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

We have several threads on this subject. I'm very interested in this myself. I'll see if I can dig them up.


Please define what you will accept as "evidence". Science has already amassed huge volumes of evidence in support of modern evolutionary theory, but for some reason you seem focused on whether any definitive "species" has ever been artificially created (which is not a requirement for the theory, and is not even expected to be something we can do in the time-frame of human history). The fossil record is accepted by science as evidence for animal evolution, do you reject the fossil record as evidence? If so, why?

(for any newbies to the site) Roswell = Rosborne979

Yes, i'm sorry . . . Ros tends to play down his former career as a Ufologist in New Mexico.

Farmerman I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you took to answer my posts.
Cladograms are part of the classification system used in evolutionary biology. It's not really an explanation of the biological systems developed in individual organisms but rather differences between groups.

Ok so life started as a base of a tree and branched off in different directions. Branches became different types of animals. However you want to describe it - morph, mutate, develop, evolve - one animal became another leading to the wide diversity of species we now have. It's that development I'm talking about - Darwin said it happened through natural selection, no intelligence or blue print involved, it just happened over a long time because of mutation. I think you say reproduction. What I am asking for is proof. It seems you are unable to give corroborative evidence because the events happened so long ago. That's fine, but that means the assertion remains a theory, a supposition - even if it is an integral part, a building block, of evolutionary biology.

So I take from this that species retain a lot of genes that then become dormant, and this is one of the causes of differentiation between species. How is it decided what is expressed or isn't expressed? Arbitrary? Random? Intelligence? No real proof really, just a supposition that its good ole natural selection (which has never been explained really). It remains some ethereal omniscient characteristic, kinda god like in a godless theory.

It seems to me from the posts I've received that evidence for evolutionary theory evokes the theory itself as its only proof.

Nah, I like getting the last word in.

You wish!

Alrighty, Roswell it is

There is certainly a lot going on in your post Spendius! If you got your name (Spendius) from your over-exuberance in shopping, it has seemed to carry over into your posts. (Mind you I'm often just as guilty with very long posts.)

I read a great deal of frustration in your post. I think you should just let it go. Some people will never listen to your point of view and you can't demand they do, no matter how vital you think your opinion is. You can challenge, persuade, cajole, charm or plain request - but demanding ain't gonna work.

Everyone chooses their own faith (as an adult). They take the explanation of life that most appeals to them and then adopt it. There is no known truth, just different explanations/suppositions - some with a god figure, some godless. No one faith (including a godless one) has exclusive right to rational thought - it is up to the individual to recognise the bits of his her own faith that can be substantiated and those bits that are way out there in left field. That's actually a lot more difficult than it first appears. But no matter, we're all in the same struggle.

Breathe Spendius, breathe

Shhhh, nobody is supposed to know about that. Gunga and I were each assigned *special* projects.

Getting the last word in doesn't mean squat if it's just going to be another unsupported and unsupportable statement from an authority which we have no reason to assume you possess. I don't care if you go or stay, i have no wishes in the matter. I was just commenting based on the typical behavior of creationists at this site.

OMFG . . . you were in daily contact with Gunga Dim ? ! ? ! ? You're a saint Roswell, a f*ckin' saint . . .

Now you're going to have to define what you mean by "proof" because you are obviously resisting the standard "proofs" that science accepts.

For example, science does not require direct observation of an event in order to consider it proven. Are you implying that direct observation is all you will accept as "proof"?

Hey bb-- you're as bad as what you complained about.

Where did you get all that from out of my little postie.

I never go shopping. It's done for me. I hate it. I go to the pub everynight for two or three pints and the crack with the lads. I chose my name from a great literary artwork.



The 2nd sentence does not logically follow from the first. You may have read wrong. If you have, which you have, I've nothing to let go.

I don't demand anybody do anything least of all listen to me. I write posts for anybody who might think them interesting. And I have no opinions. Was there an opinion in my post?

I never said anything about faith. I'm merely speculating on individual and social consequences sociologically and psychologically. I don't discuss God. It's arrogant. I discuss effects of belief and non-belief.

How do I not breathe?

I suggest you read my post again. Maybe my comments on abortion have caused a red mist.

You didn't know Gunga before the *work* they did on him in his *special* project. The poor guy... I've never seen that much drool before.

It was a joke, obviously not a good one. And my 'authority' is no more, or less, than yours. I'm just better looking

If my questioning of a theory (any theory) is the exclusive behaviour of 'creationists' then count me in! If you mean the typical behaviour of 'creationists' is to move on, I don't blame them, but I'm happy as Larry to hang on for a bit. Care for a pint?

Chemistry

I did not mean to offend you about your name. I read your post and it was brim full of ideas, some hard to follow. But true, I didn't address it properly. So I will now.

No I didn't mean to imply that. I think science is unbiased, and scientists try to be unbiased, or think they are, but on the whole they are not horrible.

That's a completely new idea to me. If you mean are we moving towards wiping out ourselves as some Darwinian model of selection, then I hope you're wrong. I really can't entertain the idea.

Not science as such, perhaps our belief that technology is only and always for the benefit of mankind. That can lead to naive choices which can do some great harm - the atom bomb in the 40's was a good example.

Thats a generalised statement. They don't agree with me, so they'll attack, but so will I. They probably laugh with their kids and play with the dog and crack some good jokes after a beer or two.

I don't think a material interest, rather its their faith - just as you have yours. When you question someone's faith, they get defensive.

Oh well, my loss I guess.

Not really. A lot of countries view evolution as God's way of developing life. It's the Darwinian view that the process must be godless, that is without just cause. It's not such a big problem in a lot of countries. Mind you, I'm starting to hear the word creationist in the UK, not always in the right context, the Brits often think it means a religious sect - like Mormon, Baptist... Americans like to label groups often with very disparate members. It's a term, like many, that is used only to dismiss people and opposing views.

Borne out of evidence. Its like saying that a list of car models is put out by the manufacturer to sell cars. Well yeah,
A cladogram is a detailed biological/paleontological analysis in which affinities by structure and genetics(as possible ) , are constructed wrt the first appearance of a morphological feature in the fossil record. The theory is that a cladogram may not demonstrate the earliest appearance of a species , but it is certainly the latest. When all these forms so nicely fall into place by their emplacement, they form evidence that a species was derived in shape and time(unless you, like gungasnake believes that all science is merely a cabal of conspiracists whove gotten together to hide the truth). If you believe that way, you have to step back and objectively ask, "HOW AN HELL DID THESE ANIMALS FALL SO NICELY INTO PLACE WRT TIME?" If not by derivation from a central root stock that was a common set of ancestors
Nobody ever said that cladograms are proof. They merely suggest strongly that speciies have derived from common ancestors. Also, noone says that the fossil record is linear. However, when we UASE the information in the field to make predictions, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG IN THESE PREDICTIONS. Let some Creationist tell me how you find oil by wandering around Oklahoma and poking holes in the ground



You are asking for proof for something that science has been laying out for about 150 years. There is no "proof" just strong evidence. Evidence is never sought without a mission. This is only good economics of how exploration sciences work. WHen Shubin and Daeschler wanted to see whether any intermediate fossils between bony fish and amphibian "fish" existed, they began looking by using a method of "falsification". They stated that, if intermediate fish/"opods" would exist in the ecord, they should be found in the rocks of the lower Devonian. SO they put their funding where their mouths were and spent 3 years searching the lower Devonian sections of SCotland/Greenland /and Nunivuit . They found such an intermediate fossil that filled in the "missing links between fish and amphibians". To a reasonable open minded layperson it would appear compelling "evidence" that the list of intermediate fossils was being added to. To a Creationist, it merely created two more "GAps".However , no matter what you accept as evidence or not, no evidence has been phonied up by scientists.\
Recently a fossil bird was found in China and was proposed to be a link between Eocene "mega" birds and later ratites. It turned out to be a phony . The phony was discovered by careful study by the NYMuseum oif NAt History. Now Creation "scientists" have been perpetrating fossil frauds for years, even Piltdown man is actuallyt a cover-up for "special Creation" thinking by Tielhard de Chardin and several others.
Additionaly, Several phony fossils of men and dinosaurs living together have been perped on the public by Creationsts. Also, the Cretaceous "human tracks" of the PAluxy River texas were found to be phonied up. However, No matter how much forensic evidence is produced to show that these are true fakes, the Creationists insist on using them as their own"proof". Now if you want science to engage in the same skullduggery as the Creationists, youd be waiting a long time. The rules of QA and QC require better practices be followed by science.

No matter , "proof" is different from evidence. Proof is for a math theorem, evidence supports a theory . Remember, the only way to prove a theory (like nat selection) is to Not Disprove it.

Also, thinking of the process of evolution as a tree is not really correct. In evolution, there is no trunk, only an initial filament. No base of a tree exists since any series of branches are no less (or more) important than any other. Genetic variability of species within a clade clearly show this. (Id really read a couple books by a guy who teaches at U Wisconsin, Sean Carroll- DNA to Diversity, a later oneMaking of the Fittest and most recently Endless Forms Most Beautiful, these three , available in any University Library, discuss much of the overwhelming evidence that exists in extracting the sources for evolutionary journeys of species. He takes actual living examples , like forms of cave fish that are modified from species of free living fish in the same geographic areas as the caves, or "Ice Fish" which are evolved forms of sticklebacks that have developed an "antifreeze" system by exchanging this property for hemoglobin in their blood, as well as several morphological changes. These are but 2 examples of many tens of others he presents and your attempted arguments against evolution can be seen to be groundless.


The "genius" of incremental change is that its not random at all. Once a (say adaptive)modification is made and a genic compliment (chosen from the variability built into the species makeup) is made, the genic structure for further modification is already there. IT DOESNT HAVE TO START FROM GROUND ZERO FOR EVERY SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATION> Now, you may ask what did the first genic compliment look like, I HAVE NO IDEA, noone does. All we can do is play a shaky mathematical game that compute s previous mutations and specified information therein. (Its actually a similar basis that the new computer evolution sym uses). Incremental variation only needs to be performed one step at a time with TIME as the big retort.

Im afraid that the proof you wish is not there. However, mountains of evidence is. If you merely dismiss the evidence and ignore its existence without exploring how compelling it is, this is not what wed want to see in a budding scientist. Its ok to have doubts and even strong feelings against. However, its up to you to want to honestly explore the range of evidence that supports AND refdutes any point. I can summarize probably 20 or so refutations of Creationism without breaking a sweat or looking anything up. I cannot, in all honesty discover ANY piece of evidence that supports evolution to be wanting. Gonna go back and watch the parade .

No, I'm asking for testable data, or corroborative evidence. Carbon dating was proved because some scientist dated a hunk of wood from an ancient boat as being a couple of thousand years old and the date was substantiated by Egyptian records - an independant second source. That corroborative evidence gave great weight to validity of carbon dating. Without that corroborative evidence carbon dating would have been a good guess, but not decisive. This is of course very difficult in evolutionary theory, because everything happened so long ago. So be it, many things remain a good guess - not fact.

You did not offend me. It is impossible to offend me, I'm inoffensible. If I was offensible it would give you, or anybody else, a power over me and it is a power I only grant to people holding a Colt 44 to my temple. If you think words can do that you must be off your flipping rocker.

And not only did you not address my post properly you did not address it at all.



Obviously you have not met a lot of scientists. And I have, They call "can't get a hard on" erectile dysfunction, "pussy juice" vaginal mucus and little mites growing up inside their mums before the clock strikes midnight "not human" and "feetusses" so that they can feel better about knocking them off for money.

I am angry about that. **** scientists. And the idea that they are "unbiased" is too laughable to discuss in adult conversations. And they have caused smoking in pubs to be banned to save all our lives so they can have us all in intensive care for long periods of time. Well-they would wouldn't they?



I can entertain the idea. I don't run around not being able to entertain ideas as obvious as that one is. Hope is the latest buzzword.



Maybe they do play with their dogs. I don't know. Veblen has a passage about playing with dogs. I prefer pussies myself. And these lot on here castigate me for boozing and they wouldn't know a good joke if it bit their bollocks off. They have a sense of humour at about -272.9 Kelvin.



Oh yeah. They would convert to Islam if it got them a pork funding and their name in lights. You needn't bother your little lovely head about that my love.

Creationists are, to them, sitting ducks which they like to place on the patio about 6 inches in front of their scatter shotguns so they can brag about their marksmanship. The readouts on their carbon dating machines are all the evidence they need.

Calamity Jane called them "nerds" and Cal knows a thing or two on the sexual selection business. It's innate.

I forgot to mention bb that they think you're a monkey.