Republican Candidate Stances on Evolution

They sampled DNA from around the earth. The tree led them to what would be 1 man. The location was determined by the match between that link and the DNA match of the current inhabitants of that area. As a coincidence to their findings, that area would have been the only year round sustainable habitat for human like creatures.

They hide stuff like that in books, Clif. DNA can be traced genetically to a finite level. All living organisms store genetic information in the same way and use the same molecules, DNA & RNA. The genetic code of these molecules shows the ancestral link of all like beings to each other. Even though evolution will enhance and create new genes the basic core genes are retained.

 

Too much Discovery channel?

 

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about. Forgot who said that, but it makes sense.

 

By the way, Frances S. Collins, the director of the human genome project and ardent supporter of evolution - is also a devout christian. He published the book "The Language of God," which discusses both science and faith in a quite rational way. So, it's not some "atheist scientist" telling you all people are related. What, are you afraid to be related to some people? We are all brothers and sisters...Jesus said so, too.

Clif - you really have shown you don't understand the basic premises behind natural selection and speciation. Go to: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ if you want to try to understand what everyone else is talking about.

Geico comment - actually the geico cave man guy most resembles a Neaderthal - not one of our ancestors, more like a cousin from our common ancestor H erectus.

Why does it matter what republican candidates say?
Because Bush tried to shove Intelligent Design down science instruction's throats. I.D. is religion, not science.

I knew something interesting might be on the message boards....

 

Science as a whole does agree, the fringe that opposes such a THEORY (far past an hypothesis) is very small in number.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

 

No, because lots of people with the proper education agree.

Then the later scientists tried to disprove that hypothesis and were unable to do so. The basis of proof is still being presented in scientific literature everyday.

Which is supported by DNA mapping if both species showing the close correlation of the two. the close correlation proves a common ancestor in their history.

No, there can be transitional speices like when a horse and donkey mate. The hybrids are usually sterile but not always.

No, there is no specific proof of amacro-evolutionary change but we have not had very long to see a case of macro-evolution yet have we?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

hat is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

Common Sense is Not Science
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.

Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.

 

And when there's no one else to argue with, Wayne simply argues with himself :roll:

 

I suppose a fool would confuse providing evidence to educate with arguing with oneself .... or could it be that there was an attempt to look less foolish by not trying to present a cognitive presentation?

 

Some interesting information on the science with conflicting views in some areas, but very informational.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Not enough time to argue all of your quote, but other have so I'll let them stand on their own. However, this one statement shows that you have failed to grasp other concepts behind evolution. Inter-species mating may be a form, but you forgot genetic mutation as well which requires no outside force whatsoever. Simply stated, a beneficial genetic mutation allows a species to adapt to an environment better an thrive thus becoming a dominat species and so on...

For example: a freak of nature fish sprouts legs (by chance) and can now walk on land briefly to escape predators thus ensuring its survival and propagating its species longer (such animals have been found in the fossil record, by the way). That species then suffers another genetic mutation of, say, rudimentary lungs and so on...

 

Be that as it may, the genus/species ill remain the same, as defined in the DNA. One genus/species cannot mate with some critter not of the same genus/species. This is a simple, and yet largely ignored, fact. A dog may be born with an extra pair of legs. It may breed and have offspring with an extra pair of legs. This may go on for hundreds of generations until all dogs will have six legs. But, in the end, they are all still dogs.

The "proof" evolutionists want us to see are "transitional fossils". That is a fossil of one critter which has the features of both a "before" and an "after". The most notable is Archaeopteryx, which evolutionists say is a link between dinosaurs and birds. What they fail to understand, or accept, is that Archaeopteryx is a species unto itself. It is no more a transition between dinosaur and bird than a platypus is a transition between a beaver and a duck.

 

real quick, tell me what those are and how they're made.

 

Umm...............I don't think mules can reproduce. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

no, they can't... but they are a product of interspecies mating. it can happen.

 

I should have elaborated, interspecies mating can and does happen, but the offspring are sterile, so I'm not sure that is going to contribute to evolution. But I get your point. Have you ever seen the Lygers? They are pretty cool looking!

 

How about Mr.Ed that was one smart cookie.

 

Look beyond the extra pair of legs. If enough genetic mutations occur the animal can begin to resemble something far different than a dog. While the dog may still be a viable species and continues to thrive, other species have evolved from a dog (still using dog as example). This is why their DNA is so closely related. The better example is the deer and the horse. A deer is not a horse. A horse is not a deer. However, their DNA is so closely related because the evolved from similar animals many of the transitional ones have died out.

You are essentially rejecting the idea for sake of doing so. You have demonstrated that you do not even have knowledge of the theory, or just choose to reject it no matter what.

Check out this sight...http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 

How long did it take you to google that Harvey. To much time on your hands?

 

This Evolution?