Skip to comments.Why evolution is a political question
Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
click here to read article
I was talking (face to face) to a European two years ago about the same/very similar issues. His response was, “They are peasants, why would you care?”
So there it is, an outsider’s view of the thing.
That sentiment might come back to haunt us, sometime in the near future, if not already. Robots with voting rights.
Well, I do care because it’s my country and my fellow citizens.
You present your predictions as though they are strong, but infact, they are much less strong than they appear and the follwoing site explains why
You said “The fossil evidence is good, and even if we didn’t have that you can actually SEE the relevant bones moving from the jaw into the ear during the embryological development of some mammals. This has been observed specifically in kangaroos”
Yes, but we don’t find this evidence ‘evolving’ in species- nor evolving from one species to another- what we do find however is evidence that this process has always taken place in certain species
to suggest that a species with a perfectly good hearing mechanism should go without while that hearing system migrates to the inner mammalian ear and while the mammal waits around for 4 other ossicle bones to first evolve, and then migrate upward and inward as well kinda goes directly against the ‘needfulness’ hypothesis of evolution- natural selection as we know only works on characteristics that already exist, it doesn’t create something from nothing as in creation.
You say there is a homogoly going on here? I say it’s nothign more than similarly created processes between certain species and possit that there are many differences that can not be overcome when trying to link two similiar , yet obviously different system mechanisms
[You cannot change someones belief system with logic or science.]
Well you probably can’t, but remember, God works in mysterious ways, and someday those opposing the science and logic of creationism might see that the impossibilities of evolution were too great to continue believing in- so with that, I’ll keep presenting logic and science in the hopes that a light will one day dawn on those who put their faith in the impossibility of evolution,
Your talents in logic and science seem to be on a par with your talents in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
oh my, an insult in an attempt to argue against the science- how unpredictable of you (SARCASM!)
Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl’ [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down
There’s more- such as the the fact that when the homogolous label doesn’t fit, it’s then called anogolous- such as in the case of the striking similarities between species such as the thylocine and the north american wolf despite being totally seperate species, the fact that several different classes of animals such as mammals, birds insects and even some dinos have wings which all argue agaisnt common ancestry as outlined by Darwin.
DNA codes are completely different between dissimiliar species, yet dissimiliar species show remarkable resemblances, and DNA coding that is similiar in dissimiliar species contribute to completely different structures. The ‘predictions’ made were based on the hypothesis that certain species shared a common ancestor and that mutations to the same gene codes that made small changes, such as limb changes were shared between species similiar species as well- however, biological evidence has shown that completely different instructions ‘create’ the similiarities that we see amoung both similiar species and dissimiliar species.
Now where is the intermediate critter with this floating bone HALFWAY between it's jaw and it's ear?
But I just got UP this morning - way to early for dessert!
(But I DO have a hankerin’ for the Utah desert. It’s WAY too soggy here in Indiana. [beats the Missouri sogginess though!])
You just shown that we Conservatives are DOOMED!!!
What ELSE can explain all the flip-flopping by Dems except Evolution?
Ya can't 'change' much more than they do!
You’ve just made me want an expensive haircut!
Yeah... who needs some fairy-tale god poking His nose in our business?
Yeah: things are so much better now...
Choosey Mothers choose JIF-fy abortions!
We need more 'science' here in Darfur!
I didn't know we had the option!
This is the 30-35% on BOTH sides of the aisle!
Throughout history blood has been shed by way of religion, by an amount that would easily supercede whatever those pictures attempt to show. More lives have been saved by science than has been lost to its name...
What I can’t imagine is why scientists would want the government to regulate science anyway, and determine what is and is not science.
There’s nothing I trust the government not to screw up once it gets it’s hands on it, science included.
Don’t forget arecheoraptor, and that was only within the last 10 years.
Evolutionists want evolution to be demonstrated to be true so badly, that they are willing to fake it and deceive people.
Just like Einstein did with his calculations for the age of the universe; fudging his calculations to fit the science instead of adjusting the science to fit the evidence. Hubble’s observations decades later, put an end to that.
That's an assumption, and you know what happens when one assumes something.
Making this a political issue based on the argument that evolution should be considered a religion is going to put them in the business of deciding what is and isn't religion.
As opposed to 200 year old tales an ocean traveler cooked up when he had nothing better to do at sea?
That's right. That's why people are opposed to government mandated teaching of evolution only in the school system. There's something very wrong when an idea can only gain ground, and not much at that, by having a monopoly in the school system.
So, which religion would that be that Stalin, Lenin, PolPot, or Mao Zedong adhered to?
That still doesn’t change the issue of what the consequences would be if the government got in the business of deciding what is and is not science.
It’s not the government’s responsibility.
My copy of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power “To promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts”. I don’t see how they can very well do that without making some determination about what those are.
Oh, I don't think so.
In pointing out what was essential to his approach, Marx once commented that others had described the development of class struggle. "What I did that was new was to prove...that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx believed that he had discovered the underlying forces which drive history and social change, and that he had constructed a science describing the "laws of motion" of these forcesC a science describing where these forces come from, how they develop, and where they inevitably lead. As his collaborator Frederick Engels said at Marx's graveside, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history."
Anyway, concerning science, most of the great advances in Western science (esp. biology Harvey, Pasteur, Mendel) were inspired by religion (Christianity specifically).
I take it the existence of “Political Science” classes is to be held as evidence that politics is a “science”, and by extension all of the evils of politics can thus be attributed to science.
One thing that YOU need to remember, when “arguing” with evolutionists -
it’s a matter of faith and religion with them, just as Christianity is,
and you just can’t logically argue about anything based on faith.
Indeed. Dogma is, by definiton, immune to reason. You either believe it or you don't, but you aren't allowed to test it. If you do, then it isn't a matter of faith.
Marx and Lenin figured they were practicing "science" as in assuming human social interaction was solely a natural phenomenon that could be studied methodologically then ordered without concern for any divine intent.
They would have expressed resentful anger if you told them they were practicing "religion".
Given how much they got wrong I don't see any reason to give them that.
Anyway, the point is whether more harm is done in the name of science or religion.
I think the case is made that what has been done in the name of science has caused the greater suffering.
The perversity is that in Western culture science and religion (Christianity, anyway) are both considered integral and good.
And both are.
I think that's still arguable. Marx and Lenin may have rationalize their philosophy as "science", but I doubt the practicioners (Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Mugabe, etc.) considered it an exercise in the pursuit of "science" or themselves to be "scientists".
Oh, I don't think so!
Yea? Well I assume you don't take any medication, have never taken any vaccinations, never used technology, and live in caves, eh?
Evolutionists want evolution to be demonstrated to be true so badly, that they are willing to fake it and deceive people.
False. As usual.
Archaeoraptor was a fossil believed to be a theropod dinosaur closely related to the ancestors of birds, but which proved to be a forgery.
The purported fossil of "Archaeoraptor" was found in 1998 at a gem show in Tucson, Arizona. It had been found in July 1997 in the Liaoning Province of China, sold on the black market and smuggled out of China and into the United States. Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, purchased it for $80,000 and contacted paleontologist Phil Currie and the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The society intended to announce the find to the larger public, immediately after a publication in Nature. During the first investigation it already became clear to Currie that the left and right leg mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He then sent it to Timothy Rowe in Austin to make CAT scans. These indicated that the bottom fragments were not part of the larger fossil. This was confirmed through a close study by Currie's preparator, Kevin Aulenback. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.
The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, 1999, and the November 1999 National Geographic Magazine contained an article by Christopher P. Sloan (National Geographic's art editor). Sloan described it as a missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was put on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington, DC, pending return to China. In the article Sloan used the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but with a disclaimer (so that it would not count as a nomenclatural act for the purposes of scientific classification) in anticipation of being able to publish a peer-reviewed description simultaneously in Nature. However, Nature and Science both rejected the paper, and National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review.
After the November National Geographic came out, Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds in the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution published an open letter on 1 November 1999, pointing out that "the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported"; protesting the "prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs", and complaining that Sloan, a journalist, had usurped the process of scientific nomenclature by publishing a name first in the popular press: "This is the worst nightmare of many zoologiststhat their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist." (This last claim turned out to be wrong because of the disclaimer.)
Uncovering the fake
The "Archaeoraptor" specimen was returned by the Czerkases to China. Xu Xing, a member of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology had already noticed in October after having been informed by Currie of the problems during a visit to the USA, that the tail of "Archaeoraptor" strongly resembled an unnamed Maniraptoran dinosaur later to be named Microraptor zhaoianus that he was studying, but the front half did not match. He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning Province where he inspected the fossil site. His suspicions that the dinosaur-like tail of the fossil did not belong to the same species were confirmed. In December he contacted a number of fossil dealers and eventually found the fossilized body that corresponded to the tail on the "Archaeoraptor" fossil. He informed the National Geographic Society, and CT scans funded by the society confirmed his suspicions. The society still believed the fossil to be important, however.
By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and National Geographic retracted their article and promised an investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had created the "Archaeoraptor" fossil by gluing two fossils together, one of which was a Microraptor, the other one was a fossil bird later named Archaeovolans. On November 21, 2002, a paper in Nature found that Archaeovolans was the the same species as the previously-named avialan species Yanornis martini, so the front end of the fossil now bears this name.
Rather than being a fake by scientists to deceive people, as you falsely claimed, this specimen was faked by a Chinese farmer. The fake was discovered by scientists.
Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so.
To add to what Coyoteman said, it's important to recognize that a paper announcing the "discovery" of said fossil was sent to the two leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, Science and Nature, and both rejected it out of hand. Archaeoraptor is proof that the scientific method and the peer-review process works.
Can't say those things ever saved any lives :-)
All they did is extend our breathing a bit and made our time here a little more comfortable.
Try sticking a rusted nail into your foot. Use no first aid. Get back to me if your foot is still intact, a week later. And this, I'm assuming, you've never been inoculated for any diseases.
Are you saying if I use first aid I won't die?
You’ll lower your chances by a big degree. Ever heard of tetanus deaths? Look up how many people used to die of it in the years before antiseptics.
You'll lower your chances not a bit. Death is certain whether you get first aid or not. It's merely a matter of when. Science never saved any life.
And that's not saying that applying the scientific method is bad or undesirable or shouldn't be done. Science and medicine are very good. What must be kept in mind, though is science is a means, not an end. It is not something to be worshipped.
That is BS, and people are not going to just sit back and take it any more
Yes the people aren't taking it anymore, in Kansas where the school board tried getting rid of Evolution they were overwhelmingly supported by the people and re-elected, the same thing happened in Dover, Pa and in Georgia where the people were just not going to sit back and take having EVILution shoved down their throats.
You'll not find me arguing with that, LOL! I hope you find peace, wherever it is that you're looking for...
yeah metmom- don’t ya know that there isn’t any bias or agenda in science? don’t ya realize that nothing hokey ever happens in science and gets forced into our schoolbook texts despite counterevidences proving them wrong? Don’t ya realize that scientists welcome counter evidences in a completely objectiv3e manner? Why are you so against science? lol
“Such bias and mistreatment for religious views has happened to Dr. Richard Sternberg.5 Despite having two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology, he was harassed and encouraged to resign from the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History because, as an editor, he allowed the publication of an article that was favorable to intelligent design. A recently released congressional investigative report6 described compelling evidence that Dr. Sternbergs civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. In addition, it was noted that Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.
Also in the report was the finding that NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternbergs outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.
I'm sure these folks would disagree with you...
45 million aborted in the USA since 'legalization'
the Burundi Genocid
Stalin's Great Purge,
Killing Fields of Cambodia,
the Hama, Jallianwala Bagh,and Tlatelolco massacres.
the Nanjing Massacre
"To make an omelet; you've got to break some eggs."
And we have a very rabid and utter distaste for religion.
Especially that nasty ol' Christianity!
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in this context.
I think you were making fun of the “evodudes” with your post about a “distate for religion”, but...
actually, no, most “atheists”, “evolutionists”, “secular humanists”, and “Gaians”
are more “religious” than a lot of Christians, in that they believe something based on nothing but a faith in something there’s very little evidence for.
I'm guessing the answer is going to be "None.".