RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Darwin's evolutionary disciples silent, Bonnie Alba at ReNew America< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,19:23   

Quote
Bonnie Alba
August 11, 2006

Recently I posed two questions to my husband, a retired middle-school science teacher:

1) What scientist and field of science relies on and solely depends on Darwin's theory of evolution for any advances in human progress?

2) What advances in modern medicine, technology and products were derived solely from relying on Darwin's theory of evolution?

There was Silence. He had to think about it.

Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at London's Natural History Museum, once asked the following question: Can anyone tell me, "anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?" From the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, their response: Silence. When he asked the same question of members attending an Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, University of Chicago: Silence.

After 150 years of men dedicating their lives to seeking the Holy Grail which would confirm and validate Darwin's theory on origin of species, what do we have? The same finches on the Galapagos Islands where Darwin observed them 150 years ago. No new species. Millions of bones and not one factual missing link. There's geological formations with embedded fossils like the Cambrian Explosion which do not fit nicely into Darwin's theory of gradual evolution over time. Most of the purported evidence (still published in many school textbooks) has been revealed as hoaxes and fakes, or just plain "want to believe so much, that any piece that fits the theory must be true for the theory." Ignore the rest.

The contention here is what has Darwin's theory of "Survival of the Fittest" produced in the progression of human history? Did evolution produce gas-powered mowers, sticky notes, aluminum foil, zip-lock bags, war and peace, medicines, mammogram machines, vaccines, zippers, microwaves, coffee machines, etc.?

Name another inventive species on planet Earth? Name any species so inventive that they manufacture mass destructive devices and then try to control them to keep mankind from becoming extinct? Any other species who desires and explores the reaches of the furthermost points in the universe down to the invisible quarks and other quantum-level unknowns? Name another species who seeks immortality and at the same time wars and aborts their young, while continually seeking peace?

Without belief in Darwin's overall theory, would scientists still have discovered the wonders of the genetic code? Would they have embarked on exploring the universe, developing complex mathematical equations, discovered black holes and other anomalies? How has evolutionary theory contributed to discoveries of the building blocks, atoms and molecules?


Read it here.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,20:12   

I'm truly sick of your posts, Jason.

why don't you make comments on them yourself?  none of them make any sense, the writers are obviously complete idiots, and none of the articles you have posted recently have any redeeming value whatsoever.

so why do you post them?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,20:46   

Quote
so why do you post them?


It's either:

A.  whiskey induced, or

B.  he's wearing the wrong trousers.



--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,20:48   

AH! run! Eeeevvvviiillll penguin!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,22:51   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 12 2006,01:12)
I'm truly sick of your posts, Jason.

I think they're very interesting. Or at least consistently funny.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2006,00:04   

I am disgusted that that woman shares a name with my country.  
(Alba)

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2006,00:11   

Icthyic, I do think your getting a bit argumentative these days, though I also think that Jason could do with adding his own commentary to these posts rather than just putting them up and leaving them.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2006,02:35   

Um, I always thought Jason was a 'devil's advocate' searchbot...
Anyway, I would have no trouble addressing this question. The answer is simple:
NONE.
Can Ms. Whatshername think of a kind of technological service or product that relies SOLELY in just one field of science? Because I don't.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2006,03:44   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 12 2006,01:12)
I'm truly sick of your posts, Jason.

why don't you make comments on them yourself?  none of them make any sense, the writers are obviously complete idiots, and none of the articles you have posted recently have any redeeming value whatsoever.

so why do you post them?

Dude, don't shoot the messenger.  

Jason (an ardent anti-IDer) has, for years now, been posting all articles he finds about ID/creationism, pro or con, to forums such as t.o and here.

I consider it a service to all of us, and I thank him for it.  He often catches pieces that I have missed.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
evolicious



Posts: 1
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2006,21:01   

Wasn't that the worst article ever?  I mean, "Ann Coulter says. . ."  Gimme a break!  Talk about trying waaaaaaaaay too hard to be the best little Republican ever (she also writes about how illegal aliens and muslims are bad).  I saw that that article was run on Alan Keys' website.  Laaaaaaaaaaame!
"John Doe stood up at a meeting of evolutionists and asked them if they knew anything about evolution and the room was silent."  I was at the Evolution meetings this summer at Stony Brook.  OMG!  I would have given ALL my drink tickets to see someone do that!

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2006,03:55   

Quote (evolicious @ Aug. 14 2006,02:01)
Wasn't that the worst article ever?  I mean, "Ann Coulter says. . ."  Gimme a break!  Talk about trying waaaaaaaaay too hard to be the best little Republican ever (she also writes about how illegal aliens and muslims are bad).  I saw that that article was run on Alan Keys' website.  Laaaaaaaaaaame!
"John Doe stood up at a meeting of evolutionists and asked them if they knew anything about evolution and the room was silent."  I was at the Evolution meetings this summer at Stony Brook.  OMG!  I would have given ALL my drink tickets to see someone do that!

Okay, she's a total religious loon, but she is at least not a total neo-con loon.  Reading the other things she wrote reveals her more libertarian tendencies and that I can respect.  She is abysmally ignorant of science, but there are certainly worse things to be. (Not that I can think of any right now :))

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2006,05:42   

I've usually appreciated Jason's posts.  Saves me the trouble of wading through bilgewater to find the more interesting (if typically even more stupid) bits of creo/ID nonsense.  This seems to be one of them:

 
Quote
1) What scientist and field of science relies on and solely depends on Darwin's theory of evolution for any advances in human progress?

2) What advances in modern medicine, technology and products were derived solely from relying on Darwin's theory of evolution?


Everyone who knows any science sees the flaw, of course, without the bolding.  Why does the IDiot even feel the need to insert the word "solely", except because of the fact that she knows that "Darwin's theory" has been responsible for human progress, for advances in modern medicine, technology, and products?

I could probably ask even more poignantly, what has come solely from heliocentrism?  Probably nothing at all, indeed.  Heliocentrism, and later understandings of the solar system and the universe filled in important gaps in our understanding, gaps that remained after Ptolemy's considerable successes (like finding the moon's distance from earth within 10% of the actual).

It's the same old BS from creos/IDists, for they think of evolutionary theory as being something separate from the rest of science, thus they demand results that are separate from the rest of science.  They don't want to, or can't, understand how evolutionary theory completes biology conceptually to a substantial degree, that it is dependent upon ordinary scientific practices and data, and that it in turn feeds into our understanding of biological practice and knowledge.  

The importance of evolutionary theory is exactly that it does not do anything (or does almost nothing) "solely" on its own, and for that matter, not very much of biological knowledge is not enhanced by evolutionary understandings (I don't think it's quite true that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution, but it is close).  Evolutionary theory is as integrated into the rest of biology as relativity and QM are integrated into physics, so that it is equally stupid to ask what "Darwin's theory" has accomplished solely of its own accord as it is to ask what relativity has produced by itself, without, say, any contribution from Newton and his predecessors.

Same old, of course.  The centrality of evolutionary theory, and the integration of biology via same, are turned by the IDiots into a liability through their naive and/or dishonest questions (not that naivete and dishonest are exclusive of each other, but they need not coincide at any given point).  This just demonstrates how far they are from even comprehending science, not all that much above Afdave.  IDiocy depends almost as much upon ignorance of science as YECism does.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
  11 replies since Aug. 11 2006,19:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]