Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House

Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

[Condorman]

"Evolutionists for Evolution!"

Can Darwin Central adopt that as it's new slogan?

Pleeeease!!

[PatrickHenry]

Bring it up at the next meeting.
P L A C E M A R K E R

[Frankss]

Dear Dr. I do not wish to disagree,but in 1953 A group of scientist lead by a Kenneth Oakley put the bones to further test and determined that the skull was only 600 years old and that the jawbone was that of an orangutan that had the teeth reshaped by filing. Further, all the bones had been chemically treated to make them appear older. So, yes I believe the British Museum, and others who have come to the same conclusion, it was purposeful scientific fraud. A question for you now, Do you think Eoanthropus Dawsoni was genuine?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It was a real example of Intelligent Design. I remember when the radioactive dating confirmed what I had read earlier, namely that only the Out-Of-Englanders still accepted Piltdown.

[Frankss]

Check out HTTP://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html. You will find some further testing showing the skull to be 600 years old and the jaw 500 years old. Also, there is a list of other fragments,other teeth, Piltdown II, the chemicals they used to stain the bones ect. The dates are debatable, but my point is that it is a clear and purposeful scientific fraud. I don't think anyone believes in Piltdown Man, no matter where they live.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't think so either. My point is that Piltdown was suspect from the first. There was a lot of nationalistic support because France had the Cro-Magnons and Germany had the Neanderthals.

[Condorman]

You do understand that you just presented evidence of evolutionary concepts created by DESIGN - this is an example of intelligent design. Not an example of evolution by happenstance.

How is selection pressure applied to a particular population by humans fundamentally different than any other selection pressure?

[Last Visible Dog]

How is selection pressure applied to a particular population by humans fundamentally different than any other selection pressure?

What do you mean by selection pressure? The quote of mine you presented was made in reply to the claim that the man-made genetic mutations of goldfish were somehow supporting evidence for evolution. Are you implying the man-made selection pressure is the same as selection pressure by happenstance? Please clarify your statement.

The goldfish example is an example of genetics, not evolution (if man - intellegence - is involved, it is not evolution)

[qam1]

You do understand that you just presented evidence of evolutionary concepts created by DESIGN - this is an example of intelligent design. Not an example of evolution by happenstance.

1) Typical creationist dishonesty and moving the goalpost, You set the parameters

Quote

"we assume based on our current theories that genetic codes diverge from an ancestral code. We cannot observe this actually happening or duplicate it in the lab".

Well that's exactly what happened with the goldfish. The lab in this case was the fishtanks and ponds and we have observed over the course of ~1100 years the genetic code of goldfish diverged from their ancestral carp.

2) And what intelligent design? The Ancient Chinese did not have Genetic engineering capabilities so in order for the bubble eye and other breeds to develop they were relying on "Happenstance" mutations and because of those "Happenstance" mutations goldfish have evolved new organs, structures, Chromosome number and genes that are not found in the gibel carp.

3) The evolution of goldfish is parallel to the evolution of male birds like the peacock and birds of paradise which the females only breed with the ones they find the prettiest. The only difference between them is that humans are deciding what's prettier not female birds.

The ones that look the prettiest (well at least to the owners) live and breed and the ones that don't look pretty enough end up becoming dinner or bait, Evolution at it's simplest

[qam1]

What do you mean by selection pressure?

Look pretty or end up as dinner, How much more pressure do you need?

The quote of mine you presented was made in reply to the claim that the man-made genetic mutations of goldfish were somehow supporting evidence for evolution.

What man made genetics are you talking about? When the Bubble eye and other breeds evolved the Chinese didn't even know what DNA was.

Are you implying the man-made selection pressure is the same as selection pressure by happenstance? Please clarify your statement.

Yes. The Chinese weren't sitting around 1100 years ago saying lets make this carp into a bubble eye and Wa-La 1000 years later they did it. They were breding a population of goldfish and some had mutations they found favorable. For instance take the step of some Telescopes evolving into the Celestal breeds. The telescope breed has their eyes sticking out of the heads on stalks and in someone's population of telescopes around the year 1870 there was a mutation which caused their eyes to point upward. Apparently the guy raising them liked that mutation and selected for it, With the Celestal eyes being breed while with his telescope eyes he probably cooked up for dinner.