Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 26, 2012 | FRANK ELTMAN

Posted on 05/26/2012 9:47:00 PM PDT by eekitsagreek

Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Religion; Science; Society; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: climatechangehoax; evolution; evolutionhoax; globalwarminghoax; pseudoscience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-267 next last

1 posted on 05/26/2012 9:47:15 PM PDT by eekitsagreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

The more we know, the less there is to know.


2 posted on 05/26/2012 9:51:52 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Leakey has water on the brain.

Did ya ever think we were created at different locations on this planet out of slightly different types of clay? Seriously, if you are going through the trouble of seeding a planet, do you just create one thing in one place?

No, they believe in nothing. Everything just miraculously sprang into existence all by itself. Then life just miraculously sprang into existence all by itself. Then sentient beings slow cooked in the miracle soup for a long time, before miraculously springing into existence.

Freakin atheists sure do have a lot of faith.

3 posted on 05/26/2012 9:55:55 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
The problem is with the basic laws of mathematics and probability, with which evolution is essentially incompatible. The (proportionally) biggest group of people not buying into evoloserism is mathematicians, and not Christians.

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a system for pivoting flight feathers so that they open on up strokes and close on down strokes, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through lungs and a high efficiency heart, a specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters, a beak (since you won't have hands any more...) etc. etc. etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools.

2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

4 posted on 05/26/2012 9:58:18 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

It already is to some of us.


5 posted on 05/26/2012 10:01:37 PM PDT by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
“Did ya ever think we were created at different locations on this planet out of slightly different types of clay?”

Why would anyone think that? The evolutionist would reject it out of hand. The creationist would reject it on biblical and scientific grounds. The concept of original sin is lost if there is more than one Adam and Eve, and there is no need for more than 1 pair of initial ancestors to produce the (fairly limited) genetic diversity that we see today.

6 posted on 05/26/2012 10:11:30 PM PDT by Gil4 (Sometimes it's not low self-esteem - it's just accurate self-assessment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

I guess he expects they’ll find the

(non existent)

missing links.


7 posted on 05/26/2012 10:12:52 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
I have no problem with the theory of evolution as instigated by God. But why does this article just seem like it's saying, “See, we're all Kenyan now!”
8 posted on 05/26/2012 10:15:08 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Darwin's concluding words in his "Origin of the Species."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

9 posted on 05/26/2012 10:21:04 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

If they haven’t done it in the last 150 years, I find the notion that they’re going to do so in the next 15 to 30 engagingly naive.


10 posted on 05/26/2012 10:21:04 PM PDT by RichInOC (Jesus is coming back soon...and man, is He ticked off. (I'm trying to keep it clean.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
From a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle of May 26, 1975:

The leaky team unearthed a fossil of an ape man walking upright and concluded that it proved global cooling.

Can someone explain to me why training in breaking rocks and speculating about the origins of man, and then speculating anew when the original hypotheses have been proved wrong, qualifies one as an expert on global climate? Does peering at fossils teach one much about sunspots? Polar alignment? Our path around the sun?

Even more, how do such speculations qualify one as a theologian?

If I throw three bones of a dead rabbit on the ground will their alignment tell me more or less about the destiny of the universe than looking at three shards of a 50,000-year-old fossil?

If I form my epistemology from looking at old stones, will I have a grander view of the meaning of it all if I look at the stones piled atop one another at Stonehenge?


11 posted on 05/26/2012 10:28:16 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gil4

Once a species exists, however it got put there, nothing keeps it from evolving variations. The biggest differences between humans are only micro-evolutionary steps apart.

Land bridges existed sufficiently short times ago that mankind doesn’t need to be more than several tens of thousands of years old to be able to explain how it got to everywhere it did. There could have been early hominids superficially “like” humans as we know them, for example the Neandertal, but none of them would need to have been the source of mankind.


12 posted on 05/26/2012 10:29:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou ... ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
Think like a farmer. A global farmer with abilities far above our imagination. Do you plant just one seed on the whole planet?

A & E were created separately and specifically. It doesn't mean they were the ONLY ones, just special.

13 posted on 05/26/2012 10:36:25 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ....

His view of morality is how well you serve the state? I would say I was shocked, if such statism wasn't so very common.

14 posted on 05/26/2012 10:36:50 PM PDT by eclecticEel (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 7/4/1776 - 3/21/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Its “Snap Your Finger” time.......:<)))))


15 posted on 05/26/2012 10:59:58 PM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Liberal atheists believe the universe and all life happend spontaneously, and evolved on it’s own. But suddenly, NOW, every living thing, up to and including Earth, must be micromanaged for the betterment of all.


16 posted on 05/26/2012 11:09:47 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Easy enough to figure this one out. Could never understand all the controversy. God created evolution.


17 posted on 05/26/2012 11:27:24 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Superb, Blown away! Outstanding!

I have often thought the same thing about Darwinism and evolution. It requires significantly more faith in the unprovable than a belief in a creator of some sort. To think that out right chance occurred hundreds of trillions of times throughout the history of the Universe is hard to accept.

18 posted on 05/26/2012 11:46:45 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

So, if we’re all Kenyans, obama is eligible to be president.


19 posted on 05/27/2012 12:13:43 AM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." Peter Griffin - FAMILY GUY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

So, it sounds like Leakey is saying that the "science" will soon be settled. Where have I heard that before?

Evolution will be a science when its hypotheses are demonstrated in a wet laboratory, culminating in artificial life, from rudimentary chemicals. Or, when biologists change drosophila melanogaster into some other self replicating creature. Until then, evolution is nothing more than mental masturbation, in my opinion.

20 posted on 05/27/2012 12:17:26 AM PDT by bkopto (Obama and Biden merely symptoms of a more profound, systemic disease in American body politic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

I have 2 problems with the theory of evolution. I find the concept plausible and compelling, but I still have 2 problems with it.

1. The Cambrian explosion. If evolution is true, then there should be a fairly uniform rate of evolution over time, maybe changing only with apocalyptic changes in environment such as a meteorite striking earth and causing a severe disruption. Nothing in earth’s Geologic formation can explain the sudden absolute explosion in the number of new species in the Cambrian period. OK, nothing but God creating them.

2. Nobody on the planet can trace the evolutionary history of any animal on earth let alone a mammal. You look up evolution of the horse, and they start with a small horse. OK, what did the small horse evolve from. Nobody can tell you. Ditto the tiger. Small tiger to saber tooth tiger to modern tiger. Small wolf to Dire wolf to modern wolf.

Big flipping deal. If evolution is real, then some genius should be able to show me some model tracing the horse back in it’s evolutionary genealogy back to it’s fish relative in the sea, right? As far as I know, nobody is ever able to connect the dots and go back more than a few million years for the horse or tiger or wolf, and identify its predecessors. Failing that, the theory stands on no legs at all.

If you can’t identify the fossil ancestry of something as a horse, or if you can’t model that ancestry back to the fish from whence it supposedly came, then you haven’t got much of a theory, have you?


21 posted on 05/27/2012 12:23:16 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Evolution was disproved years ago. At this point the only reason it is still pushed is because the alternative is beyond contemplation for the Godless.


22 posted on 05/27/2012 12:29:05 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Here is an article that claims that all horses descended from a single, solitary mare 140,000 years ago.

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-mtdna-modern-horses-ancestor-years.html

Fine. If God didn’t create it, and natural selection favored this horse, how come more of it’s predecessors didn’t evolve into horses. If God didn’t create it and one solitary mare began the entire lineage of modern horses, than how did it breed? Virgin Mare?

Now if God did create it, or created a mating pair of horses, even if 140,000 years ago, then I can understand a single mare being mother to all subsequent horses. Evolution, natural selection, just doesn’t explain this. It can’t explain this.

The more seriously, deeply, rationally and logically you think about evolution, the more certainly you are lead back to God as the Eminent Architect. The theory of evolution just does not as logically explain this as does the fact that God, at some point, just created these animals.


23 posted on 05/27/2012 12:31:18 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
Do you plant just one seed on the whole planet?

Nah, you teach them to walk. The rest they will figure out just fine.

24 posted on 05/27/2012 12:31:42 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

Bookmark


25 posted on 05/27/2012 12:47:05 AM PDT by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

More pie in the sky from an atheist. The godless will get this world straightened out, as the Nazis did.


26 posted on 05/27/2012 1:41:32 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I believe in negative evolution, every time I turn on the sports channel.


27 posted on 05/27/2012 3:17:26 AM PDT by Peter ODonnell (E pluribus biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
I mentioned a few of the problems of bird evolution, but there's another one as big if not bigger. There is a gigantic difference between down/insulation feathers and flight feathers i.e. flight feathers actually have structure to provide the strength and rigidity to bear weight.

The standard theory of bird evolution calls for hair to morph into insulation/down feathers, but the question of those down feathers evolving into flight feathers is ignored. Ignored also is the question of how the down feathers morphed into flight feathers ONLY ON THE WINGS WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED!!!! I.E why doesn't the bird have flight feathers all over his whole body??? What the hell kind of mutation is going to change down feathers into flight feathers only on arms and then have arms turn into wings???

That may be the single biggest problem with evoloserism which you could easily point out to some body.

Then again if you wanted to think bats evolved, then you have to claim they evolved twice, i.e. the two orders of bats aren't related...

28 posted on 05/27/2012 3:18:26 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

That was ‘awesome’. Will read again after coffee.

Have to wonder if these ‘scientists’ have observed the most recent form of human evolution: smaller brains and larger bodies;)

Acknowledgement of the Creator is compatible with our sense of wonder, humility, love of nature, creativity, poetry, language, charity toward others, familial loyalties and all the other attributes that have elevated the human conscience. Elevation is evolution.....but it began with God.


29 posted on 05/27/2012 3:21:46 AM PDT by sodpoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Evolutionists demand that I accept a theory that depends on a starting point that contradicts their own theory. So, they steadfastly insist that evolution is not about “origins”, even as evolution depends on a certain type of origin, specifically an origin that does not involve a Creator God.

Evolution is just a way for people to deny God. If there was a God, that has implications that reach to the personal level of behavior and thought.


30 posted on 05/27/2012 3:51:12 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
The more we know, the less there is to know.

No, I believe the correct statement would be: The more we know, the more we know how much we don't know.

Our self-satisfaction and hubris is at times breathtaking. Some humans really think they are smart and all-knowing when in fact they are just patting themselves on the back, a circle jerk of self congratulation.

31 posted on 05/27/2012 4:10:31 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Liberal atheists believe the universe and all life happend spontaneously, and evolved on it’s own. But suddenly, NOW, every living thing, up to and including Earth, must be micromanaged for the betterment of all.

There is no inconsistency in this belief of liberal atheists. If there is no Creator then life must be an accident of nature. If life is an accident of nature, who needs a Creator. If there is no Creator, then man must assume the role of a god to make things better and control the evolution of the accident. Finally, some men make better gods then other men. To a liberal atheist, it is perfectly logical because of their initial assumption, there is no God.

32 posted on 05/27/2012 5:29:14 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Can someone explain to me why training in breaking rocks and speculating about the origins of man, and then speculating anew when the original hypotheses have been proved wrong, qualifies one as an expert on global climate? Does peering at fossils teach one much about sunspots? Polar alignment? Our path around the sun?

Back off, man. He's a scientist.

33 posted on 05/27/2012 5:39:42 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

We are all Africans? And some of our ancestors moved north and developed white skin? What else did they develop? The ability to make the most of their environment? Since Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources, why aren’t they the most developed?


34 posted on 05/27/2012 5:45:13 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abclily

Sorry...why aren’t they = why isn’t it...


35 posted on 05/27/2012 5:50:22 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: abclily
The ability to make the most of their environment? Since Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources, why aren’t they the most developed?

Because it's also a cesspool of disease? Because the technological development and widespread use in Northern Europe of mechanical devices known to Southern Europe and Greece for over a thousand years mostly as curiosities came as a consequence of the confluence of a number of different factors, among them being the Judeo-Christian belief that if God looked at the work of his hands and saw it was good, getting one's hands dirty in labor was not a bad thing for someone created in the image of God, the relative loss to the north of the older belief prevalent throughout the Roman and Greek world that the truly educated man didn't labor or engage in business but had others do his work for him (still seen in places in Latin America)? Because a less hospitable climate required more effort, planning, and inventiveness to survive and prosper than a more tropical one?

Besides, just having resources available doesn't mean that anything is going to be done with them. A resource only has meaning in the context of a technology that has defined it as a resource. Outside of that, for instance, flint is just another rock and a petroleum seep is just a pool of stinky black crap.
36 posted on 05/27/2012 6:04:25 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

Exactly!


37 posted on 05/27/2012 6:04:48 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Evolution, FWIW, is already at the saturation level you imply. There’s no need to wait, Dick. People have sized you up and found you and your sophistry quite wanting...


38 posted on 05/27/2012 6:06:03 AM PDT by StAnDeliver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

I seem to recall people saying this for the last one hundred fifty three years or so.
39 posted on 05/27/2012 6:10:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Yeah, when you get down to the cellular level, we can clearly see the random chance involved...and how there is NO WAY a designer could have acted.
< /the most extreme sarcasm>
40 posted on 05/27/2012 6:12:54 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
The more we know, the less there is to know.

Time passes; things change.
41 posted on 05/27/2012 6:15:15 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

People eventually will (and mostly have) accepted evolution, the way they accepted the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the Galilean version of gravity. Science marches on, because people are fundamentally curious about the nature of the universe in which they live. A narrow, unscientific world view based on a moralistic story from the Bible does not satisfy that deep curiosity, nor does it provide any answers to the burning questions many of us have about the nature of the world and the universe.

The only reason that anti-scientific objections to evolution persist is that a bunch of charlatans are taking advantage of the poor state of science education in our schools to essentially sell nonsense. And yes, I do mean sell: Gish, Behe, especially Hovind, all get money from going around peddling anti-science.


42 posted on 05/27/2012 6:17:38 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

The guy is talking about changes and genetic differences due to selective breeding -races. That is not the theory of evolution.

He needs to show the world evidence that man evolved from slime to prove the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is atheism’s religion and they hope their religion will be the only religion of the new world order.


43 posted on 05/27/2012 6:20:20 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“Because a less hospitable climate required more effort, planning, and inventiveness to survive and prosper than a more tropical one?”

So, you’re saying that those who moved north needed to develop more inventiveness than those who stayed in Africa? Of course, what follows from your assumption is the notion that those who moved north are more evolved than than those who stayed in Africa.


44 posted on 05/27/2012 6:21:07 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Isn’t Hovind still in the slammer??


45 posted on 05/27/2012 6:25:58 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Evolution is not something to be “accepted”, it must be proved or it is not science. Nor was the “heliocentric view” a matter of acceptance, but of scientific proof. The “poor state of science” in our schools is a result of exactly the type of thinking you are displaying that acceptance or consensus is science. Neither is science.
46 posted on 05/27/2012 6:27:16 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a system for pivoting flight feathers so that they open on up strokes and close on down strokes, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through lungs and a high efficiency heart, a specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters, a beak (since you won't have hands any more...) etc. etc. etc.

One of the biggest fallacies that anti-scientists try to use to "discredit" evolution is that organisms sprang up in their modern form from basically nothing. In fact, that description of evolution sounds more like the biblical story of Genesis--where God commanded all the plants, and then all the animals, to pop up from the mud, and they did. The idea that any scientist would believe that a dog would give birth to a non-dog, and that is how evolution happens is nonsense.

Evolution takes place one small change at a time. You can look at the process of evolution without ever looking at the fossil record: living examples of organisms at every evolutionary step along the way exist right now, from bacteria to colony-forming Euglena, to slime molds, to simple hydras, to mollusks, etc. Many people have noticed that children often do not look exactly like their parents, although they can be quite similar: that is an illustration of evolution in action.

47 posted on 05/27/2012 6:32:45 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

I remember reading THE BONE PEDDLERS by William R Fix years ago. It told how scientific discoveries had better fall into alignment with current evolutionary thinking or you don’t get grants, recognition or publishing.

Some discoveries have been suppressed because they don’t meet the template of modern evolution.

I don’t agree with his idea of how things “evolved” but the rest of the book is really interesting.


48 posted on 05/27/2012 6:42:53 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Anything Goes, Phantom of the Opera, Nice work if you can get it, EVITA. On BROADWAY last week.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abclily
So, you’re saying that those who moved north needed to develop more inventiveness than those who stayed in Africa? Of course, what follows from your assumption is the notion that those who moved north are more evolved than than those who stayed in Africa.

No and no. Those who moved to less hospitable climes had the occasion to modify their environment to suit their human needs by using an inventiveness they already possessed. It also doesn't follow that those who employ more technology are "more evolved" than those who employ less technology for at least two reasons: "more evolved" is a bucket word into which can be dumped all sorts of meanings, "more evolved" presumes a sense of further progression toward some ideal, which is part of the intellectual baggage carried from an earlier age in which "more highly evolved" connoted something good and "less highly evolved" connoted something bad or inferior.
49 posted on 05/27/2012 6:47:04 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

-——Many people have noticed that children often do not look exactly like their parents, although they can be quite similar: that is an illustration of evolution in action.——

LOL.....you can’t be serious....

That’s micro evolution not Darwinian evolution....

When your children eventually evolve into a short haired terrier .....get back with me


50 posted on 05/27/2012 6:47:46 AM PDT by Popman (America is squandering its wealth on riotous living, war, and welfare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson