Folmsbee: Don't 'believe' in evolution

Column photo

By Sai Folmsbee

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Next Tuesday is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s revolutionary book “On the Origin of Species.” This will celebrate 150 years of dynamic scientific research following Darwin’s original theory, improving our understanding of the role of evolution in creating the diversity of life on earth.

It also reflects the concurrent dissatisfaction and controversy that has accompanied Darwin’s theory throughout history. Although many still dispute evolution as either factually incorrect or morally reprehensible for religious reasons, Darwin’s theory of evolution is purely a scientific proposition, entirely exclusive and non-intrusive upon religious ideas.

This month, however, the Christian ministry Living Waters, headed by Ray Comfort, has promised to distribute more than 100,000 “altered” copies of the book to college campuses around the country. Each of these reprinted editions will contain a 50-page introduction promoting intelligent design and refuting the theory of evolution explained by Darwin. This introduction attacks the modern evidence for evolution beyond the scope of Darwin’s investigations, such as genetics and transitional fossils, but then descends into a full-fledged attack on Darwin’s character.

It paints Darwin — and by association, his theory — as a racist and sexist, and even asserts that Adolf Hitler was Darwin’s “famous student.” Although none of these personal attacks have any scientific bearing on the theory of evolution, they do showcase the profound controversy between religion and evolution that has persisted now for 150 years.

Do you believe in evolution? I don’t, and neither should you. The question itself is flawed. Evolution is not something one “believes” in. One does not have to have faith in evolution, let alone any scientific concept, in order for it to be true. Constructing evolution as an idea that must be “believed” forces it be stagnant, unscientific and anti-religious. This is the root of why evolution and religion have clashed so harshly for more than a century.

Do you accept evolution? I do, and so should you. It is essential to understand that evolution is the best model for the history and diversity of life on this planet. It is a testable, scientific proposition that can be supported or disproven by further evidence. This distinction between belief and acceptance may seem superficial, but it highlights the fact that scientists studying evolution are not researching to justify their own beliefs. We all pursue the truth when it comes to this all-encompassing idea for the nature of life on earth.

The opponents of evolution often describe proponents as Darwinists who unquestionably follow the doctrine of “On the Origin of Species.” This caricature is a tactic that makes the scientists look like ideological servants to Darwin, but scientists themselves have proven to be the most critical of Darwin’s theory. Darwin would barely recognize the modern theory of evolution constructed today. During Darwin’s time, there was no knowledge of genetic variation or mutation, and the fossil record was sparse.

After enduring 150 years of fierce criticism and relentless attempts at falsification by scientists, Darwin’s idea of evolution has itself evolved into a stronger, more fit theory.

— Folmsbee is a Topeka senior

Advertise Here

Comments

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

Your state of Kansas has a lot of evolution deniers, also known as flat-earthers. It's too bad the minds of innocent children are destroyed by religious indoctrination long before they take their first science class.

November 18, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

kupeach (anonymous) says...

I'm confused. It's evolution a theory? Aren't theories essentially unproven statements?

November 18, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooo.

November 18, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jbarrett (anonymous) says...

I would be more accepting of macro-evolution (changing from one species to another) if someone could explain to me how organisms changed from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.

November 18, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

I am not a biologist, but heterogamy would be my guess. Like with aphids. Sexual reproduction was a good backup plan for someone, then it turned into a full-time gig. Then everybody started doing it.

That was a pun, by the way.

November 18, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

kupeach, a theory is the highest level of understanding in science.

jbarrett, I think you would be more accepting of what you call macro-evolution if you bothered to educate yourself. Today, thanks to Youtube, you can learn about the evidence for evolution without reading a book. Here's a good place to get started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mA...

vladislav, you are correct to say "not all Christians reject evolution" but I think it's fair to say the vast majority of Christians let their religious indoctrination get in the way of their understanding science. For example, probably most of the Christians who accept evolution think god's magic wand is one of the mechanisms of evolution, or they think their god fairy invented evolution. They call themselves theistic evolutionists, but evolution does not need any adjectives, especially not the worthless adjective 'theistic'. Religious ideas are good for nothing but polluting science, and I wish Christians would stop invoking their magic fairy to explain what they are too lazy to understand.

November 18, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Understanding the theory of evolution and understanding the evidence to support it is easy.

I have a hard time trying to think about the moment when life started on this planet. Everything is gravy from that point until now but how did a 'simple', single-celled microorganism come into being in the first place?

That's tough to grasp.

November 18, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Dan:

The origin of life is a big mystery and fortunately we are getting to the point where we can start to put together a hypothesis that makes some sort of sense.

It has been demonstrated in several research experiments that the building blocks of biological molecules (amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids and monosaccharides) can be spontaneously generated in the conditions that existed on Earth several billion years ago thanks to high temperatures and the differences that existed in the climate and composition of the ocean. However, the process by which these molecules were polymerized and enclosed in membranes is kind of an open question.

Also: In modern cells most catalysis takes place via proteins and genetic information is stored in DNA. However, there are some enzymes called ribozymes that are made of RNA and there are viruses that use RNA as their genetic material. It follows from these observations and the ease with which RNA forms that perhaps RNA was the original catalytic and genetic material. There are RNAs that can replicate themselves, and it's possible that on early Earth this was the case. This is called the "RNA World Hypothesis."

These two theories certainly have gaps, but there is a lot of research being done. It is my belief that we will probably be able to fill these gaps in over the next few decades. Then the big question will be "where did the universe come from?"

November 18, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mvjayhawk (anonymous) says...

this column is convoluted and confusing. is evolution a science? is it just an idea?

evolution as a science, is completely preposterous. it doesn't matter that it was ahead of its time because of the lack of a fossil record; it simply doesn't occur.

not only was the earth and the universe and all of its life forms created by a single entity, it's a lot more provable than anything evolution has to offer.

the unverisal laws of physics are violated over and over again when trying to justify evolution.

the problem is, this is the accepted science in our high school biology classes. it's one of the main reasons over time, that we are so stupid today.

November 18, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Connerm: Good answer and thank you for your insight.

mvjayhawk: To play devil's advocate here let me ask you some questions. Make no mistake, however, I will openly declare my faith in God and his son Jesus but I will also state that science has a lot to teach us.

You say "evolution as a science, is completely preposterous." Then what is your response to the development of antibiotic resistance in many bacterial strains (such as MRSA, VRSA, VRE, Multi-drug Resistance TB, etc)? These micro-organisms have gone through a micro-evolution to obtain these resistant characteristics. So there is some merit to evolution. This, of course, leaves out the topic of macro-evolution. How did we originate from a single celled organism through a couple hundred million years of history? Well, that's a long story (ha, ha pun intended).

Furthermore, you state "the universal laws of physics are violated over and over again when trying to justify evolution." Please elaborate. If and when you are going to launch an argument you must have evidence to support it. Your above statement lacks evidence or at least you fail to cite your evidence. Show us how creation is more provable than evolution. Show us how physics is violated when discussing evolution.

It's sad, but I believe comments like your's are the reason so many call people of religion stupid, ignorant, and as bobxxxx would put it "too lazy to understand."

November 18, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

Sorry, I understood the last part, where you called yourself stupid, but I'm not clear on what you're denying about evolution.
Is it the inheritability of traits? Or the cumulative effects thereof? Or genetic mutation? Do you need to read the wikipedia article on speciation? Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

How about tectonic plate theory? Do you deny that too?
How about the theory that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases?

Denver always says it's wrong to offer assistance to the handicapped, but here is a clear instance where my unsolicited help is clearly needed.

November 18, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

This is to anyone who cares to listen, not necessarily just in response to mvjayhawks poor argument.

There once was a fly who lived in a barn. One day this fly found an nice, warm, stinky pile of cow dung to gorge himself on. The fly ate, and ate, and ate some more. So much so, that he couldn't pick himself up off the ground. Well, the fly sees a broom off in the distance leaning against the wall. He decides to climb up the broom handle and jump off in order to get a head start on flying. He proceeds to do so but instead of flying away home, he lands square on the ground and dies.

Moral of the story: Don't fly off the handle when you're full of crap.

November 18, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mvjayhawk (anonymous) says...

"Furthermore, you state "the universal laws of physics are violated over and over again when trying to justify evolution." Please elaborate. If and when you are going to launch an argument you must have evidence to support it. Your above statement lacks evidence or at least you fail to cite your evidence. Show us how creation is more provable than evolution. Show us how physics is violated when discussing evolution."

it's too easy. and i will not call names, or say anyone's above posted comment is "full of crap."

Ever heard of the fist and second law of thermodynamics? well, it's actually the first and 2nd laws of physics. these laws have been tested and tested and tested and never failed. that's right: NEVER.

what are these laws mind you? 1st, the law of conservation of matter and energy. the 2nd, the law of entropy. the quantity of energy and matter in the universe is always the same....always has, always will. from the start, evolution violates this law. how did life start? how did it "evolve?" there HAS to always be matter and energy..and in same amounts. you can't just keep morphing and morphing into new life forms.

the 2nd law really kicks evolutions' tail. entropy. after every interaction, there is always less quality in the universe. it's why we die...it's why plants and animals die....it's why the universe is dying. not only is evolution is impossible, entropy proves just the opposite! everything is disintegrating! every star, every comet, every planet...and all life on earth is losing order...and therefore whittling away to nothing.

therefore, it had to start at the top (creation), and come rolling down. that's where we're at. when we're all 4 degrees Kelvin, you'll get it.

November 18, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't why we die. This is an application of a physical law to an area where it doesn't belong. We die because of a number of causes, but we also reproduce and give birth to beings that go from being simple fertilized eggs to fully developed humans. According to your interpretation of the 2nd law, this shouldn't take place. However, the 2nd law applies to molecular interactions and physical reactions, not lifeforms as a whole, humanity, books, the internet, or any of the other things I have heard people trying to claim entropy rules.

The 2nd law also doesn't get violated in biological systems. Yes, when something with a high amount of entropy like, say, 10 free-floating monosaccharides is converted into a single polymer, this looks like a decrease in chaos, or entropy. This reaction does not occur spontaneously but is coupled with enzyme catalysis that use coupling by the breakdown of other molecules, the release of water from solvation shells, etc. to drive the net reaction forward.

As far as the first law goes, presumably the first lifeforms were generated from components and energy that existed in the system already. The claim that life began without violating the first law of thermo. doesn't really raise any eyebrows in the scientific community.

Also: you can't apply the overall increase in entropy of the universe to the lifeforms on Earth. Favorable entropy and energy/matter for creating the order that exists in lifeforms occurs by coupling it with an overall increase in entropy in the surrounding system. It isn't contradictory at all to claim that the entropy of the universe can be increasing but the order of living organisms can increase. We release heat, don't we?

November 18, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

orang (anonymous) says...

I think this sounds like a very good point. But then again... I don't merely accept science as useful. I personally believe in science, and I don't believe in God or gods. That said, while I reject the idea of gods in rational thought and discussion, when it comes to art, I have absolutely nothing against the idea of God or gods. Much of my favorite art and music relates strongly to such ideas.

But I am not so sure this works for "true believers." You suggest that science can be "entirely exclusive and non-intrusive upon religious ideas". This is simply not the case for people with "true" religious beliefs that contradict scientific knowledge. It was as true when Galileo was imprisoned as it is today. People are not actually able to separate beliefs from knowledge and maintain beliefs that contradict knowledge. People who claim to do so are redefining their "beliefs" as essentially poetry. I have nothing against poetry, and I have such "beliefs" myself, but the deeply religious people on the other side of _this_ debate do not consider their beliefs to be merely poetry -- they consider them to be superior to any knowledge that can be gained through logic and observation.

Another point to make here is that by changing the subject to a softer one, you are allowing Living Waters and their ilk get away with some deeply dishonest distortions in the service of their hateful agenda. The tone of this article seems appropriate for a reasonable disagreement with reasonable people. These people are not them. I think you are being far too Christian with these bloodthirsty wackos.

November 18, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Lol, I don't think mvjayhawk liked my story.

You know mvjayhawk, I'm not too good at any math above calculus and I only took 1 physics course. So I can not make a great argument against the laws that you discussed above. However, when thinking about it and considering connerm's statement I think I can say a little bit.

As it stands we can only observe a very small portion of our surroundings. Even if we (meaning every earth 'being') defy physics, how can you know that our imbalance isn't being corrected elsewhere in places we are unable to observe?
Although, when it comes to our bodies, we are constantly taking 'ordered' material (plant material and animal flesh) and breaking it down into 'disordered' material (essential amino acids, sugar monosaccharides waste products, etc). All of this is mediated by an enormous number of enzymes, catalysts, oxidation/reduction pathways, and the like. So it doesn't exactly seem like we are spitting in the face of physics here.

Anyhow mvjayhawk, like I said earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate in this situation. Proverbs 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." My main intention is to help you strengthen your arguments. I am always an advocate of looking at all sides of the argument in order to better formulate mine. I enjoy when people tear my arguments apart because I learn from it. I may look stupid when it happens but so be it. So chill out.

Orang: I'm not sure I agree with your stance about the dissociation between true believers and science. I certainly understand what you are talking about though. There are way too many Christians out there that hate, and I mean honestly HATE, the idea of science and anything that is not directly stated in the Bible. To be honest it is quite sad they act the way they do because it completely undermines any credibility that other more open minded Christians may have.

November 18, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kevinfolta (anonymous) says...

I don't believe in evolution either. I do, however, accept the propensity of evidence that supports the theory, and reject the nonsense of pseudoscientific alternative hypotheses. There is no evidence for ID. Zero. None that can be tested. Not science. It is belief, faith, flat earth, aliens in area 51, 9-11 conspiracy craziness. Evolution is supported again and again.

jbarrett- plants and fungi do it all the time. Sexual to asexual is frequently a switch driven by the environment. Some insects too. Biology is pretty cool when you actually learn about it.

November 18, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

handy (anonymous) says...

How to get the uneducated to post on a Kansan article.

Step 1: Make it about evolution.

... that's about all you have to do, really.

November 18, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jamescastle (anonymous) says...

Linguo... a theory is something that can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it's called a conspiracy. Thus, God is a conspiracy.

November 18, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jamescastle (anonymous) says...

I wish people would brief their arguments on here.

November 18, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

mvjayhawk wrote " ... not only is evolution is impossible ..."

Evolution is impossible, therefore a god fairy, using a magic wand while hiding in the clouds, made people out of nothing.

Did I get that right mvjayhawk? You think evolution is impossible, despite 150 years of accumulated evidence for it, but the Magic Man is real.

Typical brain-dead Christian.

November 19, 2009 at 6:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mvjayhawk (anonymous) says...

"As far as the first law goes, presumably the first lifeforms were generated from components and energy that existed in the system already. The claim that life began without violating the first law of thermo. doesn't really raise any eyebrows in the scientific community."

a silly statement. and it proves my point. Presumably? You just made my case. it don't think science is based on "presumably." all the matter and energy in the universe is the same...now, then and in the future. this is not "presumed."....it's a proven, time tested, and experiment tested fact.

and your scientific community's eyebrows must not be attached to rational thinking human beings.

"Did I get that right mvjayhawk? You think evolution is impossible, despite 150 years of accumulated evidence for it, but the Magic Man is real.

Typical brain-dead Christian."

i wish more people would actually start using their brain, bobxxx. you maybe should start. what evidence? you're not actually arguing for evolution as proven science are you? that's looney tunes and fantasy land.

have you created life in your lab? (do you even have a lab to work in...tee he).. has anyone created life in a lab? that's the fundamentals here. only one entity, greater than us, can create life.

"As it stands we can only observe a very small portion of our surroundings. Even if we (meaning every earth 'being') defy physics, how can you know that our imbalance isn't being corrected elsewhere in places we are unable to observe?
Although, when it comes to our bodies, we are constantly taking 'ordered' material (plant material and animal flesh) and breaking it down into 'disordered' material (essential amino acids, sugar monosaccharides waste products, etc). All of this is mediated by an enormous number of enzymes, catalysts, oxidation/reduction pathways, and the like. So it doesn't exactly seem like we are spitting in the face of physics here."

How do you know anything Dan? what "imbalance?" you're not making any sense. who cares about enzymes and catalysts? from the time we're born, we're dying. it's just a matter of time. these laws apply to everything in the universe...that's why they haven't been disproven.

It's a fun discussion, but what i believe is true, cannot be scientifically disputed. Einstein's relativity theories are probably revered here too....it gives weight to the billions of years old universe age nonsense. as i said originally, when it all goes dark (and it will folks, it will....maybe not next year or in a hundred years...but it will), then we'll all know. the 1st and 2nd laws are absolute...and prove death to us and the universe. have fun in your life.

November 19, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

mvjayhawk wrote "what evidence?"

Look it up. You got to do your homework. You can't expect people here to patiently hold your hand just because you're too lazy to read a book or watch a video.

mvjayhawk wrote "you're not actually arguing for evolution as proven science are you?"

Scientists like to say nothing is proven in science, because it's always possible new evidence will require old ideas to be changed or thrown out. However, some ideas, like evolution by natural selection, have so much overwhelming evidence, that it would be insane to not call those ideas facts. Evolution is a basic scientific fact, and the many basic facts of evolution have so much extremely powerful evidence, it's fair to say those facts are the strongest facts of science.

mvjayhawk wrote "that's looney tunes and fantasy land."

Science is fantasy and your magic man is real?

mvjayhawk wrote "have you created life in your lab?"

Scientists might do this within the next 20 years, but this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Did you know there's more than one branch of science?

mvjayhawk, you obviously get all your information from professional liars for Jeebus. Have you ever considered studying the work of real scientists, instead of listening to people who spread lies about science to defend your childish belief in supernatural magic?

Today, thanks to Youtube, you can learn about the evidence for evolution without reading a book. Here's a good place to get started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mA...

mvjayhawk, until you make an effort to understand modern biology, instead of complaining about it, you are just a waste of time, as are all other evolution-deniers like you.

November 19, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

mvjayhawk wrote "only one entity, greater than us, can create life."

Translation:

THE MAGIC MAN DID IT.

mvjayhawk, if scientists invoked a magic god fairy for every scientific problem like you do, human progress would come to a complete stop.

mvjayhawk, please try to imagine a universe without your magic fairy hiding in the clouds. That will make it much easier for you to understand simple scientific concepts like natural selection. You are letting your religious indoctrination get in the way of your understanding.

mvjayhawk, please read and try to understand this famous quote:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

-- Charles Darwin

November 19, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RTBatKU (anonymous) says...

If by evolution you mean that organisms change over time, or that they are related by common ancestry, I think the scientific theory is perfectly sound.

However, the contemporary theory of evolution contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a phenomenon which is both unpredictable and purposeless. It is this claim that I think many people do not accept.

This includes many scientists. Contrary to many claims, science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Scientists from the dawn of civilization (e.g., Copernicus) based their inquiries on the assumption that God existed and that the physical world, as His creation and design, was discernable through the scientific process. Newton is another good example of an accomplished scientist so inclined.

Today, scientists who conform to this standard are dismissed and ridiculed. Many lampoon them and anyone willing to consider their positions (see previous comments from bobxxx, pantheon, and Dan).

Many also argue that no scientific evidence exists to support the claim that the physical world was designed (which, admittedly, presumes an intelligence did the designing). Other critics are more specific and claim that scientists exploring these possibilities do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Both claims are untrue.

For example, see any of the following studies:

Stephen Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004), 213–39.

William A. Dembski & Robert J. Marks II, Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39(5):1051–61 (Sept. 2009).

W.E. Loennig, Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin or irreducible complexity, Dynamic Genetics, 101–19.

November 19, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

"If by evolution you mean that organisms change over time, or that they are related by common ancestry, I think the scientific theory is perfectly sound. However, the contemporary theory of evolution contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a phenomenon which is both unpredictable and purposeless. It is this claim that I think many people do not accept."

So you think evolution is driven by... intelligent design? I don't know where you were going with this before you veered off into "lots of scientists are christians" territory.

Also, I went looking for the articles and found this instead:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI...

I don't think I'll be wasting my time with those articles now.

November 19, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RTBatKU (anonymous) says...

Why do you insist that evolution must be random? By your reasoning, life simply arose from the goo. By sheer happenstance, out from the goo came amino acids and materials that, again by pure chance, just happened to develop into complex organisms--organisms so complex that even one of their cells was more complex than a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (note: aircraft carriers took man a pretty long time to design).

Let me guess, next you'll counter that if you give a room full of monkeys enough pens and paper--and of course, limitless time--eventually they would compose Shakespeare? That's essentially what your argument boils down to. Does anyone really believe that? Is this the rock upon which you found your science? "Poof, it just happened" is not all that scientific.

Furthermore, thanks for writing off my suggestions for competing scientific literature. You've clearly demonstrated that my cited sources that challenges the prevailing dogma is—alas, also referenced by others challenging the prevailing dogma. Bravo. I suppose it's easier to simply dismiss these positions rather than engage them. Another benefit of your “dismiss first, consider never” approach: you're preserving your ideological purity (the "good" science really shouldn't be challenged or critiqued after all). Pretty impressive stuff.

November 19, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

The believer in magical creation who invoked Stephen Meyer and William A. Dembski needs to understand those two professional liars for Jeebus work for the Christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute which has never discovered anything. These compulsive liars make a living from donations from gullible Christians who know nothing about science. Scientists call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute" because every time a scientific discovery conflicts with the childish god-did-it nonsense in the Bible, the Dishonesty Institute immediately publishes a press release that spreads lies about the discovery. The main goal of the Dishonesty Institute is to dumb down America's science education to accommodate Christian woo-woo.

So, RTBatKU, if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to stop invoking idiots who have never contributed anything important to any branch of science.

November 19, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

The retards who work for the out of control and rapidly growing business called "LYING FOR JEEBUS" are worse than Muslim terrorists. These cowardly anti-science liars don't fly airplanes into buildings, but they do something many times worse. They poison the minds of innocent children with never ending lies about modern biology. They are preachers, priests, and creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute. They are not satisfied with ruining the lives of children who have the terrible luck to be born into Christian families. They want to destroy the education of all American students. If it was up to me these compulsive liars would be put in prison for treason.

November 19, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

RTBatKU wrote "I suppose it's easier to simply dismiss these positions rather than engage them."

RTBatKU, every claim ever made by your retarded Discovery Institute liars has been refuted repeatedly. Google 'Dover Trial' for more information.

November 19, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

The creationists here, instead of showing off their total ignorance of biology, should provide some evidence, any evidence, for their childish belief in magical creation.

So did your fairy use a magic wand? Did your fairy use different magic words to create cockroaches out of nothing and to create people out of nothing.

Please explain and don't forget that scientific evidence you need.

Or you creationists could try growing up, educating yourselves, and facing facts. That will never happen because cowardly Christians are terrified of the real world. They prefer their childish everything-is-magic fantasy world.

November 19, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Bobxxxx: It is funny that you would argue "the retards who work for the out of control and rapidly growing business called "LYING FOR JEEBUS" are worse than Muslim terrorists." When, if you think about, do not the followers of any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Budhist, etc) 'indoctrinate' their young and commit this terrible act that you so fiercely disagree with? Yet your only attack is on Christianity. Maybe because nobody in this discussion has claimed any other faith and therefore it is the only one to currently attack. But some how I feel that you would not give other faiths the same hardship and hostile treatment by calling them retarded, lazy, and ignorant.

November 19, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

Bob,

Let me say first that I basically agree with your core argument, as a scientist and as one who teaches science we really should stick to facts, evidence, and reason when it comes to scientific debate- something which creationists seem to want to ignore as a rule.

That being said, you might want to back away from the keyboard and cool off. You aren't debating anymore, you're attacking. Let's keep this civil.

November 19, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jbarrett (anonymous) says...

bobxxxx -- I would wager that I have read more than you have. I have a BS, a MS and a doctorate.

Those who can intelligently argue a point do so. Those who cannot intelligently argue a point, insult their opponents.

November 19, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

In what? Is the next question jbarrett.

I read the thread, and I think your point is basically covered. Just wanted to say that the biggest advantage sexual reproduction has over asexual is that species that use sexual reproduction can adapt to their environments faster through greater genetic variety.

And this adaptation first showed up when everything was still one-celled, so it wasn't that big a leap to make at the time.

November 19, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bluedemons101 (anonymous) says...

Wow I think we should all realize by now that religion is the poision of humanity. Relgious people are the only ones who consider themselves truly 'certain' of anything. Its just irrational to subdue your existence into a work of fiction written 2000 years ago. Or in the case of christianity, the bible was actually written 400 years after jesus, by a king no less, Constantine.
How can that be remotely accurate? Yet, to this day people justify their entire existence on the principle of a higher power, our last president comes to mind. I feel truly sorry for those whom devote their entire existence to a religion; these people ignore scientific fact, it took them 400 years (and mass hangings) before the church accepted that we don't live in a geocentric universe; I think that says it all.
Regarding evolution if you still doubt that we did in fact come from monkeys watch this documentary:
http://vodpod.com/watch/2425006-cleve...

November 19, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

a) No. But you can keep playing with that strawman all you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I'd like you to read the second sentence there until you understand it. Science is no place for conflation of terms, and if you say "It's just semantics" then you don't have a clue who you're talking to.

b) I'm not the one who brought out extensively refuted studies as evidence. I mean, if I bring studies to prove that Chupacabras mate only at night, and it all comes from cryptozoological journal articles peer-reviewed by cryptozoologists, then yeah, they're not going to address the fact that the Chupacabra does not exist.

Also, you're extremely anthropocentric. That is a hazard.

November 19, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Sigh...this always happens.

November 19, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobsaget (anonymous) says...

GOD BLESS AMERICA and the lazy folk who were far too tired and hopped up on adderall to keep researching so they just settled for an explosion. Yeah, because that's plausible. BANG=the earth.

Then there's creation... or evolution... pangea..and plenty of other theories.

why do ridiculous pretentious people waste their lives making themselves look like self-righteous clowns by carrying out arguments fully loaded with personal attacks over unproven theories? no matter what you believe, nothing is proven so as Journey once said, "Don't Stop Believin."

science is quite powerful, but some things it cannot explain. like how deep the cesspool of ignorance at KU is.

not a monkey,
Saget.

November 19, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

I think this bobsaget fellow is the most obvious troll I've ever seen.

Which gave me a good laugh when I needed it the most. Thanks Bob!

November 19, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

The real Bob Saget is coming to KC soon!

November 19, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobsaget (anonymous) says...

ku's bob saget lives at club anschutz

November 19, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobsaget (anonymous) says...

and i love that you called me a troll bahaha sagetry

November 19, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

andrealp (anonymous) says...

Just for fun: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010

November 19, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

JasonForson, you might want to mind your own business.

November 20, 2009 at 6:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

jbarrett wrote "I have a BS, a MS and a doctorate."

And you're a scientifically illiterate evolution denier.

November 20, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

Dan wrote "But some how I feel that you would not give other faiths the same hardship and hostile treatment by calling them retarded, lazy, and ignorant."

I criticize Christians, especially dishonest Christians (for example the scum who work for the Discovery Institute), because Christians infest the country I live in, and because they never stop trying to dumb down science education.

But my opinion of Muslims and religious Jews is the same. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who is stupid enough to believe there's a magic fairy hiding in the clouds.

November 20, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

I asked the creationists here to provide evidence for their childish belief in magical creation.

I'm still waiting.

Of course they don't have a shred of evidence for their idiotic belief in god's magic wand.

So they attack science, they spread lies about science, and they prove beyond any doubt that religions make stupid people even more stupid.

November 20, 2009 at 6:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mcargill (anonymous) says...

Personally, as an anthropology student possibly looking to go into something involving physical anthropology (which studies a lot of human evolution), I think the new introduction is great. If you were to randomly pick up this copy of On the Origin of Species and read this introduction and then read the book, I believe this is the best, most concrete example of the controversy surrounding evolution today. It's also an example of how not to criticize someone's work. Attacking someone's character is not a good method of scientific criticism. On the matter of Hitler being Darwin's "student", the comment does not come completely out of left field. As I understand it, Hitler's MO was eugenics, which is selective breeding applied to humans. This idea most likely sprang from Darwin's observations of natural selection and was taken in a very very negative fashion. Blame Hitler for that, not Darwin. Lots of things in science can be used for bad things, and this is merely one example. Do people blame Einstein for Hiroshima?

November 20, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

mcargill-

Do you mean the controversy in terms of society at large or in the scientific community? Because if you mean within the scientific community I'd like to point out there really isn't any. Short Version: The Fundies are lying. By percentage, more scientists agree with the overall conclusions of Evolutionary Theory then there are dentists who think you should brush your teeth at least twice a day and floss at least once. (About 95% give or take 2% versus 90% give or take 2% as of the last Gallup Polls.)

Yes, individual details of Evolutionary Theory are being questioned and discussed, but that what Science does. Evolution as a whole is considered a stronger Scientific Theory then Gravity in academic circles.

bobxxxx-

Dude, I pretty much agree with you. The only real difference is that I figure as long as they recognize that Faith and Reason are best kept separate then there's no harm in other people believing in a magical sky wizard. "As long as they recognize that Faith and Reason are best kept separate" being a key phrase.

My only real beef with you is that you are spraying so much venom around that it makes everyone who agrees with you look bad. Thus making us all look bad. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying "Chill Out".

November 20, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

JasonForson, I'm saying, for the 2nd time, mind your own business.

November 20, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

"... then there's no harm in other people believing in a magical sky wizard."

I guess you never heard about what happened on 9/11/2001.

No harm in believing in a god? Tell that to the people who were burned alive, or who exploded when their falling bodies crashed into the ground.

No harm? You are part of the problem mister.

November 20, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

If there's anyone I can't stand more than a Christian extremist, it's a wimp atheist who says there's no harm in believing in woo-woo. Even worse are atheists like JasonForson who think everybody else should be wimps like they are.

Also, atheists like JasonForson, who can't mind their own business, have a lot of common with Christian extremists who like to tell everyone else what they can't do.

November 20, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

Many thanks to linguo_the_grammar_robot.

November 20, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobxxxx (anonymous) says...

What a great way to make evolution-deniers shut up. Just ask them to provide evidence for their childish belief in magical creation.

November 20, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

Excuse me? You're the one who is seriously equating having a religious belief to hijacking planes and colliding them into buildings full of innocent people and somehow I am the one telling people how to live their lives?

Listen you hypocrite, replace the words "evolution" with "creation" and "magical" with "non-magical" and tell me you don't sound like the very people you are demonizing? You ever consider that maybe, just maybe, that people like you may be the reason atheists have a bad reputation?

Because frankly, too an outsider, you sound just as extreme as any fundie who bombs abortion clinics- you just use slightly different words.

(And for the record, I never said I was an atheist. Apathiestic, means I think the question of whether or not there's a god is academic, as the answer has no real effect on our lives anyway. The "I don't care" to the Agnostic's "I don't know".

Sure, the opponents have shut up for now- but notice your list of allies is pretty short too.)

November 20, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229

bobxxxx, if you keep poking a sleeping giant, eventually he'll wake up. I'm not sure you want that.

November 20, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Darwinists on this forum are so overconfident. It's hilarious. Their intellects are in bondage, because they're not allowed to see the obvious truths in front of their faces.

Let me give you ONE example, bobxxxx. Just one, because I think it by itself is more than you can handle.

Darwinism, as it's known today, relies on unguided jumps in complexity....NEW, beneficial genetic code (hmmm....I wonder why it's called a CODE). All these unguided processes distract from, but do not address, how these jumps ever occurred.

-Survival of the Fittest: notice the key word, survival. Survival implies that the organism merely SURVIVED, meaning it was there to begin with. Where's the ARRIVAL of the Fittest? I don't see that in the textbooks (or Darwin's Descent of Man, or Origin of Species).

-Mutations: These can't ever be pointed to as a driver of genetic "jumps." Almost all mutations cause the death or severe weakening of an organism. Even the mutations that are heralded as "prime examples of the MAGIC of evolution" result in net losses of genetic complexity. THIS is the example that I'll speak to....the preceding just defined terms.

November 20, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Science magazine recently published an article titled the "Top 10 evidences for (Darwinian) evolution." The BEST (number 1) evidence was: bacterial resistances to antibiotics.

What I'm going to do, hopefully, is take the scientific community's top support of this fairy tale and dig a little deeper, showing how this evidence actually points toward intelligent design.

Everyone has heard of bacteria "forming" resistances in "response" to certain antibiotics. The reason why those words are in quotes is because they are misleading i.e. look deeper.

Antibiotics work by "smothering" a bacterium, cutting off its metabolic capacities and killing it. These miracle drugs do so by looking for a key binding agent (marker) on the bacterium. Without this marker, the antibiotic won't "find" the bacterium.

However, the bacterium that loses this binding agent is LOSING genetic information, rather than gaining it. This would be counted as a net loss in the Darwinist realm. Sure, you survived, but at what cost?

Bacteria don't RESPOND to antibiotics. They either have the resistance to it already, or they die. Either that, or they gain the ALREADY EXISTENT resistance from another organism via plasmid transfer. It still doesn't solve the problem of the information's origin, since none is being created.

Riddle me this, bobxxxx: where is the necessary source of genetic complexity?

November 20, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

glenjamin-

It's funny how you say scientists are the ones with their intellects in bondage, and yet I'm pretty sure I've seen that argument- almost line for line- in the pamphlets handed out by intelligent design proponents.

I mean, if Wiki can be used to show that your argument is psudoscientific claptrap then there's a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic

Here's how Antibiotics actually work- they create a local environment for the bacterium that makes it difficult if not impossible for the bacterium to divide, then let the cell die of old age. That's it. None of this DNA manipulating nonsense. If you're going to try to knock the new resistances to antibiotics down, could you at least get how antibiotics work correct?

But tell you what, come up with at least one test that could produce a result that says your alternative to evolution is wrong and we'll seriously debate this point. Because I have to tell you, Evolution isn't still standing because it isn't tested. It's tested daily, and we find details about the theory that are wrong all the time. But the core idea, that life adapts to it's environment, has stood up to all testing that everyone has ever come up with for over 150 years now.

That, I may add, is a better track record then even Gravity. Ask any physicist and they'll tell you they have some decent ideas of how Gravity does it's thing, but nothing definite.

November 20, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Jason, do YOU understand antibiotics?

"they create a local environment for the bacterium that makes it difficult if not impossible for the bacterium to divide, then let the cell die of old age."

Some antibiotics stop bacteria from converting glucose into energy (metabolic process).
Some stop bacteria from forming cell walls.

I guess you could say that a few of these methods keep a bacterium from reproducing...because they DIE. Do more than a cursory skim of a wiki article before you take me on.

November 20, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bobsaget (anonymous) says...

bobxxx,
you're defaming the name you bitter fool.
lighten up. Go do some good with your narrow-minded knowledge.

-wizard friend, saget

November 20, 2009 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JasonForson (anonymous) says...

glenjamin-

The difference between us is that I was taking in all the evidence I had and simplifying for brevity. Like any teacher does in any science class when he knows that the fine details will be above the heads of his students. If you want me to go into detail of how anti-biotics work we'd be here for a while.

You on the other hand are flat out ignoring the evidence that goes counter to your position, even relying on known psuedo-scientific methods to sell your point. You even admitted with a certain level of pride that you haven't read any scientific journals or papers on the subject. I especially love how you seem to know more about anti-biotics then the PhD level biochemists I do know in real life.

Go read some up-to-date scientific papers or journals on the subject- not entry level textbooks, or pamplets from ID people, or just "Origin of the Species: Now With An Introduction For Fundies By Fundies" and then get back to us. Because until you do, you won't be taken seriously as an academic.

November 21, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

"Like any teacher does in any science class when he knows that the fine details will be above the heads of his students."

That reeks of "you're not intelligent enough to understand if I told you." Trust me: I can handle it, and I don't appreciate the indirect slight to my intellect. KNOWING (you think that gives you credibility?) PhD biochemists doesn't replace substance. I'm underwhelmed.

In no way does that excuse your avoidance of the question, or the failure to coherently address my arguments. Quit this smoke and mirrors nonsense. You won't accomplish anything by attacking me personally.

November 21, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

"You even admitted with a certain level of pride that you haven't read any scientific journals or papers on the subject."

Where did you get that? Don't put words in my mouth.

November 21, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Glenjamin: The loss of a "marker" is not necessarily a loss of genetic information. The moieties that antibiotics often bind to are three dimensional structures. In a given population of bacteria, there will be a certain amount of variation of these structures given the genetic variation, just as in a given population of humans there will be different blood types, eye colors, heights, etc. Let's say that the antibiotic binds to an amino acid sequence such as GLY-TRP-TYR-PHE-ALA on a certain ribosomal protein. A single point mutation on the gene for this protein can change that sequence and the antibiotic might lose its ability to bind.

When the antibiotic is utilized on one of these bacterial populations and, say, 99% of them have the marker recognized by the antibiotic, the remaining 1% that were unaffected will now make up the majority of the population. Once they multiply back up to their initial numbers, the regenerated population of bacteria is resistant to that antibiotic.

So a loss of the marker that the antibiotic initially bound to is not the same as a loss of genetic information, it is just a change in genetic information that leads to an unrecognizable marker.

November 22, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Tautomeric shifts (what you described above) are always mentioned as a support of microbial evolution, connerm, but they're never said to be sources of "new, evolved genetic material."

Not only does the bacterium want to revert back to its original structure (keto form more stable), but nothing new is ever added to its genetic capacity.

November 24, 2009 at 1:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

That's not what I'm talking about. Tautomers are molecular isomers, two molecules with the same molecular formula but different atomic arrangements. A DNA codon can code for any of the twenty major amino acids. Most amino acids are not isomers of each other. Glycine, for example, contains just a hydrogen as its R group while valine has multiple carbons and associated hydrogens.

If a DNA sequence in frame of the coding sequence is, say, ACA, it codes for Threonine, a polar amino acid containing a hydroxyl group. If it is CCA it codes for Proline, a cyclic amino acid that causes structural changes when it is substituted into most proteins due to the steric hindrance caused by the ring structure.

An antibiotic molecule that recognizes one sequence of X amino acids in a particular organism may not recognize a different sequence on a mutant variant of the protein because the chemical groups exposed would be different. These differences would be due to a difference in the genetic code, not a tautomeric shift. If one change in the genetic code leads to an increased likelihood of viable offspring, it will be favorable and lead to a change in the allele frequencies in the population. A change in allele frequencies is evolution because it is a change in the genetic composition of a population.

In the case mentioned above, allele frequencies were shifted because one allele (the one in the original bacterium that was vulnerable to antibiotics) became extremely unfavorable for survival.

I don't really know what you are talking about as far as keto-enol tautomerization goes when you say that the bacteria want to revert back to their original structure. The genetic code in a single unicellular organism does not change from day to day in the way you are speaking of. The population of newly drug resistant bacteria would stay resistant unless some other selective pressure was put on them.

Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, selective pressure and drift are the sources of evolution. A point mutation in these bacteria would have afforded survivability in an antibiotic enriched environment. As soon as this environment was brought about, the segment of the population able to survive in those conditions became the majority of the population.

November 24, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

"A change in allele frequencies is evolution because it is a change in the genetic composition of a population."

"Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, selective pressure and drift are the sources of evolution."

Evolution is too broad/confusing a term to use here. You seem to be suggesting that this is evidence for the possibility of common descent, speciation, and spontaneous generation. It is nothing of the sort. I go back to my original unanswered question: where is the source of genetic complexity?

November 26, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

equalityjones (anonymous) says...

Congratulations on writing such a thoughtful and intellectually provocative column and sparking such a lively discussion, Sai. Your point is well-taken, but science like everything else human is a product of culture and does contain inarguable elements of ideology. Your own editorial provides stark examples of the type of sociobiological concepts that Darwin's theory of evolution has sometimes erroneously been used to support. The patterns inherent in evolution theory have obviously been extrapolated and applied to almost every other field of study, including the humanities. Not all areas of human endeavor can accurately be understood to proceed according to this model that's often reductively understood to suggest linear progression and an inevitable march toward progress and complexity. Some fields of study are more recursive than others(They circle back on themselves.) For instance, it might be wrong and limiting to reject the organizing concepts of romanticism or pragmaticism in art or literature out of hand just because we see now ourselves as post-modernists. Is post-modernism really more evolved? An evolutionary model of development when followed too zealously and universally can be deadening.

December 8, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

handy (anonymous) says...

@equalityjones
'Is post-modernism really more evolved?'

Evolution, when incorrectly applied (like you just did), will of course not make sense. Proper understanding of evolution would prevent mistakes like that from happening. The layperson usage of 'evolve' and the scientific theorem are two entirely different things.

@glenjamin

Read a book, jeez. You can't just sit there and expect people to spoon feed you information - information that you do not understand and do not listen to. Here, let me break it down for you.

1.) Take Biology classes (I can tell you're not a scientist at all, or you wouldn't struggle with a K-12 subject).

2.) Use your personal free-time to pick up and read a book from an expert, especially pop-science. Read books by Dawkins, he is great at explaining complex evolutionary theory to the layman (the scientifically uninclined).

3.) Apologize for wasting precious pixels on this page with your obnoxious, ignorant, and stubborn comments.

None of us are going to teach you. YOU ARE AN ADULT. Act like one and read. Or you can keep being an ignoramus. Your choice.

December 8, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

equalityjones (anonymous) says...

Excuse me! Suck up your insults right now you ad hominem yokel with pitifully lowbrow manners !. Do take your own advice and learn to read. I am clearly addressing how the model of evolution gets used by among others humanities scholars and social scientists. We are talking educated, professional people here--at least I am. I am familiar with and have been studying and to some extent critiquing the
use of evolutionary models by non-scientist scholars. Science is a product of culture and is hardly value-free. Sometimes looking at the projections of scientific concepts and ideas onto a larger arena of culture brings this out and provides key feedback about scientists' ideological investment. I scorn rude internet trolls who entertain themselves with dumb, online name-calling and a blind, holier-than-thou attitude that examines everyone's failings but their own.

December 8, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Facepalm (anonymous) says...

I'd like to address a few points here that are really getting conflated and abused. They make me sad.

"Survival of the Fittest: notice the key word, survival. Survival implies that the organism merely SURVIVED, meaning it was there to begin with. Where's the ARRIVAL of the Fittest? I don't see that in the textbooks (or Darwin's Descent of Man, or Origin of Species)."

Abiogenesis (the development of living organisms from nonliving matter) and evolution are completely different areas of scientific inquiry. Evolution is a theory that addresses things related to genetic changes in species over time. Abiogenesis, which has basically nothing to do with the theories put forth by Darwin and subsequent refinements of evolutionary theory, is as I mentioned the theory that life can develop from nonliving matter.

It seems that most of the people on this forum seem to accept at least the building blocks of evolution: that the genetic compositions of species can change in response to survival pressures. Whether or not they believe the principles extrapolated from that fact (i.e., the fuller forms and applications of modern evolutionary theory) seems to vary a lot, and appears to in most cases be based on a perception that evolution conflicts with Christian belief. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know many intelligent, devout Christians who also major in science and find no conflict. But that's not the main issue at hand.

In summary, bringing abiogenesis up as a criticism of evolution makes about as much sense as criticizing long division when talking about subtraction. Sure, it's all math, but the connection ends there. So if people could stop bringing up abiogenesis in conversations about evolution, that would be really nifty. kthxbai.

December 16, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mellotron (anonymous) says...

The problem is that abiogenesis IS part and parcel of evolution. The only reason why evolutionists are now preaching that they are "separate" is because abiogenesis is in VERY deep doo-doo.

(That's why evolutionists don't say "prebiotic evolution" anymore. They know that prebiotic evolution, or "abiogenesis", honestly IS evolution. So they try to cut their losses any way they can, because they know abiogenesis is in trouble and may well generate even MORE public doubts about evolution than what's already there.)

But trying to pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution just won't work. People already know the truth, thanks to evolutionists themselves. Here's a couple examples:

"....(Organic) molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life--possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker." -- evolutionist John Oro, in J. William Schopf's 2002 book "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution", pg 26.

"The RNA World hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution." -- evolution Paul Lurquin, in his 2003 book "The Origins of Life and the Universe", pg. 37.

So let's be clear. Abiogenesis IS evolution. No use pretending otherwise.

December 23, 2009 at 4:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement