Alfa Seltzer: Oh, I gave him and answer on his multicellular/unicellular evolution advantage and he ran away.


Any more questions deepsight?

Oh no I didn't: I responded, and you failed to take the matter further - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/5#16980916

In fact I challenged you to give an example, you said you would, but you never did.

plaetton: @Deepsight.

Once more, I have slowly gone through your so-called posers that you have been gloating about.
Once again, I can honestly tell you they do not reflect the lofty level of your intellect.
So, I begin to wonder what your motive was.

If you were sincerely in need of answers to the questions,you would have found them within minutes.
The simple answers to your so-called posers are so abundant, that any junior high school student can find them with a twinkle of an eye.

This is the information age. There are very few mysteries in your so-called posers.
Just go to google, just go to wikipaedia, just go to the science section of your public library.
Stop seeing mysteries where none exist.
Seek and you shall find. That is the mantra of our new era.

I am loathe to think that you are ignorant or that you are lazy.
So I think that your overly verbose and fantasy-laden write-up was more like an attempt to camoflouge your own confusion about evolution, while at the same time, ambush your perceived atheist enemies.
Akin to something that a fearful defence lawyer would present to an ill-informed jury.

It goes like this.
"Let me give the atheists a big assignment, and if they cannot quickly finish the assignment, therefore...... atheists dont know all about evolution, and if that is so, then the entire atheist's worldview is ......wrong".

Right?

The new face of Anonyism. lol
You have learnt much from our resident spin miester.

Now, if you are unable to find the answers to these posers on your own, and you are sincere about it, I will volunteer to give you a lengthy bulletin and summary of evolution, from which you can put 2 and 2 together( as I am sure you are capable), and answer the questions yourself.

The only cavaet is that you have to tell us, in some detail, your understanding of how evolution works.
That way, I can assist you patch up the leaking aspects of your knowledge on the subject.

Until then , be Silent!

This is just nonsense.

You keep spending so much time and energy writing about how the posers are nonsense, how they can be answered by Junior High Schoolers, etc.

When will you man up and just be charitable enough to answer the posers even as an act of charity to we the ignorant folk you pity so much.

Your turn out on this thread so far has been pathetic.

Aside from the fact that you posted, and kept standing by an outright LIE which has been exposed as such, and yet you keep on with this drivel about "junior high school students can address this" and "this is elementary" and all the other hogwash that you, the professor, so far cannot address. This is the outright lie which you held on to, by the way -

https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/5#16982064

I dont know whether to be irritated, annoyed or amused by your answer up here asking me to use google to find answers. That is the height of stupendous cowardice and intellectual laziness, for which you berate others.

I repeat: your performance here bears the hallmarks of cowardice, laziness, ignorance, and I would just stop short of saying outright dishonesty.

Pathetic, really pathetic.

plaetton:

Good post?

I shake sadly as I witness the descent of Deepsight.

Let me make myself very clear, that I am not, have never been, and will never be interested in your estimation of my intellect or my perspectives: or any one else's estimation of same for that matter - except perhaps my employers: if I was, I would not have consistently advanced the very contrary and unconventional views that I have advanced throughout my life on this forum.

@Deepsight.. you know, 150 years ago, the question creationists were asking evolutionists were questions like secret of life and heredity, chemical bonding and space existence ...now that evolution has answered those by emergence of genetics, cosmology, astronomy and chemistry, you all left those and shifted to the question of origin of life and universe.

whats bad is not you asking those questions, but whats really foolish is you claiming evolution is wrong based on its limitations ...

well wallow in that a little bit more till those answers are found and then what will you shift to?

its just so pitiful that your beliefs are based on your ignorance....

only a fool, who has no answers mock those who look for answers...

this maximum stu.pid.dity of yours should therefore be overlooked as foolish words of a fool.

davidylan: What happened? As usual so much noise and our dear atheists who crow about logic and science all day cannot answer a simple 1 of 12 questions? What a crying shame.

. . . . . and you can just imagine the sheer cowardice and vacancy of his response - he now recommends we take to google to look for answers!

Shocking, just pathetically shocking. After 8 pages, our high riding intellectual, who derides same posers as elementary, and for primary school pupils, has only been able to offer a recommendation to search google, along with an outright lie on an experiment, and pity parties. Same person weeps for the ignorance of everyone else.

ooman: @Deepsight.. you know, 150 years ago, the question creationists were asking evolutionists were questions like secret of life and heredity, chemical bonding and space existence ...now that evolution has answered that, you all left that and shifted to origin of life and universe.

well wallow in that a little bit more till those answers are found and then what will you shift to?

its just so pitiful that your beliefs are based on your ignorance....

only a fool, who has no answers mock those who look for answers...

this maximum stu.pid.dity of yours should therefore be overlooked as foolish words of a fool.

Quite the erudite refutation of the posers as expected.

Deep Sight:

Quite the erudite refutation of the posers as expected.

or the answer you aren't expecting...

ooman:

or the answer you aren't expecting...

O, your earth-shatteringly erudite, scholarly and thoughtful response was great, and was just as i expected, you being such a measured, and profound thinker.

Deep Sight: O, your earth-shaterringly erudite,
scholarly and thoughtful response
was great, and was just as i expected,
you being such a well measured, and
profound thinker.

its clear your agenda is just to mock ....

mock all you want and worship your white god, no one is stopping you....

just until answers are found....

people like you should be ignored...

Deep Sight:

Oh no I didn't: I responded, and you failed to take the matter further - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/5#16980916

In fact I challenged you to give an example, you said you would, but you never did.

Liar! I gave you an example. TWICE!

Here it is again: It is logical and beneficial for a unicellular organism to evolve into a multicellular one in order to avoid or overcome a predator.

plaetton:

Davidylan.
You are an Enigma. You should be the bearing the Handle "Enigma" in Nairaland, not my other irredeemable detractor presently bearing the title....

This one flatters himself in an attempt to deceive others.

Anyone who knows me will know that I don't waste much time on conspiracy theory loonies and similar ignoramuses, let alone to be an "irredeemable detractor" of such a one!

In any event, a fool will usually show himself to be a fool --- even if only eventually.

ooman:

its clear your agenda is just to mock ....

mock all you want and worship your white god, no one is stopping you....

just until answers are found....

people like you should be ignored...

That is what I am sincerely trying to tell Deepsight. The entire motive was to mock. If he was sincerely seeking answers to those questions as a genuine student, he would have easy found them through a variety of sources. There are so much material on the subject.
That's why I tried to do him a favor by referring him to the easiest one, Google.
It's like asking atheists why the sky is blue. Its a question, but it's not a mystery that you need an atheist to explain.

I express my willingness to give him a lengthy bulletin-like summary of evolution for dummies, if he is sincere about learning.

If one accepts that the universe evolved and continues to evolve, then it is incongruous for one to assert that certain processes within the universe are magically exempt from the universal trend.

We cannot pick and choose what we would like to have evolved and what to exempt.
It is not like blind faith religion where we have the liberty to sneak god in and out of any situation we like.

If star dust accretes to form stars and planets with all their complex and unique characteristics, then it's arrogant and ignorant folly to assert that human biological systems are far too complex to have evolved through the same complex processes.

Enigma:

This one flatters himself in an attempt to deceive others.

Anyone who knows me will know that I don't waste much time on conspiracy theory loonies and similar ignoramuses, let alone to be an "irredeemable detractor" of such a one!

In any event, a fool will usually show himself to be a fool --- even if only eventually.

Heyyyy Buddy.
Long time no see.
We sincerely missed you cos everyone adds their flavor to Nl religilous section family.
How are you doing.

Somehow, I knew that my brief mention of the word "Enigma" might draw you out of the woodworks.

I only wish you had surprised me by saying something nice or complimentary.
Anyway, nice to see ya.
And please, ease up a bit.
Ok?

^^^ No problem, make una dey do una own things!

I've always preferred to discuss primarily Christian topics with Christians and other open minded people.

Best wishes

Enigma: ^^^ No problem, make una dey do una own things!

I've always preferred to discuss primarily Christian topics with Christians and other open minded people.

Best wishes

Same to you.

What a disgrace.

Deep Sight:
What a disgrace.

lol even logicboy has steered clear of the topic. It is quite apparent that the atheists here are just a bunch of intellectually vacuous noise makers.

You should change your name from deep sight to deep shyte.

Been following this thread and laughing all the way. Would someone just be so kind and tackle one of Deep Sight's poses. Mockery is really not a legitimate form of argument.

ooman: @Deepsight.. you know, 150 years ago, the question creationists were asking evolutionists were questions like secret of life and heredity, chemical bonding and space existence ...now that evolution has answered those by emergence of genetics, cosmology, astronomy and chemistry, you all left those and shifted to the question of origin of life and universe.

whats bad is not you asking those questions, but whats really foolish is you claiming evolution is wrong based on its limitations ...

well wallow in that a little bit more till those answers are found and then what will you shift to?

its just so pitiful that your beliefs are based on your ignorance....

only a fool, who has no answers mock those who look for answers...

this maximum stu.pid.dity of yours should therefore be overlooked as foolish words of a fool.

BEST COMMENT ON THIS THREAD!


Ooman, why cant you be like this all the time?

davidylan:

lol even logicboy has steered clear of the topic. It is quite apparent that the atheists here are just a bunch of intellectually vacuous noise makers.

Mr anony: Been following this thread and laughing all the way. Would someone just be so kind and tackle one of Deep Sight's poses. Mockery is really not a legitimate form of argument.

You people should stop hailing Deepsight just because he rants nonsense about evolution and the big bang.


The very title of the thread is silly. No scientist will tell you that evolution explains how the first life arrived. No. Evolution starts from the first life already existing.

As for the big bang, it is the best theory available for the origin of our universe. No scientist will tell you that the big bang explains everything about the origin of our universe. The big bang theory still remains to be improved as we find out more and more about the universe. The core theory of the big bang remains valid but more information could be added. For instance, I read that the estimated age of the universe was some millions of years off.



So, it is hard to see what Deepsight is arguing about. The descent of deepsight is beginning. I hope he doesnt go down like Anony who has become a self parody. No one takes him seriously anymore due to his incessant Anonyism

davidylan:
There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

Really?

me:
Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

See his 'posers' 3 and 13

me:
There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop bleeping, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...

See his 'poser' 11

Here's more on those rats

wiki:
Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]

The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.

[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.[4]

And of course, the ubiquitous fight-or-flight, responsible for dogs vs cars (with certain breeds having that behaviour filtered out). Or one could just look up nature vs nurture, and the many research papers in this field. Then again, you're supposedly a trained biologist, so you should know a hell of a lot more about this than I, no? We'll get to that.

david:
We are patiently waiting for your erudite refutation of all the "retarded nonsense" deepsight put up. I trust your intelligence.

I believe I've been involved, as of course have @alfa, @ooman, @plaet and any others I might have missed. However, one cannot escape the feeling that the pablum that is the op is some sort of cheap propaganda trick aimed at sheeple or just a troll, as the folly I highlight above is just the beginning. Indeed, @oga sight seems to acknowledge these distinguished army of straw-men when he adds

@deep sight:

Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.

Perhaps he did not expect any serious person to attend to these?

One can only imagine this as mr @sight while posting that op

[img]http://sociusrider.files./2012/12/1tzln8nzcu2abdq2dhii3q2.gif[/img]

He does like that wine. And he may have succeeded, as we've now had 7 pages of this 'retar.ded nonsense'

Anyhow, in the meantime, while he attends to us, other than the comical circle-jerking amongst yourselves, perhaps you could address this, oh learned one.

From this lot, the the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

wiki:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008,[1] and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549.[2]

We have:

AAAS:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]

*Note: that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

So, as you seem to be a scientist, or at least claim to be one, you apparently know something the rest of your colleagues don't. You assert there's no evidence for evolution, no? Then please explain why you haven't collected your nobel price? Surely, this is ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting stuff, and undeniably so. So I hope you aren't here SHAMELESSLY LYING to poor sheeple that haven't gotten the same level of education you claim to have.

At the very least, please show us some of your brilliant peer-reviewed papers (not by colleagues from one of your madrasas mind you), so us mere mortals can begin to fathom your position, even if just a bit.

Do note though, I shouldn't be here atm, and it might be days before I return, but please enlighten us, oh great sage (bonus points for not using a bible).

Logicboy03:





You people should stop hailing Deepsight just because he rants nonsense about evolution and the big bang.


The very title of the thread is silly. No scientist will tell you that evolution explains how the first life arrived. No. Evolution starts from the first life already existing.

As for the big bang, it is the best theory available for the origin of our universe. No scientist will tell you that the big bang explains everything about the origin of our universe. The big bang theory still remains to be improved as we find out more and more about the universe. The core theory of the big bang remains valid but more information could be added. For instance, I read that the estimated age of the universe was some millions of years off.



So, it is hard to see what Deepsight is arguing about. The descent of deepsight is beginning. I hope he doesnt go down like Anony who has become a self parody. No one takes him seriously anymore due to his incessant Anonyism

Yawn...and in all this, Deep Sight remains unanswered

By the way, did you even read the op?

I'll just leave this here, for general reference. It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with

AAAS:
Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design

What is evolution?

Evolution is a broad, well-tested description of how Earth's present-day life forms arose from common ancestors reaching back to the simplest one-celled organisms almost four billion years ago. It helps explain both the similarities and the differences in the enormous number of living organisms we see around us.

By studying the sequence of changes in fossils found in successive layers of rock as well as the molecular evidence provided by modern genetics, scientists have been able to trace how ancient organisms — through a process of descent with modification — gave rise to profound changes in populations over time. Many new anatomical forms have appeared, while others have disappeared. In a very real sense, we are distant genetic cousins to all living organisms, from bacteria to whales.

Evolution occurs in populations when heritable changes are passed from one generation to the next. Genetic variation, whether through random mutations or the gene shuffling that occurs during sexual reproduction, sets the stage for evolutionary change. That change is driven by forces such as natural selection, in which organisms with advantageous traits, such as color variations in insects that cloak some of them from predators, are better enabled to survive and pass their genes on to future generations.

Ultimately, evolution explains both small-scale changes within populations and large-scale changes in which new species diverge from a common ancestor over many generations.

Is evolution "just a theory?"

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory?

No. There are still many puzzles in biology about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate nor challenge Darwin's basic theory of "descent with modification" nor the theory's present form that incorporates and is supported by the genetic sciences. Contemporary evolutionary theory provides the conceptual framework in which these puzzles can be addressed and points toward ways to solve them.

Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened?

No. The consensus among scientists in many fields, and especially those who study the subject, is that contemporary evolutionary theory provides a robust, well-tested explanation for the history of life on earth and for the similarity within the diversity of existing organisms. Very few scientists doubt that evolution happened, although there is lively ongoing inquiry about the details of how it happened. Of the few scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who do.

What is intelligent design?

"Intelligent design" consists of two hypothetical claims about the history of the universe and of life: first, that some structures or processes in nature are "irreducibly complex" and could not have originated through small changes over long periods of time; and second, that some structures or processes in nature are expressions of "complex specified information" that can only be the product of an intelligent agent.

Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory?

No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory. While living things are remarkably complex, scientists have shown that careful, systematic study of them can yield tremendous insights about their functions and origins (as it has in the past).

Intelligent design necessarily presupposes that there is an "intelligent designer" outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith rather than a scientifically testable question.

Why did AAAS boycott the recent Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution?

The Kansas State Board of Education, which is dominated by intelligent design advocates, scheduled a series of hearings beginning May 5 on proposed revisions to state science standards. AAAS was invited to testify and "provide expert opinion regarding the mainstream scientific view of the nature of science." After much consideration, AAAS respectfully declined to participate, honoring a boycott called by the grassroots pro-science organization, Kansas Citizens for Science. We saw little purpose in a forum where evolution would be juxtaposed against "intelligent design," an unsubstantiated alternative that is a matter of religious faith, not facts. The State Board established a format which implied that scientific conclusions could be based simply on the weight of witnesses' opinions rather than on scientific evidence. We chose to support leaders of the Kansas science community, who promoted the boycott and described the hearings as rigged by proponents of intelligent design. In the end, with the exception of a Kansas civil rights attorney, who pointed out the farcical nature of the proceedings, only ID proponents testified.

Aren't scientists really just afraid to debate proponents of intelligent design?

No, scientists actually thrive on debate, but only according to the norms and standards of scientific investigation and discourse. Scientists are bound by existing facts while the opponents are not constrained by sticking to the verifiable evidence and data.

Scientists see no point — and much danger — in pitting a scientific concept like evolution against a non-scientific article of religious faith like intelligent design. By agreeing to debate evolution, scientists would be offering proponents of intelligent design a veneer of scientific respectability that has not been earned in the rough-and-tumble of everyday science. They also buy into a situation where the public might expect an either-or outcome between science and religion.

Doesn't fairness require that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary theory be taught in the public schools?

No. This is not about fairness. Science requires adherence to standards of research conduct and process. Intelligent design has not met those standards and should not be taught in science classrooms. If anything, it is unfair for proponents of a non-scientific claim to try to force their views into science classrooms.

Still, it appears that scientists are arrogant or elitist when they refuse to participate in debates.

Scientists recognize that they can appear aloof by refusing to appear in debates with intelligent design advocates in any and all forums they demand. But scientific inquiry and debate is not subject to the same ground rules as a media talk show. Scientific discourse demands experimental evidence.

Scientists, including officials at AAAS and other groups, have been very willing to talk to reporters, community groups and others about their reasons for supporting evolution and their misgivings about proposed school board actions in Kansas and elsewhere. We trust the good judgment of parents and community leaders when all of the facts are known.

Are scientists trying to stifle discussion of intelligent design?

We do not want to censor discussion of intelligent design in the proper setting but the school science classroom is not that setting. Nor do we want to portray evolution as some carved-in-stone dogma. Science is an ongoing process, with new evidence accepted and weighed constantly. Intelligent design advocates have yet to contribute in a scientifically rigorous manner to that process.

AAAS has worked hard to guarantee that children get a first-class science education. We've helped set the objectives for what should be taught and learned in science classrooms. We want to prevent an erosion of the quality of science education. In the case of Kansas, that would be unfortunate at a time when the state is trying to attract high-tech industry and it, like other U.S. states, is trying to nurture more homegrown science talent.

Are science and religion inherently opposed?

No. Science does not take a position on an intelligent designer, which is a matter of religious faith, and is not testable scientifically. AAAS and other scientific groups do not want to create the impression that religion and science are inherently in conflict. They live together quite comfortably, including in the minds of many scientists.

Science and religion ask different questions about the world. Many individual scientists are deeply religious. They see scientific investigation and religious faith as complementary components of a well-rounded life.

Can science stimulate religious thought?

Yes. A particular religion's understanding of the world provides the context from which questions of meaning emerge. A development in science may provide a new more reliable explanation of the structure and processes of the world. This may be different from the understanding of the world that is presumed in a particular religion. What may appear to be a conflict between science and religion is actually a contrast between earlier and more recent understandings of the world (e.g., between an earth-centered universe and a sun-centered universe) and can be a constructive stimulus for religious inquiry. In fact, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu scholars have sought positive ways to relate evolutionary theory with their religious traditions.

Is the science classroom the appropriate place to discuss the religious interpretations of science?

No. Religion is a subject of inquiry in historical, philosophical and social studies, not in science. So, discussion about religion is most appropriate in the social studies or humanities curriculum, not in the science curriculum.

Have scientists underestimated the impact of the intelligent design movement?

Many scientists probably have been caught unawares, in part, because they don't see an inherent conflict between science and religion. They often are more comfortable in the laboratory, doing science and communicating it to students, than they are in the public arena. But it is clear they can no longer afford to ignore the political reality of the intelligent design movement and its effort to sway school boards and curriculum committees in many states and communities. The AAAS is determined to remain engaged on this issue and encourages other scientific groups to do so as well, particularly at the grass roots level.

What are the stakes?

The risk, if intelligent design is incorporated into school curricula, is to undermine scientific credibility and the ability of young people to distinguish science from non-science. And that is what matters more, in the longer term, than the specific battles over intelligent design versus evolution. In Kansas, advocates of "intelligent design" are attempting to redefine what is and is not science, in direct conflict with the science standards recommended by both the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS in earlier work. They are pushing the board to reject a definition that limits science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world. They want to define it so that science will include supernatural explanations.

In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.

Kudos...for now..

wiegraf: I'll just leave this here, for general reference. It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with



In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.

Kudos...for now..

Which of the points in the op does it specifically address and how exactly does it address them?

wiegraf: I'll just leave this here, for general reference. It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with



In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.

Kudos...for now..

Well i wonder how this craven appeal to authority actually addresses ANY of the 12 points deepsight put up?

wiegraf:
So, as you seem to be a scientist, or at least claim to be one, you apparently know something the rest of your colleagues don't. You assert there's no evidence for evolution, no? Then please explain why you haven't collected your nobel price?

Oh dear... rather than answer the questions, all you have done is mock, denigrate and laugh at others? You assert there is evidence for evolution... you've had 8 pages to produce this evidence... where is it?

Bonus points if you are not shamelessly copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

Alfa Seltzer:

Liar! I gave you an example. TWICE!

Here it is again: It is logical and beneficial for a unicellular organism to evolve into a multicellular one in order to avoid or overcome a predator.

Really? I'm not shocked that you ended up mocking deepsight's name rather than a thoughtful response to his questions.

All,

I enjoy these discussions, it presents a well balanced point of view for anyone who wants to see all sides of the story although if I want to be honest there is a lot of unnecessary banter and jeers in the middle. Sometimes I wish there was someone to moderate discussions to help streamline these discussions because people like me who know nothing of biology and finds it a tad bit confusing at times.

I hope some people would be able to take on my questions in an honest way:

For the Pro Evolution Side:
1. Abiogenesis : This has been a strong point for the other side, the miller-urey experiment as they pointed out was just not good enough to simulate conditions of the earth as it was, are you willing to concede (probably you have) that this experiment was not perfect? Assuming a huge part of this was all wrong by how much does it affect your position.

For the Against Side:
1. What exactly are the points you agree with evolution on (most especially @deepsight) maybe the discussion would be better if you say the things you agreed on and then the things you dispute. Then the real areas of contention can be narrowed down to
- If these are grounds to dismiss the whole theory/fact/whatever evolution is. (i.e if evolution cannot explain the eye for instance then the whole theory should be discarded despite any other evidence out there in favour of the theory)
- If you agree that some parts of it are correct but needs to be redefined or become more inclusive.

its funny how these xtians require answer where there is none presently...if you want to justify your worship of a god based on your limitations, be my guest...not that there is logical answers to the questions, which can be summarized into question of origin of life and universe, but presently, there is no observational answer. So why bother debate logic with those who have thrown it off their window?

I think this debate should be laid to rest.

there is no answer now, just hypothesis, and this doesn't mean there is a god ..evolution is not magic, its science, limitations are therefore expected, which will be cleared with time.

ooman: its funny how these xtians require answer where there is none presently...if you want to justify your worship of a god based on your limitations, be my guest...not that there is logical answers to the questions, which can be summarized into question of origin of life and universe, but presently, there is no observational answer. So why bother debate logic with those who have thrown it off their window?

I think these debate should be laid to rest.

there is no answer now, just hypothesis, and this doesn't mean there is a god ..evolution is not magic, its science, limitations are therefore expected, which will be cleared with time.

There are answers. Lots of answers to some of the posers the op made. I have already started debunking one for him. However, it is true that the evolution theory as it stands still have a long way to go and a lot of holes to fill.

One thing that I have noticed is that people do not even understand the meaning of "evolution". They confuse it with "progressive change"

^^^ true, they term it a one way event rather than environment decided event...