{OT} : Demolishing the Theory of Evolution

Seems like a guy on CSpan2 Book TV is a worthy match to a planetful of real scientists...

Michael Behe does what he does best, he picks strawman arguments and wins them. Duh.

His "irreducible complexity" argument flies in the face of actual evidence, which he conveniently ignores. He has claimed that the eye, for example, is irreducibly complex. This is not the case, there are many intermediate forms of light detection that lead to the eye.

Go pick up a real book and learn something.

The Theory of Evolution belongs to us, now? I like that; liberals own the real science. Stands to reason, considering that we're the ones doing the thinking.

Beats me why anybody would prefer to believe a bunch of self-contradictory fables handed down from pre-history over what can be seen, tested and reproduced.

ROFL....

Liberals think?

ROFL....

Liberals came up with the War On Poverty which did more damage to Blacks than slavery.

Thinkers?

Not in this lifetime!

Dumb Hillbilly thinks the LIEberals do all the thinking? Dayam. He needs to quit smoking the shade leaf.

Charles of Shaumburg.

Let's see. What's wrong with Dumb Hillbilly's posting:

1. He asserts that LIEberals think when we know the vast majority of them just parrot MoveOn.org.

1. He asserts that LIEberals are doing "real science". If it's REAL science instead of so much hot air, then why won't you submit it to any kind of scrutiny, such as this guy on Book TV today? He's not pushing the Christian point of view, he is just doing some analytical thinking as to why Darwin's theories haven't been proven.

LIEberals like DH JoeNoBedroom etc, all believe the same thing:

1. They're right, you;'re wrong.
2. Any attempt to criticise means you're wrong.
3. Why don't you just shut up and believe the crap we're feeding you? Only they will never admit that it's crap.

Charles of Schaumburg

"Submit it to any kind of scrutiny?" Are you joking? Behe doesn't publish for review by other biologists, he just publishes for the public. The public isn't going to give it the kind of "scrutiny" that science requires.

Hey, you were the one that signed over Evolution to us. We're just grateful.

I was unaware that science was political but it seems fitting that the Left would own it.

What makes you think that the theory of evolution has political leanings? Science is science, which is why it comes to the same conclusions, all over the world.

If one chooses to believe that everything in the universe happed by chance, including the emergence of man. How do you account for male and female? If indeed all it was evolution and DNA, there is no need for male and female in any species. LOL

mike

There are some excellent biologist who wrote books on evolution, including Stephen Jay Gould, Charles Darwin, Earnst Mayr, John Maynard-Smith and Richard Dawkins. I suggest going to your local libraries and reading books by these authors.

Jeff

I'm not questioning anybody beliefs I simply asked how do they account for male and female, since if indeed if it was simply evolution and DNA, there is no need for male and female in any species. I'm still waiting for the answer to that question, from those in the NG, professing to be evolutionists. Darwin is often sited but he never said one species evolved into another, just that species evolved over time.

By the way, were did DNA come from in the evolution theory? LOL

mike

Where did you get that idea? Dinosaurs were extinct for sixty million years before man appeared on earth around 40,000 years ago, from what I read.

I also read they roamed the earth for 165 million years before that, at a time when the earth was at least four degrees warmer and the C02 level was many times higher ;)

mike

Where did this come from?

He wrote: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."

The function of DNA as the genetic material was discovered in the early part of the last century, after Darwin was reunited with his creator.

Well, there is much information about question you asked from the authors I mentioned. If you want to learn about this, these are excellent authors to help you learn about this. You can get their books at your local library (you might have to wait for interlibrary loan) or you can get their books at a bookstore.

You may notice that this is an auto news group, not a biology newsgroup. I do not wish to get into a discussion with you on this. If you are interested in a discussion on evolution, there are appropriate newsgroups for this.

Jeff

"after Darwin was reunited with his creator." Curios comment about a man, whom you apparently believe, suggest man evolved from others beings when in fact he did not.

What I'm interested in are the opinions of those that choose to post to this NG. If you have no interested in the thread why do you comment? Never mind, I think I know why.

I've yet to hear from any of the proponents of evolution theory in this NG, regarding my question, however

mike

You mean you and I are brothers?

;-)

by the way....you owe me a drink in Key West one of these days, bro.

I suggest that you read Charles Darwin's book "Descent of Man" if you do not believe that Darwin did not believe that man descended from other animals.

Good for you.

I am definitely a proponent of evolution. However, one reason I don't want to comment is that the authors I have mentioned have done a much better job of explaining evolution than I ever could.

Jeff

You will not find that in any book. Simple question, IF you believe in evolution how do you account for male and female when evolution requires no male and female?

mike