Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

I'm not familiar with that, is that a club?

So what you are saying is you can't answer and you have to resort to quips.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Now you've just redefined new. This is basic genetics. On the same line we could say that I have new genetic info compared to my parents. But we both know that this isn't what I'm talking about. You are conflating the terms to suit your argument and to be frank its deceptive. Redefining the terms in the middle of an argument is classic moving of the goal posts.

Information is information. It is new information. Genetic code = information.

How do you want to define as "new"? New chromosome structure? X amount of different nucleotide combinations?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You have a very abstract concept of faith. Using your logic, would you also consider not playing golf a sport?

Faith is a belief in things not seen. You have never personally seen evolution take place. So you employ faith to believe it has happened. Just like the big bang theory. You did not personally witness it happen. So you have faith in what science tells you is correct.

Pretty simple.

 

[Vol8188]

Faith is a belief in things not seen. You have never personally seen evolution take place. So you employ faith to believe it has happened. Just like the big bang theory. You did not personally witness it happen. So you have faith in what science tells you is correct.
Pretty simple.

I've seen research related to bacteria. And plenty of scientists have seen bacteria evolve. It's even extremely logical that if I were to take an antibiotic and it didn't kill all of the bacteria, that the bacteria left would be resistant to that antibiotic. As would the later copies of themselves.

 

[Roustabout]

Are you arguing that Darwinian Evolution is wrong or are you just going to argue against arguments?

I believe Darwinian evolution is wrong. However, I am NOT arguing that in the case of bird to dino evolution. Scientists, most of which are likely Darwinists are. Read the damn article. Certainly, the conclusions do undermine part of Darwinian theory. But, that is niether here nor there.

If the former, then what this boils down to is you making arguments against evolutionary evidence based on... what exactly? Are you a biologist that is an expert on evolution? May I see your research - or are you just going to dance around the tired appeal to authority reply and discount what an overwhelming number of experts have found to be the most plausible explanation?

No, although i have college level education in biology, among other sciences, I am not a biologist. I am fortunate to have a biology professor who is a dear friend. As I said, I have linked you to the scientists doing the research. Go argue with them. In this case you are shooting the messenger because you don't like the potential consequences.

suspect the latter, most creationists would rather opine about the leaves when the conversation is about the tree.

Please, don't patronize me. A claim was made that bird to dino evolution is a consensus. I provided information to evidence that demonstrates bird to dino evolution isn't the case. I linked to articles on the research. It isn't ID research, btw. Either the fossil evidence of modern birds being in the same strata as dinos is there or it isn't. It should be easy enough to find out. And yet, we are still arguing over consensus. Science is not done through consensus. To continually bring this up implies that you have no understanding of the scientific process. Otherwise you are arguing opinions. Example, the science community once thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It didn't. (please no rabbit trail here) Consensus in this case is wrong. And that is why you will never see consensus mentioned in regards the scientific method.

One last thing. Please stop posturing this argument as if this is creationists against science. That is a lie. My position is NOT anti-science.

 

[Roustabout]

I've seen research related to bacteria. And plenty of scientists have seen bacteria evolve. It's even extremely logical that if I were to take an antibiotic and it didn't kill all of the bacteria, that the bacteria left would be resistant to that antibiotic. As would the later copies of themselves.

Great point. One I've studied. So, what is happening when a bacteria becomes resistent to an antibiotic? What is happening at the genetic level that results in this effect?

 

[VOLatile]

Faith is a belief in things not seen. You have never personally seen evolution take place. So you employ faith to believe it has happened. Just like the big bang theory. You did not personally witness it happen. So you have faith in what science tells you is correct.

Pretty simple.

Evolution is quantifiable, observed through fossils, genomes, and other data.

 

[Roustabout]

Faith is a belief in things not seen. You have never personally seen evolution take place. So you employ faith to believe it has happened. Just like the big bang theory. You did not personally witness it happen. So you have faith in what science tells you is correct.

Pretty simple.

BOT,
You are making an error that makes it easy for others to defeat your position. Please take some friendly advice and don't use this argument.

We do see evolution taking place. The NFL uniform has evolved a lot over the last 40 years. The word 'evolution' has too many meanings that can easliy be equivocated. The word evolution means change, and we see all kinds of change happening in nature.
What we don't observe are any unique body types originating, which is what they really mean when they mention the 'theory of evolution.'

 

[VOLatile]

Great point. One I've studied. So, what is happening when a bacteria becomes resistent to an antibiotic? What is happening at the genetic level that results in this effect?

Natural selection.

The strains that possess resistant characteristics will live and replicate, the ones that don't will die. The strains with resistant characteristics have a gene mutation different than those that aren't.

Simplified.

 

[Roustabout]

"Laws" are the natural laws which govern the universe whether it be physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

The reason I asked is you seem to be implying evolution as a law, or at least some aspect of it. If not, what law were you referening? Also, Just curious, but how do you account for these laws?

I don't make a distinction between "macro" or "micro" evolution (I only referenced those terms because others use those terms). Evolution is evolution no matter the scale.

Change is change no matter the scale? Is that a scientific law?

 

[Vol8188]

Great point. One I've studied. So, what is happening when a bacteria becomes resistent to an antibiotic? What is happening at the genetic level that results in this effect?

Genetic level? Are you trying to claim evolution happens after birth?

Nothing is happening at the genetic level. Even within bacteria populations that preproduce asexually, there is genetic variation. The bacteria most fit for their environment survive. The others die.

 

[VOLatile]

The reason I asked is you seem to be implying evolution as a law, or at least some aspect of it. If not, what law were you referening? Also, Just curious, but how do you account for these laws?


Change is change no matter the scale? Is that a scientific law?

You're stuck on the world "law" for some reason.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

This makes no sense.

You acknowledge that microevolution (bacteria) occurs and that macroevolution (all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor) occurs but reject such natural biological laws when it comes homo sapiens.

The natural laws which govern biology would apply to all biology; not just the biology of your choosing.

I wonder how these natural laws came into place? Did nature and the earth have a conversation a couple of billion years ago and said hey we need to make these laws that living things have to adhere to?

So let me ask this. Because science tells us we humans share an ancestor with a primate, that makes it true? Since no human being has ever laid eyes on this so called ancestor, then every scientist and person who believes it exists is using faith.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Why would anyone bother providing you evidence of scientific consensus when you'll certainly dismiss it as a appeal to authority?

Then you may want to learn how to present things in a logical manner. Its becoming more obvious that you and some others on here have no idea how to use logic. And it shows.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with pointing out logical fallacies to people who constantly utilize them. Its what is supposed to be done.

 

[Roustabout]

Genetic level? Are you trying to claim evolution happens after birth?

Uh no.

Nothing is happening at the genetic level. Even within bacteria populations that preproduce asexually, there is genetic variation. The bacteria most fit for their environment survive. The others die.

Let me repeat, nothing is happening at the genetic level. Survinal of the fittest. In the case of bacteria, some bacteria will not have the genetics to deal with the ABs, and thus they are killed off. Of course the negative result is that bacteria that have the means survive, and now have a nice host in which to freely rome and replicate. And so what does all this produce? Bacteria. Yes, that is right ladies and gents, bacteria produce..............., bacteria. Darwinism!!

 

[Roustabout]

You're stuck on the world "law" for some reason.

You bring a lot to a conversation.:crazy: I didn't bring up law, PKT did. Take it up with him.

 

[Persian Vol]

You'll have to forgive him, he's still trying to master english.

The same joke gets old don't you think.

 

[Vol8188]

Uh no.



Let me repeat, nothing is happening at the genetic level. Survinal of the fittest. In the case of bacteria, some bacteria will not have the genetics to deal with the ABs, and thus they are killed off. Of course the negative result is that bacteria that have the means survive, and now have a nice host in which to freely rome and replicate. And so what does all this produce? Bacteria. Yes, that is right ladies and gents, bacteria produce..............., bacteria. Darwinism!!

What's happening at the genetic level is mutations due to errors in DNA replication. This leads to small changes which offer time can lead to some becoming an entirely new species.

A great example here is the horse and the donkey. It's clear that both have a very recent common ancestor.

Yet they are two seperate species. They are so close that can reproduce sexually, but they are not close enough to produce offspring that can reproduce.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Genetic level? Are you trying to claim evolution happens after birth?

Nothing is happening at the genetic level. Even within bacteria populations that preproduce asexually, there is genetic variation. The bacteria most fit for their environment survive. The others die.

From the studies I have read, what is happening at the genetic level with bacteria resistance is that an existing capability is deleted, thus allowing them to survive. It is not an addition of genetic information; it is a deletion.

 

[FLVOL69]

The same joke gets old don't you think.

When it doesn't apply I'll point out another one of your flawed arguments nitz...

 

[Vol8188]

From the studies I have read, what is happening at the genetic level with bacteria resistance is that an existing capability is deleted, thus allowing them to survive. It is not an addition of genetic information; it is a deletion.

Either way, that is genetic variation within the population.

 

[Roustabout]

What's happening at the genetic level is mutations due to errors in DNA replication. This leads to small changes which offer time can lead to some becoming an entirely new species.

A great example here is the horse and the donkey. It's clear that both have a very recent common ancestor.

Yet they are two seperate species. They are so close that can reproduce sexually, but they are not close enough to produce offspring that can reproduce.

Whoa, we went from bacteria to donkeys? You lost me there.

 

[Septic]

I wonder how these natural laws came into place? Did nature and the earth have a conversation a couple of billion years ago and said hey we need to make these laws that living things have to adhere to?

So let me ask this. Because science tells us we humans share an ancestor with a primate, that makes it true? Since no human being has ever laid eyes on this so called ancestor, then every scientist and person who believes it exists is using faith.

Why does the natural universe owe you an explanation of it's laws? At one point in time, people believed that Zeus was the god of lighting... That was the 'true', questioning it would have been nuts.


Also, there are more fossilized variations of human evolution than you can dismissively brush aside and remain intellectually honest. Human evolution cannot be verified as absolute fact, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it. Certainly more evidence than of a virgin birth. I digress.

 

[Septic]

Then you may want to learn how to present things in a logical manner. Its becoming more obvious that you and some others on here have no idea how to use logic. And it shows.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with pointing out logical fallacies to people who constantly utilize them. Its what is supposed to be done.

This guy...

 

[Vol8188]

Whoa, we went from bacteria to donkeys? You lost me there.

You were trying to proclaim that bacteria always remain bacteria. And I'm pretty certain you've made the argument previously that animals do not become different species. I gave you a great example that proves you incorrect.