Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[Techne]

So - who's REALLY trolling?

You are, take your personal issues somewhere else thanks.

 

[unskinnybob]

You are, take your personal issues somewhere else thanks.

What issues?

 

[Swa]

Fine, I'll play.

Science is self correcting. As we make discoveries, we correct our mistakes. Science continually betters itself. Does religion?

Oh the usual drivel. Are you saying that religion has never changed and bettered itself? I wasn't arguing religion but if you want to make such statements it's obvious to anyone reading this you'll fail. The fact that you're arguing religion speaks volumes though of what's continually on your mind and that you didn't understand one iota of what the post actually means.

Science doesn't require your "belief". It begs understanding. It doesn't claim knowledge or explanation where it has neither.

You're right it doesn't. Only the dogmatic "religious" nutters will claim science proves something it doesn't and possibly never can.

Do you "believe" the bible could be wrong or do you reserve your scepticism for science?

Would you entertain the idea that all religion is nonsense? Or double standard again?

Yet another thread trying to nitpick at science in some vain effort to glorify or reinforce baseless religious belief.

Irrelevant questions is irrelevant. And look who the usual people are to talk of a double standard...

Silly argument is silly. OPs motive is well known. So - who's REALLY trolling?

Well known? Really? And talking about motives and agendas here the only ones continually bringing religion into it is the anti-religious again. How predictable. And to answer your question, YOU ARE!

 

[unskinnybob]

Oh the usual drivel.

So science isn't self correcting? The point of this thread and linked articles?

Are you saying that religion has never changed and bettered itself? I wasn't arguing religion but if you want to make such statements it's obvious to anyone reading this you'll fail.

Ok - list the advances in religion. Start with corrections to Genesis.

The fact that you're arguing religion speaks volumes though of what's continually on your mind and that you didn't understand one iota of what the post actually means.

Read some Techne threads and posts. Check his sig for starters. Not me that has the obsession.

Irrelevant questions is irrelevant. And look who the usual people are to talk of a double standard...

Quite relevant. Ask someone to explain the question to you if you don't understand. Please explain my double standard.

Well known? Really? And talking about motives and agendas here the only ones continually bringing religion into it is the anti-religious again. How predictable.

Again, do a little light reading on other threads and posts by the OP. Where else is this thread going with it's hints on ID? Do you actually read all the posts in a thread?

 

[Techne]

Read some Techne threads and posts. Check his sig for starters. Not me that has the obsession.
....

Again, do a little light reading on other threads and posts by the OP. Where else is this thread going with it's hints on ID? Do you actually read all the posts in a thread?

There it is again, personal issues with other posters, in this case... me. Take it somewhere else. You haven't actually shown any interest in what this thread is about, which makes me wonder, what exactly do you think it is about and do you actually understand anything that is relevant to the present discussion related to epigenetics?

And for the record, I think ID is incompatible with theism. I don't support ID, I don't think it is science and I think it is bad philosophy.

I accept common descent, I think the evidence for it pretty good and I see no reason to object to it. It does not pose any problem for theism or for Abrahamic religions’ views about Adam etc. I see no reason to argue against evolution (don't confuse evolution with Darwinism) from a scientific or philosophical point of view. The same applies to abiogenesis, the Big Bang theory and quantum physics.

Can we expect you to contribute towards the discussion about eipgenetics and how it is related to evolution? Please. Thanks .

 

[Swa]

Ok - list the advances in religion. Start with corrections to Genesis.

Again, the thread is not about religion so stop derailing it. If you want to you are free to start your own thread and not trample over others'.

Read some Techne threads and posts. Check his sig for starters. Not me that has the obsession.

I read the thread and the only ones dragging religion into it are the anti-religious yet again. You seem to have an issue with the poster, it's indeed you who has the obsession.

Quite relevant. Ask someone to explain the question to you if you don't understand. Please explain my double standard.

Again, do a little light reading on other threads and posts by the OP. Where else is this thread going with it's hints on ID? Do you actually read all the posts in a thread?

I have, also threads by other people. Again in all instances it was the anti-religion zealots dragging religion into it and then claiming they are about religion or religious motives. Go figure. Consider this if it doesn't just go flying over your head:
Someone comes to you and says pigs are dirty. You disagree. They say they'll prove it to you and gets a bucket of mud.

 

[Techne]

An interesting video about twin mice and epigenetics:
A Tale of Two Mice

 

[CoolBug]

I don't mind if people want to question evolution, hopefully they'll get a better understanding of it.

And I'm all for the progression of the concept, it's already progressed so much since the 1800s.

I have a problem with creationism or anything part of creation being mentioned in Natural Science, things like Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity belong in PD, are not science, or ever will be.

Every single thread about evolution in NS at some stage becomes about philosophy and peoples insecurities.

If you think Creationism / ID / IC is science, you really don't know science.

I am curious. Let's for argument sake consider the following scenario.
1) The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been debunked.
2) Irreducible complexity or Complex Specified Information has been demonstrated to be true for some biological structures.
3) Therefore, Intelligent Design is true for some biological structures.

What a joke.

People don't know that Evolution has more evidence to back it up than any other theory? Other scientific theories and disciplines even fit perfectly and correlate 100% to The ToE.

You have more chance debunking Gravity, maybe get started on that one, for practice for when you start debunking the ToE.

Actually, why don't people have problems with other scientific theories?

Surely there are a bunch of people trying to "Teach the Controversy" instead of geography or physics?

 

[RiaX]

Oh so the fight is here.... *gears up with NERD armaments of journal articles and internet satire <with background ateam music* ..... okay no i've seen the light of religion its so true:

http://www.venganza.org/

check it out

 

[Techne]

snip

Err, you missed the point of the hypothetical scenario...

 

[CoolBug]

Err, you missed the point of the hypothetical scenario...

Can't take you seriously if you make such a weak scenario.

It's like saying imagine if creationism is actually proved in court to be science and the entire scientific community agrees.

That's just silly, so is your example.

It's like saying what if astrology was proved in court to be science and was taught instead of astronomy and the scientific community agrees.

You have more chance of Jesus coming back and finding out that the http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple#section_3nights templar is the 1 true religion, the rest of you spend eternity in hell, for arguments sake..

What then?

What if we find jacks beans to his bean stalk, hypothetically, for arguments sake, what then?

Why would you want to argue such kak in Natural Science?

 

[Techne]

Can't take you seriously if you make such a weak scenario.

It's like saying imagine if creationism is actually proved in court to be science and the entire scientific community agrees.

That's just silly, so is your example.

It's like saying what if astrology was proved in court to be science and was taught instead of astronomy and the scientific community agrees.

You have more chance of Jesus coming back and finding out that Mormonism is the 1 true religion, the rest of you spend eternity in hell.

What then?

What if we find jacks beans to his bean stalk, hypothetically, for arguments sake, what then?

Why would you want to argue such kak in Natural Science?

Please read the whole exchange if you are interested in why the hypothetical scenario was made.

 

[Swa]

I don't mind if people want to question evolution, hopefully they'll get a better understanding of it.

And I'm all for the progression of the concept, it's already progressed so much since the 1800s.

I have a problem with creationism or anything part of creation being mentioned in Natural Science, things like Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity belong in PD, are not science, or ever will be.

Every single thread about evolution in NS at some stage becomes about philosophy and peoples insecurities.

If you think Creationism / ID / IC is science, you really don't know science.

What is science?

What a joke.

People don't know that Evolution has more evidence to back it up than any other theory? Other scientific theories and disciplines even fit perfectly and correlate 100% to The ToE.

You have more chance debunking Gravity, maybe get started on that one, for practice for when you start debunking the ToE.

You joking here?

Actually, why don't people have problems with other scientific theories?

Surely there are a bunch of people trying to "Teach the Controversy" instead of geography or physics?

They do. We don't see them regularly writing books on x-"denialist" though. Should tell you something.

 

[RiaX]

I have no sides when it comes to knowledge. Im not afraid to to look, theorise and admit im wrong. So lets do this instead of the religious monkeys here go "na uh" for everything, lets clear the slate.

Please enlighten me FULLY from your strongest evidence, and ideals. Preferably One point at a time so we can discuss it. Im asking now, show me your light.

 

[CoolBug]

What is science?

Please take a look at a dictionary for the definition and don't make up your own.

They do. We don't see them regularly writing books on x-"denialist" though. Should tell you something.

I don't know what you're implying but if you throwing the word "denialist", you should look at scripture literalists who deny things like History, Biology, Geography, Anthropology, Genetics, which is basically the development of the planet.

And stick to ancient scripture that's lost in translation and can be interpreted any way they like, seems concerning and dangerous.

I point you to people who deny all animal instinct and kill their offspring and blame their deity, this for a species is just fantastically unorthodox. (Yes, you're either an animal or a plant, take your pick.)

Sorry no human cell

You are a species.

You are an animal.

You are a mammal.

You are a tetrapod.

You are a Primate.

Your species has taken 3.5 billion years to develop into something that seems divine, I know.

But I don't think everyone can quite comprehend 3.5 billion years.

I dare you to count the 0's

You have behaviors and organs that can only be explained by your species being very different in it's course of development.

Goose bumps, getting frights are examples of vestigial behaviors that can only be explained the following way: Your species, long long ago, had enough hair on it's body that when it got "Goose bumps" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_bumps it was able to keep warm and even change appearance to look more intimidation which is why you get goose bumps when you think there is a ghost behind you, if you appear bigger, the ghost will more than likely run or float away.

Coccyx, Appendix (of no use to humans, has often been fatal for our species if it gets infected), the muscles that move your ears up and down (not everyone has this, it has largely been phased out) Wisdom teeth (again some people dont grow wisdom teeth anymore, only my top 2 came out, it has been known to be fatal in our species if wisdom teeth impacted and got infected)

 

[RiaX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl89HIJ6HDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=SC58vglNOOo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmoNovE7_A

watch these four

 

[RiaX]

Wait if Adam and Eve had 2 children cain and abel who where both boys? how did Adam and Eve get grandchildren

 

[CoolBug]

Wait if Adam and Eve had 2 children cain and abel who where both boys? how did Adam and Eve get grandchildren

Motherly love was perfectly acceptable back then if pops could join in.

Back then people didn't judge.

 

[RiaX]

Wouldnt that make us all inbred and incested ? and genetically faulty ? and no difference between the races, I mean like chinese eyes vs skin tones and african hair ect ect,

If eve was created from a rib? how do we have genetic variance at all

 

[Unhappy438]

Wouldnt that make us all inbred and incested ? and genetically faulty ? and no difference between the races, I mean like chinese eyes vs skin tones and african hair ect ect,

If eve was created from a rib? how do we have genetic variance at all

You are asking questions about something that is obviously made up , any semi sane christian will tell you the same. Any quarter decent priest or minister will also tell you not to take them literally.