Kansas votes to keep its children ignorant...

[LadyDay]

Well, my kids learned about almost EVERY religion last year (7th grade) in social studies. There was no equal time for a Christian God. So, where does your theory that it's a public school fall now? It's okay to learn about all God's EXCEPT the one that's practiced the most in this country?

Edit: and the theory of evolution is ONLY a theory, so how can you claim it's the right theory and all others shouldn't be taught alongside it?

FYI: Contrary to what is peddled by the rightwing, a theory in science is a conclusion based on the observation of provable facts.

OTOH, intelligent design is a smoke screen and a political bone thrown at the religious right. In addition, intelligent design gives new meaning to the phrase "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****".

Evolution can be proven based on facts. Intelligent design can only be proven if the facts are extrapolated from some rightwingers ***.

Btw, any state that elects Roberts and Brownback deserves exactly what they get.

 

[ford family]

Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

Can't manage a donkey into a bear but what about a land mammal into a dolphin? It has always fascinated me that a dolphin's flipper, which you would think only needed a very simple bone structure, if any, actually has a very similar structure to our hand and arm including five fingers;
http://dolphins.org/Learn/lmm-phys.htm
Shows how these graceful sea creatures evolved from land mammals.
Is that macro enough?

ford family

 

[FencerMcNally]

Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

There are fossils for the in-between species. Forgive me for not having a link to show it to you, but the development of Men, Chimpanzees, and Gorillas from a common forebear is supported by fossil evidence. The record is definitely not complete, but there are fossils of in-between species that show how we came out of the trees, began walking up-right, developed a larger brain cavity in the skull, etc. Meanwhile there are comparable fossils for how the Chimpanzee and the Gorilla evolved simultaneously.

There are extremely few examples of one type of animal evolving into another. Your example of donkeys and bears would require the donkey having very little access to its herbivorous diet leading it to become gradually more carnivorous. Likely the donkey species would just die out before making such a huge leap to becoming an omnivore.

The dolphin example previously stated is a good one. The more usual (and controversial example) is that many dinosaurs evolved into birds. There are lots of very thick hardcover books covering that topic, if you're interested.

Many Creationists (specifically the Southern Baptist pastor's son who I went to high school with) ask that if we all evolved from the apes then why are there still apes? Because the apes we have now are not the same apes that we evolved from, they are our cousins rather than our grandparents. We took one path, they took another.

 

[Free4Life11]

And you conceal it so well.

I have no need to conceal the fact that I am bad at science. Never liked it and never did that well in it. What's wrong with that?

 

[DVCLiz]

The first example that comes to mind is the increase in natural disasters. While I certainly believe that there is a marked cyclical pattern to natural disasters, the intensity/frequency has increased overall.

Now, Elisabeth, haven't we all watched enough of The Weather Channel this year to know that this is just not true?? Even Bill Nye the Science Guy refuted this claim on Larry King Live. There's absolutely no evidence to support this notion - it's simply untrue. We are living in an age when natural disasters are covered 24/7 by a media needing to fill up the airwaves. But there's no scientific evidence that there are any more natural disasters now than there ever have been. Just because we have a record-breaking hurricane year doesn't mean that we won't have a period of time in the future that has far fewer storms.

 

[N.Bailey]

There are fossils for the in-between species. Forgive me for not having a link to show it to you, but the development of Men, Chimpanzees, and Gorillas from a common forebear is supported by fossil evidence. The record is definitely not complete, but there are fossils of in-between species that show how we came out of the trees, began walking up-right, developed a larger brain cavity in the skull, etc. Meanwhile there are comparable fossils for how the Chimpanzee and the Gorilla evolved simultaneously.

There are extremely few examples of one type of animal evolving into another. Your example of donkeys and bears would require the donkey having very little access to its herbivorous diet leading it to become gradually more carnivorous. Likely the donkey species would just die out before making such a huge leap to becoming an omnivore.

The dolphin example previously stated is a good one. The more usual (and controversial example) is that many dinosaurs evolved into birds. There are lots of very thick hardcover books covering that topic, if you're interested.

Many Creationists (specifically the Southern Baptist pastor's son who I went to high school with) ask that if we all evolved from the apes then why are there still apes? Because the apes we have now are not the same apes that we evolved from, they are our cousins rather than our grandparents. We took one path, they took another.

Let's just suffice it to say that I've opened a browser for every person who quoted me so that I could respond after I'd been thru the entire thread. I see that the discussion has taken a much better course thanks to ead, so I'm going to let it continue on that path and combine all my thoughts in a single post.

I did especially enjoy the one response where someone stated they don't reply to idiotic posts though. That was the KEEPER for sure, without a shred to prove my post wrong though! WTG Liz!!!

About equating the donkey to a bear, well that was never meant to be taken literally, but I see it was. I was talking more in reference to cross breeding among species. It didn't necessarily have to be those two particular animals.

I'll also suffice it to say that there is evidence that we are now evolving, but I want the evidence that supports that we all stemmed from a single celled living organism to become what we are today. Where we evolved from bacteria to trees and plants, to marine life, to rodents, cats, dogs, ape, man. etc..... I understand that it would have taken a long time for this to transpire, but why not an example at least from today? I seen a lot of people (especially Liz, who likes to refer to people as ignorant) say that there is evidence of fossils of the in between species, but guess what? When that question was posed to the scientific community, guess what their response was? Let me get the exact quote, because they say it so much better than I ever could:

Charles Darwin originally believed that evolution was a gradual phenomenon. In fact, he wrote that if transitional fossils were not found, that his conclusion about a slowly advancing evolution would be false. Stephen Gould has proposed the concept of punctuated equilibrium: the idea that species were relatively fixed over long periods of time; transition from one species to another happened relatively quickly. Thus, transitional fossils would be extremely rare. He believes that speciation generally occurs rapidly in small, isolated populations of a species. Thus, surviving transitional fossils would be expected to be almost non-existent.

So, did it occur quickly, or slowly? It seems they wish to contradict their own belief system, IMO anyway.

FencerMcNally,
I only quoted your post because you still seem to think the scientific community believes we came from ape. This is no longer true and hasn't been for decades.

Oh, and for those that what to equate the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity and give it as much weight, well, I don't for one second believe that all scientific theory is equal to the next. If you all do, I see a major problem with your way of thinking.

One other thing. Jenny, I really appreciate all of your responses. You've proven time and time again that you're able to express your opinion without name calling and hostility and it's very much appreciated. I'd also I agree that science does not set out to look for facts to back up their theory. They look for things that disprove it actually. That's the problem I have with evolution however, there is NO ONE who is ever going to be able to disprove it. It's impossible to recreate situations as they were that long ago. Just because we do evolve today, does not mean that everything came into existence from a single celled organism (bacteria). Just for the record, as I went thru catechism class at around 17-18, Father XXXXX (won't say his name here) stated that isn't it easier to just believe that God created it all? I guess he didn't buy into the official position of the Catholic Church. Frankly, I wasn't aware that it was their official belief, so I learned something!

and Dotty, when the government tells me they don't need my tax dollars for the education system, then I'll give up my rights to voice my opinion on what I feel should be taught in the public school. They could also send my tax dollars (trust me, I pay plenty) to a Christian school and I'll shut my mouth too. YOUR tax dollars do not fund my church, so you have NO say! When that changes, you let me know.

 

[N.Bailey]

Now, Elisabeth, haven't we all watched enough of The Weather Channel this year to know that this is just not true?? Even Bill Nye the Science Guy refuted this claim on Larry King Live. There's absolutely no evidence to support this notion - it's simply untrue. We are living in an age when natural disasters are covered 24/7 by a media needing to fill up the airwaves. But there's no scientific evidence that there are any more natural disasters now than there ever have been. Just because we have a record-breaking hurricane year doesn't mean that we won't have a period of time in the future that has far fewer storms.

Oh no? Here is some information I gathered awhile ago and posted on the global warming thread. What do you call it?

Here is a bit of research I did the other day and posted this on another forum. It fits perfectly here as well, IMO. This took me so long because I had to go through every year individually, so while I tried to be as accurate as possible, leave a margin for error because I didn't recheck my work. I'd also point out that if a year didn't have 11 or more storms, or had no cat 4's or higher, they're not included here. It doesn't mean they had no storms of any kind that year. Just not really frequent ones or any that hit Cat 4 level.

The last thing that needs to be mentioned is, these wind speeds are in knots and not MPH. I also don't know what they used to determine wind speeds of storms of the past either. I know in the 1900 Galveston hurricane, they measured the speeds at 120 MPH at the time, but history has shown (from damages) that the winds had to be higher than that.

1 knot = 1.15 MPH

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/

1853 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1856 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)


1866 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


*1870 saw 11 storms, NONE over a 3
*1878 saw 12 storm, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


*1880 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 130 & 120)
1882 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1886 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
*1887 saw 19 storms, NONE over a 3


*1893 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1894 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1898 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1899 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)


1900 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1901 saw 12 storms, NONE over a cat 2 and there was only 1 cat 2 that year
*1906 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)


1910 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1912 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1915 - 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 115)
*1916 saw 14 storms, NONE over a 3
1919 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) this was 1 of 3 storms the entire year


1921 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1922 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1924 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1926 saw 11 storms, 4 cat 4's (winds were, 120, 120, 130, 115)
1928 - We see our 1st Cat 5 (winds 140)
1929 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) 1 of 3 storms for the entire year


1930 - 1 cat 4, (winds 130) 2 storms total this year
*1932 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1933 saw 21 storms, 2 were cat 4's (winds 120 & 130)
*1934 saw 11 storms, NONE greater than a 2
1935 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1936 saw 16 storms, None hit over a cat 3
1938 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1939 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)


1943 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1944 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1945 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
1946 - 1 cat 4 (winds 114)
1947 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1949 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 115 & 130)


*1950 saw 13 storms 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120) and 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
1951 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1952 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
*1953 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
*1954 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1955 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
1956 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1957 - 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 135)
1958 - 2 cat 4''s (winds 115 & 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1959 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


1960 - 2 cat 5's (winds 140 & 140)
*1961 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (120 & 125) & 2 cat 5's (winds 150 & 140)
1963 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1964 saw 12 storms, 4 cat 4's (135, 115, 125, 130)
1965 - 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
*1966 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1967 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1969 saw 18 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165) No other storm was over a cat 3


*1971 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1974 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1975 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1977 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
*1978 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (115 & 120)
1979 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)



*1980 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165)
*1981 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1982 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1984 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1985 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1988 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
*1989 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)


*1990 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 3 all the others were 2 or below
1991 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1992 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
*1995 saw 19 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 120, 120, 130)
*1996 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 120)
*1998 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135) & 1 cat 5 (winds 155)
*1999 saw 12 storms, 5 cat 4's (winds 125, 120, 135, 130, 135)


*2000 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
*2001 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125, 120)
*2002 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds125)
*2003 saw 16 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)
*2004 saw 15 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 125, 125, 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)


* All these years had 11 or more storms that particular year

IMO, I can't say that storms are getting stronger, but every year since '95 we've had many more frequent storm. I'm not sure global warming is the cause, but something is sure odd. We're also at 17 so far for '05 and I think they'd say we had 2 cat 5's this year. I don't necessarily think this means they were 5's at landfall.

 

[gigglesnort]

N.Bailey,

The official position of the Catholic Church is that God created it all. But not in 7 days. They believe in evolution, with God making it all possible.

Some of your posts sound a litte hostile too, so don't be too quick to make judgements.

 

[N.Bailey]

N.Bailey,

The official position of the Catholic Church is that God created it all. But not in 7 days. They believe in evolution, with God making it all possible.

Some of your posts sound a litte hostile too, so don't be too quick to make judgements.

Thanks for the information on the Catholic Church. I was young when I went thru catechism, so I forget a lot of what I learned, and I never learned everything by any stretch. I never joined the church though.

My posts did not become hostile until I was called, ignorant, idiotic, and told that I should pay to send my children to private school.

 

[DVCLiz]

I seen a lot of people (especially Liz, who likes to refer to people as ignorant) say that there is evidence of fossils of the in between species, but guess what? When that question was posed to the scientific community, guess what their response was?

Oh, and for those that what to equate the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity and give it as much weight, well, I don't for one second believe that all scientific theory is equal to the next. If you all do, I see a major problem with your way of thinking.

I never made any reference to fossils in any of my posts.

Scientific theory is scientific theory - the theories of evolution and gravity are both based on the principles of scientific theory. To believe one but not the other seems odd to me, but to each his own.

 

[N.Bailey]

I never made any reference to fossils in any of my posts.

Scientific theory is scientific theory - the theories of evolution and gravity are both based on the principles of scientific theory. To believe one but not the other seems odd to me, but to each his own.

I know you didn't make any reference to fossils. Let me get your exact quote where you didn't engage it. It was in reference to my post talking about the transitional fossils.

Oh, I knew I should have stayed out of this....

I don't even understand some of your rambling thought process, but I did pick up that you think the evolutionary process had donkeys turning into bears. At least I think that's what I understand. And I'm not sure where you ever got the idea that evolution meant one fully formed species turning into another. Hey, presto, today I'm a bear - tomorrow I might be a donkey????
Sorry, I won't engage in this kind of idiocy....

You wouldn't engage the idiocy of the post, but the scientific community didn't see it as idiotic at all. Matter of fact, they had to find some other explanation when Darwin's theory didn't pan out.

The fact that you see all scientific theory as equal tells me plenty.

You're the one tossing derogatory adjectives around, but perhaps it's you who is ending up with mud on their face? I don't like the name calling at all, but you seem to thrive on it.

EDIT: oh and I would definitely say that one fully formed species turned into another. It's the whole theory of evolution!! HELLO? Everything living having stemmed from ONE single celled living organism; a bacteria.

 

[DVCLiz]

Oh no? Here is some information I gathered awhile ago and posted on the global warming thread. What do you call it?

Here is a bit of research I did the other day and posted this on another forum. It fits perfectly here as well, IMO. This took me so long because I had to go through every year individually, so while I tried to be as accurate as possible, leave a margin for error because I didn't recheck my work. I'd also point out that if a year didn't have 11 or more storms, or had no cat 4's or higher, they're not included here. It doesn't mean they had no storms of any kind that year. Just not really frequent ones or any that hit Cat 4 level.

The last thing that needs to be mentioned is, these wind speeds are in knots and not MPH. I also don't know what they used to determine wind speeds of storms of the past either. I know in the 1900 Galveston hurricane, they measured the speeds at 120 MPH at the time, but history has shown (from damages) that the winds had to be higher than that.

1 knot = 1.15 MPH

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/

1853 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1856 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)


1866 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


*1870 saw 11 storms, NONE over a 3
*1878 saw 12 storm, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


*1880 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 130 & 120)
1882 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1886 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
*1887 saw 19 storms, NONE over a 3


*1893 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1894 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1898 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1899 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)


1900 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1901 saw 12 storms, NONE over a cat 2 and there was only 1 cat 2 that year
*1906 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)


1910 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1912 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1915 - 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 115)
*1916 saw 14 storms, NONE over a 3
1919 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) this was 1 of 3 storms the entire year


1921 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1922 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1924 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1926 saw 11 storms, 4 cat 4's (winds were, 120, 120, 130, 115)
1928 - We see our 1st Cat 5 (winds 140)
1929 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) 1 of 3 storms for the entire year


1930 - 1 cat 4, (winds 130) 2 storms total this year
*1932 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1933 saw 21 storms, 2 were cat 4's (winds 120 & 130)
*1934 saw 11 storms, NONE greater than a 2
1935 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1936 saw 16 storms, None hit over a cat 3
1938 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1939 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)


1943 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1944 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1945 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
1946 - 1 cat 4 (winds 114)
1947 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1949 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 115 & 130)


*1950 saw 13 storms 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120) and 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
1951 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1952 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
*1953 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
*1954 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
*1955 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
1956 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1957 - 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 135)
1958 - 2 cat 4''s (winds 115 & 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1959 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)


1960 - 2 cat 5's (winds 140 & 140)
*1961 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (120 & 125) & 2 cat 5's (winds 150 & 140)
1963 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1964 saw 12 storms, 4 cat 4's (135, 115, 125, 130)
1965 - 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
*1966 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1967 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1969 saw 18 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165) No other storm was over a cat 3


*1971 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
*1974 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1975 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1977 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
*1978 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (115 & 120)
1979 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)



*1980 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165)
*1981 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1982 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1984 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
*1985 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
*1988 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
*1989 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)


*1990 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 3 all the others were 2 or below
1991 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1992 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
*1995 saw 19 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 120, 120, 130)
*1996 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 120)
*1998 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135) & 1 cat 5 (winds 155)
*1999 saw 12 storms, 5 cat 4's (winds 125, 120, 135, 130, 135)


*2000 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
*2001 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125, 120)
*2002 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds125)
*2003 saw 16 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)
*2004 saw 15 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 125, 125, 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)


* All these years had 11 or more storms that particular year

IMO, I can't say that storms are getting stronger, but every year since '95 we've had many more frequent storm. I'm not sure global warming is the cause, but something is sure odd. We're also at 17 so far for '05 and I think they'd say we had 2 cat 5's this year. I don't necessarily think this means they were 5's at landfall.

Yes, but...

This information covers only a period of about 150 years or so - just a blip on the screen of recorded time. There's no evidence to suggest that storms had their baselines established in 1856 to coincide with the ability of mankind to measure and record them. This cycle could very well have been duplicated hundreds of times over recorded history, with a 200 year cycle or even more the norm. So storms of this nature could easily have been in a pattern of increasing for a few hundred years, then decreasing again for a few hundred more. We don't know where we are in the current cycle because we don't have any data before 1856. I just don't agree that any of our natural disasters are any more frequent than they ever have been, unless you count things like floods that increae due to manmade changes such as clear-cutting forests that allow for erosion.

 

[N.Bailey]

Yes, but...

This information covers only a period of about 150 years or so - just a blip on the screen of recorded time. There's no evidence to suggest that storms had their baselines established in 1856 to coincide with the ability of mankind to measure and record them. This cycle could very well have been duplicated hundreds of times over recorded history, with a 200 year cycle or even more the norm. So storms of this nature could easily have been in a pattern of increasing for a few hundred years, then decreasing again for a few hundred more. We don't know where we are in the current cycle because we don't have any data before 1856. I just don't agree that any of our natural disasters are any more frequent than they ever have been, unless you count things like floods that increae due to manmade changes such as clear-cutting forests that allow for erosion.

While what you say MAY be true, there is no records for us to go by. What do YOU suggest we do? Let me take a stab at it? GUESS? I don't understand your thought process at all!

EDIT: I do think the records we do have speak for itself. We can't turn this isn't a guessing game. Where is that shaking head icon when you need it?

 

[FencerMcNally]

About equating the donkey to a bear, well that was never meant to be taken literally, but I see it was. I was talking more in reference to cross breeding among species. It didn't necessarily have to be those two particular animals.

I'll also suffice it to say that there is evidence that we are now evolving, but I want the evidence that supports that we all stemmed from a single celled living organism to become what we are today. Where we evolved from bacteria to trees and plants, to marine life, to rodents, cats, dogs, ape, man. etc..... I understand that it would have taken a long time for this to transpire, but why not an example at least from today? I seen a lot of people (especially Liz, who likes to refer to people as ignorant) say that there is evidence of fossils of the in between species, but guess what? When that question was posed to the scientific community, guess what their response was? Let me get the exact quote, because they say it so much better than I ever could:

So, did it occur quickly, or slowly? It seems they wish to contradict their own belief system, IMO anyway.

FencerMcNally,
I only quoted your post because you still seem to think the scientific community believes we came from ape. This is no longer true and hasn't been for decades.

I was not so much taking the donkey bear thing literally as using the scenario as an example of how evolution operates. The enivronmental variables would have to be such-and-such to change x to y. Crossbreeding between two very different species almost never works. You get crossbreeding between lions and tigers to get ligers (which are very odd looking creatures). There is also crossbreeding between horses and donkeys to form mules. And, between horses and zebra (don't remember what the hybrid is called). Crossbreeding, though, is its own subject. The kind of evolution we are talking about is mutation and adaptability within a species.

Evidence that we are now evolving...For human beings you can look at hair color, and skin tone vs. geographical regions. Skin pigmentation is a biological defense mechanism against the sun's rays, which is why skin tone is darker the closer you get to the equator. Same goes for hair. These changes have occurred over the past few tens of thousands of years as humanity has moved away from the equator. These are also evolutioniary changes within a single species.

Outside of human beings all you have to do is look at the bacteria and viruses that we thought we had taken care of with anti-biotics and anti-viral medications. Every year they seem to mutate in some way so that whatever medication that was good last year is no good this year. Doctors and patients overuse medications so the bugs get stronger and we need new medications next year.

As for the differing opinions among scientists. Have they nailed everything down yet? No. But they agree on the fundamentals. Is there a consensus on Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory? No, but they agree on the fundamentals. Everybody knows what works where and under what circumstances. It's the holy grail of scientists in every field to find one single unifying theory to explain everything. It's kind of difficult.

As for the apes. I think you misunderstood my post. I said that humans evolved simultaneously WITH apes FROM a common ancestor. We share over 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. The anecdote about my high school friend was about how many creationists think that scientists say we come from apes. I myself did not say that scientists think we come from apes.

 

[DVCLiz]

I know you didn't make any reference to fossils. Let me get your exact quote where you didn't engage it. It was in reference to my post talking about the transitional fossils.



You wouldn't engage the idiocy of the post, but the scientific community didn't see it as idiotic at all. Matter of fact, they had to find some other explanation when Darwin's theory didn't pan out.

The fact that you see all scientific theory as equal tells me plenty.

You're the one tossing derogatory adjectives around, but perhaps it's you who is ending up with mud on their face? I don't like the name calling at all, but you seem to thrive on it.

EDIT: oh and I would definitely say that one fully formed species turned into another. It's the whole theory of evolution!! HELLO? Everything living having stemmed from ONE single celled living organism; a bacteria.

Sorry, my face is still pretty clean!!!!

My reference to the idiocy of your post had to do with the comment about turning a donkey into a bear. I do think it's idiotic that someone would confuse that kind of transition with the theory of evolution. In a later post, you indicated that you hadn't meant that to be taken literally. So, of course, I don't think it's idiotic to use embellishment of that sort to make your point. I do think, however, it wasn't clear that you were being a little fanciful.

I don't know how to make you understand the whole "theory" idea, and as you've taken offense at my calling your interpretation ignorant, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do see scientific theories such as evolution, realtivity and gravity as having equal weight. If you don't, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that as well.

 

[N.Bailey]

I was not so much taking the donkey bear thing literally as using the scenario as an example of how evolution operates. The enivronmental variables would have to be such-and-such to change x to y. Crossbreeding between two very different species almost never works. You get crossbreeding between lions and tigers to get ligers (which are very odd looking creatures). There is also crossbreeding between horses and donkeys to form mules. And, between horses and zebra (don't remember what the hybrid is called). Crossbreeding, though, is its own subject. The kind of evolution we are talking about is mutation and adaptability within a species.

Evidence that we are now evolving...For human beings you can look at hair color, and skin tone vs. geographical regions. Skin pigmentation is a biological defense mechanism against the sun's rays, which is why skin tone is darker the closer you get to the equator. Same goes for hair. These changes have occurred over the past few tens of thousands of years as humanity has moved away from the equator. These are also evolutioniary changes within a single species.

Outside of human beings all you have to do is look at the bacteria and viruses that we thought we had taken care of with anti-biotics and anti-viral medications. Every year they seem to mutate in some way so that whatever medication that was good last year is no good this year. Doctors and patients overuse medications so the bugs get stronger and we need new medications next year.

As for the differing opinions among scientists. Have they nailed everything down yet? No. But they agree on the fundamentals. Is there a consensus on Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory? No, but they agree on the fundamentals. Everybody knows what works where and under what circumstances. It's the holy grail of scientists in every field to find one single unifying theory to explain everything. It's kind of difficult.

As for the apes. I think you misunderstood my post. I said that humans evolved simultaneously WITH apes FROM a common ancestor. We share over 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. The anecdote about my high school friend was about how many creationists think that scientists say we come from apes. I myself did not say that scientists think we come from apes.

I appreciate your post. I can see you have put a lot of thought into it. IMO, all they've proved is that we are evolving. I want the proof that we all stem from a single celled living organism. There simply is no proof of that. I don't like how the word "evolution" is used to describe the we do evolve and at the same time, it means we all evolved from this one organism. It's possible to believe in the former (for me anyway) and not the latter. So, when one says evolution is fact, the evolving process is, but it still doesn't make the whole process fact and I still argue that it's not possible to prove it's false and it's not possible to prove that it's true either (even though I do know the scientific community doesn't set out to do this).

I gotta get. I'm getting the evil eye that everyone is hungry! LOL I'll check back later though.

 

[FencerMcNally]

I appreciate your post. I can see you have put a lot of thought into it. IMO, all they've proved is that we are evolving. I want the proof that we all stem from a single celled living organism. There simply is no proof of that. I don't like how the word "evolution" is used to describe the we do evolve and at the same time, it means we all evolved from this one organism. It's possible to believe in the former (for me anyway) and not the latter. So, when one says evolution is fact, the evolving process is, but it still doesn't make the whole process fact and I still argue that it's not possible to prove it's false and it's not possible to prove that it's true either (even though I do know the scientific community doesn't set out to do this).

I gotta get. I'm getting the evil eye that everyone is hungry! LOL I'll check back later though.

Ah, okay. If I am understanding you correctly then you believe that we are currently evolving (when I say we I mean all life) and we were evolving in the "recent" (whatever time period you want to put on it) past, but we weren't necessarily evolving in the distant past (presumably when God put us all here).

In this case, I cannot convince you irrefutably and scientifically that we all came from the same single-cell organism. We don't have a fossil for every single living thing there has ever been on the planet, which is what we would need to show step-by-step the evolutionary process from amoeba to human.

Let me try a rhetorical approach (using what I think are your own postulates):

1) I believe in a divine, self-aware consciousness (God).
2) I believe that all life stems from this single divine source.
3) I believe that the scientific mechanism known as "evolution" does operate in the present and the "recent" past, but not necessarily in the "distant" past
4) The scientific mechanism known as "evolution" says that all life stems from a single mundane source (some sort of single-celled organism)
5) By analogy then we have a single divine source vs. a single mundane source, allowing for the basic mechanism of evolution (I mean only mutation and adaptability, I am not referring to the origins of life)
6) Couldn't the divine source have caused there to be a single-celled organism that would thenceforth evolve into all of the varied forms of life in the universe?

 

[ead79]

Sorry—I had to actually do some work at work.

Laura, in response to your statement, I actually feel the way you do. You are 100% correct that my point of view is that of a non-scientist. Just as you said, I also don’t feel that I have enough advanced knowledge of physics to debate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If I am truly wrong in my interpretation, then I am open to changing my views on that law. That doesn’t mean I will accept macroevolution, but I do continue to evaluate my beliefs and understanding of science on an ongoing basis. I just think that some things are open to interpretation and that interpretation differs according to the author’s beliefs.

I also agree that the fossil record doesn’t provide conclusive data about “transitional” species. Essentially, many of the “missing links” are later found to be either hoaxes or misunderstandings or guesses based on available info. Obviously, I completely understand that those who believe in evolution do find the information compelling.

 

[DisneyDotty]

and Dotty, when the government tells me they don't need my tax dollars for the education system, then I'll give up my rights to voice my opinion on what I feel should be taught in the public school. They could also send my tax dollars (trust me, I pay plenty) to a Christian school and I'll shut my mouth too. YOUR tax dollars do not fund my church, so you have NO say! When that changes, you let me know.

Hi Nance! Just an FYI, tax dollars do fund churches/church programs all over the country--faith based intiative/social services.
And I'm hoping you don't think I told you to send your children to a private school.
You are certainly welcome to voice an opinion re: your school's curriculum. I apologize if you got the feeling that I told you otherwise.

 

[BelleMcNally]

Sorry—I had to actually do some work at work.

Don't you hate it when that happens?!


I can well understand why evidence for what I would call biological evolutionary adaptation (most of the transitions we do have fossils for, observational studies of differential survival, etc.) is not an immediately compelling argument for the primary evolution from single-celled organisms.

(Elisabeth, this is not all driected at you, I only quoted you because it was a cute comment and I know exactly how you feel!)

Only genetic changes are considered to be evolutionary, so the real evidence for evolutionary descent from these simple organisms is to be found at the genetic level. Genes are the portions of DNA that code for the way an organism is built--with every generation (even with every individual offspring) the genes switch around slightly (sometimes because of preferential descent, sometimes because of slight mistakes in DNA translation) and genetic variations that account for differences in organisms are produced. Over a long period of time, this process produces organisms which are so dissimilar as to be classified as a different species. There are some instances where rapid mutation appears to have aided in evolution (most of this research centers around the "great leap forawrd" of the genus **** involving brain size), and this issue is hotly debated, with great minds on all sides of the argument. If you want to know more about this, you should check out the writing of Jared Diamond.

What is the genetic evidence? As has already been mentioned, we share a surprising amount of our DNA with chimpanzees--but that really doesn't give you a picture of the earliest evolution.

How about this? We still share more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

The truth is that even if we had fossil evidence for every transition along the way, as has been said before, you cannot prove evolution. It is the nature of a scientific theory that it can never be proven correct. Germ theory, Atomic theory (and I'm assuming we all believe in atoms), all theories (in the scientific and not colloquial sense) can't be proven correct, but stand until disproven. That's just the way it works.

My stance (and I really don't want to belittle anyone's Creed in any way--you all seem like smart, kind people whose beliefs inform their lives in beautiful ways) is that it has been federally ruled that church and state should remain seperate. Public schools are an institution of the "state"; teaching Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in a Science Classroom, equates a religious belief with a scientific theory.

There are many Scientific Hypotheses (that have nothing to do with evolution or creation at all) that are not part of standard school ciricula yet simply because they have not undergone the rigors necessary to gain approval by the scientific community at large. Once research supporting the claims of intelligent design has been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and findings in support of the Intelligent Design Theory have been published in a recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal, it might belong in public school classrooms.