61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:15 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
I asked farmerman
And I clearly answered but fact based knowledge is an anethema to your mindset . Ive also sked you several questions and Im happy to rport that youv not anwered one. (Probably because
1you dont know squat

2You dont understand how science even works

3See 1 and 2 above
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:15 pm
@farmerman,
At least Helloandgoodbye gave me a good laugh. Science by its very definition is truth. It continues to seek facts with evidence.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:26 pm
@gungasnake,
I am amazed at how some clowns even make believe they know anything about anything when they write **** like that.
It oughta be on stage with Ricky Gervais .
PS, that statement about the U of Georgia needs to be clarified. Once the lab discovere that the samples entered into the C14 lab, they were not subject to any QA an the resultant erroneous answers were investigated and found to be fraudulent attempts to deceive.
Consequently the U of Georgia wrote a scathing letter for the C14 journal and GSA about how they discovred the fraud and were not going to take in any C14 field samples without havy scrutiny by the lab folks who understand how to do sample preps and runs. Also, they would no longer accept ANY samples from those "Creationist associated organizations".

SO you are continuing , not only a lie but a fraudulent act.

I know how eager your Creationist friends are to make-up data and continue lies about their bogus science. Maybe they should work on the shroud of Turin.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:37 pm
@farmerman,
Q: How many creationists does it take to refute evolution.?

A: "Only one, but only we have his home phone. He told us what he wants us to write, cause he only talks to us"
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 10:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Science by its very definition is truth.

And they keep telling us science isn’t their religion...

You’ve really out done yourself CI.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 11:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
and you have continued on your journey based on cherry picking by quote mining and passive aggressiveness in your responses.

Youre among your fact misquoting ilk , like gunga,H&B an BJ.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 03:40 am
As I understand it, most if not all of the crap about the Earth being four billion years old arises from claims involving heavy metal isotope ratios.

The main problem: According to standard ideas of how the Earth was formed, there shouldn't be any heavy metals near the surface of the planet, they should be at the core of the Earth.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 05:03 am
@gungasnake,
we do mostly rad isotope age dating for the age of the earth/ As far as I know, the various rad decays from meteorites clusters around 4.51 to 4.56 BIBBLION years. Some outliers based on Samarium/Neodymium ages are at the upper end and Im not sure why.
Ratios of rare earths are often used for dating (relative dating) if fossils in alluvial oor marine deposits but because some of the REE's have radioactive isotopes, these ratios change for Hadean sediments.

0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 06:39 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
gravity has been calculated to begin in planck time . F=Ma (or E=mc^2) whqtever, the argument about who came first is kinda mooted by the first drop of time . (Dark energy actually translates to DARK GRAVITY)


What is Planck time? Why does it exist?

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.


They exist because the space inside of atoms and the space outside of atoms is divided into discreet units of volume of something that is rotating as a standing wave of energy.

That discreet volume is a Planck Mass at zero energy.
A Planck time is how long it takes for one wave to travel through the Planck mass (Planck volume) at zero energy.
Planck Length is the radius of this volume at zero energy.

The amount of space in one of these units is a constant but as the temperature moves from zero energy the Planck length and Planck time change to new values. When the radius of the volume increases the density of the volume decreases because the amount of stuff in this Planck particle (a quantum of space) remains the same. This changes the amount of particles per volume of space. If each particle contains a bit of information, this changes the volume of information per volume of space thus, changing the information density, which is really the energy density, which is changing the entropy.

See Erik Verlinde Lecture: A new view of gravity and the dark side of the cosmos.

The interesting thing is what each Planck volume is constructed of. It is constructed of 2 entangled strings each made up of a particle and an antiparticle in a quantum of matter (half a neutron) and 2 entangled virtual strings in a quantum of space (a higgs boson).
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 06:53 am
@cicerone imposter,
I agree, but Big difference between science and the belief in evolutionism, believing in highly engineered microscopic technology being built by an unintelligent force, (never mind everything else.) quite a faith.

Still, the challenge to morality stands. Got an answer? Do we treat ppl like modified fish and bacteria like the religion teaches?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 06:59 am
No organism, from microorganism to the largest mammals, show any evidence of having been "engineered." Failure to understand how natural selection works is the only a basis for such extravagant, and essentially ignorant statements.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 07:39 am
@Setanta,
Quote:

Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Some differences may improve an individual's chances of surviving and reproducing such that its lifetime reproductive rate is increased, which means that it leaves more offspring. If the traits that give these individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable, that is, passed from parent to offspring, then there will be differential reproduction, that is, a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any advantageous heritable trait becomes dominant in the population. In this way the natural environment of an organism "selects for" traits that confer a reproductive advantage, causing evolutionary change, as Darwin described.[57] This gives the appearance of purpose, but in natural selection there is no intentional choice. Artificial selection is purposive where natural selection is not, though biologists often use teleological language to describe it.[58]


wiki Genetic variation
Quote:
Sources

Random mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation. Mutations are likely to be rare and most mutations are neutral or deleterious, but in some instances, the new alleles can be favored by natural selection.

Polyploidy is an example of chromosomal mutation. Polyploidy is a condition wherein organisms have three or more sets of genetic variation (3n or more).

Crossing over (genetic recombination) and random segregation during meiosis can result in the production of new alleles or new combinations of alleles. Furthermore, random fertilization also contributes to variation.

Variation and recombination can be facilitated by transposable genetic elements, endogenous retroviruses, LINEs, SINEs, etc.

For a given genome of a multicellular organism, genetic variation may be acquired in somatic cells or inherited through the germline.


If you compare what ID ers believe and and believers of random insertion of information into the genome believe, it comes down to technical terms the "natural source new informationers" use to explain away what appears to look as intelligent. (see bold type) Everything else both sides agree on because it is science. The technical words describing the bold type above, do not have evidence of a mechanism to substantiate there claims, just big words describing intelligent origins for the insertion of new data. (either by the intelligence itself or by an intelligently designed natural system (natural algorithm)

"Appears to look like" means it "looks like evidence". Are you denying that?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 07:48 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
the natural environment of an organism "selects for" traits that confer a reproductive advantage
another way of saying the same thing is ,'The organisms RESPOND TO the environmental change". Does that make it any clearer ??


Quote:
Appears to look like" means it "looks like evidence". Are you denying that?
no it does not. Please stop wordsmithing, youre not very good at it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 07:56 am
@brianjakub,
You just amaze me. On one of the rare, extremely rare occasions upon which you seem to present evidence, you present evidence which contradicts your thesis. To quote your fount of all wisdom:

Quote:
This gives the appearance of purpose, but in natural selection there is no intentional choice.


(You put "wiki Genetic variation" beneath your quote box, as though it were a functioning link, which it certainly is not. It seems that dishonesty is ingrained in your crowd.}

Is your comprehension of English so poor that you didn't understand that sentence? You bold-faced the very passage which contradicts your thesis. You apparently do not understand the random, non-intentional mechanism of natural selection any better than H&G does.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 08:01 am
On the separate topic of you dishonesty, neither Google nor Duckduckgo provide a result for your specific phrase "wiki Genetic variation," your phony link. You must think the people who read here are really stupid.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 08:04 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
and you have continued on your journey based on cherry picking by quote mining and passive aggressiveness in your responses.

Nothing passive about it farmer.

I’m willing to own everything I said.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 08:06 am
@Setanta,
I put there so you know where I cut and pasted it from. Look it upon google it is there. Cripes Im not asking you to go to the public library down the street. Just type it in and read.

They say it looks like design, say it isn't and do not provide a sightable source to contradict it beyond the statement "scientists use technical language". Well I read their language, understand it and it doenst make sense.
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 10:50 am
@Leadfoot,
no, your dumass style is passive -aggressive. YOU are quietly snidely and then you whine about how others treat you.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 01:47 pm
@brianjakub,
You can keep your snotty tone to yourself. As you well know, it is common practice for someone quoting a source to post a link to the source. You didn't do that, and a literal search for your term did not yield a specific result. I'm not going to take the time to read every almost-but-not-quite-the-same article that comes up in a search to see if that's the one you've quoted. Your response was to make a snotty comment to me as though I were lazy. I didn't respond to your snottiness right away because I walked a mile and a half to the store to take advantage of a sale, and walked the mile and a half back home. When I got here, The Girl was on the computer. Are you really so facile and conceited that you think people hang around on tenterhooks, breathlessly awaiting your next gaseous emanation?

If you read it and it doesn't make sense to you, then I doubt if you did understand. In any case, you've filtered it through your own unwarranted assumptions about your magic sky daddy and the process of evolution. You don't believe evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet, you don't want to believe it, and, as with just about everything you post here, you're either clueless or dishonest.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2018 02:16 pm
@Setanta,
I am sorry. I will post the link. I did cut the quote from wiki though.

I don’t believe random introduction of information created the diversity because there is no evidence that it can. If the system of biological evolution through natural selection of randomly generated information is capable of it then, the system is a system with artificial intelligence. Those type of systems do not originate from random introduction of information.

That is irrelevant since there is no evidence supporting the gradual evolution of information ever happened since the gaps still exist.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 07:05:47