Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wiggs on December 06, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
-
:D
Wrong... it's the FITTEST that survives...correct quote is survival of the FITTEST...not the "strongest".
You ve confused mottos written on bodybuilding t shirts with darwin 's original quote it seems.
BTW, most recent studies found out that men are evolving to be more attractive because mating with more partners increases the chance of reproductive success for a man".
I think it's time to burst your bubble.
1. Charles Darwin never said or wrote that. It is a quote that was misattributed..........h ttp://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/one-thing-darwin-didnt-say
2. ev·o·lu·tion /ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
e·volve
/iˈvälv/
Verb
Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
(with reference to an organism or biological feature) Develop over successive generations, esp. as a result of natural selection.
We are not evolving into anything. See definitions of evolution and evolve. No one has EVER seen anything EVOLVE from anything else. No fossils, no living being, nothing. Because of all the race mixing, we are seeing many more VARIATIONS.
3. Although misquoted, yes, that quote sums up what Darwin believed. Truth is those who are able to adapt to their environments the best, survives. This includes, intellect, strength, adaptability, survival and reproductivity.
Please no more misquoting Darwin, my little internet psychologist "Christian" buddy. Remember evolution is a THEORY. (A very bad one with lots of holes).
:-*
-
Yeah, only lifeforms able to adapt whatever the way they adapt, survive, while those who cant adapt fast enough disapear.
And?
What kind of moron are you exactly, you just proved..nothing.
Congrats, now go get a job instead of looking for white whores to pose with for internet tough guy picture contests.
-
Yeah, only lifeforms able to adapt whatever the way they adapt, survive, while those who cant adapt fast enough disapear.
And?
What kind of moron are you exactly, you just proved..nothing. Congrats, now go get a job instead of looking for white whores to pose with for internet tough guy picture contests.
The point of the thread cause you clearly didn't get it or want to get it is that Darwin didn't say or write the shit you use as a mantra. In addition, there's no EVOLUTION. It's a theory with no proof. Get it now spanky?
-
The point of the thread cause you clearly didn't get it or want to get it is that Darwin didn't say or write the shit you use as a mantra. In addition, there's no EVOLUTION. It's a theory with no proof. Get it now spanky?
I said the exact same thing saying it's not the strongest, or smartest that survives, but the FITTEST, IE the lifeform that has a balanced mix of smarts and strenght. If you re strong but dumb you disapear facing smarter life forms, if you re smart but weak, you disapear facing stronger life forms. Hence symbiotic relationships as known as "cooperation" between some lifeforms to maintain or increase each other odds of survival.
Just to think you ve been preparing this nonsensical uterly vain thread just for me since the last time I posted ....wow. Get a life.
-
I said the exact same thing saying it's not the strongest, or smartest that survives, but the FITTEST, IE the lifeform that has a balanced mix of smarts and strenght. If you re strong but dumb you disapear facing smarter life forms, if you re smart but weak, you disapear facing stronger life forms. Hence symbiotic relationships as known as "cooperation" between some lifeforms to maintain or increase each other odds of survival.
Just to think you ve been preparing this nonsensical uterly vain thread just for me since the last time I posted ....wow. Get a life.
Let me dumb it down for you. You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from. Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking. That is incorrect. Evolving isn't the correct word or idea. It's more VARIATION.
Quit arguing over something I'm not arguing over. Wipe the egg from your face and move on.
Tell us more stuff that Darwin didn't say or write.
-
Tough questions that only the ancients could answer... or can they?
-
Id say you owned him but is an psychonanist worth owning ?
besides its not at all clear his intellect has evolved much
-
'Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
Even the Greys know that :o
-
Giants
-
Btw since when am I your "buddy" "wiggs" ?
-
mayans
-
'Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
Even the Greys know that :o
That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection (especially since there's no proof of evolution.) That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?
-
Btw since when am I your "buddy" "wiggs" ?
It was sarcasm. We are indeed not buddies. :(
I liked you better when you were preaching the Bible. ;)
-
I prefer "nature red in tooth & claw"... i think that was stephen j gould...
not googling it to confirm
-
or some sissy poet
illuminati
-
That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection. That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?
I do not travel the path of intellectual supremacy - I'm of average intellect at most but I can connect and extrapolate.
Is there any species* out there that just "evolutes" away without being forced to survive and compete?
*excluding welfare recipients
-
That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection (especially since there's no proof of evolution.) That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?
Evolution is the process of change that occurs as a result of or initiated by natural selection.
-
Is there any species out there that just "evolutes" away without being forced to survive and compete?
I don't understand what you're asking.
-
Evolution is the process of change that occurs as a result of or initiated by natural selection.
Perhaps that's your definition, but it's not the standard definition.
If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney.
Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.
-
I don't understand what you're asking.
So don't I.
As I understood it evolution in a species is tied to external factors which alter survival.
I guess you're more about criticizing the spore to ape train.
-
Perhaps that's your definition, but it's not the standard definition.
If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney.
Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.
First, you've got to understand that evolution takes a very long time, making it difficult to observe, particularly drastic changes in species. It took single celled organisms billions of years to evolve into humans and others species. Transitional fossil exist in abundance that clearly demonstrate evolution of species. Scientist have found not one but a dozen of the so-called missing links.
Scientist have observed evolution in nature. The finches on Galapagos and the peppered moths in England are two great examples The evolution of those species occurred within a normal humans life time which makes it easier to study.
-
Let me dumb it down for you. You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from. Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking. That is incorrect. Evolving isn't the correct word or idea. It's more VARIATION.
Quit arguing over something I'm not arguing over. Wipe the egg from your face and move on.
Tell us more stuff that Darwin didn't say or write.
Don`t be a moron. Seriously.
-
Perhaps that's your definition, but it's not the standard definition.
If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney.
Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.
???
Wiggs, the Creationist. HAHAHAHAHAH
-
So don't I.
As I understood it evolution in a species is tied to external factors which alter survival.
I guess you're more about criticizing the spore to ape train.
I see what you're saying now. We're talking about the same thing but different parts of it. Yes, in theory, it is external factors that drive this. I'm critizing the whole idea because 1. It's a theory that is passed and used as fact 2. There's not one shred of proof of anything "evolving" into anything. 3. Carbon 14 dating is so fucking faulty it's a joke.
You'd think that a topic like this especially arguing from my side of it, I'd have tons of getbiggers trying to destroy me, but proof speaks for itself and evolution has no proof. Nuff' said. So anyone that laughs or pokes fun at ones religion might want to take another look because evolution is a religion.
-
I was waiting for you Adam, I knew you'd eventually show.
Whenever you're ready...
I'm going to take my morning walk and when I return, I expect to see your argument accompanied with proof...
BTW Adam, notice how you didn't show any proof debunking anything I said. You're usually good for articles or links...I'll expect to see them when I return.
-
First, you've got to understand that evolution takes a very long time, making it difficult to observe, particularly drastic changes in species. It took single celled organisms billions of years to evolve into humans and others species. Transitional fossil exist in abundance that clearly demonstrate evolution of species. Scientist have found not one but a dozen of the so-called missing links.
Scientist have observed evolution in nature. The finches on Galapagos and the peppered moths in England are two great examples The evolution of those species occurred within a normal humans life time which makes it easier to study.
LOL...STOP. It takes a long time to observe? So then who documented these changes over these billions of years? NO ONE did because it's a theory and like I said, NO PROOF. Please provide links to this study in the peppered moths. I'd like to see it. Same with these, "missing links".
-
Yeah, only lifeforms able to adapt whatever the way they adapt, survive, while those who cant adapt fast enough disapear.
And?
What kind of moron are you exactly, you just proved..nothing.
Congrats, now go get a job instead of looking for white whores to pose with for internet tough guy picture contests.
Spot on.
-
LOL...STOP. It takes a long time to observe? So then who documented these changes over these billions of years? NO ONE did because it's a theory and like I said, NO PROOF. Please provide links to this study in the peppered moths. I'd like to see it. Same with these, "missing links".
Well, I should have said is, it would take millions to billions of years of observation to document the kind of dramatic change seen in the evolution of a single celled organism to a human being, so for that reason its impossible to directly observe the changes in ones lifetime, in particular those in the past that have already occurred...unless you have a time machine. In place of direct observation, scientist document evolutionary changes through the fossil record, carbon dating and more recently through DNA. Evolution isn't always slow in the case of the finches on Galapagos and the peppered moth of England.
And you want links? Google that shit, Homey!
-
I was waiting for you Adam, I knew you'd eventually show.
Whenever you're ready...
I'm going to take my morning walk and when I return, I expect to see your argument accompanied with proof...
BTW Adam, notice how you didn't show any proof debunking anything I said. You're usually good for articles or links...I'll expect to see them when I return.
You haven`t said anything other than juvenile creationist nonsense that is not even really worthy of this pithy response. I really didn`t surmise that you were this stupid.
All you are doing is reflecting your own ignorance by speaking such drivel.
This might actually do you some good.
-
-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/malletgensoc03.pdf
The peppered moth: a black and white story after all
Preprint from Genetics Society News 50: 34-38, January 2004
Published online at: www.genetics.org.uk/?page=issue_50
© Jim Mallet, November 2003 (updated January 2004)
Galton Laboratory, Dept. of Biology, University College London
Perhaps the most famous example of natural selection is the story of industrial melanism in the
peppered moth. Recently there has been a sudden outbreak of disbelief in this classic story, even
though no new experiments or even reanalyses of earlier data have been performed. Here I argue
that these recent critiques almost entirely lack substance – a careful examination of all the data
shows that evidence for natural selection on the peppered moth could hardly be bettered.
Peppered moth melanism – the classic story of natural selection in the wild
Among a number of examples of natural selection in nature, industrial melanism in the peppered
moth has been perhaps the most iconic. The peppered moth story was, at least until recently, a key
demonstration of natural selection used in almost every textbook of evolution. Briefly, in the
industrial revolution, "melanic" or black forms of the peppered moth (Biston betularia – family
Geometridae) became much more common than the typical pale form in polluted areas of Britain
and elsewhere. From the 1890s onwards, biologists argued that the moths, which rest with their
wings open on tree bark, are adapted in wing colour to the prevailing background. This is a form of
camouflage, because bird predators would be able to find the moths if they didn't match their
background visually (Figs. 1, 2). When the trees are dark and sooty, the moths are better off being
black; when the trees are soot-free or lichen-covered, they are better off pale and mottled.
Fig. 1. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth.
Dark forms of the British peppered moth (Biston betularia), as well as many other species of
moth, became common in the middle of the 19th century near centres of industrial pollution.
Soot coated the trunks and branches of trees, and killed lichens. In the photo, a pale form
(typica, left) and a dark form (carbonaria, right) rest side-by-side on an unpolluted lichen
covered trunk in Dorset. (From HBD Kettlewell, 1956, Heredity 10: 300). 2
Fig. 2. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth
This photo was taken on a soot-covered trunk near
Birmingham (B). Pale form (typica), top right; dark
form (carbonaria), bottom left. In both Figs. 1 and 2,
the moths have been placed on tree trunks to
demonstrate the camouflage effect. It is now known
that the moths normally rest at the bases of major
branches rather than on vertical tree trunks, although
this makes little difference to the camouflage because
the bark is similar. (From HBD Kettlewell, 1956,
Heredity 10: 300).
JBS Haldane calculated long ago that the melanics must have had about 50% higher survival than
typical mottled forms to explain the rapid rise in melanic gene frequency. In the last half of the last
century, field experiments at 35 sites were performed by a number of scientists. These experiments
directly demonstrated how bird predation affected the survival of adult moths, and demonstrated
that the strength of natural selection was of the same order as that required by Haldane's
calculations (Fig. 1). There is good geographic evidence for a tight correlation across Britain
between the frequency of melanism and the degree of urbanization and smoke pollution. This
relationship becomes even more convincing when one considers the considerable declines in
frequency of melanism since the clean air acts of the late 1960s in Britain. These reversed selection
pressures must have been of a similar order to those implicated in the original rise of melanism
(Clarke et al. 1985). The peppered moth story is remarkably complete: it combines an easilyappreciated, visual form of selection, knowledge of the genes involved (albeit in the Mendelian,
pre-molecular sense; see also True 2003 for an update on research towards understanding the evodevo and molecular genetics of melanism), direct experimental demonstration, geographic
correlation with the purported ecological causes, and direct observation of increase and decline of
the phenotype in synchrony with the supposed selective agent – soot on tree bark.
The peppered moth story – refuted?
Today, suddenly, doubt that peppered moth melanism is due to bird predation is surfacing, and the
story is even being dropped from textbooks. Serious scientists and the lay public alike are
convinced by apparent new evidence that the story was false all along. This change in opinion dates
only from the last few years. Why? This sudden change in our views of the peppered moth story is
baffling, especially, as I will show, no actual new data have been produced to refute the earlier
experimental work.
The seeds of doubt were probably sown by the maturation of the British ecological genetics school,
considered by Lewontin to have resulted from a "genteel upper middle class fascination with snails
and butterflies". It became more difficult to justify basic studies of natural selection; people were 3
beginning to be interested in the wrinkles and exceptions as well. My colleague Steve Jones (1982)
epitomised this phase of the peppered moth story with a commentary entitled "More to melanism
than meets the eye": he and others began to argue that non-visual selection could be important as
well as camouflage. Mike Majerus's recent book "Melanism" (1998), which contains a long
discussion of the peppered moth story, continues very much in this vein. This is hardly surprising.
Writing about work mainly done in the 1950s to 1970s, Majerus needed a new angle to discuss in
the 1990s. He therefore carefully laid out some unsolved problems about the exact mechanisms of
selection. However, neither Majerus nor Jones, nor indeed any serious scientist knowledgeable
about the field at this stage doubted the central idea that natural selection was caused by bird
predation. To quote Majerus (p. 116): "In my view, the huge wealth of additional data obtained
since Kettlewell's initial predation papers does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from
that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by
industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on evolution of melanism in the
peppered moth". These critics merely argued that other factors, such as thermal ecological effects of
the same genes, might be involved as well, and might explain some of the scatter around the overall
geographic and temporal trends in the evolution of melanism.
However, more aggressive criticism soon appeared in the scientific literature. Ted Sargent et al.
(1998) argued that "there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated
observations and experiments to support this explanation [i.e. bird predation as the agent of
selection] at the present time." Notably, this maverick view was based not on new experiments, but
on a sceptical re-evaluation by two Americans and a New Zealander of the largely British data.
The biggest bombshell, however, was dropped in a review of Majerus' book by Jerry Coyne (1998).
Some quotations: "Majerus concludes ... that all we can deduce from this story is that it is a case of
rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation". Note the contrast with the
Majerus quotation above. Coyne continues: "I would, however, replace 'probably' with 'perhaps'. ...
one senses [Majerus] is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay
attending my discovery ... that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on
Christmas Eve." "... for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of
natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution".
This single book review, published in the journal "Nature", was enormously influential, and it was
widely and in many cases wilfully misread as a rejection of the best-documented case of natural
selection by a major evolutionary biologist. This was not intended at all. Coyne's statement, quoted
above, was unfortunately worded. He meant, I think, that understanding of the causes ("action") of
natural selection were still obscure, rather than that the rapid rise and then fall of melanism in the
peppered moth was anything other than an excellent example of natural selection (Coyne 2002). But
the damage was done: citations of Coyne's (1998) review, especially the part about Santa, soon
appeared in anti-evolution literature. Recently, I found over 200 websites using search terms
"Coyne, peppered", consisting mainly of creationist diatribes, or of evolutionary biologists' attempts
to rebut the anti-evolution literature on this topic.
More recently, Judith Hooper's (2002) history of the peppered moth story has reopened this can of
worms, and indeed prominently cites Coyne's review. Hooper's well-written, racy story of the
British ecological genetics school, and of Bernard Kettlewell in particular, appeals particularly to
laymen and was widely reviewed and discussed in media such as the London broadsheet
newspapers. Kettlewell performed the prototype field experiments on the peppered moth, and
Hooper's argument amounts to an allegation of fraud. Initially, in a 1953 field experiment,
Kettlewell was getting poor recaptures. If this had continued, the experiment would certainly have
been a failure, but the recapture rates suddenly went up soon after Kettlewell received an 4
encouraging letter from the ecological geneticist EB Ford (
1
actually, even this turns out not to be
correct -- see below). Hooper searched the meteorological data for 1953, but found no evidence for
a sudden change in weather to explain the increase in recaptures. Therefore, according to Hooper,
the increase in recapture rates were highly suspicious. At first, Hooper asks, mildly (p. 118) "Is it
possible that [Kettlewell] made modifications in his experimental design?" Although she doesn't
directly answer this rheorical question, Hooper has convinced herself a score of pages later (p. 136):
"what had passed unnoticed by their peers for at least a decade, was that Bernard had done a little
tweaking ... in Birmingham in 1953".
Figure 3. Relative fitness of adult typica (normal, pale form) compared with carbonaria
(melanic form) in 35 field experiments with the peppered moth, Biston betularia. The
survival data are plotted against the frequency of typica in the population, and the trend shows
that adults of each form tend to have higher survival in areas where its own form is most
abundant, as expected under the industrial melanism hypothesis. The equation for the bestfitting line is y = 0.83 + 0.65x; r
2
= 0.20, P=0.007). The data are from Cook (2000); see also
Lees (1981). Laurence Cook has told me he doesn't believe the simple regression analysis
performed here is sensible, as different groups of experiments were done in very different
ways and with different sample sizes. However, I am merely using this regression as a
conservative heuristic tool to display the data, because I believe it shows the results clearly.
Cook's own (2000) sample-size-weighted analysis of the data after log-transforming the
relative fitness values gave similar results (P < 0.001).
Hooper's book is an excellent read, but I feel that this particular allegation, based on such slender
evidence, is unfair. Hooper's outlook is strongly influenced by friendly relations with Ted Sargent
who, according to Hooper, had his career ruined by his iconoclastic views on the peppered moth.
The possibility that opinions of Sargent might be largely a result of his failure to perform successful
experiments to back up his negative take on bird predation does not seem to have occurred to
Hooper. In any case, as Cook (2000) has demonstrated, even if Kettlewell was a fraud (and there is
no good evidence that this was the case; see above), the other 30-odd experiments on survival of
adult moths in the field done by different scientists are convincing on their own (Fig. 3).
One reason the melanism/bird predation story may be so prone to attack is that it is so neat and easy
to understand. It’s too good to be true! At the same time it perhaps doesn't gibe with most non-5
lepidopterists' personal experiences. To me, a geneticist working on Lepidoptera, the convincing
evidence for the classical explanation comes not just from the field experiments, but on the
background natural history evidence from over 70 moth species, and in multiple geographic areas
(Lees 1981, Clarke et al. 1985, Cook et al. 1986, Grant et al. 1998, Majerus 1998). Experiments
can prove selection at one time and in one place, but cannot prove the overall evolutionary
hypothesis; for this, we must generalise from the experiments using comparative natural history
data.
I am involved in another case of this kind. "Mimicry" is the situation where the wing pattern of one
species of butterfly or other insect is a copy of that in a second distasteful species. The mimic
thereby remains unmolested by visual predators that have learnt to avoid the distasteful species. Far
fewer field experiments have been done to test for the selective advantage of mimicry than have
been done on melanism in the peppered moth, yet I find the argument for mimicry in butterflies,
proposed by Henry Walter Bates on the basis of extensive South American butterfly collections in
1862, absolutely convincing. It is almost incredible that anything other than visual predation could
cause such perfect colour-pattern matching in unrelated species, and in such a geographically
coherent manner. I conclude this article with some of the background information that makes
industrial melanism so convincing.
The environmental backdrop of industrial melanism
I have never worked specifically on the peppered moth, but I know the species well and have
trapped it and other moths with melanic polymorphisms in both industrial and non-industrial areas.
I have also done serious field experiments on mimicry in Heliconius butterflies. Thus I feel
qualified to comment on this topic.
For those readers who have never experienced coal-era industrial pollution, it may seem unlikely
that environmental changes over the last couple of centuries can have been great enough to lead to
rapid evolution of melanism and its recent, equally rapid decline. My own experiences suggest that
there have been plenty. I spent part of my childhood in London during the 1960s. Our heating
system was originally a messy coal-fired stove in the basement around which we huddled for
warmth, although my parents soon installed gas-fired central heating. Towering over our street was
the tall chimney of the nearby hospital incinerator, which periodically released foul-smelling black
vapours. Electricity was then provided by the coal-fired Battersea Power Station across the river,
with its four giant chimneys belching smoke over our area (a photograph of this now derelict power
station achieved new post-coal-era fame on the cover of Pink Floyd's "Animals" LP). As a child, my
handkerchief was always black from soot-stained snot, due to constant inhalation and subsequent
condensation of sooty particulates on my mucous membranes. The walls of our house, and in fact
the surfaces of every building or tree were covered in black grime and soot. My parents warned me
not to put my head out of the open window of the then coal-fired steam trains in case a "smut", or
large clot of soot coming out of the smokestack, went in my eye. I was present in some of the last
great "London Fogs" (more properly called "smogs"), when the air was so full of soot and other
pollutants that it turned dark at midday, and visibility was down to a few feet. Today, the situation
has radically changed: apart from the odd sulphurous inversion layer due to car exhaust, our windy
and rainy climate together with a ban on coal or wood as fuels ensures that London has remarkably
clean air. The soot on most buildings has long since been cleaned off, and the trees have all
sloughed their black bark.
As a small child I don't remember seeing many moths in Central London, but in the 1970s, when I
went "mothing" with a friend in Hull in industrial E. Yorkshire, I was surprised to find it almost
impossible to identify the local moths. Many of their colour patterns had been obliterated by
melanism. This was particularly true of smaller noctuids (such as the "minors", Oligia spp. – 6
Noctuidae) and geometrids. Although experimental work has been done mostly on the peppered
moth, over 70 other British moths show (or rather showed) industrial melanism (Lees 1981); this is
not generally appreciated from the text-book accounts. Meanwhile, moths were much more
distinguishable at other places I visited, such as rural Hampshire and Kent where the trees were
covered in crustose and foliose lichens rather than soot, and the moths were usually brown, grey
and mottled instead of uniformly black.
Recently, reversals of melanism in industrial areas have been dramatic, and again not just confined
to the peppered moth. The marbled beauty moth Cryphia domestica, for example, was said to have
melanic forms that "predominate in London" (Skinner 1984: 122). The moth "may be found during
the day on walls", and its larvae feed "on lichens ... growing on walls, roofs, rocks etc." From the
1990s onwards, this pretty, greenish-grey noctuid has been a common visitor to my home in
Highbury, north-central London, on summer evenings. But I have never seen a melanic. It would
be hard to explain the resemblance of the typical adult Cryphia pattern to the mottled grey-green
encrusting lichens on these surfaces other than as a camouflage adaptation, and to deny that the
melanism "predominating" earlier was a response to the grimy surfaces on which the moth rested,
until recently, in London.
For the peppered moth there are controversies too complicated to go into here about the importance
of lichens, settling position and background matching by the moth. Lichens are generally absent or
at least different in industrially polluted regions. To me, the arguments are largely irrelevant to the
question of visual predation. The peppered moth doesn't do exact background matching, but the
melanic moth is clearly less visible on a black sooty background, and the pale form is less visible on
a non-sooty, mottled background, whether or not there are lichens, whether or not the moth rests on
the tree trunks or on branches higher up. This is as true for birds as it is for humans (see Lees
1981). All that is required for us to know is that the moths rest on bark (they do), and that the bark
gets darker in industrially polluted sites (it does, or at least, did), and that birds find it harder to
detect melanics on sooty backgrounds, and easier on an unpolluted backgrounds (extensive
experiments prove they do).
What and who do you believe?
So, disbelieve the peppered moth story if you must. But if you do want to disbelieve it, make sure
your sources are good. Don't just take it from the Daily Telegraph, Hooper's book, Ted Sargent's
critiques, Coyne’s review, or word of mouth. Ask yourself: in what direction does the weight of
experimental, geographic, temporal evidence, and maybe also a little common sense, lead? Read
Laurence Cook's papers reviewing the evidence, especially Cook (2000)
2
. Look at Fig. 3. I believe
that if you do this, you will conclude that the peppered moth story is about as convincing an
example of natural selection by bird predators as you could possibly hope to find.
Literature cited
Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera:
Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23:495-566.
Clarke, C. A., G. S. Mani, and G. Wynne. 1985. Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered
moth. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 26:189-199.
Cook, L. M. 2000. Changing views on melanic moths. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 69:431-441.
Cook, L. M., G. S. Mani, and M. E. Varley. 1986. Postindustrial melanism in the peppered moth.
Science 231:611-613. 7
Coyne, J. A. 1998. Not black and white. Review of "Melanism: Evolution in Action" by Michael
E.N. Majerus. Nature 396:35-36.
---. 2002. Evolution under pressure. Review of Judith Hooper: "Of Moths and Men: Intrigue,
Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. Nature 418:19-20.
Grant, B. S., A. D. Cook, C. A. Clarke, and D. F. Owen. 1998. Geographic and temporal variation
in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain. J. Hered.
89:465-471.
Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. Fourth Estate, New
York.
Jones, J. S. 1982. More to melanism than meets the eye. Nature 300:109-110.
Lees, D. R. 1981. Industrial melanism: genetic adaptation of animals to air pollution. Pp. 129-176 in
J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook, eds. Genetic Consequences of Man Made Change. Academic Press,
London, London.
Majerus, M. E. N. 1998. Melanism. Evolution in Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sargent, T. D., C. D. Millar, and D. M. Lambert. 1998. The 'classical' explanation of industrial
melanism. Evol. Biol. 30:299-322.
Skinner, B., and D. Wilson. 1984. Colour Identification Guide to Moths of the British Isles
(Macrolepidoptera). Viking Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
True, J.R. 2003. Insect melanism: the molecules matter. Trends Ecol. Evol. in press, available
online.
Footnotes
1. Footnote added 12 January 2004. Matt Young and Peter Dunkelberg have independently written
to me to point out that Ford’s commiserating letter to Kettlewell is dated the day after recapture
rates had started increasing. In this article, I had taken Judith Hooper’s word for it uncritically.
2. See also: Cook, L. M. 2003. The rise and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth. Q.
Rev. Biol. 78:399-418.
-
Thanks bebop.
-
Goddamn, is this thread a script for "Dumb and Dumber 3"? :D
-
Goddamn, is this thread a script for "Dumb and Dumber 3"? :D
"Dumb and Dumber 3: Devolving"?
-
Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
-
Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
I think the distinction is in the way the word theory is being used by wigs. He is using it in the colloquial way and not the scientific meaning.
-
You only need to observe the rapid changes in bacteria aand viruses to understand evolution by natural selection
-
Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
What gaps? There aren`t any.
-
If evolution is true why is dr. chimps still around ???
-
What gaps? There aren`t any.
There are a few gaps in the fossil record. Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet. Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm
You only need to observe the rapid changes in bacteria aand viruses to understand evolution by natural selection
Good example. I'd failed to mention this.
-
The thing is that there is a faulty presumption behind these 'doubts' that everything should be known a 100% beyond doubt. Evolution is the only theory that consistently explains biological life. Since its inception, the evidence for the theory has only grown and diversified into more fields. The theory is an emerging picture from tons of evidence; that it isn't referred to as a 'fact' rather than 'theory' is a matter of scientific distinction, not for a lack of strong evidence. It is as much as fact as anything else.
-
The thing is that there is a faulty presumption behind these 'doubts' that everything should be known a 100% beyond doubt. Evolution is the only theory that consistently explains biological life. Since its inception, the evidence for the theory has only grown and diversified into more fields. The theory is an emerging picture from tons of evidence; that it isn't referred to as a 'fact' rather than 'theory' is a matter of scientific distinction, not for a lack of strong evidence. It is as much as fact as anything else.
Very well said!
-
There are a few gaps in the fossil record. Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet. Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm
Good example. I'd failed to mention this.
It would be impossible to have every single fossil, so this doesn`t constitute as a "gap" or a "hole" in the theory. You would have to have fpssils of every organism that dies, every time it dies from present to billions of years ago. That is not feasible and is pointless and is not needed at all.
-
There are a few gaps in the fossil record. Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet. Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm
Good example. I'd failed to mention this.
like how new world vultures (examples, the Andean and California Condors) were thought to be related to old world ones and DNA evidence shows that they are closely related to Storks
Or how Skunks were thought to be of the mustelid family (weasels, badgers, wolverines), but DNA evidence shows that they are separate.
-
It would be impossible to have every single fossil, so this doesn`t constitute as a "gap" or a "hole" in the theory. You would have to have fpssils of every organism that dies, every time it dies from present to billions of years ago. That is not feasible and is pointless and is not needed at all.
I agree. I only used the term gap because that is the word some paleontologists have used to describe the missing transitional fossils. Paradoxically, in some instances the newer fossils are less likely to be preserved because of environmental exposure. For the record, I'm a historian not a biologist or a paleontologist. You're getting a laymens opinion.
like how new world vultures (examples, the Andean and California Condors) were thought to be related to old world ones and DNA evidence shows that they are closely related to Storks
Or how Skunks were thought to be of the mustelid family (weasels, badgers, wolverines), but DNA evidence shows that they are separate.
Yes, exactly. DNA has expanded all fields of the sciences. It's explained a ton but created more mysteries as well.
-
What gaps? There aren`t any.
TA, I am a huge supporter of evolution. I was referring to some gaps regarding transitional fossils.
-
IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.
This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.
PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
-
IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.
This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.
PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
ROFLMAO.
(http://jpegy.com/images/uploads/2012/04/dont-understand-doesnt-mean-its-wrong.gif)
-
IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.
This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.
PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
;D
-
Let me dumb it down for you. You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from. Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking. That is incorrect. Evolving isn't the correct word or idea. It's more VARIATION.
Quit arguing over something I'm not arguing over. Wipe the egg from your face and move on.
Tell us more stuff that Darwin didn't say or write.
evolution happens when we get older whos to say our offspring isnt evolved wiggs
-
IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.
This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.
PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
not fair to bring up his skin color, though it is a humorous retort ;)
Wiggs is just going through a phase of believing the ancient astronaut theory stuff. Now is that stereotypical of black people? I doubt most, like other people, have ever even heard of it.
I don't know what informs his opinions exactly, but if you consider the clusterfuck of information that is out there it is not surprising that even otherwise intelligent people buy into this stuff. Perhaps I'm partly speaking for my own analytical abilities, but I think one mostly relies on common sense to form a coherent view of the world, which means most often than not accepting the consensus view. Who has the resources to verify all the information one comes across? I don't think a lack of this 'common sense' function is necessarily indicative of one's IQ... it could be several things including an infantile attachment to ideas, being 'different' from other people, etc.
-
not fair to bring up his skin color, though it is a humorous retort ;)
I think it's completely fair to mention race in this instance because what Wiggs is doing is extremely common (I even cited the statistic) among African Americans: denying the scientific theory of evolution. It's a sad reality that needs to change, hence my comment (it's bad in America in general but worse with blacks, hence my calling it a stereotypical black behavior).
Wiggs is just going through a phase of believing the ancient astronaut theory stuff. Now is that stereotypical of black people? I doubt most, like other people, have ever even heard of it.
I didn't say he was stereotypical in all respects, just on the matter of having a terribly ill-informed perspective on evolution. I brought up the fried chicken because I'm saying something to the effect of 'having this terribly ill-informed opinion is just as stereotypical and embarrassing as having a stereotypical love of fried chicken' (paraphrase).
I don't know what informs his opinions exactly, but if you consider the clusterfuck of information that is out there it is not surprising that even otherwise intelligent people buy into this stuff. Perhaps I'm partly speaking for my own analytical abilities, but I think one mostly relies on common sense to form a coherent view of the world, which means most often than not accepting the consensus view. Who has the resources to verify all the information one comes across? I don't think a lack of this 'common sense' function is necessarily indicative of one's IQ... it could be several things including an infantile attachment to ideas, being 'different' from other people, etc.
I don't bring up Wiggs' intelligence anywhere; rather, I say he doesn't have the 'competence' to determine whether the scientific theory under discussion is actually true or not. There's nothing wrong with that; most people don't -- and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to. But people in this position generally ought to defer to the relevant experts or otherwise shut the fuck up, not air out their embarassing opinions and thus reinforce stereotypes about stupidity.
I almost didn't want to type this all out because my original post is way funnier when given a racist interpretation, but I don't want to be misconstrued.
-
in that case, sorry for the serious reply ;D i feel slightly embarassed. I still don't agree with bringing up race, but this is getbig after all and it was funny as fuck.
-
What gaps? There aren`t any.
Probably talking about certain gaps in the fossil record. Best example is the gaps for hominids
-
Probably talking about certain gaps in the fossil record. Best example is the gaps for hominids
When someone, like Wiggs, hears the term "gaps", they equate it to meaning a "hole in the theory", thus making it not scientifically sound. This is of course ignorance on their part, however I like not using that word so they can`t have that option to exercise their rather juvenile stupidity.
-
Jeez did wiggs really evolve past the stages of the ape. Makes you wonder doesn't it
-
Remember evolution is a THEORY. (A very bad one with lots of holes).
:-*
QFT
-
Hi stupid, how was your day? I hope no one picked on you.
When someone, like Wiggs, hears the term "gaps", they equate it to meaning a "hole in the theory", thus making it not scientifically sound. This is of course ignorance on their part, however I like not using that word so they can`t have that option to exercise their rather juvenile stupidity.
-
Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
If you need a lot of time to "develop" your theory, then you should not try to pass it as proof or fact until the time and development have come to their fulfillment/conclusion.
-
The meaning of "theory" in science is really not much different to the meaning of theory in general.
Well substantiated theories have been proven wrong time and again throughout history - including in the scientific and medical fields.
-
Wiggs problem lays in inability to grasp basic philosophical concepts of science.
In layman terms - natural sciences divide into natural sciences and mathematical sciences. In Math, we have a system of basic rules, called axioms. They aren't "true", or "false", they are our assumptions - they do not pretend to show any truth about world, they have nothing to do with this realm, they are from realm of logic. Every mathematical theorem can be broken down into pieces and eventually proven from axioms. Imagine it like a system of pipes or lego bricks - we have only few bricks and then we build everything from it. Everything, from natural numbers to real numbers is defined from this axioms.
In natural sciences we do not have anything like that because we want to create a perfect model of reality. Unfortunatelly, we do not have access to ultimate truth - we do not know what axioms of this world are. That is why we try to observe nature and create theories explaining why things happen. If you break down bottle of wine you do not expect broken pieces to reintegrate by themselves. We have laws of physics that make it impossible. But there is no real reason to believe it will never happen apart from the fact that it just never did. We do not have access to any ultimate truth but we work with what we have. As you see we have computers, internet, cars so it's not that bad after all.
There is so much scientific background behind theory of evolution that vast majority of biologists consider sufficient. Do you have any degree in natural sciences? No, you do not even seem to have ANY degree whatsoever. You are discussing things way beyond your comprehension. You see Wiggs, IQ gap between people who do things like this for living and you is just as huge as between you and a chimpunk. Imagine chipmunk dressed as you and trying to be you. That's hillarious, isn't it? Your posts are just as hillarious.
Hope it helps.
-
In 14 days all this doubts and questions will not matter.
We are all going to evolve into spiritual beeings, as dead persons.
-
is Wiggs a product of evolution and uberman a fixed object of creationism?
-
The meaning of "theory" in science is really not much different to the meaning of theory in general.
Well substantiated theories have been proven wrong time and again throughout history - including in the scientific and medical fields.
You're very incorrect.
-
Hahahaha. I see you boys have been havin' fun without me. I'll destroy later when I have time to watch the video and read the material.
I "grasp" more than 99% of this board. Don't insult my intelligence. Very typical to go to race baiting when you have nothing of value to say.
-
Wiggs, the most intelligent, unemployed, underachieving black man in America. :D
-
Wiggs, the most intelligent, unemployed, underachieving black man in America. :D
:D
-
Here's a list of scientist, past and present that also don't "Grasp" the concept of evolution...I'll speak more on this this weekend if time permits....
So geniuses, you can get your list of scientists and your theorys full of holes that is constantly changed to suit your agenda or I can have my list of scientists, and my King James Bible that never changes. Majority of the world believes in a deity. Evolution is another of bunk religions passed off as science that will die off and be looked at oddly. Good day gents. Please have a look at my merry band of dumbasses below. :-* ::)
From the look of this list, it looks like most of science of founded by creationist including the man who came up with the scientific method. :-*
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Discrimination against creation scientists
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
-
:D
Hello, hello, hello, hello ?
-
:D
Hello, hello, hello, hello ?
Out and about. Only have my phone. I'll dissect this later. You've made many errors
-
Why wouldn't a God design life systems to be adaptable, extensible, and polymorphic? (Like our software systems today?)
If/when we get the science to design and create our own life systems, wouldn't we strive to engineer them in a way to make them survivable and adaptable long term in any environment?
Why "hard-code" an organism to live only in very specific environmental situations when one can be engineered to evolve, adapt and live anywhere (oceans, air, land, etc?)
And I'm talking about life on Earth, in general, as a whole.
-
Why wouldn't a God design life systems to be adaptable, extensible, and polymorphic? (Like our software systems today?)
If/when we get the science to design and create our own life systems, wouldn't we strive to engineer them in a way to make them survivable and adaptable long term in any environment?
Why "hard-code" an organism to live only in very specific environmental situations when one can be engineered to evolve, adapt and live anywhere (oceans, air, land, etc?)
And I'm talking about life on Earth, in general, as a whole.
well, apparently Whales started out as land animals, and then adapted to water. Look at Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs that started out on land, and then adapted to an aquatic life. Or tree anteaters (silky anteaters) which have adapted to an aboreal lifestyle.
The adaption to certain environments is quite tricky, because there are certain questions. How specialized must the animal be? How can it get its food? How flexible is the adaptations? Nature has shown us that it is far better at answering these questions over a long period of time than man, and even still, in the case of Smilodon, it was too good, meaning the the animal was too specialized, so it was unable to adapt to a changing environment. Man has taking animals like the domesticated dog, and honed it for his own specialized needs, and what has come of it is a creature that is also too specialized, and has a lot of diseases, physical problems and brain issues.
Trying to make a creature that could adapt anywhere, like a living pocket knife, would be highly improbable---possible, but improbable. The reason why is that you just can't take a terrestrial animal, and plop it in a aquatic environment and expect it to adapt in real time, no matter the technology that we have, and then expect it to adapt to a aero environ, but still maintaining it's terrestrial and aquatic adaptions, which would get in the way of its winged lifestyle, and so on.
Look at Dragonflies---from nymphs, they have gills/breathing apparatus and a giant mouthpiece, no wings. When they become adults they loose said adaptations because they are not needed.
-
I'm sure one of the esteemed gentlemen from list would be alot more qualified to answer that question than I would. There's no denying the names on that list and what they did or do for science. Yet, they are still creationist....
-
Even if evolution is 100% false, this does not mean the bible is real or God created the universe.
Horrible, just horrible logic. I dont care who says so, PhD or not.
-
Even if evolution is 100% false, this does not mean the bible is real or God created the universe.
Horrible, just horrible logic. I dont care who says so, PhD or not.
Take the Bible out of it for moment. That's not what I'm arguing.
What I am arguing is that evolution is false, and science is mixed with it to pass it off as fact and it is indeed, not fact. It's a religion. A religion of death. "survival of the fittest". Everyone else dies.
And yes, if we didn't evolve in some way, we were in fact, CREATED. In this case, it's one or the other.
-
Take the Bible out of it for moment. That's not what I'm arguing.
What I am arguing is that evolution is false, and science is mixed with it to pass it off as fact and it is indeed, not fact. It's a religion. A religion of death. "survival of the fittest". Everyone else dies.
And yes, if we didn't evolve in some way, we were in fact, CREATED. In this case, it's one or the other.
Over 90% of the scientists in the National Academy of Science believe in evolution. It has the most evidence for it of basically any theory. That list could easily rival your list.
-
Here's a list of scientist, past and present that also don't "Grasp" the concept of evolution...I'll speak more on this this weekend if time permits....
So geniuses, you can get your list of scientists and your theorys full of holes that is constantly changed to suit your agenda or I can have my list of scientists, and my King James Bible that never changes. Majority of the world believes in a deity. Evolution is another of bunk religions passed off as science that will die off and be looked at oddly. Good day gents. Please have a look at my merry band of dumbasses below. :-* ::)
From the look of this list, it looks like most of science of founded by creationist including the man who came up with the scientific method. :-*
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Discrimination against creation scientists
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Moron.
-
IT also depends how you use the word "theory" and "Fact"
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
-
Impressive list, I take it the rest of the world's scientists (a few million people) reject creationism altogether.
-
Over 90% of the scientists in the National Academy of Science believe in evolution. It has the most evidence for it of basically any theory. That list could easily rival your list.
Only difference is the guys on my list the creationist, STARTED MODERN SCIENCE and evolution is based on modern science.
-
Impressive list, I take it the rest of the world's scientists (a few million people) reject creationism altogether.
This. As I stated over 90% of the people in the NAtional Academy of Science believe in evolution. Wiggs forgot to post that ::) ::) ::)
-
Impressive list, I take it the rest of the world's scientists (a few million people) reject creationism altogether.
Either that or they haven't gone on record.
-
Only difference is the guys on my list the creationist, STARTED MODERN SCIENCE and evolution is based on modern science.
That does not mean anything. Science is progress. What is now known may have not been known back then. You cant cling to something in the past, especially if new evidence has arisen, no matter what the people in the past have said.
-
Either that or they haven't gone on record.
Now youre reaching. Gone on record? Seriously?
I could easily say that the creationists havent gone on record of truly believing in evolution.
Horrible argument and logic.
-
IT also depends how you use the word "theory" and "Fact"
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
It's a theory. If you have to write a 500 word reason to prove it's a fact, it's not a fact. Facts speak for themselves.
-
Its a theory that has one of the most supported amount of evidence.
End of story.
-
That does not mean anything. Science is progress. What is now known may have not been known back then. You cant cling to something in the past, especially if new evidence has arisen, no matter what the people in the past have said.
My point is you'll believe their science but not their belief in faith. There is no evidence proving there is no creator. No one is clinging to anything. Whether you accept or not is your problem. You'll have to answer to the creator in your day of judgement, as will the rest you. So enjoy your life here on earth and indulge yourself in whatever you'd like. It's funny how a book written so long ago still stands the test of time.
Your biggest problem is you're calling evolution science and it isn't. Why don't you go look up the definition of science then when you comprehend what it means tell me where they have OBSERVED evolution as it is defined.
-
My point is you'll believe there science but not there belief in faith. There is no evidence proving there is no creator. No one is clinging to anything. Whether you accept or not is your problem. You'll have to answer to the creator in your day of judgement, as will the rest you. So enjoy your life here on earth and indulge yourself in whatever you'd like. It's funny how a book written so long ago still stands the test of time.
Your biggest problem is you're calling evolution science and it isn't. Why don't you go look up the definition of science then when you comprehend what it means tell me where they have OBSERVED evolution as it is defined.
No offense, Wiggs, but again, horrible logic.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus, if someone says a God exists, they have to prove it. I dont have to provide evidence a God doesnt exist because the lack of evidence that a God exists is self-evident. Its the default position.
Person making the claim has to provide the evidence.
There is also no evidence that unicorns and monsters dont exist, but i guess we should believe in them as well, huh, Wiggs? ::) ::)
Again, just because something stands the test of time doesnt mean its real. Gee, these are poor arguments. People also thought the world was flat for a really long time.
-
No offense, Wiggs, but again, horrible logic.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus, if someone says a God exists, they have to prove it. I dont have to provide evidence a God doesnt exist because the lack of evidence that a God exists is self-evident. Its the default position.
Person making the claim has to provide the evidence.
There is also no evidence that unicorns and monsters dont exist, but i guess we should believe in them as well, huh, Wiggs? ::) ::)
My proof is in the Bible. It tells you everything you need to know. Who, When, Where, Why, and how...There will a day of judgement friend.
Matthew 24:4-5 KJV And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. (5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
-
thanks for proving stereotypes wiggs :-\
-
No offense, Wiggs, but again, horrible logic.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus, if someone says a God exists, they have to prove it. I dont have to provide evidence a God doesnt exist because the lack of evidence that a God exists is self-evident. Its the default position.
Person making the claim has to provide the evidence.
There is also no evidence that unicorns and monsters dont exist, but i guess we should believe in them as well, huh, Wiggs? ::) ::)
Again, just because something stands the test of time doesnt mean its real. Gee, these are poor arguments. People also thought the world was flat for a really long time.
You know and I know, I never said anything about unicorns and monsters. You're taking statements I said in the past about GIANTS there are in the bible, in ancient texts and in MUSEUMS and trying to trivialize them.
I'm not trying to prove something is real. It's called FAITH for a reason. Like I said, evolution is full of holes and is not science. Go read the definition of science as I stated and tell me where you observe evolution as it's defined.
You'd think these geniuses that continue with this evolution would be smart enough to disprove a book over 1,500 years old, the best selling book of all time and annual sales of 25 million books. BTW you wanna use numbers then over 80% of the people on the planet believe in God.
-
My proof is in the Bible. It tells you everything you need to know. Who, When, Where, Why, and how...There will a day of judgement friend.
Matthew 24:4-5 KJV And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. (5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Yes, because nothing says 'fact' like the Bible. :-\
-
Yes, because nothing says 'fact' like the Bible. :-\
Then it should be quite easy to disprove then shouldn't it? 1,500 years and counting, best selling book of all time and annual sales of 25 million and yet these so called geniuses can't disprove anything. Don't give me that burden of prove bullshit. If it's so easy, show me?
-
There are a lot of religious books. One shouldn't read just one. Read them all. See if they have any commonality. Also, remember that you're reading (in most cases) something that's been translated multiple times over thousands of years. Is it meant to be taken literally?
I think a lot of evolution is evident..one can readily see it. But that doesn't ultimately rule out a designer.
-
So which one is right Wiggmund, the bible or the Mayans ???
-
So which one is right Wiggmund, the bible or the Mayans ???
The Bible. But if you are insinuating the Mayans said it would all be over, they didn't. They said it was the beginning of a new age. ;)
-
You'd think these geniuses that continue with this evolution would be smart enough to disprove a book over 1,500 years old, the best selling book of all time and annual sales of 25 million books. BTW you wanna use numbers then over 80% of the people on the planet believe in God.
Indeed the bible (by which I assume you mean the Christian versions) has a staggering large circulation but so have the Qur'an, Maos' Quotations, Lolita, The Ginger man, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care and of course the Happy Hooker have sold millions as well
-
Then it should be quite easy to disprove then shouldn't it? 1,500 years and counting, best selling book of all time and annual sales of 25 million and yet these so called geniuses can't disprove anything. Don't give me that burden of prove bullshit. If it's so easy, show me?
Hmm. So, book sales are your benchmark!? Awesome. I'll take science over mytho-poetical nonsense, anyday. Science is open to new ideas and is self-correcting; religious faith requires nothing more than closing your mind. Oh brother.
-
So which one is right Wiggmund, the bible or the Mayans ???
Maybe this guy has the answer...Wiggles, this is for you.
http://m.io9.com/5966689/after-extensive-mathematical-modeling-scientist-declares-earth-is-fucked?utm_source=jalopnik.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation (http://m.io9.com/5966689/after-extensive-mathematical-modeling-scientist-declares-earth-is-fucked?utm_source=jalopnik.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation)
-
Then it should be quite easy to disprove then shouldn't it? 1,500 years and counting, best selling book of all time and annual sales of 25 million and yet these so called geniuses can't disprove anything. Don't give me that burden of prove bullshit. If it's so easy, show me?
Kind of like Fox News being the most widely viewed News Network and all of the information they "report" on is true and accurate.
::)
Wiggs, you are being moron and are really wearing the labels that apply to your kind like some kind of badge of honor. Its demented.
-
Kind of like Fox News being the most widely viewed News Network and all of the information they "report" on is true and accurate.
::)
Wiggs, you are being moron and are really wearing the labels that apply to your kind like some kind of badge of honor. Its demented.
Yes but I can prove Fox News wrong.
-
(http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/393-The-good-thing-about-science-is-that-its-true-whether-or-not-you-believe-in-it-Neil-DeGrasse-Tyson-quotes-science-reality-truth.jpg)
-
(http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/393-The-good-thing-about-science-is-that-its-true-whether-or-not-you-believe-in-it-Neil-DeGrasse-Tyson-quotes-science-reality-truth.jpg)
Good for him. Too bad for you and him, evolution is not science
-
(http://www.rexkang.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scienceliteracy.jpeg)
-
(http://www.rexkang.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scienceliteracy.jpeg)
lol..Using Degrasse Tyson won't bring me "back."
You've seen my list of esteemed gentlemen. past and present. There was a creator whether you like it or not ADAM.
-
lol..Using Degrasse Tyson won't bring me "back."
You've seen my list of esteemed gentlemen. past and present. There was a creator whether you like it or not ADAM.
Your list is full of morons.
-
Your list is full of morons.
You should give religion a try, it would fill that void you that plagues you.
-
You should give religion a try, it would fill that void you that plagues you.
I have no void and surrendering to ignorance is something I will never do.
-
is this the guy that makes all of those movies and sitcoms ? Percy, Perry whatever the fuck his name is ?
(http://www.rexkang.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scienceliteracy.jpeg)
-
I have no void and surrendering to ignorance is something I will never do.
I'm sorry you feel this way. May God have mercy on your soul.
-
is this the guy that makes all of those movies and sitcoms ? Percy, Perry whatever the fuck his name is ?
(http://www.rexkang.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scienceliteracy.jpeg)
No, he's an astro-physicist, and a very un-funny one at that. He wants to make astronomy, and mathematics "cool"...basically he's the "shit" in a field that we only care about if a meteor comes close to hitting us.
-
is this the guy that makes all of those movies and sitcoms ? Percy, Perry whatever the fuck his name is ?
(http://www.rexkang.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/scienceliteracy.jpeg)
LOL. No, wrong negro. DeGrasse Tyson is a famous astrophysicist.
-
He looks like the Black cop from Barney Miller
-
He looks like the Black cop from Barney Miller
true, that is probably his cooler, and funnier twin brother.
-
He looks like Cleveland from Family Guy and that black guy from the Love Boat.
-
No, he's an astro-physicist, and a very un-funny one at that. He wants to make astronomy, and mathematics "cool"...basically he's the "shit" in a field that we only care about if a meteor comes close to hitting us.
Wrong. And he is very funny and entertaining.
-
He looks like Cleveland from Family Guy and that black guy from the Love Boat.
come on man, my dude is a dead ringer ;D
-
come on man, my dude is a dead ringer ;D
;D
-
I love Neil deGrasse Tyson!
-
-
what the fuck is going on in this thread at this moment?
-
what the fuck is going on in this thread at this moment?
Creation scientist vs evolution scientist.
They are as clueless as we are , I hope this helps.
-
Creation scientist vs evolution scientist.
They are as clueless as we are , I hope this helps.
???
-
???
???
-
???
Adam is like the evolutionist Eye of Sauron. If you remotely hint at any inconsistencies he is on to you. Consider yourself watched.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YHPVggXMiOU/SAdMlVjb5kI/AAAAAAAAAZM/lbGs6SyGrJs/s400/eyeofsauronwithmountdoominthebackground.jpg)
-
Creation scientist vs evolution scientist.
They are as clueless as we are , I hope this helps.
I'm not clueless at all. You know where I stand and I'm not moving, for truth is absolute.
-
I'm not clueless at all. You know where I stand and I'm not moving, for truth is absolute.
You are clueless. The only thing i would consult you on is which brand of forty is the cheapest and will loosen me up the most.
-
You are clueless. The only thing i would consult you on is which brand of forty is the cheapest and will loosen me up the most.
ROFLMAO.
Or which Lil Wayne album is the least annoying.
-
gotta salute wiggs for fighting an uphill battle
-
my man wiggs if I can offer a peice of advice. It seems that you are undergoing a conversion of sorts. more power to ya if it improves your life, but i wouldnt 'put it all out there' at the stage where you are, for everyone to criticise you for it.
I personally don't agree with your reading of the bible on this particular issue, but I wish you the best in pursuit of spiritual truth. God bless ya wigglestein ;D
-
my man wiggs if I can offer a peice of advice. It seems that you are undergoing a conversion of sorts. more power to ya if it improves your life, but i wouldnt 'put it all out there' at the stage where you are, for everyone to criticise you for it.
I personally don't agree with your reading of the bible on this particular issue, but I wish you the best in pursuit of spiritual truth. God bless ya wigglestein ;D
wrong its best to freely express yourself having the confidence to do so
sacrificing yourself like the great jesus christ did, gave his opinions and got criticized for it, became a legend
putting yourself out there makes you realize your mistakes, i let wiggs know when hes making a big mistake, next time he just keeps getting smarter for no reason
eventually wiggs will have his own style and method and post style of an arti'ste if he continues on the path
-
gotta salute wiggs for fighting an uphill battle
X2.
-
wrong its best to freely express yourself having the confidence to do so
sacrificing yourself like the great jesus christ did, gave his opinions and got criticized for it, became a legend
putting yourself out there makes you realize your mistakes, i let wiggs know when hes making a big mistake, next time he just keeps getting smarter for no reason
eventually wiggs will have his own style and method and post style of an arti'ste if he continues on the path
well i don't know what you're talking about but it seems foolhardy to me. Faith is a personal issue, and he should work it out in those terms. I don't agree with the notion that one comes to a greater understanding by arguing it out aggressively with other people... because then your ego comes to forefront. Remember Buddha's saying: 'In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves'**
**http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha_2.html#38j77W4p3VBCPQOd.99
(not sure if the quote is 100% accurate)
-
well i don't know what you're talking about but it seems foolhardy to me. Faith is a personal issue, and he should work it out in those terms. I don't agree with the notion that one comes to a greater understanding by arguing it out aggressively with other people... because then your ego comes to forefront. Remember Buddha's saying: 'In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves'**
**http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha_2.html#38j77W4p3VBCPQOd.99
(not sure if the quote is 100% accurate)
Faith is an ignorance issue.
-
wiggs has been melting down at an alarming rate
-
wiggs has been melting down at an alarming rate
Ironically, this has "evolved" into a massive meltdown...
-
well i don't know what you're talking about but it seems foolhardy to me. Faith is a personal issue, and he should work it out in those terms. I don't agree with the notion that one comes to a greater understanding by arguing it out aggressively with other people... because then your ego comes to forefront. Remember Buddha's saying: 'In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves'**
**http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha_2.html#38j77W4p3VBCPQOd.99
(not sure if the quote is 100% accurate)
christ gave his opinions without anger
if wiggs can do the same he is on a path. wiggs isnt that smart but whos to say what his limitations are, hes a likeable guy if he can avoid being likeable and go with more hard truths then he'll be someoboy
-
Jesus walking on water
Talking snakes in the garden of eden
Even made from Adams rib
Noahs ark
Moses parting the red sea
Just read this aloud, and see if you dont laugh to yourself at how ridiculous these stories sound.
-
Most wars are fought over religion yet all talk about peace very confusing.
-
jesus christ didnt want a religion , he was just walking around giving advice making people feel stupid , people getting mad and wanting to kill him, christ gained some fans along the way
-
jesus christ didnt want a religion , he was just walking around giving advice making people feel stupid , people getting mad and wanting to kill him, christ gained some fans along the way
wise post
-
Only difference is the guys on my list the creationist, STARTED MODERN SCIENCE and evolution is based on modern science.
Those who founded science existed centuries before the theory of evolution via natural selection was posited an as explanation for the diversity, complexity, and well-adaptedness of life on earth. It isn't possible to cast them in the same light as contemporary creationists who explicitly reject evolution any more than it is possible to cast them as opponents of special relativity -- neither explanation was available to be evaluated.
Among those who are in a position to evaluate the theory and the evidence on its behalf, 90% and upwards affirm its truth. I don't think it's a good idea to argue from popularity anyway, but if you insist on doing so then realize that you are sealing your own casket.
If you have to write a 500 word reason to prove it's a fact, it's not a fact. Facts speak for themselves.
Actually, if a pretty basic -- and hard to argue against -- piece of philosophical reasoning is correct (the 'principle of sufficient reason'), everything has an explanation. This means that there is some explaining to do for any given fact (nothing magically "speaks for itself"). As a random example, it is a fact that the universe is expanding, and at an increasing rate. Do you mean to tell me this fact doesn't need explaining?
BTW you wanna use numbers then over 80% of the people on the planet believe in God.
Yet if you subsequently ask a million people how they understand the word 'God', you'll get a million and a half answers. There are a huge number of concepts everybody is using the same word to denote. Another way of putting it is that almost everybody is using the same word but with a different meaning. So it's very misleading (outright false, actually) to talk as if everybody who says they believe in 'God' is even thinking about the same thing.
Your biggest problem is you're calling evolution science and it isn't. Why don't you go look up the definition of science then when you comprehend what it means tell me where they have OBSERVED evolution as it is defined.
There are a couple of problems with your reasoning here:
1. The theory of evolution counts as scientific under the standard definitions of 'science' since observations like the arrangement of the fossil record, the similarity in genetic material among organisms, phenotypic similarities and differences between organisms as the theory would predict, and microevolution all count as evidence for the theory. What isn't 'scientific' about collecting observations and organizing them into a cohesive whole under the explanatory banner of a theory? Or do you think we can't determine anything unless we literally see it with our own eyes? That's a pretty severe view with harsh consequences for our ability to know anything about the world. But I'll only bother with examples if you decide to bite the bullet and accept this notion.
2. Just how 'science' should be defined is a contentious issue. So rather than attempt a victory by definitional fiat (which 1. shows would fail anyway), it makes sense to evaluate a variety of definitions and pick one that best describes the phenomenon in question. Until this is done it is silly to argue from the dictionary to facts about the world.
-
What happened to moron Wiggs? ???
-
What happened to moron Wiggs? ???
There no need for name calling Adam. I think six pages in plenty enough. Those who are interested can research further or PM me. You all know where I stand on this issue. You've not successfully answered the questions I've asked or tried to redefine them. Seems to me like you gents have some questions you need to ask yourselves.
-
There no need for name calling Adam. I think six pages in plenty enough. Those who are interested can research further or PM me. You all know where I stand on this issue. You've not successfully answered the questions I've asked or tried to redefine them. Seems to me like you gents have some questions you need to ask yourselves.
Moron is just my default term to anyone acting with ignorance and stupidity. No offense intended whatsoever as you could easily, one day, remedy this. Its a temporal in nature, if you let it be.
-
Moron is just my default term to anyone acting with ignorance and stupidity. No offense intended whatsoever as you could easily, one day, remedy this. Its a temporal in nature, if you let it be.
He's engaged in a tactical withdrawal because he knows his understanding of the issue at hand is extremely superficial and there are people here who will call him on it. It was the most logical move given the circumstances.
-
Wiggs providing pure white noise in this thread.
-
Wiggs providing pure white noise in this thread.
Wiggs is a black Jew so he has to sort through some things before making a statement but a solid poster.
-
Wiggs is the epitome of the vulgar creatures that overrun our world. He should get himself an education instead of being "informed" by what he finds on the Internet. This hapless individual believes all manner of nonsense and defends his rubbish to the bitter end. Instead of being illuminated he is convinced the world as we know it will end in a couple of weeks. Now he suggests that evolution is just a theory with no proof! Would this limited individual comprehend what Darwin wrote? No chance in hell is that a possibility. It is folly to discuss important matters on the Internet and especially on the flotsam infested portal called Getbig. Resident ignoramuses congregate here to get support and validation. They are all the evidence that is needed to confirm what Einstein said:"ignorance is probably the only thing in the universe that is unlimited".
-
Wiggs is the epitome of the vulgar creatures that overrun our world. He should get himself an education instead of being "informed" by what he finds on the Internet. This hapless individual believes all manner of nonsense and defends his rubbish to the bitter end. Instead of being illuminated he is convinced the world as we know it will end in a couple of weeks. Now he suggests that evolution is just a theory with no proof! Would this limited individual comprehend what Darwin wrote? No chance in hell is that a possibility. It is folly to discuss important matters on the Internet and especially on the flotsam infested portal called Getbig. Resident ignoramuses congregate here to get support and validation. They are all the evidence that is needed to confirm what Einstein said:"ignorance is probably the only thing in the universe that is unlimited".
Girls and sons who have not been loved by their fathers seek attention once teens and adults to compensate for what they didnt have originally. Fathers either left them alone, or were distant most of the time and not encouraging them. Some even despised them which would shape their personality and the way they d interact with others for the rest of their life.
They are extremistic in everything they do, always looking exageratly for attention, and have troubles adapting to society's rules, because they also have troubles defining their own identity and respecting authority and hierarchy.
Also boys who got picked on by others during childhood and adolescence -often sons without a father figure- try to compensate by lifting weights, to develop muscles and survive in ther male world. They re insecure because they re girly, childish, feminine having been raised by a single mom. They lift obsessively hoping it will transform them into men, to compensate for their lack of influence from a father figure that was not there. Unfortunaltey they can get as big as they can it doesnt cure their insecurity and who they truly are, how they grew up being raised by a single mom. They re no as manly as other men whatever they do, and they often have a big lack of masculine presence they dont know how to balance, hence often being borderline homosexuals while trying to get their manhood back thru various manly activities (mma, cars, weight lifting etc). They are often the ones that, in order to get respect from other males will go the steroids route to get even "bigger" attemptint to cure their insecurity , but being natural not being "enough", they still feel "too small", insecure, amongst other males. The lack of a father figure also often means they didnt have guidance to continue studies and are often working shitty manual jobs.
-
Those who founded science existed centuries before the theory of evolution via natural selection was posited an as explanation for the diversity, complexity, and well-adaptedness of life on earth. It isn't possible to cast them in the same light as contemporary creationists who explicitly reject evolution any more than it is possible to cast them as opponents of special relativity -- neither explanation was available to be evaluated.
Among those who are in a position to evaluate the theory and the evidence on its behalf, 90% and upwards affirm its truth. I don't think it's a good idea to argue from popularity anyway, but if you insist on doing so then realize that you are sealing your own casket.
Actually, if a pretty basic -- and hard to argue against -- piece of philosophical reasoning is correct (the 'principle of sufficient reason'), everything has an explanation. This means that there is some explaining to do for any given fact (nothing magically "speaks for itself"). As a random example, it is a fact that the universe is expanding, and at an increasing rate. Do you mean to tell me this fact doesn't need explaining?
Yet if you subsequently ask a million people how they understand the word 'God', you'll get a million and a half answers. There are a huge number of concepts everybody is using the same word to denote. Another way of putting it is that almost everybody is using the same word but with a different meaning. So it's very misleading (outright false, actually) to talk as if everybody who says they believe in 'God' is even thinking about the same thing.
There are a couple of problems with your reasoning here:
1. The theory of evolution counts as scientific under the standard definitions of 'science' since observations like the arrangement of the fossil record, the similarity in genetic material among organisms, phenotypic similarities and differences between organisms as the theory would predict, and microevolution all count as evidence for the theory. What isn't 'scientific' about collecting observations and organizing them into a cohesive whole under the explanatory banner of a theory? Or do you think we can't determine anything unless we literally see it with our own eyes? That's a pretty severe view with harsh consequences for our ability to know anything about the world. But I'll only bother with examples if you decide to bite the bullet and accept this notion.
2. Just how 'science' should be defined is a contentious issue. So rather than attempt a victory by definitional fiat (which 1. shows would fail anyway), it makes sense to evaluate a variety of definitions and pick one that best describes the phenomenon in question. Until this is done it is silly to argue from the dictionary to facts about the world.
I was gonna read all this... then potato.
(http://alchemyoftheword.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tumblr_m7z1t73wjo1qzsdz2o1_12801.jpg)
-
I was gonna read all this... then potato.
(http://alchemyoftheword.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tumblr_m7z1t73wjo1qzsdz2o1_12801.jpg)
Hmm, her breasts are rather small, her areolas rather large, and those hip bones are looking rather pointy. Plus, she probably doesn't have a very nice ass. I'm putting a 'BJ Only' stamp on this file.