creationism is “religious, superstitious nonsense”

[Felix]

It is a particular branch of evolutionary theory that has been made into canon by secularist academics in spite of it's absolute lack of evidence, namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation. Other aspects of evolutionary theory such as natural selection pre-date Darwin and are not called into question.

Lack of evidence? You don't know much about evolution do you?

Do you find this case objectionable? And would you feel the same about a teacher who raised legitimate questions about your particular brand of evolutionary theory for the sake of discussion?

A good test of one's hypocricy here.

I have no objections whatsoever to someone questioning any theory. That's what science is. But what is it about evolution that evokes so much passion. Why not challenge Keplars theory of planetary motion? Why not challenge Newton's theory of gravity? Why not challenge Einsteins theory of relativity?

But, by all means, if someone wants to challenge the theory of evolution, it's okay by me. The theory is probably one of the most scrutinized scientific theories ever presented, and has stood the test of time. There are so many examples of transitional fossils it's ludicrous to me that in this day and age, that someone could still maintain the idea that the theory is something akin to a guess.

[Diogenes]

Darwin never said anything about the spontaneous generation of new species by viable mutation and neither has any other credible academic.

Well amybe you as a true believer can tell us how speciation was to occur if not by mutation. And I'm glad you agree these nutjobs lack credibility at least...

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

I have no objections whatsoever to someone questioning any theory. That's what science is. But what is it about evolution that evokes so much passion.

Well the ID advocates thank you for you support. Probably what evokes so much passion about Darwinism is that it isn't science, it is force-fed in public schools as if it was, and any questioning of it is verbotten.

[Felix]

Well amybe you as a true believer can tell us how speciation was to occur if not by mutation. And I'm glad you agree these nutjobs lack credibility at least...

that's exactly how it did occur, but that's not what you originally said....you're original statement was "namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation"

I'm not sure exactly what "spontaneous genesis of a species" is supposed to mean....but if you're asking about transitional fossils, they're plentiful...they're so plentiful that they've pretty much traced man's entire transition from the common ancestor we shared with the great apes into what we've now become via fossils.

Well the ID advocates thank you for you support. Probably what evokes so much passion about Darwinism is that it isn't science, it is force-fed in public schools as if it was, and any questioning of it is verbotten.

Then by all means, how would you describe Darwin's theory of evolution if it's not a scientific theory....you do know what science is don't you? You do know that a theory is the highest form of "proof" there is in every scientific discipline except mathematics.....as I said, evolution has been the single most scrutinized theory ever developed and yet, has withstood every challenge to it based on scientific evidence....

"Intelligent design" is not science....it was shown to be nothing more than dressed up creationism and was handed such an astounding defeat in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board trial that such ID proponents as Micheal Behe are still stinging from the ass-kicking laid on them by Dr. Kenneth Miller (a devout Roman Catholic btw)

here, you can watch Miller destroy intelligent design in a lecture he presented (which was originally supposed to be a debate, but the ID proponent pussied out)

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

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure exactly what "spontaneous genesis of a species" is supposed to mean....

Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

Then by all means, how would you describe Darwin's theory of evolution....

Not falsifiable. Therefore, not science. At this point in time, it is pretty much a de facto state religion.

Intelligent design is not science....

It is a critique of the dogma of Darwinism. And no less or more scientific than Darwinmism is.

[Felix]

Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

I've never heard the term "spontaneous genesis" as it relates to evolution...I've seen it used in discussions of abiogenesis, but never in the discussion of evolutionary theory...do you mean the spontaneous creation of a new species? If so, that's not how evolution works.

Not falsifiable. Therefore, not science. At this point in time, it is pretty much a de facto state religion.

from talk origins

1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.

so there you have it...find any of these things and you will have proven evolutionary theory as incorrect....no doubt you'd be a lock for a Nobel prize in science

It is a critique of the dogma of Darwinism. And no less or more scientific than Darwinmism is.

no it's not...it's creationism dressed up as "science"....if you'd watched the video, you'd have seen Dr. Miller kick the whole "intelligent design" argument to the curb....seriously, before you start criticizing something, you should really have an idea of what it is your criticizing.....you don't even possess the most rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory

[Diogenes]

Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

I've never heard the term "spontaneous genesis" as it relates to evolution...I've seen it used in discussions of abiogenesis, but never in the discussion of evolutionary theory...do you mean the spontaneous creation of a new species? If so, that's not how evolution works.

According to Darwinism it works by random mutations and natural selection. If said mutations are random, then they are by definition undirected and hence spontaneous. Of course Darwinists have been trying for decades to create non-destructive mutations in the lab with no luck. All of those poor fruit flies. But the entire hisrory of life on earth is based on said mutations occuring on their own?

And they accuse Creationists of being religious.

Not falsifiable. Therefore, not science. At this point in time, it is pretty much a de facto state religion.

from talk origins

<Insert giant roll eyes>

You want a couple links from ICR ro go with that? Let me know when you get that time machine running so we can go and observe the phenomena in question. Unril then, it is metaphysics, not science.

It is a critique of the dogma of Darwinism. And no less or more scientific than Darwinism is.

no it's not...it's creationism dressed up as "science"....if you'd watched the video, you'd have seen Dr. Miller kick the whole "intelligent design" argument to the curb...

I don't need to watch any video, I'm familiar with Miller's spin. Unimpressed, but familiar. And not only is I.D. not Creationism, it wouldn't matter if it was, since Creationism is no less or more 'science' than Darwinism.

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure exactly what "spontaneous genesis of a species" is supposed to mean....

Which words don't you understand? Or did I misspell something?

The question is which word don't YOU understand and the answer is 'spontaneous.'

Spontaneous genesis of species by viable mutation means that viable mutations instantly result in new species. Needless to say, that is a strawman argument because NOBODY is suggesting that that is the case. Certainly Darwin never suggested that it might be so.

The obvious conclusion is that you are either an idiot or are intellectually dishonest. My guess would be both.

Try option C)You're a dumbfuck.

Consult a dictionary nexr time you don't understand the meaning of a word.

[Diogenes]

I still don't know what the word spontaneous means.

And you're still a dumbfuck.

[Diogenes]

Feel free to add the word spontaneous to mutation in your reading of Darwin's work.

Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

Your reading comprehension is as pathetic as your command of the English language.

Dumbfuck.

[Felix]

Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

you wrote "spontaneous genesis"

now, if you'd be so kind as to define clearly and precisely what this means, then maybe I can help you out of your haze

[Diogenes]

Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

It [Darwnian Evolution] is a particular branch of evolutionary theory that has been made into canon by secularist academics in spite of it's absolute lack of evidence, namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation.

Mutations have nothing to do with Darwin's theories. While mutations have been incorporated into subsequent theorizing, NOBODY with ANY credibility has suggested that viable mutation will result in spontaneous speciation. It is only one of many different factors and not even a particularly significant one.

Still a dumbfuck.

Just as soon as you point out where I stated that Darwin wrote about mutations, spontaneous or otherwise.

you wrote "spontaneous genesis"

Sigh....

From merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born — more at kin
Date: circa 1604
: the origin or coming into being of something

Main Entry: spon·ta·ne·ous
Pronunciation: \spän-ˈtā-nē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin spontaneus, from Latin sponte of one's free will, voluntarily
Date: 1653

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Is that better?

And I never stated that Darwin wrote about mutation. In fact I've stated before that he deserves a little slack because the nature of DNA was unknown back then, possibly if he knew the complexity of life he would have rethought his basic premise (unlike his fundie acolytes). On the other hand your own pet fundie site stresses the importance of mutation in Darwinist theory...

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

[Diogenes]

The theory that mutation can cause speciation was tested extensively in research with fruit flies. They ended up with a shitload of genetic variation and no speciation.

Really? I didn't know that...

According to Darwinism it works by random mutations and natural selection. If said mutations are random, then they are by definition undirected and hence spontaneous. Of course Darwinists have been trying for decades to create non-destructive mutations in the lab with no luck. All of those poor fruit flies. But the entire history of life on earth is based on said mutations occuring on their own?

And they accuse Creationists of being religious.

You'll notice that, as with the quote you keep quoting out of context I mentioned mutation and natural selection together.

Spontaneous genesis of species by viable mutation means that viable mutations instantly result in new species.

Figured out the difference between spontaneous and instantaneous yet?

Dumbfuck.

[Felix]

Sigh....

From merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born — more at kin
Date: circa 1604
: the origin or coming into being of something

Main Entry: spon·ta·ne·ous
Pronunciation: \spän-ˈtā-nē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin spontaneus, from Latin sponte of one's free will, voluntarily
Date: 1653

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Is that better?

sure, in the context of which you used it, it means the creation of a new species without externalities.....which coincidentally is one of the ways in which you could falsify evolution....good luck finding it and when you do we'll look for you in the Nobel winners circle.....

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html[/quote]

okay

what's your point in quoting this?

[Felix]

He has no point. He obviously doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about so now he is babbling, spinning and reaching for anything to attempt to distract attention away from his comical fucktardery.

yeah, I've got to admit that I've never seen a proponent of creationism use one of the most visited evolutionary sites on the internet to try and make a case for "spontaneous genesis"

(whatever the fuck that is)

[Mr T]

Can't we all just get along?

[Diogenes]

yeah, I've got to admit that I've never seen a proponent of creationism use one of the most visited evolutionary sites on the internet...

I'm not a Creationism proponent. And if some dumbfuck is going to make comments his own Fundie site disputes, why not quote them?

what's your point in quoting this?

Because of this statement about mutation...

It is only one of many different factors and not even a particularly significant one.

Which then morphed into this one...

Of course it is important...

Seriously. Even more of a dumbfuck than I thought. And that's saying something.

Or maybe since instantaneous and spontaneous are synonyms, significant and important are antonyms now?

...now he is babbling, spinning and reaching...

Nice projection. My entire point in this thread is the hypocricy of those who celebrate the silencing of scientific discource being perturbed about the clown in the original article being 'persecuted'. And of course all the Fundie Darwinists prefer to change the subject.

If mutations cause speciation without any other external influence (ie spontaneous) then the result would necessarily be immediate.

Someone accused me of spinning and lying? Epic.

Can't we all just get along?

No.

[Mikey]

If you call it "Intelligent Design" it suddenly gains scientific validity.

[Van]

Mikey, you nailed it. See, that's why we call it "Intelligent Scheduling."

Your pals,

[Mikey]

I think you may be on to something Van. We can greatly improve the quality of many aspects of our lives just by adding some "intelligents".

intelligent excuse making
intelligent cooking
intelligent writing
intelligent fucking
intelligent smack
intelligent etc.

[Diogenes]

The theory that mutation can cause speciation was tested extensively in research with fruit flies. They ended up with a shitload of genetic variation and no speciation.

Really? I didn't know that...

Yeah, about one hundred years ago. I understand you're about 3,000 years behind the times, though.

And yet I refered to said experiments before you even brought them up.

Moron.

If you call it "Intelligent Design" it suddenly gains scientific validity

Refering to ID as Creationism doesn't do anything to invalidate either, it just demonstrates your ignorance and dishonesty.

We can greatly improve the quality of many aspects of our lives just by adding some "intelligents".

In your case, it couldn't hurt. Of course you'd eventually have ro give up on Darwinism and the Democrats.

[Mikey]

If you call it "Intelligent Design" it suddenly gains scientific validity

Refering to ID as Creationism doesn't do anything to invalidate either, it just demonstrates your ignorance and dishonesty.

Perfect example of intelligent semantics.

You're doing well here now, puppy breath. Keep up the good work.

[Van]

"Puppy breath"???

[Felix]

Lets see if we can make this as simple for Dio as is humanly possible....

here's a video created by one of my Aussie buds that he distributes to schools, in order for them to understand the basics of evolutionary theory

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

and here is a site that describes the four primary ways in which speciation is believed to occur

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

it doesn't get much simpler than this

[Diogenes]

it doesn't get much simpler than this

And only a simpleton would think that this 'proves' speciation.

This is especially comical...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

So I guess Hawaiians, Africans and Euros are all different species.

[PSUFAN]

Your lies are making Baby Jeebus sad.

Dude, I was just changing his diaper. Ever notice how often he has blueballs, now that Moorese is gone? I knew those cats were close, but damn...

[Felix]

And only a simpleton would think that this 'proves' speciation.

there is no "proof", if it's proof you're looking for then you'll need to dive into the realm of mathematics, because that's the only scientific discipline that has 100% unequivocal proofs

So I guess Hawaiians, Africans and Euros are all different species.

seriously, how could even a braindead tard like you come to an inane conclusion like that based on the discussion presented? They're of different descent, but we're all homosapiens

maybe we'd better clear something up before you dig the hole any deeper...

I want YOUR definition of exactly what constitutes a "species" not some webster's dictionary definition...and is a "kind" the same thing as a "species"

seriously, this sort of argument reminds me of the movie "My Cousin Vinny" when the trial starts and the attorneys give their opening statements....after being awakened for his opening statement, Joe Pesci says to the jury "everything that guy just said is bullshit"

[Diogenes]

mFrom your site...

Speciation in action?
In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid Iguana iguana colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence.

Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species? We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can’t be sure.

So migration causes speciation. this fits in nicely with the social Darwinists who belive that some 'races' are superior to others. Of course there's nothing scientific about it, as they come close to admitting...

A plausible model: We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

And yet Darwinists claim to know how speciation occurs. Which is fine. Except it is unprovable. Unfalsifiable.

And Not Science.

[Felix]

So migration causes speciation. this fits in nicely with the social Darwinists who belive that some 'races' are superior to others. Of course there's nothing scientific about it, as they come close to admitting

It might, but the scientists that ponder that question will never be alive to find out.....such speciation would likely take a long, long time in an organism as complex as an iguana...take for example the finches that first inspired Darwin to develop his theory of evolution...he noted that finches on the Galapagos islands had developed different beaks which were suited for different tasks, but they were all finches and the same species....however, it became clear to him that various colonies of finches resided in different environments, and their differing beaks allowed them to better adapt to the individual environs in which they resided....that's what initially spawned his idea about evolution....adaptation in a single species

And yet Darwinists claim to know how speciation occurs.
And Not Science.

evolution is science you dork....scientists theorize on how speciation works based on the evidence....but unless you're talking small (fruit fly, bacteria small), speciation takes time, probably longer than any of the scientists that theorize it will be alive

you know what I find troubling about people like you....the earth is approximately 6 billion years old and somehow you expect scientists to explain exactly how everything happened over the course of those 6 billion years in the 500 or so years that man has contemplated how everything came about...and if they can't, you're willing to simply credit some unknown being as having created it all via some mechanism that no one can fathom....

we have only been actively pursuing evolutionary theory for about 150 years.....jumpin jeezus, comparatively speaking, we've made light-year jumps in what we know now compared to what we knew 150 years ago....

[Diogenes]

you know what I find troubling about people like you....the earth is approximately 6 billion years old and somehow you expect scientists to explain exactly how everything happened over the course of those 6 billion years in the 500 or so years that man has contemplated how everything came about...and if they can't, you're willing to simply credit some unknown being as having created it all via some mechanism that no one can fathom....

Wrong. What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that. And to acknowledge that if their methodology is actually correct, that it is possible if not likely, that said methods had an external impetus.

But instead what we get is dogmatic insistence on orthodoxy, smears and vituperation of heretical scientific inquiry, and forcible indoctrination of the next generation funded by taxpayer money.

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

[Felix]

What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

there is nothing "speculative" about it...it's observed, it's been tested, and been recreated in experiments....you know, science

And to acknowledge that if their methodology is actually correct, that it is possible if not likely, that said methods had an external impetus.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

But instead what we get is dogmatic insistence on orthodoxy, smears and vituperation of heretical scientific inquiry, and forcible indoctrination of the next generation funded by taxpayer money.

again, you seem to be arguing intelligent design, which as I stated earlier is nothing more than dressed up creationism, only instead of using the term "god", proponents simply insert the term "intelligent designer"....there is simply no way to test this type of "theory" (and I use that term very loosely in describing the whole intelligent design movement)...in order for it to be scientific, it must be testable, recreatable, and falsifiable, all of which fit evolutionary theory and none of which fit intelligent design....and as I said, if you can prove evolutionary theory wrong, you'll be on your way to fame and fortune...you will have single handedly overturned a theory that has withstood every challenge and every test put to it by some of the most intelligent people that have ever inhabited this planet

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

he was sued (and rightfully so) because he denigrated creationism, which pretty much singles out christian tenets....the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution works both ways, not only does it outlaw establishment of a state religion, but it also protects those that choose to worship as they wish....the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman established a standard to measure whether such a statement uttered by Corbett violates the establishment clause

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Permissable conduct must meet all three criteria

Farnan contended that Corbett violated the Establishment Clause by
making comments hostile to religion and to Christianity in particular. Obviously by singling out creationism Corbett violated the ruling of inhibiting religion....the U.S. District Court of California was right in their decision.....

[Diogenes]

What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

...it's observed, it's been tested, and been recreated in experiments...

Speciation? They've tried and failed.

And to acknowledge that if their methodology is actually correct, that it is possible if not likely, that said methods had an external impetus.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

That if speciation occurred due to mutation, genetic drift et al, that it is more likely than not that there was some outside force at work behind it. Whether it was a deity, space aliens, time travelers...

Acknowledge the possibility that something or someone designed life as we know it and used Darwin's methodology to get there. And when it comes to biogenesis, and the development of DNA/RNA, acknowledge that the odds against something so complex arising out of random chance are great enough that some outside force is more likely than not.

But instead what we get is dogmatic insistence on orthodoxy, smears and vituperation of heretical scientific inquiry, and forcible indoctrination of the next generation funded by taxpayer money.

again, you seem to be arguing intelligent design, which as I stated earlier is nothing more than dressed up creationism

And modern evolutionary synthesis is nothing more than dressed up atheism.

Hey, this is fun.

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

he was sued (and rightfully so) because he denigrated creationism, which pretty much singles out christian tenets....the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution works both ways, not only does it outlaw establishment of a state religion, but it also protects those that choose to worship as they wish....the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman established a standard to measure whether such a statement uttered by Corbett violates the establishment clause

Congradulations. That makes you the first non-hypocrite.

You're still wrong about everything else, but it's a start..

[Diogenes]

That if speciation occurred due to mutation, genetic drift et al, that it is more likely than not that there was some outside force at work behind it. Whether it was a deity, space aliens, time travelers...

... environmental pressure...

Caused the simultaneous development of RNA and DNA (do you need me to define simultaneous for you)?

Caused abiogenesis?

And the True Believers say ID advocates are religious. :twisted:

[Terry in Crapchester]

What I am advocating (not expecting, of course) is that they acknowledge that their speculations are no more than that.

there is nothing "speculative" about it...it's observed, it's been tested, and been recreated in experiments....you know, science

I get what you're saying, but, you're wasting your time here. Consider who you're addressing: the same person who routinely refers to evolution as "religion" and creationism as "science." Again, that harkens back to the old Doonesbury cartoon I cited earlier in this thread. It would be one thing if he were doing that within a similar context. But sadly, it appears that he truly believes what he posts.

And of course, as this thread demonstrates, blatant hypocrisy. Still waiting for one of the True Believers here to say exactly why it is abominable for some worthless tool to be sued over statements that are at the minimum highly unprofessional, and yet it is okay to fire any teacher who even discusses the scientific objections to the current orthodoxy in evolutionary theory.

he was sued (and rightfully so) because he denigrated creationism, which pretty much singles out christian tenets....the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution works both ways, not only does it outlaw establishment of a state religion, but it also protects those that choose to worship as they wish....the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman established a standard to measure whether such a statement uttered by Corbett violates the establishment clause

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Permissable conduct must meet all three criteria

Farnan contended that Corbett violated the Establishment Clause by
making comments hostile to religion and to Christianity in particular. Obviously by singling out creationism Corbett violated the ruling of inhibiting religion....the U.S. District Court of California was right in their decision.....

Wrong analysis here.

The Lemon test deals specifically with legislative enactments, i.e., laws passed by the federal, state or local governments. In the case at bar, we're dealing with no such thing. Rather, we're dealing with the offhand comments of a single public school teacher. Nothing here even to suggest that the school board endorsed these comments. Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

Btw, not all sects of Christianity require a legal reading of Genesis. So to say that the teacher made "comments hostile to . . . Christianity in particular" paints with far too broad a brush. I am a believer, and while this is just my opinion, I believe that God never intended for us not to use our brains. Which is why I accept evolution rather than a literal reading of Genesis as the scientific explanation of the various species on earth.

[Felix]

Speciation? They've tried and failed.

define exactly what you mean by "species"

see this is the sort of bait and switch that die-hard creationists have been using since the introduction of evolutionary theory....everytime they present a definition of what they consider to be a species, evolutionary biologists typically shove that particular definition straight up the creationists asses....but they'll move the goal posts (e.g. change their definition of "species") in a way that OBSERVED SPECIATION doesn't fit with the revised definition. the creationists then declare that speciation has never been observed and pat themselves on the back for being so smart....it's not smart, it's patently dishonest

the convicted fraudster and snake-oil salesman "Dr." Kent Hovind was a master at moving goal posts

[Diogenes]

I get what you're saying, but, you're wasting your time here. Consider who you're addressing: the same person who routinely refers to evolution as "religion" and creationism as "science."

Link?

Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

So if a teacher espoused ID you'd be down with that too? Free speech and all.

We were talking about speciation not abiogenesis.

Actually I was talking about both...

That if speciation occurred due to mutation, genetic drift et al, that it is more likely than not that there was some outside force at work behind it. Whether it was a deity, space aliens, time travelers...

Acknowledge the possibility that something or someone designed life as we know it and used Darwin's methodology to get there. And when it comes to biogenesis, and the development of DNA/RNA, acknowledge that the odds against something so complex arising out of random chance are great enough that some outside force is more likely than not.

Speciation? They've tried and failed.

define exactly what you mean by "species"

see this is the sort of bait and switch that die-hard creationists have been using since the introduction of evolutionary theory...

The kind of bait and switch where you refer to anyone who doesn't ascribe to your dogma as 'creationist'?

When have they ever been able to demonstrate speciation in the lab, by your definition of speciation (whatever that is)?

[Felix]

When have they ever been able to demonstrate speciation in the lab, by your definition of speciation (whatever that is)?

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.

Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.

Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.

Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.

Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.

Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

feel free to look at these studies, I'll be glad to provide you with all you need...but it's useless, because you're totally fucking hopeless....

[Terry in Crapchester]

Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

So if a teacher espoused ID you'd be down with that too? Free speech and all.

Asked and answered already. The issue there would be competency, not compliance with the Constitution.

[Felix]

Wrong analysis here.

The Lemon test deals specifically with legislative enactments, i.e., laws passed by the federal, state or local governments. In the case at bar, we're dealing with no such thing. Rather, we're dealing with the offhand comments of a single public school teacher. Nothing here even to suggest that the school board endorsed these comments. Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

I'm not trying to challenge your vastly superior knowledge of the law here, but just for clarification it wasn't me that cited the Lemon case, it was Farnan's attorneys that cited it. In the final order in motions for summary judgement or summary adjudication, read here

http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/20 ... ruling.pdf

in section III Discussion, the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs cite the Lemon case...now that may have been the wrong argument, but that's where it came from

[Diogenes]

Seems to me that the teacher's right to free speech, which he doesn't completely check at the door of his place of employment, should have protected this comment from legal challenge.

So if a teacher espoused ID you'd be down with that too? Free speech and all.

Asked and answered already. The issue there would be competency, not compliance with the Constitution.

Then the same standard should apply to the tool in question.

As far as this...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

How fresh. Copying a list of articles that claim to demonstrate speciation from a fundie atheist site-that doesn't happen all the time. Why don't you pick one or two of those that are available for reading online. Aside from the ones that if you google them you get 20 other fundies dropping the same tired list of articles they've never even read.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Then the same standard should apply to the tool in question.

Yep. And he hasn't made any statements that call into question his competency to teach.