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

Exactly right - you guys are making broad assertions all over the place and still no evidence. Saying ' All evidence supports Darwin' and yet provide none, doesn't sway me. It smacks of propaganda - with religious adherence. 'It is because it is.' (Darwin and Dawkins say it is - and they are both gods - bow down, heretic.)
Just because you guys don't question Darwin's views doesn't mean other people won't. You can call me every name in the book - you still haven't addressed my arguments.

No they're not, they are truly legit, you're just running scared.

Ahh so you want me to argue that - got your answer all typed up and ready... too bad. How about the 3 points I did post? Try addressing those, then we can get around to your prepared answer sheet.

"Hey no hackling from the bleachers!" Whose authority??? What? I've got to have a 'members only badge' before I can question your beliefs!

Damn - I had a look at your link - scary. It's not scientific rebuttal it's reactionary defensive tactics. It's the kind of stuff you find on 'pro-life' sites. "When they come at you with this statement, say this..." Have you had a look at some of the content?

Also I was accused of plagerism, copy and paste crap, as if I couldn't word my own arguments. You're not even bothering - just link to a site that looks like it covers everything and be done with her. Nope, ain't good enough.

The writer of that site looks suspiciously Mormon/Moonie/Mama's boy to me and I am not so easily diverted.

You obviously can't pick up the cudgle.

Oh finally someone attempts to address my 3 arguments - yipee! No, false alarm.

First point - Incremental steps cannot explain biological systems. You reply with waffle, egg waffle - you do not say how Darwin overcomes this problem, or how modern evolutionary theory deals with it. Just throw the argument back at me.

Second point - We've never been able to morph one species into another. - You show me skinny corn and then fat corn - or rather grass with small seed then grass with big chucky (and delicious looking) seed. Still grass. This Earth supports a huge array of species, that for all intents and purposes look as if they were created by some incredible master plan. We have no evidence that one species came from another. We have loads of evidence that huge diverse animal populations existed at the same time. And we also have 10-15 thousand years of recorded animal husbandry in which we haven't been able to mutate one species into another - but we are very good at making woolier sheep and and fatter cows. This is empirical evidence against Darwin's theory of species mutating from other species.

Third point - Life is very robust in maintaining its genetic integrity. Mutations often end in disability, illness, death or inability to reproduce - oh you don't address it.

Well Set (as your crew seem to call you) - I'm afraid you didn't win this witch hunt.

Then how are biological systems formed which require very specific cellular interaction to work. A computer requires a vast array of components each properly positioned before you can plug the sucker in and get online - would you say putting together a computer meant that... That doesn't logically lead to the development of a computer, nor a biological system.

And if your argument is life developed the visual system (or auditory, lymphatic, etc) over millions (billions, trillions. whateva) years, then how do you explain the intricate systems found in simple cells? Molecular biology is only now observing the complexity of cellular systems because of our advancements in nano-technology, we still don't understand how it all works, and we are very far from duplicating life. But these cells are the first cells in present evolutionary theory, so they don't have the benefit of that huge stretch of time, that supporters say is needed. It makes no logical sense. If I'm wrong let me in on your logic.

Oh com'on Rosborne, that's a cop out.

Oh that's interesting. It does address my third point about robustness in genetic integrity. Plants do seem to be more open to mutation, within parameters, not sure about the 'seperate species' part. It seems that they were still goats beards just a new strain. But your example does show genetic plasticity.

Really? Speciation can occur and be maintained by reproductive variation and selection? Love to hear about it - ahh, are we moving into the plant kingdom again? Plants are great, but we've already established that there is a certain plasticity in plant genes. Any mammal evidence? Or bird, reptile? I'll even accept fish, at a push.

Thanx for your answer, it's nice to be addressed as if I have some modicum of intelligence instead of being frog spawn - though frog spawn are quite happy little things, I'm sure.

My goal with all these posts is not to have a long drawn out argument, especially over Darwin who I consider one of the father's of modern thought (and like all good parents taught his children to continue in the journey to question status quo and seek the truth). But rather to point out how you don't substantiate your flippant arrogance. I've been checking around the site and you dismiss alternative views by name calling, using irrelevant research or a flurry of multi-syllable words that say nada and then pat each other on the back, cos y'all lynched 'nother one of those sucker creationists. HUH??? You're an embarrassment to science. You act like 5 year olds - "I'm the king of the castle, you're the dirty rascal." Get over yourselves! If you disagree then substantiate your reasons why, or don't evoke 'rationale' as your buddy - cos that buddy's long gone from what I see in your posts.

He he... I like this new gal. She's got spirit!

If you wish to discuss topics, its best that you take your own advice and stop being as dense as you are attempting to be. If you fail to accept research results from mainstream science, then pointing out the shortcomings of others isnt your best suit is it?
I was certain that your participation would lead us to othe more interesting areas of point counterpoint. Apparently I was wrong because youve degraded your own pallaver into a typical Creationist rant where you confuse "FAQ" answers with being "dismissive".

Youve made several assertions without any backup nor logical points of departure. Weve asked you fo clarification or evidence. SO far, you are interpreting your own worldview as "evidence".
I or one, get tired of that, since its a dishonest style of debate.

Don't lovely thoughts make us feel better? Doesn't feeling better make us healthier and happier both individually and socially? If we are healthier and happier won't we live longer and breed more people who like lovely thoughts? Won't having lovely thoughts be selected in? When there are only people who have lovely thoughts won't all discord cease?

Is the implication of your statement that science has horrible thoughts and uses ugly words (an obvious fact)? Won't the promotion of horrible thoughts and ugly words make us feel ill and miserable. If we are thinking horrible thoughts, like millions of abortions are a great idea, and expressing them in ugly words, like the abortion legislation, won't we live shorter lives, ignoring artificial medical intervention which expands to keep pace as fertiliser production does on naturally worked out soils, and breed less. So if we look scientifically and discourse in ugly words won't we become ill and miserable and select in misery and biological malfunction. If then everybody is miserable and biologically malfunctioning won't discord expand? Won't the continuous expansion of discord coupled with advanced technology, the doomsday bomb say, ugly words, select out the human bloody race?

Is science on a suicide mission?

Do you accept, bb, the existence of the psychosomatic realm and that emotions can affect the biology and the functioning of the social system?

You are disputing with people who use ugly words and eschew lovely thoughts. Who dispute with unsupported assertions and insulting invective. Who have a material interest in promoting science at the expense of religious thinking. Who seek to blame shortcomings in the US educational system on religious thinking against all evidence to the contrary, i.e. that science is a Christian invention, that the majority of the great scientists were religious, as a means of diverting attention from the real causes which are to do with nepotism and dumbed down standards for qualifications and a desperation, born of those, to talk about teaching in preference to actually teaching and to get their names up in lights.

And who will put you on Ignore if you so much as scratch the surface of the tender veneer they are coated in. And if that doesn't slow you down they will run away to another thread where they think there is some easy meat to chew on so they can run on the spot for another stretch of time preening their specialist knowledge of a tiny, dusty corner of the scientific canon. And they won't answer any questions relating to social consequences. They view human society as they did their toy soldiers in their formatives.

I'm afraid that you are much to good for them though so I don't expect they'll be here for long. It's YECs they thrive on.

It's odd that the graph has some Catholic countries higher up the list than the US don't you think?

I've slaughtered them on the Intelligent Design threads. They are unused to their insults failing to cow anybody.

Once again you write: "Incremental steps cannot explain biological systems"--and you offer no substantiation for this statement from authority on this claim. All you do is to make a snide comment about my response, without addressing that this (your claim) is a statement from authority, and without providing even a logical basis for the claim, never mind any evidence. "Darwin" does not overcome this problem because it is only a problem in your mind. I didn't throw any argument back at you because you offer no argument to support this claim--you just make the claim. That's pretty poor.

For your second point, you ignore that no one has stated that one species will "morph" into another, and that a theory of evolution does not state that one species will "morph" into another. I pointed out to you, with teosinte/maize as an example, that morphology does not necessarily determine speciation. All you have for that is more sarcasm, you don't have a single substantive comment on the subject of morphology.

You state: "This Earth supports a huge array of species, that for all intents and purposes look as if they were created by some incredible master plan." This is a statement form authority, you don't even provide a logical basis upon which to allege that there is an apparent "master plan." You follow that with: "We have no evidence that one species came from another." That is also a statement from authority, and in this case, not only do you have no basis of authority for such a statement, even including a mere logical basis, but your statement flies in the face of scientific evidence. Animal husbandry is, at the most 8500 years old--but regardless of how old animal husbandry is, husbandmen have not been attempting to develop new species, they have only been attempting to select for the enhancement of existing traits. Do you suppose that a neolithic farmers was going to domesticate a sheep and then attempt to turn it into a pig? In fact, the enhancement by breeding selection points to how speciation occurs, and it contradicts your point one. Incremental change over time accounts for speciation. You can make all the phony statements from authority that you want to make, but that won't change the reality of small changes accumulating significant change over millions of generations. There were six million years or more from the earliest hominid to homo sapiens. With and outside figure of 15 years for a viable reproductive generation, that's 400,000 generations. For many animals, tens of millions of years separate them from their common ancestors. Stating that animal husbandry is evidence against speciation does not make it so. I'll leave aside your silly use of the term mutation.

You'll have to do a lot better than this. You just throw out statements without support, and apparently think someone here is obliged to disprove your statements. That's not how real life, or science, work. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. You have proven nothing.

I don't address your third "point" because it is unclear what you are attempting to allege. Make a more clear statement, or ask a quesiton (which is what people usually do when they want an answer), and people will have something to address. Once again, you just throw out statements from authority, and provide no supporting evidence that your statements are valid. You seem to expect that people are somehow obliged to disprove your ipse dixit.

I have no "crew," and the other members here are no more "mine" than are you. Some people address me as "Set," and certainly there is nothing i can do about that, other than to ignore them. I prefer, however, that only my friends address me in that manner. I have no reason to consider you a friend. Of course, i also tend to ignore people who get snide with me, and with whom conversation is fruitless, so it might soon not matter how you address me.

I never claimed to be involved in any type of witch hunt. That was a snotty remark by a member whom i had long ignored, and should have continued to ignore, if it were not for a fit of courtesy which lead me to respond to him in other threads recently. I won't make that mistake twice with that clown. His remarks were an unflattering reflection on a conversation i was having with Roswell about an anti-evolution fanatic who used to post here, but whom we have not seen for a long time. Nothing i wrote remotely rose to the level of witch hunt, a species of hysteria which bible-thumpers don't warrant. Even with people who are genuinely a threat to good order in society, hysteria is not a useful means of dealing with them.

There is nothing to win or lose here. It also appears more and more that there is also nothing to discuss. You make statements from authority for which you offer no evidence, and for which you don't even offer a logical rationale. That won't last long as a basis for conversation.

effemm wrote,



See what I mean bb?

It appears that that is all we're going to see from this member. I did notice, however, that she is setting herself up for martyrdom. While making nasty flings at the other members posting here, she alleges that "all" that people do is launch personal attacks on creationists. Clearly, she is preparing an avenue for her retreat. That may be sooner or it may be later, but it will be inevitable if all she ever offers are statements from authority without substantiation.

And you have missed that bb is a lady. But that's normal for you Set. You just don't read carefully enough.

Darwin discussed this at great length, in fact, His entire Chapter 4 of "The Origin..." was a development of the mechanisms of incremental steps. His graphic of waht wed call a cladogram displays (purely from a fossil record and derived species) how a taxon with greater number of genera will produce more species. (See RAup 1981"Extinction, BAd Luck or Bad GEnes")

Ros has been onsistently trying to explain this. Species dont morph, one into another. Thats not waht natural selection (Or Punctuated Equilibrium) say. This is a single point of divergence within the ranks of Creationists. Intelligent Designers all accept the evidence for descent with modification and COMMON DESCENT. Common descent does not mean "morph". Do some more reading if youre gonna try to argue intelligently. ALl youre doing is dropping the discussion back to its beginning and pleasding ignorance. If you wanna sound scholarly, dont represent stuff thats just incorrect. PLEASE.


Life is also "very robsut" in displaying its genetic diversity. YA cant have it both ways . Sean CArroll has a complete discussion of "fossil genes" in derived species. (Where an evolved species like the "Ice Fish" retains iots genomic epression from its antecedents. Its just that these genes are no longer expressed. Theys till remain on the "string" however). Retention of genetic integrity is just a matter of "expression' not actual existence or non existence of genes. Whaels of widely divergent groups (fin, bow, baleen, toothed) all retain about 95% plus of the genes of the main whale stem. The actual variance of genera is merely the expression of a few genes.

AS Miller has said (and someone herein always repeats it when someone doesnt seem to "get it", Evolution is merely taking what youve already got and doing something new with it"

Perhaps bollyobd is setting this up for the appelate division.

Or just for a hasty exit with some shots over the stern about how she's been treated.

You've seen nothing yet kid. They can't even read and write properly as you can see by them even confusing you with various others. They need to actually. Fixing you in a glass case with a pin as a creationist is a necessity for them you see. They do labels bigtime. It saves them thinking which you must agree is a good idea as they can't think. Probably never could.



Nothing new there bb.



I wouldn't go that far. I call him "Settin' Aah-aah" when he calls me names. It means slow drying baby ****.



That's the A2K method of raising the voice. Shouting. effemm thinks everybody is stupid and can't read properly. Don't copy him.

I've been telling them that for four years. Real scientist's toes curl up in cringing embarrassment at these plonkers defending science.

They don't like Christian theology because they are all involved, or have been, is some behaviour patterns which it uneqivocally condemns. They use science and Darwin as a cudgel to beat Christianity with as a result.

It has been on our News that Mr and Mrs Obama have just attended a religious service in St. John's. And he's supposed to be a leftie.



Do you guys not feel a bit dissidental? Out goes one religious person and in comes another. After a whole history of little else and a future garuanteed the same.

You are trolling society itself.

Has a declared atheist Darwinian ever stood?

Ok, I'll rephrase: "Your statement is in conflict with established scientific facts. And since you are arguing against accepted facts, you need to support your statement before any of us should be expected to take it seriously."