Books with Buzz Courage To Act by Ben S. Bernanke Learn more Shop Men's Shoes Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Joe Bonamassa All-New Fire TV Stick with Voice Remote Subscribe & Save Amazon Gift Card Offer blacklist blacklist blacklist  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Shop Now Kids Halloween
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4551-4575 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 10:35:47 AM PST
Doctor wrote

"No intermediates between germs and inverabrates<sic>."

What is a "germ" Doctor - prokaryotic archaea or bacteria? Is it a eucaryote? Eucaryotes include plants, fungi, animals and single cells.

You clearly do not know of choanoflagellates, a group of free-living unicellular and colonial flagellate eukaryotes considered to be the closest living relatives of the animals. As the name suggests, choanoflagellates (collared flagellates) have a distinctive cell morphology characterized by an ovoid or spherical cell body 3-10 µm in diameter with a single apical flagellum surrounded by a collar of 30-40 microvilli. Sequencing of nuclear SSU and LSU ribosomal RNA, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 coding genes showed similar results independently and demonstrate that choanoflagellates are intermediate species as the closest known living relative of animals.

Doctor also wrote

"No intermediates between inverabrates <sic> and vertabrates <sic>"

Vertebrates exclude the hagfish which do not have vertebrae, but includes their near relative the lamphreys that do. Molecular analysis shows the two are closely related so they have now been included in the common group "Craniata" (animals with brains). The earliest known vertebrate is believed to be the Myllokunmingia. Another early vertebrate is Haikouichthys ercaicunensis. Unlike the other fauna that dominated the Cambrian, these groups had the basic vertebrate body plan: a notochord or rudimentary vertebrae, and a well-defined head and tail, but many had 3 eyes and all of them lacked jaws, which evolved later disproving Doctor's third point "No evidence of "evolution" of a species into one with higher complexity" as the evolution of jaws, teeth, and later limbs is well known and scientifically understood.

To paraphrase Doctor more accurately

Denial of "the Tree of Life is a fantasy based on old dogma."

We live in an evolving universe, and any one who denies this denies scientific truth.



In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 10:41:29 AM PST
Doctor wrote

"molecular evidence and morphological homologies
match the Genesis account of "kinds" better than
a single common ancestor. Just ask Venter"

Venter does not accept the Genesis account of "kinds" doctor. He believes there were multiple types of what you call "germs" that like viruses made the transition from pre-life to life, and these "germs" have been swapping genes between each other ever since, creating a bush of life rather than a tree with just one single trunk.

Just ask Venter.



In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 10:44:13 AM PST
Doctor is getting more abusive and less rational

He writes

"How about dumb as a rock?
Non-crital thinkers ( product of a progressive education)?"

We could ask for someone who never did any biology at school (doesn't know that the word is vertebrate) "is a product of non-critical thinking ( product of fundamentalist education)".

Doctor, stop pointing fingers at others, you make yourself look ever more ridiculous. Three fingers are pointing back at you!



In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 11:32:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 5, 2012 11:35:49 AM PST
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 8:43:30 AM PST
Doctor says:
"No intermediates between germs and inverabrates".

What on earth is a "germ"? Do you mean the entire several kingdoms of bacteria? And by "inverebrates" do you perhaps mean the entire group of eukaryotes excluding the Metazoans. If so, try this

Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition.
Brown JR, Doolittle WF.

"No intermediates between inverabrates and vertabrates"

"No evidence of "evolution" of a species into one with higher complexity"

Let's just start with evidence of genome duplication within vertebrates

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 11:58:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 5, 2012 11:59:14 AM PST
Doctor Who says:
That is not a test of creationism. That is a test of evolution, one which it has passed, see above posts. I will not bother to repeat them, as they have done a spectacular job of presenting evidence.

Now I will ask in more basic terms: a test of god that can be repeated or observed without the need for god(s) to "reveal" itself(s).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 12:21:43 PM PST
Good Lord, what drivel. The best proof of evolution lies in the genetic throwbacks who deny it. Darwin never believed in "evolution" as such, but only in adaptation through natural s So-called "Christians wsho believe in "Creationism election, a FACT that has been proven many times over. So-called "Christians" who espouse "Creationism" and other such magical thinking aree no better than members of the Taliban.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 1:20:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 5, 2012 1:33:39 PM PST
noman says:
RE: "Doctor says:..."

**The purpose of science is to explore the physical universe, ask questions and find answers. Below are some examples (out of tens of thousands) of research into the question of evolution of prokaryotes into eukaryotes. Very seldom, if ever, is the search for an 'answer' linear, quickly done, simple. complete or completed. The universe is, apparently, complex and dynamic so 'answers' are generally complex and dynamic. If you wish to argue the question of evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes, scientifically, then you must argue specifics of a particular theory, methodology or result.
1) Evolution of Eukaryotes

2) Mitochondria and the Rise
of Eukaryotes
There can be little doubt that mitochondria do not need much of an introduction. It is widely known that they are the "powerhouses" of the cell and that they produce all of the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) needed to sustain life. In addition, all eukaryotes (organisms with a cell nucleus) contain these important organelles-or so it was thought. Here lies an interesting paradox; Although it was generally believed that all eukaryotes did have mitochondria, it was also generally believed that the serial endosymbiosis theory was correct; the endosymbiosis theory required the existence of eukaryotes without mitochondria. This assumption was formalized with the now-disproven Archezoa hypothesis, which stated that several groups of "primitive" eukaryotes were of premitochondrial descent. This paradoxically defined group of amitochondriate eukaryotes has resulted in a spate
of publications that have significantly changed the perception of the role of mitochondria in overall cellular metabolism and that have important ramifications for our understanding of the origin ofeukaryotic life.

3) RPeasetartceh arrnticsle of kinesin evolution reveal a complex
ancestral eukaryote with a multifunctional
Bill Wickstead*1, Keith Gull1 and Thomas A Richards*2
Background: The genesis of the eukaryotes was a pivotal event in evolution and was accompanied by the acquisition of numerous new cellular features including compartmentalization by cytoplasmic organelles, mitosis and meiosis, and ciliary motility. Essential for the development of these features was the tubulin cytoskeleton and associated motors. It is therefore possible to map ancient cell evolution by reconstructing the evolutionary history of motor proteins. Here, we have used the kinesin motor repertoire of 45 extant eukaryotes to infer the ancestral state of this superfamily in the last
common eukaryotic ancestor (LCEA).

4) Evolution of Patchily Distributed Proteins Shared between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes: Dictyostelium as a Case Study.
Authors:Andersson, Jan O.1
Source: Journal of Molecular Microbiology & Biotechnology; 2011, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p83-95, 13p, 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart

Protein families are often patchily distributed in the tree of life; they are present in distantly related organisms, but absent in more closely related lineages. This could either be the result of lateral gene transfer between ancestors of organisms that encode them, or losses in the lineages that lack them. Here a novel approach is developed to study the evolution of patchily distributed proteins shared between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Proteins encoded in the genome of cellular slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum and a restricted number of other lineages, including at least one prokaryote, were identified. Analyses of the phylogenetic distribution of 49 such patchily distributed protein families showed conflicts with organismal phylogenies; 25 are shared with the distantly related amoeboflagellate Naegleria (Excavata), whereas only two are present in the more closely related Entamoeba. Most protein families show unexpected topologies in phylogenetic analyses; eukaryotes are polyphyletic in 85% of the trees. These observations suggest that gene transfers have been an important mechanism for the distribution of patchily distributed proteins across all domains of life. Further studies of this exchangeable gene fraction are needed for a better understanding of the origin and evolution of eukaryotic genes and the diversification process of eukaryotes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2012 11:19:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 6, 2012 2:32:27 AM PST
Don't see nuthin' about no germs here -----

Added edit: who on earth could think that this did *not* add to the discussion?? (Even if they disagreed with it)

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2012 1:06:47 AM PDT
Christine, posting a link does not show that you understand anything at all. I've been on many wild goose chases with "link posters" that have been a waste of time, mostly because the links they post are FULL of speculation and short on ANY empirical evidence. Old bones and other fossils are not proof of evolution (remember empirical evidence?) Proof of evolution would be: reproducing the process of evolution, demonstrate (with a repeatable experiment) that a single celled life form can evolved into a multicellular organism. Old bones are only evidence that something died. The geologic column is not a record of evolution, it is a record of burial. It's sad but true that the best evidence evolutionists have are fossils, because the Cambrian era contradicts Darwinian explanations. There are no other proven or observable mechanisms.

Posted on May 26, 2012 1:35:30 AM PDT
J. thomas says:
Charles, you have an interesting combination of names. Excellent post -- I like the phrase "record of burial". I subscribe to the gap theory myself (despite specious supposedly "scriptural" objections), which allows the earth to be very old -- and explains all those bizarre now-extinct organisms.

It seems to me that assertion of a young earth is the key problem, since it declares most creationists to appear anti-science -- and worse still offers evolutionists an easy target and a means to avoid discussing their own massive problems. Young-earth creationists are actually keeping evolution alive.

Key question that evolution cannot answer and which Dawkins admits to avoiding -- How could highly complex but complementary sex organs (I could list them!) have possibly "evolved" in man and woman as separate beings? Ditto every organism with male and female organisms.

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2012 5:30:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 26, 2012 5:36:38 AM PDT
You *certainly* don't want to follow up links to actual scientific publications like the ones I posted. Heaven forbid that your idea of how science works would get rattled by reading about how scientists actually *do* do science.

Note that by your same reasoning, a corpse could never be used as evidence in a murder trial, because it would only be evidence that somebody had died.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 6:16:07 PM PDT
Good example. You have a dead body, we know someone died. What else can we KNOW (thanks to science?) Of course a corpse can tell us something. We need to determine the cause of death. The thing you know for certain, is that the body is evidence of a death. How he died 4 days ago is a matter of historical science, not empirical (operational science.) We call it forensics, a field of science.

It's often said that Josephine poisoned Bonaparte, Napoleon. That's historical science. And they say, look, we have scientific proof that she did it because we found arsenic in the bones of the person who's buried in Napoleon's grave.

But I would like to distinguish for you what part of that is operational science and what part is historical science. If we test for arsenic in those bones, you can send it out to twenty different laboratories around the world and they'll all give you roughly an agreement about how much arsenic is in those bones. That's operational science and it's reproducible. Everybody can agree to it.

But there's also historical science. Given the importance and political intrigue associated with Napoleon, was it Napoleon buried in Napoleon's grave? That's an inference. Was he exposed to arsenic by accident or on purpose? That's an inference. If he was exposed to arsenic on purpose, was it his wife or someone else or himself? So there's a great deal of inference.

So although it's a science to say we found bones-- we found arsenic in the bones in the grave of Napoleon, that's operational science. It's incredibly important to distinguish these two things.
A lot of novels are being published today by evolutionary scientists where they take the next step. If you are a novelist and you wrote about the story of how Josephine poisoned her husband, that's called historic fiction. The problem is historical science can easily blur into historical fiction because there's no accountability, it's largely speculation. (see Richard Dawkins)

The space shuttle, modern medicine, modern agriculture, telecommunications, that's all operational science. It is not influenced by this discussion of human origins. Everyone is supportive of that type of science. Historical science becomes more and more uncertain and increasingly subject to error the further back you go and the more inferences that are made. And so very quickly, when you talk about very remote or very ancient events, you're talking speculation instead of science.

The above are excerpts from a discussion with John Sanford being questioned at the Kansas Evolution hearings (the minority report)

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 6:30:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 27, 2012 6:31:21 PM PDT
Au contraire. All science depends on inference from observations, and then using these inferences to formulate an understanding of process, whether "operational" or "historical" (an entirely false dichotomy only used by creationists and a concept totally foreign to actual practicing scientists).


But here's something from me:

Take this common high school chemistry experiment to make hydrochloric acid:

"The synthesis is rather simple, we generate hydrogen chloride gas by mixing together 140g of sodium bisulfate and 60g of sodium chloride salt and then heating. 20mL of water can be added to lower the temperature required but this is optional. Hydrogen chloride gas will be produced. This gas is lead into distilled water to produce hydrochloric acid."

So, here's a question. How do you know at the end that what you have is actually hydrochloric acid? You *assume* that this is the case because of the *assumed* properties of the chemicals based on their position in the periodic table. You then *infer* that the solution you have obtained is HCl because it turns litmus paper red. But can you actually *see* the change in molecular structure --- actually see for yourself that the position of hydrogen and chloride atoms have exchanged between the original chemicals to make a new chemical??

No you cannot. You make some viable inferences from your observations, and then use them to make a conclusion (that you can potentially test with yet other observations). So do all scientists in every branch of science.

Your arguments about Napoleon's bones and arsenic are a nice little cautionary tale, but they bear no relation to how evolutionary biologists actually do science. If you want to make a serious argument about "lack of accountability" then you will have to cite a real example from the scientific literature, not one of from high school history made up from off the top of your head.

All science involves inference and all science has ways to test for the predictions from those inferences to make sure that they can be supported. In this way, all science is equally accountable. From my viewpoint as a practicing scientist, your examples show that you don't understand what real scientists actually do, but that you do like to make up stories about them to support this bogus dichotomy of science invented by creationists.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 6:55:28 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Charles Dawkins says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)] "

** RE: "And so very quickly, when you talk about very remote or very ancient events, you're talking speculation instead of science."

**Nope. Anything even a tP (Planck Time) in the past is beyond reach. No difference between .000 (etc) seconds in the past or 1 X 10^6 years (+) in the past. It's all beyond reach and therefore "Historical". Your statements are another example of "not even wrong" in terms of any remote understanding of science. For examples (not for you, but for other readers actually interested in such) I recommend:

The Norton History of Chemistry (Norton History of Science)

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology: A Textbook (2nd Edition)
(there's a 4th edition but this one is much less expensive used)

Forensic Anthropology Laboratory Manual (2nd Edition) (suggest the lab manual as well)

Atom: Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos (Truman Talley)

Consider a Spherical Cow

A Mathematical Nature Walk

**If you read (and understand) these books you will see not only how real science is done but how ludicrous the OP statements are.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 7:06:31 PM PDT
"No difference between .000 (etc) seconds in the past or 1 X 10^6 years (+) in the past. It's all beyond reach and therefore "Historical". Your statements are another example of "not even wrong" in terms of any remote understanding of science. "

Excellent stuff, Noman. Now, about that event last Thursday ------

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 5:12:54 PM PDT
Why is it that the greatest hoaxes and most blatant frauds of science are associated with evolution? I'll tell you why. Because evolution is sloppy science and darwinists will believe any BS story that supports the "theory."

Posted on Jun 8, 2012 5:31:21 PM PDT
"Why is it that the greatest hoaxes and most blatant frauds of science are associated with evolution?"

Like the Paluxy footprints, for example?

Or Robert Gallo's fraud with the HIV work?

Or Cold Fusion?

Or the Schon scandal with semiconductors

Or the fabrication of medical data by David Baltimore

Where there's power and profit at stake there will always be fraud.

Piltdown Man was basically ignored by scientists at the time because it didn't fit the pattern known from other fossil material.

Archaeoraptor was caught before it went to press (National Geographic nonwithstanding)

Neither of them put human lives at risk, such as Gallo and Baltimore. And neither was a blatant a fabrication as the Paluxy footprints.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:30:10 AM PDT
Look who's talking...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 5:14:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 5:15:17 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Charles Dawkins said:
"And so very quickly, when you talk about very remote or very ancient events, you're talking speculation instead of science."

But you regard the bible as true.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:56:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 6:31:18 PM PDT
Deckard: "But you regard the bible as true."

The Bible is a history book, written by people who witnessed the events. Evolution supposedly happened in an unobservable and unobserved past.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:12:16 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Charles Dawkins said:

"The Bible is history book, written by people who witnessed the events."

LOL. You are willing to say anything to protect yourself from reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:35:45 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:51:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 6:56:46 PM PDT
Tero says:
Er, I guess you do not know the developmental biology of genitalia? It's pretty cool. All the parts are the same initially. Before you make a boy baby or girl baby.

The thing is, no depositor is needed. Birds do fine with cloaca. Do I have to go into more detail? Use your imagination.

You are not going to look it up, are you? I'll help, go from 3 minutes here

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:19:28 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Charles Dawkins said:"
"I like this question. It makes you wonder if evolutionists actually think about such things, if they did... they might give up on their fairytale."

What was your god thinking when he designed wisdom teeth? A shared air/food passageway? Backs? Goosebumps? Tailbones?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 8:27:09 PM PDT
Knees, knees, knees. I'm on crutches right now thanks to your god.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
The Subjective Science 11 5 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 3 9654 17 minutes ago
Life Created God 135 21 minutes ago
Renewable Energy.............It cant compete 24 23 minutes ago
It's the time of year 11 29 minutes ago
Which is true about LIFE? 201 33 minutes ago
Africa Does Renewables 0 36 minutes ago
Human Choice Is ONLY Supernaturally possible. 55 1 hour ago
"atheists" are unable to post anything important or good about "atheism"/evolutionism...because it isn't good or true, or noble. 21 8 hours ago
Using Murdered Human Beings for "Research", like at Auschwitz and Planned Parenthood . Is it evil? 100 8 hours ago
Harvard professor failed to disclose Monsanto connection in paper touting GMOs 29 11 hours ago
"four year old children know more about life than 'atheist scientists' " 47 11 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  303
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions