Darvin's theory in shools
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Inherit the Wind
tanita-5 — 17 years ago(May 01, 2008 07:57 AM)
I'm doing a presntation on the controversy about teaching Darwin's theory in American school's. Can anyone recomend me any good book's, websides or articles on the subject?
-
Roquefort — 17 years ago(June 13, 2008 12:01 PM)
It has been noted that "The Blind Watchmaker" is not an accurate title. The actions of a blind watchmaker would be intentional. It has been suggested that a better title would have been "The Unconscious Watchmaker".
-
Pooptart19 — 17 years ago(July 02, 2008 10:29 PM)
"The Blind Watchmaker" is a metaphor for evolution. It might seem designed to some people because life is complicated, but evolution explains it pretty well. You know, the whole mountains of evidence and such. Just sayin'.
-
Roquefort — 17 years ago(May 08, 2008 07:34 PM)
A good evolutionist debunker is
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_16.htm -
Roquefort — 17 years ago(May 30, 2008 03:10 PM)
"A good creationism debunker is a brain. "
Aw shucks, we were sure some evolutionist would see some humor at
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_16.htm
For example, we learn:- Concerning the theory that human embryos have "gill slits" -
"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckels Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form."
With human "gill slits" still being taught 93 years later at public expense shows evolution continuing with its own mindless energy.
Anyone who wants to know what pharyngeal arches are can find out at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arches
2)The vestiges argument was one of the few "scientific evidences" the evolutionists were able to present at the 1925 Scopes Trial. *Newman, a zoologist, made this statement on the witness stand for the defense:
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."*Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The Worlds Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268. - One final laugh -
All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggswhile one of them, the Nectophrymoldes occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta, a yolk sac, and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humans or vice-versaor what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos. (Another frog is a marsupial.)
- Concerning the theory that human embryos have "gill slits" -
-
maxskills369 — 17 years ago(June 05, 2008 05:29 PM)
Your website is full of falsehoods my friend. Many organs have gone from being classified as vestigial to being classified as useful, that much is true. I read the paragraph about interior ear muscles still being necessary, and I will believe that on faith, however this does not explain the muscles that can wiggle a person's ears. How do you explain this? It is clearly no longer useful, but it once was when our evolutionary ancestors needed to hear their surrounding and avoid predators. Explain why humans would have that muscle. Here is a link providing information about that specific muscle and another link with information about the evolutionary purposes of the muscle.
http://www.wonderquest.com/ears-wiggle.htm
http://lo.karloba.at/postcomments-tid-2869.htm
Also how do you explain the drastic changes in the flu year after year besides with evolution. There is a real-time example of evolution in action.
Like a monkey ready to be shot into space -
Roquefort — 17 years ago(June 13, 2008 11:56 AM)
Based on my own experience, ear muscles are used subconsciously in situations like being outdoors on a dark night and hearing sounds of a possible threat. This alert response would be useful for people alone in the wild, as our first two ancestors were.
My search on virus evolution tells us there are two mechanisms:
Gene reassortment
There is an evolutionary advantage in having a segmented genome. Different strains of a virus with a segmented genome, from a pig or a bird or a human for example, such as Influenza virus, can shuffle and combine with other genes producing progeny viruses or (offspring) that have unique characteristics. This is called reassortment or viral sex.[38] This is one reason why Influenza virus constantly changes.
Genetic recombination
Genetic recombination is the process by which a strand of DNA is broken and then joined to the end of a different DNA molecule. This can occur when viruses infect cells simultaneously and studies of viral evolution have shown that recombination has been rampant in the species studied.[40] Recombination is common to both RNA and DNA viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
Based on this description viruses are descended from viruses and produce other viruses. This cannot explain how viruses came into existence in the first place
or how viruses will evolve into anything except viruses.
The best explanation is that viruses were created as part of the curse of Genesis 3:19. This would be an example of why human remedies for the curse are only temporary. -
Beefstew2011 — 17 years ago(July 10, 2008 01:43 PM)
Wrong. You would make a terrible scientist. There are several possibilities outlining the origin of viruses. The reason it is so difficult to detect the common descent and origin of viruses is because it evolves (yes, evolves) so fast and is so easily demolished once dead that the oldest examples we can deal with are a few decades old.
However, we can sequence all or part of the genome of all known varieties of viruses, including the largest and smallest types. With the help of these genomes, divergence patterns can easily be drawn to determine the common ancestry and ultimate origin of viruses. The divertence of Geminiviruses have an origin that is traceable by phylogenetics to approximately 200 Mya. This is supported by geographical diversity, and genetic divergence of vectors and of plant hosts.
The same goes for Potyviruses and Bymoviruses, who spontaneously form new genome components. All cladistics in comparitive genetics and phylogenetics point to an origin with replicase associated functions of viruses with RNA genomes. DNA possesing viruses share a common origin of the reverse transcription function. This says that the early viral evolution was modular, with a number of successful core modules, such as that of the retrovirus pol gene, and picornavirus-like protease-Vpg-polymerase module appearing in several highly varying viruses.
What am I saying here? That the evolution of viruses is not DNA based, it is modularly based. This is why certain animal viruses such as picornaviruses and alphaviruses have relatives among plant viruses that don't share the same morphology, genome components, genome organisation, or number of genes. This explains why we see picornoviruses, which contain ssRNA and only a single component, have the same module as comoviruses.
In a way, viruses can be defined as organisms which can only undergo a life cycle inside the cells of a host organism using at the very least the metabolic enzymes and pathways and ribosomes of that host to produce virion components which get assembled into infectious particles.
One possibility is that endigenous retroviral DNA was able to detach itself from single cell prokaryotes that were able to sustain an independent life cycle within the cell. (Guess what! This has been observed in the lab, and in nature, countless times.) But it does not at this stage count as a virus. Eventually it became subject to natural selection because it was so independent, and thus it would be favored if the properties of the virus could lead it to be more competitive. This leads to multicellular transport, and more rapid reproduction. Viruses are the ultimate product of evolution, they only live to increase their reproductive function, therefore natural selection only selects for such a thing.
You fail at science. -
bjshipley1 — 17 years ago(September 08, 2008 08:08 AM)
This alert response would be useful for people alone in the wild, as our first two ancestors were.
That's funny, it seems to me that Adam and Eve didn't really have a need for an "alert response" seeing as how they had GOD there, and everything. I don't recall the "hiding from the predators" segment in Genesis.
The most dangerous thing in the world is a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass. -
Rangely8723 — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 01:58 AM)
Based on this description viruses are descended from viruses and produce other viruses. This cannot explain how viruses came into existence in the first place
The mechanisms of evolution cause a diversity of life, they have nothing to do with the origin of life
or how viruses will evolve into anything except viruses
Why should viruses evolve into something different? The suggestion that an organism has to evolve into 'something else' or into a 'more complex organism' is a strawman argument.
Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis -
Shuggy — 17 years ago(January 06, 2009 05:26 PM)
- One final laugh -
All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggswhile one of them, the Nectophrymoldes
That's
Nectophrynoides
. Looks like your creationist OCR isn't working very well.
occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta,
It requires no such things.
a yolk sac,
All frogs, and indeed all animals born from eggs, have yolksacs
and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humans
Get a clue! Humans are not the only animals born alive.
or vice-versaor what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos.
Yes, to expel an egg that hatches outside the body, or to retain it in the body until after it hatches is a relatively minor modification - much more minor than you seem to imagine. Just a matter of timing.
(Another frog is a marsupial.)
Yes, you see them hopping all over the place. Duh. The pouches of frogs that have them are very different from the pouches of marsupial mammals. To evolve a pouch is a very small matter, just a change in the configuration of the skin.
You really should learn some elementary biology so as not to make such a fool of yourself.
Keanu should play Gort
and more at
www.cafepress.com/wero/4555996
- One final laugh -
-
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 14, 2009 02:17 PM)
There are sites and youtube videos that promote the idea that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. However, one evolutionist article points out that the genes were already human at the time of this fusion.
"At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project