Jump to content

Is U2 Pro-Evolution?


Recommended Posts

hmtmkmkm wrote:

Science is based on observation, first and foremost, what you see, feel, touch, test. You can't test evolution, as it allegedly took millions of years to work.

 

What you can test, humans, have human babies. Monkeys, have baby monkeys, turtles give birth to turtles. There is fact, that you can see, so when someone can find, watch, and observe a turtle mutating into an alligator, then we can call evolution a fact. Until then, theory.

 

There are many many things wrong with your post. But the above is easy to correct. Evolution has been tested with organisms with very short lifespans (microbesand viruses). Evolution has been observed many times. What do you think antibiotic resistant bacteria are?

 

Also, evolution isn't just speciation (a species turning into another, although that DOES happen) evolution also happens WITHIN a species and we'veobserved that in reptiles and other animals in long term studies. Here's just one example:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

 

If I have time I'll address your other mistakes. Very quickly though:

1. Evolution does not violate the second law of Thermodynamics.

2. Natural selection is NOT random.

3. You're confusing abiogenesis and natural selection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kristaps wrote:

I wonder if Zootrabant also discards heliocentrism, for example :/

 

After all, it's nothing but a "theory", a "fact" based on observations and mathematical calculations.

Heliocentrism??? That theory of Copernico? If I am not mistaken he was a Christian, not? Fuck!!! A Christian!!!!

Yes. I'm discards. I agree with the marscentrism.

 

In any case I am not expert in the subject theory of evolution (macro-evolution), but the little I know today is that it can not be proven. There is no doubt that research on it has brought benefits to us, but as someone doing an excavation to find gold and so find water.

 

I just do not understand why many criticizing the fundamentalists and religious fanatics, if the vast majority of those who defend the pro-evolution act like fundamentalists and religious fanatics.

Some people, no so ignorant like me, also disagree or question the Theory of Evolution:

 

Lynn Margulis, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Massachusetts (was married with a guy called Carl Sagan) says that the history, future, will judge neodarwinism a "small sect of the twentieth century, religious faith in the general biology of the Anglo-Saxon."

 

G. A. Kerkut, English biochemist and author of the book The Implications of Evolution, said that "the evidence that supports [the theory of macro-evolution] is not strong enough to allow us to consider it more functional than a hypothesis"

 

Jerry Coyne, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago says: "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence supporting the theory neodarwiniana: its theoretical foundations are weak, and the experimental evidence to support that."

So ask me: Why you that agree with that theory of evolution, acting as if you were a bishop of the Catholic church, or an pastor evangelical redneck when have your religion questioned, if somebody disagree with this theory?

 

For me Catholic dogmas, evangelical fundamentalist rednecks, TV prayers and churchs that just think in money and theory of evolution are like partners. All deny de existence of God.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

zootrabant wrote:

Jerry Coyne, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago says: "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence supporting the theory neodarwiniana: its theoretical foundations are weak, and the experimental evidence to support that."

 

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

 

Jerry Coyne wrote a book called "Why Evolution is True." I find itamazing you are mangling his words to back up your uninformed AND ignorant claims.

 

First of all the word "neodarwiniana" is not an English word. I suspect you mangled some portuguese translation somewhere. Second, do you even knowwhat Neo Darwinism is? Nope, you don't. Because if you did you'd realize Prof. Coyne is not saying what you think he's saying.

 

You are quote mining. That EXACT quote of Coyne's has already been explained here: Misquotation of Jerry Coyne.

 

Dear Dr. Shallit, This quote was indeed taken out of context. It was from a paper that I wrote with Allen Orr, and its topic was whether mutations of large effect might occasionally play a role in evolution. We certainly were not questioning the fact of evolution or of the important role of natural selection in this article, merely whether the mutations fixed during adaptive change may have larger effects than previously assumed. It is a typical creationist tactic to misquote or mis-cite scientific papers in support of the discredited creationist views.

 

The evidence for evolution, which includes data from the fossil record, embryology, biogeography, and vestigial organs, is so overwhelming that evolution must be accorded the status of "firmly established fact." I teach this evidence in my introductory evolution class, so I certainly cannot be accused of doubting the existence of evolution. In my experience, the only people who still believe in creationism after learning this evidence are those who are so firmly committed to the fundamentalist Biblical view (i.e. Genesis 1-11) that no amount of evidence could ever sway them.

 

You can certainly quote as much of the above as you wish.

Yours, Jerry Coyne

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Community Moderator

zootrabant wrote:


For me Catholic dogmas, evangelical fundamentalist rednecks, TV prayers and churchs that just think in money and theory of evolution are like partners. All deny de existence of God.


<brief detour>

and denying the existence of God would be bad because... ???

</brief detour>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

At first glance, I thought the thread title was "Is U2 Pre-Evolution"! grin.gif

 

Germane to the actual topic is news today about 47-million-year-old Ida:

 

"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "the closestthing we can get to a direct ancestor."

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Tsukino wrote:

zootrabant wrote:

For me Catholic dogmas, evangelical fundamentalist rednecks, TV prayers and churchs that just think in money and theory of evolution are like partners. All deny de existence of God.


<brief detour>


and denying the existence of God would be bad because... ???


</brief detour>

 

All right Soda. I mistake aboute mr Coyne. Hey friends. I'm not expert in evolution. Give me a chance. I just want to show that even some scientistsquestion the theory of evolution. And about Lynn Margulis and G. A. Kerkut. I'm wrong too?

 

And sorry. I'm not ashmed.

 

And Max I don't sad that it is bad. Would be bad or would be good or would be nothing. Depends of the faith or beliefs or what each believes or theopinion what you have. For me it is nothing cos it will don't go change my way of seeing the life because this.

 

And really I believe that we left the subject of this topic: U2 is Pro-Evolution? Adam I don't know. Edge and Larry probably not. Bono certainly not. Atleast one of them is as stupid as me. laugh.gif

 

I say a monkey can not be my cousin then I am treated like a fool. What fuckin crazy world man!!!!roll.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

zootrabant wrote:

Max Tsukino wrote:

zootrabant wrote:

For me Catholic dogmas, evangelical fundamentalist rednecks, TV prayers and churchs that just think in money and theory of evolution are like partners. All deny de existence of God.


<brief detour>


and denying the existence of God would be bad because... ???


</brief detour>

 

All right Soda. I mistake aboute mr Coyne. Hey friends. I'm not expert in evolution. Give me a chance. I just want to show that even some scientists question the theory of evolution. And about Lynn Margulis and G. A. Kerkut. I'm wrong too?

 

Yes, you're wrong.

 

Lynn Margulis quote is accurate. But again, it's about Neo-Darwinism not Darwnism. The disagreement is not about whether natural selection is real (it is)but at what level. Neo-Darwinists believe the selection happens at the genetic level (this is oversimplifying it a bit and the phrase Neo-Darwinist has changedover the years). Nevertheless a quick check of Lynn Margulis's wikipedia page would have answered this question for you.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis:

It should be noted that while the endosymbiotic theory has historically been juxtaposed to Neo-Darwinism as a competitor, the two theories are not irreconcilable. An emerging synthesis holds that natural selection works on many levels (genetic up to the ecosystem) and variation is introduced both at the genetic and the cellular level. She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."[6] She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk."[7] She opposes such competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species.

 

Regarding Kerkut. I had never heard of him before. And most references I find come from creationist sites. The best I could find was this: Kerkut Quote Mining. Looks like Kerkut is disagreeing about the MODE of evolution, notwhether evolution happened. Hence why he wrote "macro-evolution" not just evolution.

 

And we ARE giving you a chance. You're just failing. What do you want us to say when you quote people out of context and display crucial misunderstanding?"Hey good for you! You are completely confused!" As I said before, educate yourself first if you don't want to look like a fool.

 

zootrabant wrote:

And sorry. I'm not ashmed.

You should be. Not for what you believe, but for your inconsistency and sloppiness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

Soda wrote:

zootrabant wrote:

Max Tsukino wrote:

zootrabant wrote:

For me Catholic dogmas, evangelical fundamentalist rednecks, TV prayers and churchs that just think in money and theory of evolution are like partners. All deny de existence of God.


<brief detour>


and denying the existence of God would be bad because... ???


</brief detour>

 

All right Soda. I mistake aboute mr Coyne. Hey friends. I'm not expert in evolution. Give me a chance. I just want to show that even some scientists question the theory of evolution. And about Lynn Margulis and G. A. Kerkut. I'm wrong too?

 

Yes, you're wrong.

 

Lynn Margulis quote is accurate. But again, it's about Neo-Darwinism not Darwnism. The disagreement is not about whether natural selection is real (it is) but at what level. Neo-Darwinists believe the selection happens at the genetic level (this is oversimplifying it a bit and the phrase Neo-Darwinist has changed over the years). Nevertheless a quick check of Lynn Margulis's wikipedia page would have answered this question for you.

 

From
:

It should be noted that while the endosymbiotic theory has historically been juxtaposed to Neo-Darwinism as a competitor, the two theories are not irreconcilable. An emerging synthesis holds that natural selection works on many levels (genetic up to the ecosystem) and variation is introduced both at the genetic and the cellular level. She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."[6] She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk."[7] She opposes such competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species.

 

Regarding Kerkut. I had never heard of him before. And most references I find come from creationist sites. The best I could find was this:
. Looks like Kerkut is disagreeing about the MODE of evolution, not whether evolution happened. Hence why he wrote "macro-evolution" not just evolution.

 

And we ARE giving you a chance. You're just failing. What do you want us to say when you quote people out of context and display crucial misunderstanding? "Hey good for you! You are completely confused!" As I said before, educate yourself first if you don't want to look like a fool.

 

zootrabant wrote:

And sorry. I'm not ashmed.

You should be. Not for what you believe, but for your inconsistency and sloppiness.
... and gave you, Soda, the right to "grade" other people on how they express themselves? Did someone here elect you Head Master? Areyou some frustrated wanna be intellectual? Or do you carry an inferiority complex that causes you to tear others down in order to make yourself feel good? Goahead and try - but most of us will just "consider the source" when it comes to your future posts.

 

I take great joy in the knowledge that one day we will know definitively who's right -- and none of your hatred and abuse can change that. smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy M wrote:

Go ahead and try - but most of us will just "consider the source" when it comes to your future posts.

 

Maybe the person "who died" was the same person that allowed you to speak for "most of us."

 

I mean, really, if from now on you'll ignore my posts that's your privilege. I would HOPE that "most of you" would find something of value inwhat I say. But that's just a hope. If you really are the type of person that recoils at facts because they aren't sugarcoated then by all means stopreading my posts now.

 

If not then please read on.

 

Now that we got out of the way the fact that I'm grading people , that I have an inferiority complex, that I'm full of hate, and that in the endI'll know definitely who's right (is it Jesus?) then would you care to address the post you quoted? Did Zootrabant not quote biologists out of contextto back up his claim that evolution is "stupid?" Do you think quoting someone out of context is fair game in a serious discussion? Do you not thinkthat claiming that Jerry Coyne is anti-evolution (a man that wrote a book called "Why Evolution Is True"!!) is kinda embarrassing? Perhaps even...shameful? OR are you just going to call me a meanie, stomp your feet, and hold your breath till your blue?

 

No one should tolerate the distortion of facts and the spread of misinformation. It is an insidious thing. It makes us poorer as human beings. It demeans us,cheapens us, and stunts us. Where there is ignorance help remove it. Where there is willful ignorance point it out. I write here for me and for my Zoo friends.I write here because I like it. Am I frustrated? Oh, you bet. It's frustrating to see the names of scientists dragged through the mud, scientists that havespent their adult lives trying to search for the truth. It's frustrating to have to apologize for the tone of my writing while the content itself isignored. It's frustrating to see over-confident ignoramuses doing violence to science in the name of their pet superstition. It's frustrating to befaced with such confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

Tracy M doesn't speak for me. I have enjoyed your well-reasoned posts. I will continue to read them! You have responded with a fairly level-head given thecrazy, misleading and downright ridiculous assertions I've seen in this thread. I'll give Zootrabant a little leeway as he's clearly speakingEnglish as a second language. That, however, doesn't excuse his poor arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...