Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[Forever_frost]

I'll be the first to admit, there was a lot outside of my pay grade. Psychology or criminal law? Those are my wheel houses and I'm pretty good with both. However, reading it, what I saw was the researcher said "I took fly x and had them mate with fly y and got fly z." He took 2 already existing creatures of the same species and induced them to mate in a controlled environment. What the leap is, is to say "humans came from nothing, moved up to apes and from there, became as we are" whereas I'm saying "we were created as we are and our environment caused biological changes and modifications to us to help us survive in the environments our ancestors chose." Now, which takes more faith?

Yes, frosty, I'm talking about evolution. The "creation of life", while a few experiments have been done to back current theories, is still fairly far outside our research ability. Just doesn't interest me as much.

Maybe you should go back and read closer, I'll guarantee at this point you haven't read the whole thing. There are plenty examples of speciation in the wild, but you'll just claim there was another influencing factor. But when it's taken to a lab, in a testable environment, you claim it's unnatural. Quite a circular paradox you've created there.

Nevertheless, upon understanding the experiments (which regrettably takes a deeper molecular biology understanding), you'll see the confirmation (partially or entirely, depending on the experiment) of different components of evolution.

(I'm getting sucked into this, damnit)
For example:

Polyploidy/Hybridization shows how, in nature, organisms are able to sexually isolate themselves to create two separate and eventually diverging gene pools through physical reproductive isolation, thus speciation immediately.

The houseflies show how, in nature, organisms are able to sexually isolate themselves through behavioral isolation mimicking geographical isolation then later reintroduction and remain sexually isolated. This is very specifically seen in Rice and Salt where they are able to produce two sexually isolated strains.

The yellow monkey flower shows the forces of natural selection hard at work in fostering the divergence of a new species.

Of course, once you achieve reproductive isolation, adaptation will affect the isolated populations differently and, over time, diverge the two populations into easily identifiable species.

Those that say they accept adaptation but not speciation simply tell me they don't really understand the mechanisms at work in either.

[racrguy]

The bible is a story. Nothing more. The theory of evolution is man's attempt at explaining how our species came about. If I had to choose between the two, as to which to teach young minds in school, it would be the bible. It may be alot of hogwash, but it instills very basic morals and teachings that are beneficial to young impressionable minds. Evolution on the other hand would not provide this benefit.

With that said, any grown adult that thinks we all came from Adam and Eve, is delusional. It makes for great stories, but to believe it as fact, and discredit the rational idea that we might have evolved fom more primitive relatives, is ignorant.

I get what you're trying to say, but to say the bible is a good source of morals is a joke at best.

[exlude]

Yes, frosty, I'm talking about evolution. The "creation of life", while a few experiments have been done to back current theories, is still fairly far outside our research ability. Just doesn't interest me as much.

Maybe you should go back and read closer, I'll guarantee at this point you haven't read the whole thing. There are plenty examples of speciation in the wild, but you'll just claim there was another influencing factor. But when it's taken to a lab, in a testable environment, you claim it's unnatural. Quite a circular paradox you've created there.

Nevertheless, upon understanding the experiments (which regrettably takes a deeper molecular biology understanding), you'll see the confirmation (partially or entirely, depending on the experiment) of different components of evolution.

(I'm getting sucked into this, damnit)
For example:

Polyploidy/Hybridization shows how, in nature, organisms are able to sexually isolate themselves to create two separate and eventually diverging gene pools through physical reproductive isolation, thus speciation immediately.

The houseflies show how, in nature, organisms are able to sexually isolate themselves through behavioral isolation mimicking geographical isolation then later reintroduction and remain sexually isolated. This is very specifically seen in Rice and Salt where they are able to produce two sexually isolated strains.

The yellow monkey flower shows the forces of natural selection hard at work in fostering the divergence of a new species.

Of course, once you achieve reproductive isolation, adaptation will affect the isolated populations differently and, over time, diverge the two populations into easily identifiable species.

Those that say they accept adaptation but not speciation simply tell me they don't really understand the mechanisms at work in either.

[Maddhattter]

Exlude, then you have no answer for the creation of life. That is what you are telling me.

I agree. It seems that is what Exlude said. I would say that as well.

That fact, however, grants absolutely zero credibility to any of your claims. In fact, as you keep lumping bio-genesis into evolution, the fact that evolution can be true without any need for knowledge of how life started works against your argument of evolution.

I read through your article, however what you just did with it said that for evolution to occur, it has to be guided. Don't believe me? Go back and read it. The experiments done had human guidance that required the researcher to manipulate already existing creatures to get a desired effect.

While the above is irrelevant, if God guided evolution, evolution is still more supported than creationism by merit of being scientifically supported at all.

[Forever_frost]

Exlude, then you have no answer for the creation of life. That is what you are telling me. I read through your article, however what you just did with it said that for evolution to occur, it has to be guided. Don't believe me? Go back and read it. The experiments done had human guidance that required the researcher to manipulate already existing creatures to get a desired effect.

[exlude]

Right, so show me scientific evidence that points to where we came from, with verifiable and reproducible data. Don't worry, I'll wait. And I mean from this planet being a ball of fiery rock to what we have now, from us being nothing but chemicals in a pond to what we are. You want to talk about articles of faith? Believing that evolution, macro evolution occurred that changed us from nothing to what we are through a series of accidents and mutations. Do I believe in micro evolution? Yes. I certainly do and have seen proof of it. Do I believe we started out as a single celled organism and through some mutation became what we are? No. I've also seen zero hard evidence of it. However, I HAVE seen some scientists say they have ... faith... that the answer is out there and they just have to find it.

Which takes more faith? To believe that God created us or that we know where we came from and how we were created based on today's science?

Durrr, the formation of this earth and the beginning of life does not fall under evolution...

Aside from the articles already posted in this thread, which you chose to ignore, I've explained this directly to you before. I'm tired of explaining it.

Read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Let me know if you need anything explained.

[Baba Ganoush]

The bible is a story. Nothing more. The theory of evolution is man's attempt at explaining how our species came about. If I had to choose between the two, as to which to teach young minds in school, it would be the bible. It may be alot of hogwash, but it instills very basic morals and teachings that are beneficial to young impressionable minds. Evolution on the other hand would not provide this benefit.

With that said, any grown adult that thinks we all came from Adam and Eve, is delusional. It makes for great stories, but to believe it as fact, and discredit the rational idea that we might have evolved fom more primitive relatives, is ignorant.

[Forever_frost]

So you are in favor of not teaching anything because everything to do with creation is equally unproven to you?

I guess I am an extremist for promoting the idea that a Science class should focus on things that can be proven or analyzed using Science.

Right, so show me scientific evidence that points to where we came from, with verifiable and reproducible data. Don't worry, I'll wait. And I mean from this planet being a ball of fiery rock to what we have now, from us being nothing but chemicals in a pond to what we are. You want to talk about articles of faith? Believing that evolution, macro evolution occurred that changed us from nothing to what we are through a series of accidents and mutations. Do I believe in micro evolution? Yes. I certainly do and have seen proof of it. Do I believe we started out as a single celled organism and through some mutation became what we are? No. I've also seen zero hard evidence of it. However, I HAVE seen some scientists say they have ... faith... that the answer is out there and they just have to find it.

Which takes more faith? To believe that God created us or that we know where we came from and how we were created based on today's science?

[racrguy]

Umm no, not at all. That is why its called a theory. There is not 100% proof. Heck there isn't even 1% proof. Did someone dig up a half ape half man and me not hear about it?

The old "crockiduck" argument. All I'll say is lolz. Do some research, gain an educated opinion.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Not gonna do it....

you know you want to...

[racrguy]

What you said is true for every single person in this thread. Why single me out? If any of these things in the thread were facts... hardcore proven... we would not be discussing any of this.

You asked for proof, and also you spouted claims and bullshit in another thread that you STILL haven't provided a lick of evidence for, yet you demand evidence here.

Evolution is hardcore proven, yet some people, such as yourself, still refuse it. Again, just because you proclaim it's not true, doesn't mean it's not.

In your original question to me, you've shown you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and reaffirmed that fact when you stated you believe things evolve, then you state that Humans don't evolve. Do I need to teach you about the three laws of logic?

When we all die there is only one argument in this thread that will matter.... that is the argument of an afterlife. If the ones who believe are wrong, no big deal. If the ones who don't believe are wrong, well sucks for them.

So, not only do you offer up Pascal's Wager, but a broken one at that. Let's say for instance there IS a god. What if you're worshiping the wrong one? Maybe the Buddhists are right, maybe the muslims, or the jews perhaps. Even though muslims and jews believe in the same god you do, the three sects have different ways to get into heaven, and are mutually exclusive. So unless you practice every known religion, it is more likely that you are going to the worse place. I can't say hell because not all religions believe in a heaven/hell scenario. If you're Hindu, their version of hell is being reincarnated into a "lesser species," such as a fly, or grub worm.

It's no wonder you believe what you do. I'm not sure if you know how to be logical, let alone apply any logical thought to anything.

Not gonna do it....

[exlude]

Umm no, not at all. That is why its called a theory. There is not 100% proof. Heck there isn't even 1% proof. Did someone dig up a half ape half man and me not hear about it?

You said there was no evidence at all...lulz

Since you refused to answer my question earlier, I'll go ahead and assume you have studied the topic at hand little to not at all.


ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective


1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular

[Machx2]

your kidding right?

Umm no, not at all. That is why its called a theory. There is not 100% proof. Heck there isn't even 1% proof. Did someone dig up a half ape half man and me not hear about it?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Considering evolution is a process that works over many generations, no one could show you evolution on a forum.

I suspect I won't be telling you anything new, but to bolster your position:

Viral replication. Not quite alive by definition, but easily the simplest form of self replicating pathogen with undoubtedly the most observable evolutionary process. Mutations happen rapidly which is why it is extremely difficult to develop effective antiviral drugs. Obviously not to the scale of macro-organisms, but the simplicity of the pathogen allows it to evolve rapidly, and visibly.

Of course, evolution takes longer with larger, more complex organisms. Bacteria still reproduce rapidly enough to observe many generations and the effects of mutations on a population. As it turns out, one study in particular conducted in 1943 found that a strain of E. Coli would spontaneously mutate a resistance to bacteriophages.

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf

It's obviously not enough to say anything definitive about macro-organisms, but it's as demonstrable of evolutionary processes as anything. And it's 70 years old.