Natural selection is evolution?

[Dancing David]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Post and run or will you come back?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

How does it destroy the gene pool?

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise)

Only in traits that lead to greater reproductive success.

genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment

Not survive reproduce.

, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

What natural selection leads to inbreeding, discuss further please.

- Natural Selection isolates information.

How now brown cow?

How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?

OOOK?

You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

So that is 'intelligent selection', how does it relate to natural selection.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Reproductive success does not equal beneficial.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

How about the evolution of eohippus and sea shells?

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

So the fact that you were stupid proves what?

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith.

Evidence has nothing to do with it.

Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

Your essay is a D-, or a F+.(If you use spell check on it)

 

[Dancing David]

Natural selection kills off the "weaker" so thats why the weaker never become stronger in another context.

natural selection prefers those who have success at reproduction.

One of the proofs is that there are traits which are beneficial to reproduction but detrimental to the individual. It is not about 'survival of the fittest' it is about survival of the breeders.

You wipe out the possibility of the others. In one context, one life form has a benefit over the other.

Only in reproduction.

But in other contexts, the opposite is true. So there was no "absolute better, no absolute winner or loser". There is simply the chance one benefits in the first context but in the second context they are both dead. It just depends on the situation you are in. To say the weaker in context one has nothing to add and must move out of the way, if the tables turn, the stronger becomes the weaker and dies whereas the one opportunistically killed of, would have survived.

You think in too much in absolutes.

I believe you should meet Mr. Pot , Mr. Kettle.

 

[PixyMisa]

And reveals a huge penis.

Evolution. Is there nothing it can't do?

 

[Paulhoff]

When dogs are bred,

Straw-man, breeding dogs is not Natural Selection.

Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less.

Wrong.

Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles. Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost.

Wrong.

I am skeptical. This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand.

You appear, in fact to be telling a bunch of silly lies about things which you don't understand.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle.

Now, that was a very silly lie to tell, wasn't it? 'Cos we've all seen Creationists recite this mumbo-jumbo before, so we know that these aren't "your own ideas".

Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too.

Really? And what's bashing evolutionists a sign of?

And what's basing your case on a bunch of silly lies a sign of?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species.

You cannot, of course, quote an "evolutionist" "trying to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species", because this is a crazy lie which you made up in your head.

We do, however, use the observed emergence of new species as evidence for the emergence of new species.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection.

Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one ...

You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

That shows exactly the level of intellectual integrity I'd expect of you.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

If you thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the reason intelligent people disagree with you about a subject which they have studied and you have not is that they're right and you're wrong.

Let me introduce you to some of them.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.

---Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy.

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Do you think that possibly they might know something about science that you don't?

 

[cyborg]

You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

 

[g4macdad]

Only the winners matter.



Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.



Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.

As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?



I can't even parse that.



Nor that.



See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.



Eh?



Er, no.



Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

It isn't.



Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.



I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/



Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.



It sure is the way you use the words.



You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.



Sure it can - but that's another game with different rules.



But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?



Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

Are you ready for reality now? May we begin by assuming you don't know ****?

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate. Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

 

[g4macdad]

You cannot, of course, quote an "evolutionist" "trying to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species", because this is a crazy lie which you made up in your head.

We do, however, use the observed emergence of new species as evidence for the emergence of new species.

Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.

You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

That shows exactly the level of intellectual integrity I'd expect of you.

If you thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the reason intelligent people disagree with you about a subject which they have studied and you have not is that they're right and you're wrong.

Let me introduce you to some of them.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.

---Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy.

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Do you think that possibly they might know something about science that you don't?

Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.

Your reply looks like pretty good evidence to me.

 

[cyborg]

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

As I already pointed out g4macdad as soon as he's ready to stop lying and have a real debate it will occur. As to real substance there is plenty.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate.

Uh no. You see I actually understand the concepts that 'experts' talk about. I am more than able to formulate my own concepts and analyse the worth of an argument from its premises.

You are not of course so you presume I must be similarly disabled.

Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

Like a crow-free diet.

You sure do enjoy being shown wrong time and time again don't you?

Now - do you have a question about natural selection?

 

[g4macdad]

As I already pointed out g4macdad as soon as he's ready to stop lying and have a real debate it will occur. As to real substance there is plenty.



Uh no. You see I actually understand the concepts that 'experts' talk about. I am more than able to formulate my own concepts and analyse the worth of an argument from its premises.

You are not of course so you presume I must be similarly disabled.



Like a crow-free diet.

You sure do enjoy being shown wrong time and time again don't you?

Now - do you have a question about natural selection?

Why would someone not enjoy being shown wrong?

I am glad I do not understand you however.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate. Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

Pot, meet kettle.

While an appeal to authority can indeed be fallacious, when we're talking about science, let the science speak for itself.

 

[g4macdad]

Pot, meet kettle.

While an appeal to authority can indeed be fallacious, when we're talking about science, let the science speak for itself.

How is an appeal to scientific authority any different than say, a religious one, or any other?

Serious question BTW.

 

[Paulhoff]

How is an appeal to scientific authority any different than say, a religious one, or any other?

Serious question BTW.

Because unlike religion which goes on belief and not on testable evidence. Science is based on testable evidence and science will change when something new comes along that is testable and proven to be correct, like with Newton’s theory of gravity theory which has been replaced with Einstein’s theory on gravity because it explains things that Newton’s theory doesn’t.

Now do we have to tell you what the word theory means to a scientist?

Paul

 

[cyborg]

I am glad I do not understand you however.

With all you don't understand you must be very glad indeed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...you can't be serious or expect others to take you so.

The reason I keep asking you for comment on the experimental verifications of Special Relativity is to demonstrate your tendency to make bold claims about subjects of which you have little or no understanding. Your claims about evolution and natural selection are based not on your knowledge of these subjects, but rather on your ignorance of them.

So, do you have any comment on the experimental verifications of Special Relativity that I linked to? Will you acknowledge your own ignorance and use it as an opportunity to actually learn something, or will you ignore it and continue to only pretend to understand things, constructing straw men in place of ideas that currently confuse and threaten you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

Well, he tried to pass himself off as a professional scientist too.

 

[g4macdad]

Because unlike religion which goes on belief and not on testable evidence. Science is based on testable evidence and science will change when something new comes along that is testable and proven to be correct, like with Newton’s theory of gravity theory which has been replaced with Einstein’s theory on gravity because it explains things that Newton’s theory doesn’t.

Now do we have to tell you what the word theory means to a scientist?

Paul

What evidence is there that you tested any scientific evidence, ever?

No we will not just take your word on it.

 

[Morrigan]

Isn't that the guy who thinks Einstein physics are bull because he apparently knows better than all the physicists in the world? Stop feeding the troll.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Your reply looks like pretty good evidence to me.

But not for the crazy lies of creationists.

You got anything?