Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

I'm so sorry. I have twin brothers that are full of the dickens!

Paul: what's your views on the "Evolution" idea?

I would consider testimony by Nobel laureates a consensus of experts. Only propaganda would describe it as a conspiracy.

"Experts" who have distorted the traditional standard scientific terms to comply with their preferred beliefs on human origins, are no more convincing on the matter of "Evolution" than a delusional miscreant who thinks he can swim across the Pacific Ocean!
Believing it to be so does not make it so - no matter how many say it is so.

People "evolutionize" by education, learning new things, improving every day, streeetching their minds, meeting one challenge and waiting for the next, all with sizzling energy.

Sun

Are you suffering from heatstroke? Time to get your sombrero on.

If we can not trust the expertise of Nobel laureates, whom should we trust on the subject of human origins?

Good question, Wandel.
Time was that scientists, irrespective of Nobel prizes, and even before they existed, based their claims on verifiable evidences - this does not appear to be the case anymore!

Only according to you, who seem to have a more restrictive definition of what "verifiable evidence" is (please see my previous posts on why your versions of "verifiable" and "observable" are to overly restrictive to be of real value).

Another myopic statement, Ros. You clearly don't read too many scientific journals on this subject to realise that YOUR viewpoints are of no "real value" - stop following the crowd and open your eyes to real scientific analysis.

AAAHHHAAAAAA. Please name some of these scientific journals Bib. Im really curious also. Youve abused many of us calling it ad hominem , but you havent yet presented anything except asking for our opinions about your oown selected definitions. Id sure like to see your full load of buckshot. Unless, like gunga, you just like to cut&paste from the host of Creation websites

i suppose it was unfair of me to invoke the nobel laureates
amicus brief. Id like to remind you that the award of a nobel prize is geneerally in recognition of a body of work that is important to scientific progress (and excellence in other pursuits like literature) . If you wish to deny the importance of the collective opinions of many of these scientists, in this case, then , in what areas of science do you accept as real authority,

Below are some of the Nobel Laureates included in he amicus brief(Ive only printed the names of those that are quickly recognized by most undergrads without looking up)

PHYSICS

Penzias and Wilson
Don Glaser
Val Fitch
Hans Bethe
Emilio Segre
John Bardeen
Isadore Rabi
Carl ANderson
out of 31 Nobel
Laureates in Physics


CHEMISTRY
Louis Alvarez
Linus Pauling
Johhn Northrop
Rob Mulliken
Walter Gilbert
Paul Berg
out of13 Nobel Laureates in Chem

MEDICINE OR PHYSIOLOGY
WAtson and Crick
Barbara mclintock
Daaniel Nathans
SAalvador Luria
SeveraOchoa

of 29 nobel la
laureates in physio/bio/ med

It(the amicus brif) also included 26 US Acaadamies of Science. (none could be associated with the Federal Govt by charter eg , like Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore, or Brookhaven)

The summary of his amicus brief is the most revealing, Ill quote
"It(the act in Louisiana requiring the teaching of Creaationism in science), singles out evolutionary theory for more disparaging treatment than other scientific theories that are no more robust and reliable. It encourages teachers to(for example) erroneously label the proposition that tides are caused by gravitational attractions of the sun and moon, as a proven scientific fact, while labeling the proposition that species evolve through time, a mere "theory". The reason for this scientifically indefensible legislative posture is clear:
Whereas the reason for tides is not an issue of significance to adherents of certain religions, evolution is"

Your getting unusually testy bib, and youre leaving yourself wide open for some "funning". Do you wish me to quote some of the dribble that the ICS publishes as scientific Fact? we can let the other a2k rs decide what is "real scientific analysis"

Ya, right.

If Farmerman had told me that I would seriously consider it, but given your repeated demonstration of irrationality in this very thread, I'm not worried in the least.

Stick with Irish Law techniques. You're better at evasion than education.

Nice to see Penzias and Wilson in this list. I grew up with Robert Wilson's son in Holmdel NJ. We used to find fossilized sharks teeth in the creek down the street from our houses. Fantastic childhood memories. I also remember having picnics under the Horn Antenna at Bell Labs, and I remember when Bob and Arno won the Nobel Prize.

Well, I think Bib will say that Penzias and Wilson were "biased".
If he states that , youll have to come up with something quick ros.

Do you guys seriously believe that the Fossil Record holds "evidence" for "Evolution"?

If they're biased, they are biased toward the side of reason

Honestly Bib, either you're not being serious about this whole thread (which is entirely possible), or you're not explaining your objections so that we can understand them.

Of course the fossil record shows evidence for evolution. What "exactly" do you see in the fossil record which concerns you?

I liked your reservation Ros regarding me not being "serious about this whole thread" - you've been paying close attention. :cool:

plenty of evidence. espcially when we look at life in a systematics approach.Evolution, Extincion , biogeographic and temporal distribution are well expressed in the fossil record. The Fossil record is best looked at in a systematics approach. For example, the notochord , first seen in a little critter of the Burgess shale, has developed as a life system that manifests itself in an expanding number of species, such that, by the Triassic, all the main vertebrate phyla are established. All the rest is mere tweaking and mass extinctions.
While there were 7 classes of mammals at the KT boundary, today we have only 3.

Theres plenty of data and evidence, to deny it is rather "non scientific" as a thought-out conclusion.

Where are the examples of transitional forms - missing links - which should be in abundance in the fossil record?