EXPELLED -How Schools Are Hiding Real Science.

Status
Not open for further replies.
so yes, we could (did) evolve from single cell organisms.

...

No scientist will tell you that evolution includes the big bang, or the start of life on earth.

Herein lies the rub ... evolution studies how things change over generations in hope of understanding the change & possibly predict future changes. To assume it goes all the way back to single cell organisms is making an mockery of your argument. This is SPECIFICALLY where the problem is.
Where is the fact in this single cell organism argument?

What you are doing is convoluting hard science to push a specific agenda (in this case atheism) .. just as bible thumpers are when they demand the 10 commandments get posted in schools. There is nothing wrong with posting rules that state don't murder, don't steal, ... but that it's associated with the bible is where the problem is. This is understandable.

Teaching evolution as change is not a problem, teaching that we come from single celled organisms as fact is a big problem. Slippery slope my friend.

Am I making any sense to you at all? Your assumption has taken logical science and turned it into propaganda machine. Honestly, it's bad for everyone.
 


Its funny how everybody just talks about how cocky this is, and what a bunch of nonsense. But nobody brings up evidence of your science. Like I said micro and macro evolution, two different things. No evidence of new traits.

Heres what is being thought in schools. Without hard evidence. This is truly a belief.

rhan765l.jpg
 
Herein lies the rub ... evolution studies how things change over generations in hope of understanding the change & possibly predict future changes. To assume it goes all the way back to single cell organisms is making an mockery of your argument. This is SPECIFICALLY where the problem is.
Where is the fact in this single cell organism argument?

What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)? (ActionBioscience)
DNA evidence shows this to be true. I can understand how it is pretty mind boggling to think that we origionally came from a single cell organism, but if you believe DNA evidence then this is what happened. If you don't believe the evidence then so be it.

There are also good fossil records to back up a lot of the DNA evidence.

Am I making any sense to you at all?

Yes you are, I can well understand that this can be quite a step for some people to take, especailly if they are religeous. The evidence is there to show that we evolved from single cell organisms though.

If you don't accept the DNA evidence for some reason, could you at least accept that it would be possible for evolution to take us from a single cell, through to muticellular organisms, and eventually through to humans?
 
Whats up BlueeJam. Hoooow you doing? I'm looking at the article right now.

Here my .2 on fossil records.
There is no fossil records that show Transitional Links. That support macro evolution.
All fossil records found already have fully functional systems.
is there a fossil with part feet and part fin. What the fossil record shows me is these creatures have fully functional systems from the very beginning.
Plus most so called missing links found were either a hoax, non human, or a human. Why would someone fabricate evidence like that.(I not saying everybody, just some fanatics in the Darwinian movement, they do exist on both sides I admit) Also no actual missing links between four legged animals and the two legged apes.
That would be the base for Darwinian evolution. Hey if they were there I'm all for it.
 
That's all fine and dandy but it's far from proof, fact or truth. Perhaps you can have an argument in a few hundred (or thousand) years. But to associate that with evolution and teach it as implied fact in schools is out of the question. Allow kids to be open minded and just teach the facts.

To me, this argument is all about what is taught in schools. As grownups, we are able to make our own decisions and believe (or not) what we want to. When people in a position of authority & respect (teachers) are telling kids one thing, they will believe them ... even if it's not fact. This corrupts and inhibits free thinking.

Yes you are, I can well understand that this can be quite a step for some people to take, especailly if they are religeous. The evidence is there to show that we evolved from single cell organisms though.

This has nothing to do with religion. This is separating fact from ideas ... even if they are good ideas.

If you don't accept the DNA evidence for some reason, could you at least accept that it would be possible for evolution to take us from a single cell, through to muticellular organisms, and eventually through to humans?

Now here is the truth as I see it ... there are 3 possibilities on how life began

1. some omnipotent being waved their magic wand and made it so
2. the aliens sent dna of many different animals to our planet to seed population
3. bang, it just happened. Something to do with energy created life

In my mind, you have a 33% chance of being right. I choose to believe we are a synthetic life form of some sort ... I've got a 66% chance of being right.
 
Erect, This is exactly what I'm talking about. Brainwashing children, closes their minds to new ideas. When a child reads a school book, he knows its a fact. Thats how I grow up, I never questioned its authenticity.

Well I did in my teens. Coming from an atheist family by the way and a Communist nation that was all about Darwin.
 
What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)? (ActionBioscience)
DNA evidence shows this to be true. I can understand how it is pretty mind boggling to think that we origionally came from a single cell organism, but if you believe DNA evidence then this is what happened. If you don't believe the evidence then so be it.

This is interesting.

"It is possible that all of LUA's contemporaries became extinct (theres always something like that in there, or billioans and billioans of years ago) and only LUA's genetic heritage lived to this day. Or, as proposed by Carl Woese, perhaps no individual organism can be considered a LUA, but the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[4] Another hypothesis to explain the paucity of alternative life forms is panspermia, the inoculation of Earth by life carried on meteorites."

"What was that about meteorites. This doesn't really disprove my theory.
Maybe you should look into it.
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

last universal common ancestor (LUCA), the cenancestor or "number one" in slang, is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend."

Keywords "is the hypothetical latest living organism"

Meaning of Hypothetical - highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
 
Here's another.


'Doolittle, a Darwinian biologist, elsewhere writes that "there would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor."2 Doolittle attributes his observations to gene-swapping among microorganisms at the base of the tree. But Carl Woese, the father of evolutionary molecular systematics, finds that such problems exist beyond the base of the tree: "Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."3

Looking higher up the tree, a recent study conducted by Darwinian scientists tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that "[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved."4 The basic problem is that phylogenetic trees based upon one gene or other characteristic will commonly conflict with trees based upon another gene or macro-characteristic. Indeed, the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal phyla (or basic body plans) appeared over 500 million years ago in a geological instant, raises a serious challenge to Darwinian explanations of common descent."
 
That's all fine and dandy but it's far from proof, fact or truth. Perhaps you can have an argument in a few hundred (or thousand) years. But to associate that with evolution and teach it as implied fact in schools is out of the question. Allow kids to be open minded and just teach the facts.

No one ever said it was just a fact.

This has nothing to do with religion. This is separating fact from ideas ... even if they are good ideas.

They are already separated. Theories are not a facts, just based on them. They are, however, not ideas either.
 
This is also pretty interesting.

The NAS oversells the scientific importance of evolution.

With a picture of a cute baby chimp on its cover, the NAS�s new Science, Evolution, and Creationism booklet states, �Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.� This sweeping statement does not speak for all NAS members. As NAS member Philip Skell wrote in The Scientist in 2005:
�Darwinian evolution � whatever its other virtues � does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.�[3]
Some evolutionary biologists would also disagree with the NAS�s claims in its new booklet that evolution has provided much agricultural, medical, or other commercial benefits to society. As evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in Nature, �improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'.�[4]

Even when trying to fight anti-biotic resistance, Darwin�s theory provides little guidance. As SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor recounts, �Darwinism tells us that � bacteria survive antibiotics that they're not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That�s it.�[5] It is probably for this reason that Coyne admitted in Nature that �if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.�[6] To actually create drugs that can outsmart evolving bacteria or cancer cells, biomedical researchers must use a process of intelligent design.

and one more.

Moreover, the NAS�s claim that there is no controversy over evolution is a bluff, for there is significant scientific dissent from the view of evolution by natural selection. Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the �Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric.�[7] She further observes that �new mutations don�t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.�[8] In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold admitted in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.�[9] Other scientists have gone much further.

This is coming from your own people.
 
This is coming from your own people.

Hehe, no it isn't, unfortunately for you I know what the Discovery Institute is, and the incorrect propaganda that comes out of it:
Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[7][8][9] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".


Your source: http://www.discovery.org/a/4405
 
In my mind, you have a 33% chance of being right. I choose to believe we are a synthetic life form of some sort ... I've got a 66% chance of being right.

You give each one of those choices an equal probability then:). Hey, 33% is more than most Americans would give evolution I guess.
 
You can research the scientist to confirm what it talked about.

Heres the names. (non believers of creationism or ID)(Just common sense)
SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne
Biochemist Franklin Harold
Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID a quote from her site
"The result of thirty years of delving into a vast, mostly arcane literature, this is the first attempt to go beyond – and reveal the severe limitations of – the dogmatic thinking that has dominated evolutionary biology for almost three generations."

These professors are legit.

BlueeJam lets agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
 
Heres a book reference to Biochemist Franklin Harold
(Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, pg. 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Heres the qoute "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations"

Jerry Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?," reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, Vol 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

Is Franklin Harold, Lynn Margulis, Jerry Coyne are not your own people.
 
You can research the scientist to confirm what it talked about.

I don't need to, others have already done this for me, once again:


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", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.