scienceblogs.com — "... for in all the boundless realm of philosophy and science no thought has brought with it so much pain, or in the end has led to such a full measure of the joy which comes of intellectual effort and activity as that doctrine of Organic Evolution which will ever be associated, first and foremost, with the name of Charles Robert Darwin." - Edward
Sep 9, 2008 View in Crawl 4
covertbadgerSep 10, 2008
"You are just assuming that evolution already has an explanation when it does not. Look into the experiments done with cats and puzzle boxes and you'll see just one example of what I mean."I've just read up on Thorndike's experiments. I fail to see what they have to do with evolution, or why they imply anything about whether evolution is capable of explaining intelligence. Please explain to me how cats and puzzle boxes show that evolution lacks an explanation for consciousness, intelligence, or thought.
fx666Sep 11, 2008
I was wondering if you are a scientist or a "a proponent of science", which is not the same thing. I have a PhD in Physics and I do research in the solid state area. What about you?
Closed AccountSep 13, 2008
"1) some species acquired characteristics detrimental to their survival, which contradicts the principle of natural selection"You have no clue what you're talking about. It's about survival of the SPECIES, not of the individual. As long as they survive long enough to breed, all is fine.
nitsujSep 14, 2008
"You should read Darwin's book The Origin of Species to see his lamentations about the absence of transitional forms before jumping to conclusion that there are no missing links."I have a copy of the book on my shelf and have read it numerous times. Darwin also noted that this was most likely due to limited collections of the time and the "extreme imperfection of the geological record". We now have far more evidence than Darwin ever had, with more complete fossil records, geological theories and genetics.For a clear evidence of our improved knowledge look at the image on the right hand side here: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil</a>For transitional forms: <a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ...</a>Saying that there aren't any is just willful ignorance when there is an abundance.If you have a better theory for biodiversity on the planet then be sure to let us know.
wunkstaSep 16, 2008
@This data comes from nowhere because creationism is limited to the USA only, so it cannot be possibly true.wrong@Long before creationism was put forward, which was in the middle of 1970s, anti-evolutionists were criticizing the evolutionary theorythe idea god created life not very long ago has been prevalent for a long long time. evolution and the evolutionary theory have persisted BECAUSE of the evidence not because of some atheist conspiracy.@The data showing that 60% of the scientists are atheists and the remaining 40% follow different kinds religionreligious beliefs dont matter. there are many scientists from many different followings who agree to the evidence that is shown, as the statistics show.@Approximately 50% of my colleagues, who are physicists, believe in what is called God of the Bible, so I have a first-hand experience of gathering statistical data in this field. 95% of the biologists believe that the evolutionary theory is correctso, wait, are you suggesting that PHYSICISTS know more about biology than biologists? wow, mind boggling@I already explained why vast majority of the paleontologists reject the evolutionary theory, you should read their articles to draw your own conclusion. Since I am not a paleontologist, I cannot defend their point of view, I can only present it.they dont reject it, they may have issues with the specific lineage claims. have you read any peer reviewed papers from paleontologists? >I< have and i know some personally. the only things they fight about is the order and classification within the historical evolutionary framework.@both the evolutionary theory and creationism are the biggest bulls**t the mankind ever produced."The Brian Alter person is not a statistician, so his opinion counts for nothing." youre not a biologist or any other field relating to the foundation of evolutionary theory so YOUR opinion counts for nothingbottomline is that it doesnt matter if you think its bulls**t or even if most of it IS bulls**t. from the evidence we have accumulated from a wide variety of sciences, they point to the likelihood that we are related as living things and came about through evolution from a common ancestor. when evidence comes up that contradicts that, then we will change or abandon the theory. thats how science works. @Add myself to that list. I think that the evolutionary theory should be taught at public schools.ORLY? and so what will people going in for doctorates in biology learn about? lets totally abandon evolution theory because THATS never helped with any understanding of vaccinations or how organisms develop. while we are at it, lets dont bother to teach germ theory, who needs it? the REASON we teach it is because the evidence supports it and its relevant to modern day sciences
marrydbeattyDec 21, 2008
Also, Johnson will have to investigate each of these candidate's backgrounds. Who among these people have shady histories? Any possible criminal connections? What are their political ideologies? Are there any skeletons in the closet that could come back to haunt an Obama candidacy in the autumn? Are<a class="user" href="http://www.advanceddatarecovery.co.uk/">http://www.advanceddatarecovery.co.uk/</a><a class="user" href="http://www.easyrecovery.co.uk/">http://www.easyrecovery.co.uk/</a><a class="user" href="http://www.Otherhit.com/hitOther">http://www.Otherhit.com/hitOther</a><a class="user" href="http://www.ourHistory.com/Historyour">http://www.ourHistory.com/Historyour</a>