Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SeattleGriz wrote:ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

So sad.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

So sad.

Just lobbin' that fat, juicy grapefruit out there, eh, SeaGee?

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton, looking for evidence of speciation, concluded in 2001:

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

SeattleGriz wrote:With all our efforts over time, why have we never created a new species? Surely we are smart enough to outwit natural selection and random mutations. Even though this quote is from 2001, it still holds true today. We have NEVER seen any evidence of a new species being created.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton, looking for evidence of speciation, concluded in 2001:

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

SeattleGriz wrote:With all our efforts over time, why have we never created a new species? Surely we are smart enough to outwit natural selection and random mutations. Even though this quote is from 2001, it still holds true today. We have NEVER seen any evidence of a new species being created.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton, looking for evidence of speciation, concluded in 2001:

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

kalm wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:With all our efforts over time, why have we never created a new species? Surely we are smart enough to outwit natural selection and random mutations. Even though this quote is from 2001, it still holds true today. We have NEVER seen any evidence of a new species being created.

I thought WE were a new species.

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:
I thought WE were a new species.

With all the efforts to cause mutations in the lab, our science still can't produce a new species. Hell, we can't even create basic life in the lab.

kalm wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
With all the efforts to cause mutations in the lab, our science still can't produce a new species. Hell, we can't even create basic life in the lab.

Well I'm no scientist, but 120 years ago man couldn't fly, cure polio or small pox, land on the moon, and communicate via satellites either. Have some faith for christ's sake.

grizzaholic wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well I'm no scientist, but 120 years ago man couldn't fly, cure polio or small pox, land on the moon, and communicate via satellites either. Have some faith for christ's sake.

Scientologists might disagree.

kalm wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Scientologists might disagree.

I thought that's what we discussing.

SeattleGriz wrote:ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

So sad.

SeattleGriz wrote:With all our efforts over time, why have we never created a new species? Surely we are smart enough to outwit natural selection and random mutations. Even though this quote is from 2001, it still holds true today. We have NEVER seen any evidence of a new species being created.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton, looking for evidence of speciation, concluded in 2001:

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

JohnStOnge wrote:

ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

Someone may have already typed this, but:

I don't see the concept of intelligent design and the concept of evolution as being mutually exclusive. If there is intelligent design, evolution could be part of that design.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.

JohnStOnge wrote:

ID has proven evolution is for the very less informed.

Someone may have already typed this, but:

I don't see the concept of intelligent design and the concept of evolution as being mutually exclusive. If there is intelligent design, evolution could be part of that design.

youngterrier wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Someone may have already typed this, but:

I don't see the concept of intelligent design and the concept of evolution as being mutually exclusive. If there is intelligent design, evolution could be part of that design.

This. Sadly, science does not postulate into the supernatural and endorse theories that can't be explained or can't possibly be falsified (that's philosophy), so ID can't be incorporated as scientific concept in schools until it's actually proven true. Which it can't be.

JMU DJ wrote:This just in from the Vatican:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 600273.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SeattleGriz wrote:

youngterrier wrote: This. Sadly, science does not postulate into the supernatural and endorse theories that can't be explained or can't possibly be falsified (that's philosophy), so ID can't be incorporated as scientific concept in schools until it's actually proven true. Which it can't be.

The same could be said for darwinian evolution. There is no proof that what is postulated happened. It's a guess. The only empirical data for evolution is the fossil record and that does not help the theory because it is a mess. You should be able to see a gradual change from simple organisms changing to more complex, but as stated, they haven't found that yet.

Was watching the Science channel the other day and some astrobiologist believes that aliens have coded our DNA and that is how we came to be. Funny how people would accept that before believing in God.