U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

Please try to present some of the evidence for Intelligent Design. It appears that the Discovery Institute has closed down its own web site re: "The serch for Intelligent Design of life on earth". They seem to be flat out of myths and have NEVER come up with any evidence.

The mere fact that US kids are ignorant of much biology isnt the schools fault (except maybe for Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and KAnsas). The teachers are being challenged by myths not science , and only the third district federal court has taken it on itself to remind the ISers that they are merely spouting religious beleifs < Which, according to the US Constitution, is a no no.

You may smile all you wish at the few who resist the ID "evidence" . Since none exists , our British Friend has been trying to substitute literary quotes, religious tracts, and dream tracts, and for six years noone has been swayed by him. SO, if I dont buy his crap, why should I buy yours? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE that you can lay on a table for discussion?

Maybe youll be better at it than our self-impressed dude from UK


PS, if you see this as a"Philosophy forum" then you are mistaken. This thread has been going on a year or more before you were even hijacked by A2K.

Intelligent design has never had any science behind it, never had a single fact to bolster it. Fortunately, although we may have a large population of religious fundamentalists, our legal system keeps ID out of the schools. All are free to believe in ID if they so choose, but it will not be the accepted equal to science in our classrooms, ever.

Have you any evidence for that assertion fm? Your very language is unscientific so it's easy to see that your general thinking also is.

All I have to do is refer the reader back to your previous post where you claim that youve been trying to "tell us all" how smart you are for 6 years. I understand you have a good memory, its just not too long

It requires one less piece of evidence to support than does ID because ID needs to explain where the Intelligent Designer came from in the first place.

Your argument above is irrational and illogical. You are "multiplying entities beyond necessity" and claiming that you are simplifying rather than complicating.

Why the **** would I need to "accept" a theory? What has science become that theories are confused for facts and deem consensus? There is no such thing as consensus science. Science is objective.

You are confusing theory with hypothesis.

It's a common error.

The United States "lags the world" in acceptance of naziism and communism too; that's why I still live here....

You get a warped perception of the reality of this one on leftist forums. The hard, cold reality is that evolution has been OVERWHELMINGLY disproved and debunked via numerous studies, numerous lines of reasoning over a long period of time, and that NOBODY with any claim to brains or talent believes in it any more. It is being supported by academic dead wood and that's every bit of it.

Nobody doubts MICRO-evolution but MACRO-evolution, which is what the theory of evolution is about, is gone.


MACROEVOLUTION is the notion that new KINDS of animals can somehow arise via an accumulation of the changes involved in microevolution and/or via mutations and this is the thing which is normally referred to as the theory of evolution.

There is no evidence supporting macroevolution at all. In fact when scientists tried to prove the concept in the early 1900s, they utterly failed and the failure was so stark and garish that a number of the scientists involved publically renounced evolution at the time, most notably Goldschmidt who devised his "hopeful monster" theory as a possible replacement.

What they did, over a period of about twenty years, involved fruit flies which breed new generations every few days. Twenty years worth of that is equal to tens of thousands of generations of any normal animal, i.e. enough for any possibility of macroevolution to be observed without requiring millions of years.

What they did was to subject those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations, including electricity, chemicals, heat, cold, noise, silence, vibration, and basically just everything, and then recombine like mutants in every possible way.

And all they ever got was what the breeders told Charles Darwin was all he would ever get via mutation when they told him he was full of **** in the 1850s, i.e. fruit flies, sterile mutants, and next generations of mutants which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit fly. Basically, all they had to show for their work after 20 years was fruit flies. No wasps, ants, spiders, mantises, beetles, hornets, mosquitos, or any other kind of animal whatsoever; just fruit flies.

Basically, the typical yuppie who believes in evolution does not really understand the meaning of "natural selection" and assumes it to be some sort of magical process which produces new kinds of animals. Natural selection in fact is a destructive process and not a constructive one. You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could build a skyscraper with a wrecking ball. Natural selection is the conservative process which weeds out everything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given animal species. It is an agent of stasis and not of change.

What the theory of evolution actually says is that chance mutations create new kinds of animals and that, amongst these new kinds of animals, natural selection then weeds out the "unfit".

The only problem is that, in real life, mutations all have names, such as "Down's Syndrome", "Tay-Sachs", "cri-du-chat syndrome", phoco-locii etc. etc. etc. Ever notice the women walking door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they are ALWAYS collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and never for money for research to CAUSE them? Think there might be a reason for that??

Charles Darwin's theory demands that these kinds of mutations which are invariably destructive and detrimental, are the root cause of our entire biosphere, starting from one-celled animals. The whole idea is basically idiotic.

The basic problem was that our entire living world is determined on information and the only information those scientists ever had in the picture for the fruit fly experiments was the information for fruit flies. In the 1960s when DNA/RNA was discovered, that should have been the end of all belief in evolution. Official science organs needed to put two and two together and say



I mean, a kid who couldn't do that much of a job of adding two and two to four would be in the first grade until he was 30.

List of most known human mutations i.e. the bulk of potential causes of human evolution to the next step of "farmerman-uebermensch(TM)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

And the alternative is.....

(You have probably said it before, but I'm new.)

It doesn't matter. ANYTHING is better than a brain-dead ideological doctrine which requires an infinite series of outright zero-probability events. Voodoo is better; rastafari is better:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'
Drink deep or taste not of this Pierian Spring.

The fact that you can even deny the realtionship that gene frequency between similar species DOES NOT evidence evolution shows you how dead headed any alternative actually is.

FAce it gunga, you have no alternative that can even argue the point.

I usually let gunga go his own way, hes lost in a world where "Coast to Coast" is required listening.

Mathematicians and evoloserism...

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

That's just the usual bunch of assertions fm. You don't answer any of gunga's points nor even attempt to. Especially this one--



It sure is. Evolution's sexual selection procedures would de-select the lot of them. So they have a lot to thank monogamy for.

What the evolutionist's objection to polygamy fm? It applies on stud farms doesn't it and they are designed to evolve the fittest and it's a very iffy science as many an owner of a mare who has paid out astronomical fees has discovered.

Can't you see that any alternative is better than Dawkins's band of nerdies when it comes to educating the next generation for the tasks they will have to face? They are so doleful. What can they admire except themselves

Life would be so much more fun if we didn't have to continually explain the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Proof that God abandoned us.

Apples and oranges . . .but . . . wait . . . that sort of comparison never stopped you before.

Sewell is a favorite for the Discovery Institutes assertion of "peer review" articles. His big claim to fame has been the violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

He forgets that evolution is not random and is adaptive to the environment at hand. So the modifications of a specific feature are deteremined by the need imposed by the environment.
And the fact that this is donwe kind of in a sloppy sequence precludes a really "Intelligent" Intelligent Designer.