straws here and show proof. BTW, the odds are still against you, and your figures are wrong.

"1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere."

The odds of the SIMPLEST single celled life form (like a freaking amoeba forming) assembling according to Harold Morowitz are 1 in 1099,999,999,916. That's a lot more 0's than you previously posted, and this is only for the simplest single celled life form, let's not even start discussing humans.

Methinks this is the sort of evolutionary process Rusky is in need of:

#1: So what? That proves MY point

#2: So what? How about non mammilian life forms? How about multi-cellular parasites? Matter isn't created. It's merely transferred. ZOMG, it's that same process that allows us to lose weight in a sauna

#3: Isn't this the same point as #2?

#5 and #6 are moot, because it doesn't affect an entire populace. Genetically inferior individuals of a species do not get (as many) breeding opportunities, and do not pass on their genes in a statistically significant way. Therefore there is no cumulative effect or affects.

#7 doesn't even make sense. I think if you gave me the letters from a romance book, I could get 10,000 monkeys to use them to make a few highschool prac books.

#8 Wrong, this guy gre fucking horns all over his body, thanks to the virus that causes warts

#9: I refuted #9 with my last post pretty solidly! We're playing god now, bitch.
And before you say "Oh, but that was scientists doing it in a lab"
Genetic building blocks may have formed in space - astrobiology - 13 June 2008 - New Scientist Space

#10: And those odds, whilst small, are bound to eventually happen thanks to billions of planets that happen to have similar atmoshperhic and chemical make ups.
Sorry, but how many billions of planets exist?
1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere.

 

[bestcorp]

Here's more to think about:

The 2nd second law of thermodynamics says that all things start out with more order than they end with (decay) the theory of macroevolution says the opposite. Law beats theory any day of the week!

The divine watchmaker argument shows that common sense alone can prove that order doesn’t come from chaos in our universe. Interesting patterns like crystals and fractals maybe, but not information.

The fossil record shows us that species exist, then die, and are replaced by another species right after. As opposed to neo-Darwinian evolution which says that a given species tends to slowly change into another.

The fossil record also shows a reversal of the speciation rate; since modern man came on the scene no new species have appeared and instead several go extinct each year. (note: the term species has many definitions)

Many scientists argue for multiple universes to improve the odds for evolution, but they do so from faith, not facts. In our one known universe the mathematics say life shouldn’t exist.

With all of our modern technology, we haven’t yet created any form of life under ideal (laboratory) conditions.

 

[BluuueJammm]

"1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere."

The odds of the SIMPLEST single celled life form (like a freaking amoeba forming) assembling according to Harold Morowitz are 1 in 1099,999,999,916. That's a lot more 0's than you previously posted, and this is only for the simplest single celled life form, let's not even start discussing humans.

That's ok, he got the number of solar systems wrong as well, there are estimated to be around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

[BluuueJammm]

Ok, I haven't got time to go in to all of these now, but the first one is an error that I see all of the time:

Here's more to think about:

The 2nd second law of thermodynamics says that all things start out with more order than they end with (decay) the theory of macroevolution says the opposite. Law beats theory any day of the week!

The bit that is always missed out by the missinformed is that this has to be in a closed system. If you're taking the Earth as the closed system in this case then that is incorrect as the sun imputs energy in to it. Evolution does not break the second law of thermodynamics.

No point in just copying and pasting stuff here if you don't understand it.

 

[bestcorp]

Thanks for going into one out of the I dont know how many points I posted. For someone that's misinformed, at least I know how to correctly spell input. As far as the planets go, don't make me go and calculate the odds of a complex individual forming, I'm sure it will be close to that figure you just tossed up. Oh and btw, I am CERTAIN that the Scientists who come up with Evolution theories and Darwin himself have been wrong on various occassions as well, why not toss this up on the list as well?

That's ok, he got the number of solar systems wrong as well, there are estimated to be around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Ok, I haven't got time to go in to all of these now, but the first one is an error that I see all of the time:



The bit that is always missed out by the missinformed is that this has to be in a closed system. If you're taking the Earth as the closed system in this case then that is incorrect as the sun imputs energy in to it. Evolution does not break the second law of thermodynamics.

No point in just copying and pasting stuff here if you don't understand it.

 

[amateursurgeon]

Why is that all ID arguments consist of straw man fallacies against Evolution and ad hominem attacks against evolution's proponents?

Why don't you put together a coherent body of testable evidence for ID if you're so convinced about it?

 

[BluuueJammm]

Thanks for going into one out of the I dont know how many points I posted.

Why post any points that you don't understand? Pointless just copying and pasting stuff parrot fashion if you don't understand it, as a lot of the stuff you find online from none credible sources can be incorrect.

Oh and btw, I am CERTAIN that the Scientists who come up with Evolution theories and Darwin himself have been wrong on various occassions as well, why not toss this up on the list as well?

Well emp put this better than I could, and I have already quoted him once, but here it is again:

It appears as if you are going down the path of many creationists, meaning you are beginning to see "science" as a big conspiracy, as some kind of organization with an agenda.
As a scientist, I hate to tell you this, but you will never find a more quarreling bunch always at war with each other than "science".
Why do we do this?
To prove each other wrong. To find the flaws in another scientist's arguments.
Why do we do this?
To get closer to the truth. To find the theories and arguments that can not be prove wrong, no matter how hard ANYONE might try.

So far, evolutionary theory has been holding up quite well.

Regards,
::emp::

 

[emp]

"1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere."

The odds of the SIMPLEST single celled life form (like a freaking amoeba forming) assembling according to Harold Morowitz are 1 in 1099,999,999,916. That's a lot more 0's than you previously posted, and this is only for the simplest single celled life form, let's not even start discussing humans.

Aaaahhh... made up numbers, how I love them.

And you accuse scientists of fraud?

::emp::

 

[bestcorp]

Come on man, they are statistics, mathematics, the same stuff scientists use to conduct their experiments.

 

[emp]

No, this number "the probability is..." is completely made up.

There is no hard data to back it.

::emp::

 

[Sawya]

So feel free to continue calling your beliefs on how the universe, world and life started "science" in order to push an agenda. Oh and be sure to call anyone who doesn't believe the same as you stupid because while you're throwing around the science word to push your beliefs into schools scientists, biologists, geologists are slowly proving nearly everything in those books wrong(*reference #1, #3, #4, #5, & #6). Fuck the missing link; when you can show me a kid's science book that doesn't have any "scientific facts" that haven't already been proven wrong in it I'll believe the evolution bullshit.

No one forces scientific "beliefs" on kids in school, they teach them the accepted explanations based on our present evidence and reasoning. Where do you think scientists, biologists and geologists come from?

Also if you invoke God to explain something, you have to then explain where that God came from and so on. I mean ID is so interested in explaining where we came from, but once you get 1 level above they suddenly want to stop explaining things, why is that?

 

[turbolapp]

Why is that all ID arguments consist of straw man fallacies against Evolution and ad hominem attacks against evolution's proponents?

Why don't you put together a coherent body of testable evidence for ID if you're so convinced about it?

BING-fuckin-O

 

[pat J]

I understand DNA code is more complex then computer Code. It was a Metaphor.

A stupid metaphor with no logic since static data has nothing to react with.

This was #8 on my list.
8-At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing genes or traits, but not new genes or new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!

You must really enjoy the shitty taste in your mouth.. This is just assumptions without any factual support. If you really want to disprove the theory of evolution you should provide some evidence that evolution follows a path and can't break out of this path. Then, and only then, will anyone take you seriously when you say that micro and macroevolution is not the same thing.

All evidence speak against you so i would like to see what you have. Oh, right... The absence of evidence is NOT proof against a theory, which you like to think. E=mc2 can't explain black holes but it doesn't make it false.

To answer your question, the theory of evolution isn't a science. It's nothing more than a theory based on sciences such as geology and astronomy that get proven wrong with every single endeavor (more on that).

I actually thought you were smart eli. Well, maybe you are but just not that educated? Since i guess you missed science class i will just give you the basics.

Hypothesis = Educated guess based on observation.
Theory = One or many explanations of one or many facts.
Law/Fact = Indisputable observations. Like.. gravity or evolution. We know it's there or have happened, we just don't know why (which is why a theory is needed).

In your list i can only find hypothesises. NO empirical facts at all. I mean, the whole fucking point with science IS to test and prove shit wrong. That is why we now know that those hypothesises on that list are wrong.

Science will never claim to have the absolute answer to anything. The closest we get are facts of reality. For all we know we could be a part of a big pink elephants LSD dream. But it's just a retarded claim that means nothing to us. Just like the belief in god.

 

[turbolapp]

I actually thought you were smart eli. Well, maybe you are but just not that educated? Since i guess you missed science class i will just give you the basics.

Hypothesis = Educated guess based on observation.
Theory = One or many explanations of one or many facts.
Law/Fact = Indisputable observations. Like.. gravity or evolution. We know it's there or have happened, we just don't know why (which is why a theory is needed).

In your list i can only find hypothesises. NO empirical facts at all. I mean, the whole fucking point with science IS to test and prove shit wrong. That is why we now know that those hypothesises on that list are wrong.

Science will never claim to have the absolute answer to anything. The closest we get are facts of reality. For all we know we could be a part of a big pink elephants LSD dream. But it's just a retarded claim that means nothing to us. Just like the belief in god.

I have to admit, Eli, I was a little disappointed too. No one is claiming to have all the answers but when you equate evolution with religion you are going to down a slippery slope. That's like equating 18th century romantic literature with Thermodynamics. You can treat them as two different respectable fields of learning, if you would like, but they are just that, separate.

(OH. and only one is a science )