A third of Americans don't believe in evolution

Jan 01, 2014
Evolution has long been a political issue in the United States, where science classes are a battleground

One third of Americans utterly reject the theory of evolution and believe instead that humans "have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," a new survey has found.

About a quarter of Americans believe that was guided by God while only 32 percent of those surveyed believe that evolution is due to "natural processes such as natural selection," the Pew Research Center found.

The broad results were little changed from a similar survey in 2009, but Pew found a drastically widening gap along party lines.

Some 54 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats said they believed in evolution in 2009.

That ten-point gap more than doubled in the latest survey, which found that only 43 percent of Republicans believe in evolution while 67 percent of Democrats said humans have evolved over time.

The views of political independents were essentially unchanged, with 65 percent believing in evolution.

Evolution has long been a political issue in the United States, where science classes are a battleground between advocates of non-religious teachings in public schools and conservative Christians who push for curriculum that includes creationism or "intelligent design."

The debate has heated up in recent years as the so-called "culture wars" have reignited amid a deepening partisan divide.

Differences in the racial, ethnic and religious composition of the Democrats and Republicans surveyed "do not wholly explain partisan differences in beliefs about evolution," Pew said.

"Indeed, the partisan differences remain even when taking these other characteristics into account," the non-partisan research group said.

However, it did find strong differences among religious groups.

Two thirds of white evangelical Protestants believe God created humans in their present form while 78 percent of white "mainline" Protestants believe in evolution. Half of black Protestants believe God devised humans as they exist today.

Nearly seven in ten white non-Hispanic Catholics and 53 percent of Hispanic Catholics believe in evolution.

Meanwhile, three out of four religiously unaffiliated respondents believe in evolution and just 13 percent of them believe evolution was guided by a "supreme being."

The results released Monday were drawn from a telephone survey of 1,983 adults conducted March 21 through April 8 that has a margin of error of three percent.

Explore further: Could suburban sprawl be good for segregation? Low-density neighborhoods more likely to stay integrated

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cable TV top source for US political news: study

Feb 08, 2012

Cable television is the leading source of US political news for Americans, according to a study released Tuesday, but fewer people are closely following the presidential campaign than four years ago.

Recommended for you

User comments : 194

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

davidivad
2 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
i guess the real question here is whether it is advantageous to believe in god. we have more faculties than logic that serve us in survival. I would have to say that i believe in both. when i need to prove something i am an atheist because it serves me well, but when i do not have all the answers or am dealing with something beyond my control, i believe in god. evolution tells me that we will become extinct before we have all the answers. physics tells me that that we came from nothing and that there is no proof that we even exist as we perceive it. for those who say that i must be one or the other who says i have to be logical? i am a human being.
Shootist
3 / 5 (18) Jan 01, 2014
More than a 1/3 of Americans voted for Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
but when i do not have all the answers or am dealing with something beyond my control, i believe in god.

Does that help to get answers or gain control?
I'd argue not (other than mybe as a psychological crutch to fool oneself into believing that there are available answers/control)
And if it doesn't render answers/control: What's the point?

evolution tells me that we will become extinct before we have all the answers.

'All the answers' is a very nebulous concept (and also a philosophically, fundamentally wrong concept, BTW). And evolution tells us no such thing - as evolution can be bypassed. If you construct your own environment (and possibly your own body) then evolution is out of the game. We've done the former and the latter seems only a matter of (a relatively short) time.

physics tells me that that we came from nothing

Physics does no such thing.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
David:

Nobody said that believing in God required anyone to abandon logic. In fact, in the New Testament of the Bible, the root word logic, or "Logos," is used as actually being God.

"In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God."

While it was translated as the term "Word" in most English translations, "Logos" actually means "the rational principle which governs the universe".

So technically, the God of the Bible, by definition, must exist, since he is defined in the Bible as being the governing principle of the universe (among other things).

As a believer, I don't have all the answers about evolution, but I can say that ultimately it does not matter to me "how" God made life or the universe. Am I interested in it? Definitely. Does it make any ultimate difference whether God made man directly from mud, or from a monkey's uncle? Probably not.

All scientific knowledge says the universe had a beginning, and from nothing comes nothing.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2014
A_P:

People who survive lost in the wilderness or at sea often attribute their survival to God. In some cases they even say they received some sort of help from God or an angel, such as knowledge of how to stay alive, or something like that, which they did not have naturally.

You say that there is no value in believing in God because you do not believe, and because you've obviously never had a personal experience, at least not that you will acknowledge.

In this case, you're a bit like someone who has never driven a car trying to explain to a professional stunt driver how he should run an obstacle course.

It makes no sense.

Because of certain personal experiences I've related in the past, I absolutely know there is a God, because of multiple instances of precise information given to me which I could not have obtained by any natural means.

I've never had "conversation" with God, I have had several "Visions" of national and global significance, which came true.
Zephir_fan
Jan 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sinister1812
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Not just America. It's probably a third of the world. No doubt there are some countries where you can't even mention the word "evolution".
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2014
You say that there is no value in believing in God because you do not believe

I say that there is no value in believing in deities for the reasons stated by davidivad. Nothing more, nothing less.

because you do not believe, and because you've obviously never had a personal experience

I did believe (as a child). But I realized I was fooling myself. That was just a honest reappraisal of personal attitudes which I subject myself to regularly. Question everything - even (and especially) your own motives. Only that way will you be honest with yourself (which is the prerequisite of being honest with others).

Personal experiences mean very little. It is possible to induce religious experiences with drugs or stiumlation of the brain with magnetic fields (search physorg fro the articles). That you got hung up on a drug trip or have some unfortunate medical condition which causes a hromone imbalance proves nothing.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
Probability of evolutionary theory: high. Is evolution a certainty? No. Can the drivers of evolution be proven? No. Environment, natural selection, mutation, God... all viable. Any one or multiple of these drivers may be involved, if evolution exists that is.

Belief is 100%. When you believe something you are certain of it. Certainty does not belong in science.

Believing in evolution makes you no smarter than believing in God.

Religion and science are to be kept separate, they are not complementary fields. Science deals with probabilities while faith is felt as truth.

A theory which is 99.99% probable is not necessarily true, otherwise, what is that 0.01%?

Please keep the study of God to religious studies. Social studies are also not a science.
kochevnik
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
It is good not to believe in evolution. Beliefs are for animals. It is ignorant to not know evolution is a fact
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2014
Environment, natural selection, mutation, God... all viable.

Natural selection: Observed. Reproducible. Viable
Mutation: Observed. Reproducible. Viable.
God: Observed (claimed). NOT reproducible. Therefore not viable.

Claiming that god is anywhere near the quality of a influencing factor than the others is just idiocy (If you put that quality on a scale from one to ten then god isn't even a zero)

When you believe something you are certain of it.

Being certain based on belief does not make something a reality. The two have not connection whatsoever. And what you are describing here is not belief. It is faith (faith is belief in the absence of evidence)

Believing in evolution makes you

Good then that evolution does not require faith...eh? It's backed up by observable evidence which one can accept ('believe in').

A theory which is 99.99% probable is not necessarily true

Still better than a zero percent theory (god) any day of the week.
Kron
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
It is ignorant to spout theories as truths
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
The header is wrong and clashes with the correct first sentence of the article - you can't choose to "believe in", have an opinion about, facts. Facts are objective by way of the empirical process, which means you can accept or reject them. On your own risk.

That said, the article is very good in parts. At least once it correctly notes the difference between ideas of creationism (say, guided evolution) and observed natural processes.
Kron
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
You can believe a theory to be true but this does not increase the probability of it being correct.

Belief does not belong in science.

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it A_P?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
@davidivad: " we have more faculties than logic that serve us in survival."

A fact, but that doesn't test anything as a fact (except evolution). Magic belief is no longer amenable as your magic-in-the-gaps belief, since the gaps are gone. Everyday physics, including evolution, is fully understood and its basis fully tested in the LHC.

And creationism in particular has now retreated to homeopathic magic. Inflation dilutes any purported initial magic to 10^150 parts, which is the real of homeopathic magic dilution at 10^60 - 10^400 parts.

"evolution tells me that we will become extinct before we have all the answers."

Claim in need of reference. But we don't need all the answers, just the important ones, see above.

"physics tells me that that we came from nothing".

Wrong, if you mean the physical universe. And we don't have any evidence that there was, or even could be, "nothing", whatever that means.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
[ctd]

If you mean biology, it is still wrong. Descendants comes from ancestors, naturally! =D

"there is no proof that we even exist as we perceive it".

Neuroscience is pretty clear that we don't exist as we percieve it. Say, the experiments that makes you think a fake hand is "your own", or that you are a miniature in a giant room.
dav_daddy
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014

Hey Skippy, this doesn't seem to shaping up to any more interesting then your vitamin consumption and doctor visits.

Do you take requests? Okay, thanks. Why don't you try to think of a reason anyone would want to know the fine tiny details of your life. To do that you need to SIT DOWN and SHUT UP. And it would help if you slacked up on the drugs that are giving you that false sense of being wise and wonderful which is causing you to think that you are so wonderful everyone here is just dying to hear all about it.


Usually I'm all for keeping the religious discussions out of here as this is a place to discuss science.

This time however I'd say his comment was relevant, so how about you lighten up some? (and yes I've heard Returners make this same claim before almost verbatim)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
@Returners. Kron: I'm not going into insanity land and argue theology such as magic beliefs or magic claims ("religion and science are to be kept separate").

But you are both making erroneous claims on science ("All scientific knowledge"; "certainty", drivers", "theories") - please don't mix antiscience with phony attempts at science.

As it happens, the best observation in all of science, the one that has the lowest uncertainty beyond reasonable doubt, is that all life has a common ancestor. It is > 10^2000 [!] against multiple ancestry, say creationist poofing of separate species. [Theobald, Nature 2010]

From that follows that the basis of biology, evolution, is the best tested theory we have, due to its complexity. And I'm sure you have heard this before, but a theory stands against observations as an image stands against words - an image is worth a thousand words, a theory is a super fact of the existence and mechanisms and observations of an observed process.
dav_daddy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
I agree trying to apply religious "faith" to science "data/measuring things" is a fools errand.

It's like taking a scale and trying weigh a mile.

Also I have to say that if you read the book of Genesis and what you took away from it was that the Earth is 6000 years old. You really need to go back and read it again because your missing something really, really important...
dav_daddy
4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014

From that follows that the basis of biology, evolution, is the best tested theory we have, due to its complexity. And I'm sure you have heard this before, but a theory stands against observations as an image stands against words - an image is worth a thousand words, a theory is a super fact of the existence and mechanisms and observations of an observed process.


@Torbjorn Good point I believe that a lot of the confusion stems the fact that a scientific "theory" has a far different meaning from the standard definition of a theory, which in scientific speak would translate to hypothesis.

Then add things like string theory which really is a hypothesis and expect someone with little to no scientific knowledge and you see where I'm going with this...

P.S. Miss seeing you & Icrowell over at UT. They have ditched the G+ comments and went back to discuss.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Kron says, "Certainty does not belong in science", kochevnik says, "evolution is a fact". Both espouse "evolution and "science", both say diametrically opposite things. Characteristic of support of lies.
Supporters of "evolution" necessarily declare God doesn't exist, but asked to prove it, they insist, "You can't prove a negative so you can say anything negative and it has to be true."
The fact is, the "rank and file" have never had incontrovertible, unquestionable, tangible proof of "evolution" put in their hands. There is no evidence provided them that "fossils" are real and not resin molds, no actual "evolution" of new species, new orders, new families, news genera coming into being was ever observed.
The fact is, a large part of the problem is the, at best, shiftlessness of "scientists". They say the only answers could be "evolution" or creationism. None of them shows the initiative to advance another alternative!
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
In the absence of actual, incontrovertible, tangible proof that "evolution" occurs, many supporters have even cravenly retrenched. "Evolution" posited tiny mutations conferring "adaptive advantage", increasing the likelihood of organisms to survive and so pass them down, where they are accompanied by more mutations until new forms of creatures come about. But no mutation small enough not to be instantly fatal is, at best, so small it can't even be seen. Which means it doesn't confer an advantage! In response, supporters of "evolution" have been artificially and cravenly "defining" evolution as only the emergence of already present traits in response to conditions! All species remain as they are, with genotypes expressing themselves as conditions change! That is no different from creationism that says no new species, families, genera develop!
Returners
1.7 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
A_P: (r.e. direct response to me):

I admit some of your points are valid, but my experiences were not drug-induced as at the time I was not on any medicine, and in at least two cases I related the events to people before they came to pass.

Now of course, you are free to disbelieve me, as I might well disbelieve any similar claim by another person on the internet, particularly if they appear to have greedy or selfish motives, so I quite understand.

Let me ask, have you ever seen me advertise some stupidity such as "readings" for people, or ask for money or fame or anything selfish like that? Obviously the answer is "no". I simply stated the events I experienced, and if you believe it fine, and if not that's fine too. I'd prefer you believe it, but it is not relevant to salvation as far as I can tell. However, there is the off chance that at some future time my story may assist you in understanding your personal experience, and bring you to believe. That's why I post such things.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
Natural selection: Observed. Reproducible. Viable
Mutation: Observed. Reproducible. Viable.
God: Observed (claimed). NOT reproducible. Therefore not viable.


First of all, this is untrue, but secondly and perhaps even more importantly, it is a hypocritical position for you to hold.

Why is it hypocritical?

Because you support a conjecture falsely labelled as a "theory," namely the notion that the Big Bang created all of reality from absolute nothingness, without the need for prior causation.

That conjecture (because it does not meet the definition of a theory,) cannot be repeated or tested. Therefore your position is hypocritical in that you demand a condition for belief in God which your own theory, which you currently believe, also does not meet, and cannot meet.

Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
AP:

Also pertaining to adaptive changes studied by paleontologists and historical geologists, we do not always find evidence of "Gradual" nor "random" changes in organisms. What we find are highly ordered, sudden changes, such as a new species or sub-species suddenly gaining, or losing, a very long neck, or a sudden change in the scale of an organism, yet no evidence of randomized deformities you would expect from mutation. For example the lengthened neck maintains order, structure, strength, appropriate cross-sectional area/scale so as to be fully functional and not detrimental to the organism. Where are the fossils of "failed" versions of these transitions, if the change was random and not guided by intelligence? Where is the Giraffe who's neck was too thin, or brittle, so it died before full maturity? You would expect stuff like, deformities minor enough to live a while, but inferior in total, should be a dime a dozen if evolution was random chance plus selection.
CGPANDO
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
It would be interesting to know how many people around the world don't. Just to compare.
And why do people from USA call them "the americans" when they are only one third of all americans (people living in the continent)?
Why do they have to bring God to every conversation?
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
Why do they have to bring God to every conversation?


Why not?

If God does exist, as I believe, then God is the most important topic you can possibly talk about.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
yet no evidence of randomized deformities you would expect from mutation
...
Where are the fossils of "failed" versions

Well guess why we don't see the failed ones: If a random deformity does not become the dominant trait (like a long neck) it does not occur in many members of the species (usually only one). Finding that one as an archaeological record would be incredibly rare/lucky as opposed to the millions/billions that carry a dominant trait.

And we do see mutations happening all the time: In every living thing that is born on the planet (you and me included). The vast majority of deformities/mutations also mean the organism isn't viable (and you can go to any medical exhibition to see deformed fetuses aplenty to prove that)
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
Why do they have to bring God to every conversation?


Why not?

Oh...I don't know...perhaps because it's expressly against physorg posting gudielines?
http://phys.org/help/comments/

But that doesn't deter godders. They'll shove god in anyone's face whether it pertains to the issue or whether anyone wants to hear it or not (and this is a science site. So it NEVER pertains to the issue, here).

It's like someone coming to your house and you say "please refrain from shitting on the carpet"...but they do it anyways.
Only difference is that godders leave a stink of the(ir) mind.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2014
namely the notion that the Big Bang created all of reality from absolute nothingness,

What the hell has the big bang to do with evolution? Nothing.

And if you would care to actually read up on the Big Bang: You will notice that nowehere is there a mention of creation from nothingness. The Big Bang describes the early universe. Not whether or not it had a cause ('causing the universe' is not really a proper way to think of it at any rate. Cause implies linear time - something that is not a given in a state without the dimensions we experience today)

Why is it so hard for some to read up on stuff (evolution, Big Bang, whatever) before attacking it? It just makes you sound uneducated and could save you many thousands of typed pages - because your argument falls apart starting from false premises/understanding of the subject in the first line.
davidivad
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
as an atheist i must confer that our model of evolution is not complete. right now, we are trying to explain why there are gaps in the line. i believe the new consensus is that evolution happens in bursts.

@torjborn larson om;

if you look at all the other species of animal on the planet, they have one thing in common for sure. they have their time and then they die. to think you have all the answers is one thing, but to think you are immortal is not science. and yes, physics has reasonably proven that everything came from the vacuum of space. last but not least, there is undeniable proof that we are physically wired to handle things we cannot understand or prove. believing in evolution, you surely must confer that such a trait has its advantages.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
davidivad
but when i do not have all the answers or am dealing with something beyond my control, i believe in god.

this is also the reason science stops. Just look at Baghdad. At one time it was the center of the learned world, and then a Muslim Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) declared the manipulation of numbers is the work of the devil. They haven't produced any real science there since.
Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has quite a few youtube video's about this.
https://www.youtu...cnp1kZBY
1:03:24 is a good start for what I am saying, but I recommend watching the entire video.

When you must use religion as a crutch, then you quit looking. Even Newton did it.

Science is the search for answers. Mixing science and religion is just plain wrong. But using religion to give a false answer SUPPLANTING science is even more wrong.
For those who DO believe in God, obviously you are created with intelligence for a reason, why NOT use it?

watch it and let me know what you think
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
If God does exist, as I believe, then God is the most important topic you can possibly talk about.


@Returners
this is a subject that also can't be proven, therefore has no place in a scientific discussion.

I dont see science teachers kicking in the doors of church youth groups demanding that churches teach the scientific method, etc, so why is it so hard to ask for the same courtesy.

Religion is something that cannot be proven, and which relies on FAITH. (ie: no empirical data and subjective interpretation of events)
this is NOT scientific.

The SAD part is WHY a full third of US citizens are not scientifically literate enough to understand basic science.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
@Kron It is ignorant to spout theories as truths
Gravity is a theory
Not just America. It's probably a third of the world. No doubt there are some countries where you can't even mention the word "evolution".
Or witness it !
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
Returners
People who survive lost in the wilderness or at sea often attribute their survival to God.

bad idea to go there. Lost people @sea used to also believe in mermaids helping them out.
Even worse in the woods (fairies, elves, leprechauns anyone?)

because of multiple instances of precise information given to me which I could not have obtained by any natural means.

I really must protest this statement. How do you KNOW? How do you know it wasnt your subconscious, which obtained/retained the data and then allowed your brain to make an intuitive/logical leap to asses a situation and/or create a logical deduction that gave you that information?

I've never had "conversation" with God, I have had several "Visions" of national and global significance, which came true

now, how many have you had that DIDNT come true? (should be at least ONE every night, whether you remember it or not)

just keep religion/faith and science separate... especially RELIGION
mansie
5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
It's a remarkable thing to read the comments of 'believers' - trying to justify their irrational beliefs with what they clearly believe to be rational arguments. I suppose it must be the fear of death which makes an otherwise intelligent person convince themselves that supernatural beings exist.

But I'm just not convinced that this is the place for religious debate.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
People who survive lost in the wilderness or at sea often attribute their survival to God.

For some reason they don't attribute it to God that they are in that shitty situation in the first place. Go figure.
A miracle seems only to be valid if it's positive, eh? For some reason nobody ever goes: "He died in a freak accident - what are the odds? Must be a miracle!"

But seriously: The human brain is geraed towards pattern recognition. We MUST find a connection or the mind remains unsatisfied. This throws up false positives. Some things are just luck (if it weren't you'd see a bias towards believers being 'saved' more often. But I'm betting large sums of money that such a bias doesn't exist or it would have been reorted by now)

..the only religious bias I'm aware of is that the prison population has more believers than the population at large. Again: Go figure.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
Well guess why we don't see the failed ones: If a random deformity does not become the dominant trait (like a long neck) it does not occur in many members of the species (usually only one). Finding that one as an archaeological record would be incredibly rare/lucky as opposed to the millions/billions that carry a dominant trait.

And we do see mutations happening all the time: In every living thing that is born on the planet (you and me included). The vast majority of deformities/mutations also mean the organism isn't viable (and you can go to any medical exhibition to see deformed fetuses aplenty to prove that)


Ah, but you made my point for me, as deformed fetuses you are referring to are non-viable.

Also, not all deformities are genetic anyway. Further, I have nowhere denied mutation.

Anyway, you haven't really explained anything. Where'd the long neck come from virtually over night?
davidivad
1.3 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
@ captain stumpy;

so you should decide for them what they should think because because you are logically correct?
why not take art too.
i resubmit the idea that there is more to the human species than the ability to prove something as a fact.

would you agree that the idea of a supreme being is specific to humans?
as an atheist, i am suggesting that you put down your books of logic for a short while and discover the rest of your faculties. all work and no play makes for a dull boy...

read something unscientific like a total bull**** fiction story. go out and enjoy something for real. do something for no reason. enjoy what life has to offer for you.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
For some reason they don't attribute it to God that they are in that shitty situation in the first place. Go figure.
A miracle seems only to be valid if it's positive, eh? For some reason nobody ever goes: "He died in a freak accident - what are the odds? Must be a miracle!"


You say this as though I am not aware of this issue. I can assure you it is a question which bothers me quite often as well. I think the answer lies not in the question of God's existence at all, but rather the question of his promises to us, and our duties to him.

For example, Christians often assume they have "rights" or blessings that the Bible doesn't specifically promise them. Believers and non-believers alike make a mistake in thinking that God is, or ought to be, liable to us, when there is no reason to think that.

So when God does not intervene, it doesn't mean anything, because he is not required to intervene. When he does, we should consider it a mercy and a blessing. I think it's that simple.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
I really must protest this statement. How do you KNOW? How do you know it wasnt your subconscious, which obtained/retained the data and then allowed your brain to make an intuitive/logical leap to asses a situation and/or create a logical deduction that gave you that information?


Observing several months ahead of time, an exact tornado at an exact location on a television news broadcast is just a TAD too precise to be attributed to deduction, and do note that it was actually more than one as well.

Now, how many have you had that DIDNT come true? (should be at least ONE every night, whether you remember it or not)


Any number of dreams. Hey, I struggle with that very thought. I usually do not know which are real and which are just dreams until it actually happens.

For this reason, I no longer mention them to anyone unless I'm sure it's real, or unless it has already happened. Of course that minimizes the usefulness, but I'll not risk being a liar about these thing
Zephir_fan
Jan 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"About a quarter of Americans believe that evolution was guided by God"

-Well then we're in deep trouble because the only notion we have of god is from the books he is supposed to have written, and these books are full of descriptions of events that didn't happen.

How do we know? Well scientists have been digging in the holy land for a century and find only evidence which tells them that other things were taking place back then which would have made those events impossible.

No evidence for, tons of evidence against. Adulterating evidence is a form of deception. So does your god deceive you in order to find out how much you TRUST him? Or is he simply incompetent?

Or, more likely, is he the product of liars and incompetents? At any rate there is nothing that we encounter which gives us any indication of immortality, wish-granting, miracles, or creation, outside of the books. And we KNOW we can't trust what is in them.

Who could trust a god who assures us that rabbits have cuds?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
@ retarders
Observing several months ahead of time, an exact tornado at an exact location on a television news broadcast is just a TAD too precise to be attributed to deduction, and do note that it was actually more than one as well
Well even if that were true (it's not), there is still absolutely no reason to attribute it to a god who insisted there was a flood, an exodus, a first couple, a Joshuan genocide, a great Solomonic kingdom, or a unique godman who just coincidently happened to be a direct copy of a dozen earlier versions. Because THAT god doesn't exist.

Maybe it was some other god. But there is no reason to think that THAT god would want you spending time with him for eternity just because you beg him or eat the requisite number of communion wafers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
davidivad
Dont be like Ryyg
so you should decide for them what they should think because because you are logically correct?
why not take art too.
i resubmit the idea that there is more to the human species than the ability to prove something as a fact.

I said no such thing. I said FAITH has no place in SCIENCE.

What I said is regardless of ANY FAITH, including pseudo-sciences. I DO NOT AGREE that they have ANY RELEVANCE to SCIENCE and should, therefore, be relegated to the realms of which they are intended, which is discussions of FAITH and RELIGION!

Is that clear enough? FAITH has destroyed more science in the past few thousand years than we could POSSIBLY imagine
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
davidivad
as an atheist, i am suggesting that you … enjoy what life has to offer for you.

put your righteous indignation back in the box.

I did the sci-fi as a youngster. Still do sometimes. Still read fiction. My library is larger than the local small town's library. and i sometimes pee off my porch just for kicks. But that does not change the facts stated in the last post...

religion might have driven SOME of the scientists in the past. Some scientists are religious now. BUT... there is STILL no place for religion in science as the faith actually INHIBITS the scientific mind from finding answers. Too many people use it as a stopper... like Newton himself!

You really should have watched the video I posted. Maybe some more from Dr. Tyson. You would learn where I am coming from.

I don't begrudge ANY person from ANY belief, UNLESS it interferes with the science. That is when it ceases to become something that they believe, and becomes something that inhibits thought.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
davidivad
go out and enjoy something for real. do something for no reason. enjoy what life has to offer for you.

I am retired from the fire department (hence the title "Captain", specifically Truck Captain) and the military: Combat arms.
I live my life as fully as I can every day. I've already been to hell. nothing scares me any more, and i live free in the woods as i want, doing pretty much as i please. what more could i ask for?
still doesn't change what i said.

i resubmit the idea that there is more to the human species than the ability to prove something as a fact.


and I re-submit that when it comes to SCIENCE, there is NO PLACE FOR RELIGION.

i dont care WHAT you or anyone else BELIEVES... just leave it at the door when it comes to science. it has NO PLACE. that is the essence of science. logic. empirical data. etc. etc. etc... not faith, and things that CAN NOT BE PROVEN.
Zephir_fan
Jan 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
davidivad
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
do we have somewhere to be soon?

if religion was truly stifling science then why are we able to argue the point.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
@Returners
Observing several months ahead of time, an exact tornado at an exact location on a television news broadcast is just a TAD too precise to be attributed to deduction, and do note that it was actually more than one as well.

sounds more like Deja vu. The mind can be powerful and make you think you predicted it. I would need much more proof of those abilities before I accepted them as factual.
I have "cold read" people many times and gotten great results that made them think I was psychic. Comes in hand when investigating and interviewing.

Any number of dreams. Hey, I struggle with that very thought. I usually do not know which are real and which are just dreams until it actually happens


simple solution. WRITE THEM DOWN when they happen. Keep them in a private journal. Keep detailed notes. proof -OR- you will see that your mind works like everyone else's and you are capable of reading into things and coming to conclusions based on data that you interpret.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
do we have somewhere to be soon?

if religion was truly stifling science then why are we able to argue the point.


@davidivad
sorry?
did you miss most of your history classes growing up?

please... dont play dumb. i've seen enough of your posts to make a fairly educated guess that you are NOT stupid like Ryygy.

all throughout history, and still today in the US bible belt and the middle east, science is being threatened by religious beliefs. SOMEHOW religion has the impression that science is out to get them and their beliefs... personally, i think that is narcissistic and foolish.

Science is out to give answers to how things work. that is pretty much it. HOW THINGS WORK.

it really IS that simple.
davidivad
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
i am not sure i understand. do we have something to fear? all the facts are on our side. i am just waiting for someone to say that they do not have the right because it is illogical or unsubstantiated. why reduce life to a fist full of numbers? there is more there than logic. as someone who believes in evolution, i hope that we allow ourselves the benefit of diversity.
davidivad
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
to suggest that i am stupid if i do not agree only signifies you cannot look beyond logic and look at the greater picture. people do more than add things together; they often do things that do not make sense. we paint pictures of no scientific value, we celebrate holidays that have no value for us, science is provable- a child can tell you that. but what of culture-does it have no value to you? you are only using part of your brain when you deduce things with logic. where is your art? where is your culture? where are all the other things we do as a species? why is it there at all?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
@davidivad
to suggest that i am stupid if i do not agree only signifies you cannot look beyond logic and look at the greater picture

read it again...
please... dont play dumb. i've seen enough of your posts to make a fairly educated guess that you are NOT stupid like Ryygy.


you said
if religion was truly stifling science...

and I referred you to history and what is going on today.

Dont take it wrong. Believe what you want. I said that. Culture is different. I find cultures fascinating. I just said, and I will repeat it:
Science is out to give answers to how things work. that is pretty much it.

AND
when it comes to SCIENCE, there is NO PLACE FOR RELIGION

thats it!
There really IS NO PLACE for religion in science

please dont pull a Rygg and put words in my mouth. i understand what you say... that is culture and cultural enhancement.NOT SCIENCE.

they are DIFFERENT.
davidivad
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
@captain;
trust me when i say that i understand your dilemma. is this happening in your town? if so, then you have the right to express your opinion. get involved with a local group and lobby your idea for a solution. if you are not having this issue yourself, i suggest that you allow those people to make a local decision. after all, it is their heritage at stake logical or not. it would be my guess that they will either teach both or just the science by default.
davidivad
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
sorry, for some reason i thought you were commenting on a local overthrow of evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
sorry, for some reason i thought you were commenting on a local overthrow of evolution.

davidivad
well, they TRIED.

i hope you can understand where i was coming from.

i really DONT care what anyone else believes.
BUT.... when you have a religion, it is a faith. Faith is the acceptance of things in the absence of empirical data. also known as proof.
Faith is believing in something.
SCIENCE is KNOWING.

if people want their culture and to follow the leader (like the Muslim faith so long ago) and tank itself into the toilet, who am i to stop them?
however, when it bleeds over into science...
this is where WE MUST put the foot down.
Science is all about empirical data. proof.
when you corrupt science with faith, then you STOP progressing because WHY bother finding answers? it was (insert deity here)! most would call science heresy at that point anyway, just like Baghdad.

do you understand where i am coming from now?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
sorry, for...local overthrow of evolution.


davidivad

now do you understand?
Culture has its place. Culture/Art/religion whatever have their place, and if that stimulates a person, then it can be a good thing.
there are scientists who are religious. it is not an issue.

but then there are people (i loath calling them scientists) like creationists who use old/outdated science that was fixed, or proven wrong (think stars older than the universe claims) and they try to USE IT to bastardize science, and then incorporate it into their religion, which then puts REAL science in a bad light...BECAUSE the scientific illiterate (pick a nation) can not differentiate. just look at the threads here.

religion tries to gain power through science. it is NOT the other way around.

science is only trying to figure out how things work...

and historically speaking... religion does NOT work well with science... that is why Baghdad is no longer a center for science.

davidivad
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
didn't we blow up bagdad?
davidivad
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
how can you be so offended and hurt by the arguments they have to stand on?
this is ridiculous. they are getting a whoopin and you are acting like you have been severely compromised.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2014
didn't we blow up bagdad?


did you watch that video i posted? with Dr. Tyson.
Baghdad of the ancients.
you are referring to the Gulf war. recent.

how can you be so offended and hurt by the arguments they have to stand on?
this is ridiculous. they are getting a whoopin and you are acting like you have been severely compromised.


what do you mean?
davidivad
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
well, i guess if they are stupid enough to try to logically argue god then they need a poke or two.
davidivad
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
i think i watched a different one- i must have clicked on something.

"what do you mean?"
these creationists are so obviously wrong. don't be offended by it. they have given up their faith by compromising. just remember not to strip all the paint off your car because the color scheme serves no purpose.
Egleton
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
How many devoted scientists would seriously look through Galilao's telescope if what they saw there shattered all their precious beliefs?
None. Not one.
They have invested too much time and energy to reach their exaulted status in society to rock the boat. Why would they want change when they are at the apex?
Except for You, of cause- you are the exception.
But do you take the findings of your finest seriously? Have you studied the Measurement Problem? (Quantum physics).
It is best we sweep that one under the carpet, hadn't we? Best not go there- There be there Dragons.
My God is the God of the Yawning Chasms.
My heroes dance along the edge.
The rest of you have stopped looking in fear.
Open your eyes. Gaze into the Chasms of your own Ignorance.
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tadchem
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
I 'believe' in concepts that consistently provide testable and accurate predictions of how the universe behaves in a given set of circumstances.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
A third of Americans don't believe in evolution


And for good reason, evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese in a science lab.

Let's review "believe"- To have firm faith, especially religious faith; To have faith, confidence, or trust...
Funny how modern science relies on "faith" just as the religionists do, possibly because modern science HAS BECOME a religion...
jalmy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
News flash. Republicans are stupid and believe in fairies.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
A third of Americans don't believe in evolution


And for good reason, evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese in a science lab.

Let's review "believe"- To have firm faith, especially religious faith; To have faith, confidence, or trust...
Funny how modern science relies on "faith" just as the religionists do, possibly because modern science HAS BECOME a religion...


I'm wondering why do both humans and the great apes have five digits? Two eyes? hands and feet? Why do we have a tail bone? Why are our shoulder joints really not made to flex over 90 degrees and have a strong resemblance to our hip bones? Why do we have any body hair at all? Why does all life use DNA? RNA? Why do we go through phases in the womb where we are a single cell, then something like a fish, then something like a monkey, an ape (unborn babies go through a phase when they are covered in body hair) and finally a human? Why are there so many similarities between humans and all other animals?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2014
@cantdrive85
your comments explain so much about you.

http://dictionary...ence.com

be·lieve
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:

know
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:

Religion BELIEVES in something. There is no reason, proof etc. Religion/Faith requires the suspension of logic

when a scientist does not know something, they devise a way to learn, using experiments that can be reproduced in order to gain empirical data and logically determine that information.

therefore...
religion BELIEVES...

science KNOWS

there is a BIG difference.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2014
well, i guess if they are stupid enough to try to logically argue god then they need a poke or two.
An omniscient, omnipotent, and morally impeccable god who writes books based on events that we KNOW never happened, simply cant exist. This is not logic but only common sense.

He is either incompetent or deceitful or a fabrication. And so we cant believe his claims of eternity in heaven or hell, nor can we expect him to grant our wishes in this life.
Egleton
2 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014

And one or two peoples have the nerve to say I write stupid stuffs here. Skippy the party ended 28 hours ago, it's time for you to go home and sleep it off.

You write stupid stuff here.
JVK
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
Evolutionary theory refutes itself! (Natural selection for mutations does not occur quickly enough to enable ecological adaptations via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.)

http://phenomena....of-2014/
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
It's more likely that Carl Zimmer is becoming a Creationist, like the more famous Creationist: T. Dobzhansky, based on biological facts currently presented in this article from Science.

Please feel free to address the data or Carl Zimmer's comments on it, and skip your opinions.

Thanks. http://www.scienc...35.short
Zephir_fan
Jan 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2014
http://www.nytime...=science

Zimmer concludes "The biggest obstacle to understanding the diversity of tropical rain forests, it turns out, is that very diversity.'

If you wish to pretend that he's asserting the validity of mutation-initiated natural selection or any other form of evolutionary theory, it's your choice to remain ignorant of biologically based cause and effect. And clearly you are not capable of addressing the data on species diversity via ecological adaptation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
JVK
Evolutionary theory refutes itself!

so... your proof that evolution refutes itself is to link an article about how the diversity of insect life on each plant helps the plant/insects evolve faster?
As farmers know all too well, insects can evolve resistance to pesticides. A similar evolution plays out in tropical forests, where insects can disarm many of the chemicals that plants use against them.

from the NYTimes link in the article
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
"We think this arms race between the herbivores and the plants might be the explanation for what maintains the diversity that we see now, and why so many plants have evolved in the first place," Dr. Coley said.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
@JVK
The scientists examined the chemicals of closely related Inga species living near each other. They were surprised to find that the arsenals were drastically different from species to species.

IF a deity created all things instantly at one time, why would it create different chemical defenses for the same environment with the SAME hostilities for RELATED species? This is direct proof of evolution and mechanisms that cause divergence in species.
This is counter to your argument.
It only proves that evolution really works. extreme diversity in small areas due to multiple pressures. Related species split and evolve different coping mechanisms for the same environment.
Biodiversity just shows that evolution includes a complex web of relationships between beneficial partners, environmental pressures, ecology and relationships between predators/prey over time!
directly refuting a single source and "instantaneous" creation

i'm with Zephir_fan on this one, JVK Skippy!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
@JVK
The fact that relationships can be established in different species through DNA showing a common ancestor, which also shows proof of divergence in the past, specifically proves the underlying theory of evolution.

You cant get better support for evolution, or better proof that creationists are wrong.

why would there be so much of the SAME DNA shared in vastly different species? You can argue this all you want, but this SINGLE point completely destroys your creationist theory

it also shows WHY religion has no place in science.

https://en.wikipe...volution
Howhot
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
Evolution... It's the Law. (It's right up there with gravity).
Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
I'm not going to again ask anyone to address the data on ecological variation and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions that differentiate all the cell types of all individuals of all species. http://medicalxpr...eal.html

You're all too quick to dismiss data and think in terms of mutation-initiated natural selection. But, look at this latest link. I can virtually guarantee that no one will tell us which beneficial mutation was naturally selected or how it provided any benefit so that it could be naturally selected for providing a benefit --before the benefit resulted from the "beneficial mutation".

But thanks for asking if there might be more than one way to naturally select food in the context of ecological adaptations across species from microbes to man. The answer is no. Natural selection for food works one way. You die and your species becomes extinct if you make the wrong choice.
Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
JVK posted
You're all too quick to dismiss data and think in terms of mutation-initiated natural selection. But, look at this latest link. I can virtually guarantee that no one will tell us which beneficial mutation was naturally selected or how it provided any benefit so that it could be naturally selected for providing a benefit --before the benefit resulted from the "beneficial mutation".


so... your argument against evolution is that we cannot currently prove ALL mechanisms that could possibly affect beneficial mutation? really?

again, I will state that the fact that relationships can be established in different species through DNA showing a common ancestor, which also shows proof of divergence in the past, specifically proves the theory of evolution

argue mechanism (mech.) all you want. when a new mech. is proven, the theory adjusts and adds it. the mech. is only PART of the theory.

-its like arguing that night-time on Venus can't be dark because our star is much closer
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
@JVK
from your link http://medicalxpr...eal.html
This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians—traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
"The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal region, is exciting," Cheng said. "The combining of segments occurred after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward."


that single quote supports a lengthy past, that DNA mutates and that our past ancestors have EVOLVED.
THAT is the question. Argue mechanisms all you want...
the issue is that evolution is real and stupid people that are scientifically illiterate cant seem to fathom it because religion gets in the way
rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014

Nobody said that believing in God required anyone to abandon logic.


Belief in a god IS the abandonment of logic. If no one ever told you about a god you would never make these claims. Everything you think you know about god is/was the product of man. You learned about god from parents/priests or read about god in books made/copied/translated by people.
Show me one single iota of proof for the existence of a supreme being. Your personal hallucinations and drug side effects do NOT count. 4000 religions and counting and proof for none!
People are dumb!
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
Thanks for addressing the data CS:

What I think you're saying is that our black ancestors and our white ancestors are mutants, and the diversification of skin color happened via natural selection for both mutant forms.

Is that correct?

Dumb coon-asses like the Ira:

96 fixed amino acid substitutions differentiate our cell types from those of our most recent extinct ancestor. There is no experimental evidence that suggests mutations are fixed in the DNA of any organized genome in any species.

How are the mutations you believe are responsible for diversification of species naturally selected? Why isn't there any experimental evidence of that?
Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
A question for the evolutionists. What proof would it take for you not to believe in evolution?
Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species. The control of the differences in cell types occurs via the metabolism of the nutrients to chemical signals that control the physiology of reproduction.

These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution.

That theory is far too ridiculous to be anything but a joke in the context of biological-based increasing organismal complexity. But here, we have lots of jokers, don't we? The proof of ecological variation that appears to refute the theory of evolution, which actually refutes itself, is that ecological adaptations occur too fast for mutations to compete with them as a source of anything but diseases and disorders.
Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
JVK writes
What I think you're saying is that our black ancestors and our white ancestors are mutants, and the diversification of skin color happened via natural selection for both mutant forms


the article YOU linked said
Lighter skin color may have provided an advantage due to for the better creation of vitamin D in the lesser sunlight characteristic of northern latitudes.
[sic]

call it mutation, call it mass hysteria at the cellular level, or call it an internal memo... there was a CHANGE in the DNA: they call it a mutation in the article. I used the article YOU linked.

How are the mutations you believe are responsible for diversification of species naturally selected?

I dont have an answer for the HOW, nor am I qualified to answer it. So if anyone else want to pickup THIS part of the argument, then by all means...

if I DO find any information, however, I WILL be sharing it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution.
That theory is far too ridiculous to be anything but a joke... blah... actually refutes itself, is that ecological adaptations occur too fast for mutations to compete with them as a source of anything but diseases and disorders.

@JVK
so, what I am getting is this:
you are saying that EVOLUTION is really a continual process of a mechanism that forces change onto DNA etc and the change of the DNA is not considered a mutation? But something else?
And that continual evolution is how species become divergent?
is that what you are saying? correct me if i am wrong, and perhaps you should explain it so that a high school freshman could understand it.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
Nutrient stress and social stress force organisms to adapt via seemingly futile cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that either result in amino acid substitutions that stabilize organism-level thermoregulation or the organism dies. It does not mutate into another species, which is why that cannot be explained to a high school freshman.

The point of this article was to show people that high school freshman have already been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection. Thus, they think everything that happens to DNA must be a mutation and there is plenty of extant literature that supports that idea. All of it is wrong in the context of ecological adaptations.

Based on Darwin's 'conditions of life' ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. The adaptations can be viewed as amino acid substitutions.

96 of them differentiate our cell types from those of most recent extinct ancestor.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
and I re-submit that when it comes to SCIENCE, there is NO PLACE FOR RELIGION.

i dont care WHAT you or anyone else BELIEVES... just leave it at the door when it comes to science. it has NO PLACE. that is the essence of science. logic. empirical data. etc. etc. etc... not faith, and things that CAN NOT BE PROVEN.

Just a slight disagreement here, Cap'n... Without religion, scientists wouldn't have the job of debunking long held beliefs. I thinks that's the REAL reason Einstein said "Science without religion is lame..."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
(Man, I think I came into this one too late...)
Evolutionary theory refutes itself! (Natural selection for mutations does not occur quickly enough to enable ecological adaptations via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.)

JVK, I think part of the problem for you is the subtlety of the word mutation, IE;
Drastic or not so drastic change in environment, hugely numerous attempts at adaptation by an organismal GROUP, of which many do not survive. Those that do - have adapted to the environment. They did so utilizing the processes you espouse. They pass that down to any offspring. And it goes on and on...
Someone else stated there were many gaps in evolution theory. Funny thing is, we have to continue to evolve in order to fill them.
Evolution is a "metaphor" of entropy - we and everything we do, followings the "arrow of time". Religionists are in too much of a hurry to have all the questions answered.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Thanks for addressing the data CS:

What I think you're saying is that our black ancestors and our white ancestors are mutants, and the diversification of skin color happened via natural selection for both mutant forms.
Is that correct?

Different environmental pressures, different adaptations.
Dumb coon-asses like the Ira:

What the Hell IS an Ira, anyway? Perhaps an environmentally adaptive organism? And coon-ass... Sigh.... that must be another of those pesky environmental pressures...

96 fixed amino acid substitutions differentiate our cell types from those of our most recent extinct ancestor. There is no experimental evidence that suggests mutations are fixed in the DNA of any organized genome in any species.
How are the mutations you believe are responsible for diversification of species naturally selected? Why isn't there any experimental evidence of that?

They are NOT mutations, they are a result of numerous successful adaptations to their environment.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
A question for the evolutionists. What proof would it take for you not to believe in evolution?

For me it would be something like - you being here without the benefit of your parents having sex while your mother was in estrus...
Or something silly like that..
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Despite the newly described subtlety of the term "mutation," it cannot be used interchangeably with the the term "amino acid substitution." There are biophysical constraints on amino acid substitutions. Evolutionary theorists can't think in terms of biophysical constraints on mutations, despite the biophysical constraints that obviously exist, because biophysical constraints eliminate mutation-initiated natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------

"JVK, I think part of the problem for you is the subtlety of the word mutation..."

Amino acid substitutions: "They are NOT mutations, they are a result of numerous successful adaptations to their environment."
-------------------------------

Thus, as I said: evolutionary theory refutes itself. Ecological adaptations do not occur via mutations; the occur via amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man.

Sex differences did not result from mutations and you're not here because of them.

Returners
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2014
Well Skippy, you might be making a joke, but I didn't see the punch line in there no. Why don't you take a moment or two and rethink the joke and try again?



I'm wondering if you've ever taken a moment or two to rethink how ignorant, and incapable of an independent thought you really are?

I've never seen an original thought from you posted here, the only thing you ever do is insult other people because they refuse to "get in line" with a bunch of nonsense the scientific community sells.
Zephir_fan
Jan 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Despite the newly described subtlety of the term "mutation," it cannot be used interchangeably with the the term "amino acid substitution." There are biophysical constraints on amino acid substitutions. Evolutionary theorists can't think in terms of biophysical constraints on mutations, despite the biophysical constraints that obviously exist, because biophysical constraints eliminate mutation-initiated natural selection.

Okay, let me try again...
Of the myriad adaptive responses to environmental pressures, some are successful. Those lucky guys manage to pass those (initially) epigenetic features on, eventually becoming included into the genetic algorhythm(my term) - DNA. Some call that mutation. Seems pretty simple.
While the working details of it may be beyond my expertise, the mechanic of it isn't.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
"A biological explanation should invoke no factors other than the laws of physical science, natural selection, and the contingencies of history." http://human-natu...rra.html

The conserved molecular mechanisms of selection of nutrients can be foolishly placed into the context of luck and mutations, or epigenetic effects on the de novo creation of genes under conditions of biophysical constraints.

Arguably, you may continue to not learn anything about the working details and tout the luck of mutations theory. But that means you choose to continue to tout foolishness rather than learn why you cannot call amino acid substitutions "mutations".

Successful ecological adaptation requires nutrient-uptake and the controlled physiology of reproduction. The result is selected species diversification sans mutations, which may help to explain why a third of Americans don't believe in evolution of one mutated new species after another until monkeys mutate into our ancestors.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Arguably, you may continue to not learn anything about the working details and tout the luck of mutations theory. But that means you choose to continue to tout foolishness rather than learn why you cannot call amino acid substitutions "mutations".

I don't call them that. I call them successful adaptations to environmental pressures.
Successful ecological adaptation requires nutrient-uptake and the controlled physiology of reproduction. The result is selected species diversification sans mutations, which may help to explain why a third of Americans don't believe in evolution of one mutated new species after another until monkeys mutate into our ancestors.

"Mutation" is DNA disruption within a single iteration of a species. Anything that manages to survive and reproduce surviving progeny with that "mutated" DNA is a successful adaptation. That disruption can be considered an environmental pressure.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
No experimental evidence suggests that mutations are fixed in the DNA of any organized genome of any species. Species survive only if they can fix the amino acid substitutions that stabilize their genome in the context of ecological variables.
---------
Now, before you tell me how much evidence shows that mutations are fixed, look at what they call a mutation and tell me how what they call a mutation varies from an amino acid substitution.
------------
Others: Watch how quickly this discussion turns from this guy telling me about the problem:
------
"JVK, I think part of the problem for you is the subtlety of the word mutation, IE;
Drastic or not so drastic change in environment, hugely numerous attempts at adaptation by an organismal GROUP, of which many do not survive."
----------------------------------------------
To precisely what I have detailed is the problem solved in the context of my model:
http://www.socioa...53/27989

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Others: Watch how quickly this discussion turns from this guy telling me about the problem
.
James, I'm not arguing your process, I'm arguing your use of the term mutation. In my world, the word mutation is just shortcut speech for numerous amino acid substitution "experiments" in response to numerous environmental changes, which eventually lead to successful adaptations. Mutation just means change from what it was before to what it is now.
In your context things don't change? Amino acid SUBSTITUTION isn't a change? Organisms don't have an imperative to refine how they react to amino acids?
Tell me, I really want to know...
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2014
Funny thing about rabid evolutionists is that while they say creationist are closed minded it is really them who are closed minded. They will admit that there is nothing, no proof that could convince them that evolution is not true.

So who is closed minded? Who is really anti science? It is the rabid evolutionists.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
Funny thing about rabid evolutionists is that while they say creationist are closed minded it is really them who are closed minded. They will admit that there is nothing, no proof that could convince them that evolution is not true.

So who is closed minded? Who is really anti science? It is the rabid evolutionists.

referring to anyone in particular in here?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
"So who is closed minded? Who is really anti science? It is the rabid evolutionists."

I would definitely answer the question you posed to the universe - with a resounding no. It is clearly the creationists who are closed minded. They are willing to look straight at evidence - and ignore it.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
"In my world, the word mutation is just shortcut speech for numerous amino acid substitution..."

So where did your world just automagically come from? What source are you inferring makes amino acids "mutations?"

Why not just admit that no experimental evidence suggests that mutations are fixed in the genome?

Quit trying to stand on both sides of the fence you've been sitting on now that it has collapsed under the weight of nonsensical theory.

Cocoa: Pay attention: no experimental evidence supports mutation-initiated natural selection, which has remained the predominant theory taught to unsuspecting fools for nearly 87 years. It's the theorists who never looked for experimental evidence to support their theory -- until last year. None has been found. Theorists continue to ignore that, or like WG reinvent the terms they must use to define conserved molecular mechanisms so that it appears they are not such fools as to have missed the lack of evidence to support their theory.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
1) The discovery of the fact that one decapeptide molecule, among the GnRHs, was constructed perfectly at the beginning of 400 million years evolution and that it is not possible to improve its physiological potency using the any natural amino acid is, in my opinion, important, fascinating and beautiful.

No amino acid substitutions in 400 million years.

2) When the chiral amino acid (Ala) in position six of Ciona I GnRH was substituted with the achiral glycine or with d-Ala, which enhances the type II' β-turn conformation, there was a marked increase in the binding affinity of the peptides at the vertebrate GnRH receptor

One substitution of the only achiral amino acid glycine can be compared to the chiral amino acid substitution (Ala).

When are the evolutionary theorists going to admit that they don't understand any of this, and quit telling Creationists they don't understand science?

Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
"When are the evolutionary theorists going to admit that they don't understand any of this, and quit telling Creationists they don't understand science?"

Probably never JVK. I cannot engage in the argument on the level you present - I do not have the understanding of the technicalities that you discuss.

I would be interested in your credentials for challenging the understood science of evolution. I would also suggest you take the issue up with someone like Dawkins, of PZ Meyers - people who do have the knowledge to address these technicalities.

My understanding of evolution is not on a detailed technical level - but I think it is just as valid. A look at a chart like this shows that life has clearly evolved over the past 3.8 bilion years. http://www.agiweb...ime.html Creationists claim the earth is only 10,000 years old - I could not imagine any more absurdity than ignoring that level of evidence. I will contact PZ - see if he has time to respond.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
which is why that cannot be explained to a high school freshman.

Ok, JVK... maybe THIS explains why:
Mutation - In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element.

https://en.wikipe...Mutation

in other words, even the changes that YOU are talking about, which cause
a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome

is considered a MUTATION
Perhaps you would like to just have that word changed?

Amino acid substitutions: "They are NOT mutations, they are a result of numerous successful adaptations to their environment."

but... if they subsequently cause a change in the DNA, then isnt that considered a mutation?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
Okay, let me try again...

@Whydening Gyre
I am not sure explaining it will help. There seems to be a misunderstanding, but I am not sure WHERE, because of this simple link:
https://en.wikipe...Mutation

everything he is explaining, even the part
Amino acid substitutions: "They are NOT mutations, they are a result of numerous successful adaptations to their environment."

...if it causes a change to the DNA, then that is technically a mutation, as far as I can tell.

Those changes and other pressures then cause other changes, adaptations, or whatever... isnt that the basis of evolution? That is how I was taught it, anyway. Right now they are attempting to define some SPECIFIC pressures, and give proof, but it appears that some people want to argue it all.

Which is where I am at now. I am confused, because so far as I can tell, JVK just doesn't like the TERM mutation, whereas (again, as far as I can tell) if it alters the DNA, it is technically a mutation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
JVK says
But that means you choose to continue to tout foolishness rather than learn why you cannot call amino acid substitutions "mutations"

still arguing semantics, it seems

either that or you are telling me that I need to get a doctorate in biology in order to understand that the changes to the DNA that you are talking about are not mutations, even though the definition of mutation is when the DNA changes...
it is rather confusing, which is why I posted the link. Perhaps you could be a little MORE specific TO ME while dropping your jargon and explaining WHY it is that your DNA changes are NOT mutations.
I am not being foolish. I am just trying to understand what your beef with the word mutation is.
PLEASE
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2014
I would be interested in your credentials for challenging the understood science of evolution. I would also suggest you take the issue up with someone like Dawkins, of PZ Meyers - people who do have the knowledge to address these technicalities.


I am not an anonymous participant in any discussion including this one on PZ Myers blog.

http://scienceblo...tterfeed

JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2014
I am not being foolish. I am just trying to understand what your beef with the word mutation is. PLEASE


Biophysical constraints exclude mutations from any process of evolution. I don't have a beef with using the word, since it obviously is important in discussion of diseases.

I have a problem when what causes diseases is used in the context of causing evolution. But next you will tell me that mutations cause natural selection, and there is no experimental evidence that suggests that is possible.

But you will tell me there is plenty of evidence, and cite it without telling me how mutation-initiated natural selection is possible.

You are stuck with a theory that cannot be defended with experimental evidence, which is why evolutionary theory has refuted itself.

At some point someone had to show evidence of cause and effect in the context of mutation-driven evolution, and they have never done that.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
"I am not an anonymous participant in any discussion including this one on PZ Myers blog"

But you don't address the question of your credentials for questioning what is the current understanding of biology - ie: evolution. Evolution is well understood by tens of thousands of scientists - who have spent their lives developing this body of knowledge. Every biology text book in the world teaches evolution. What are your credentials for challenging such an established part of science.

You also don't address the question of 3.8 billion years of the fossil record - giving mountainous evidence to the process of evolution - or was that just god being tricksy? - giving us a little thought challenge?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
@JVK
But you will tell me there is plenty of evidence, and cite it without telling me how mutation-initiated natural selection is possible.


personally, I dont know HOW, so... no, I wouldn't.
someone else might, though.
You are stuck with a theory that cannot be defended with experimental evidence


but they aren't done yet. How can anyone make a judgement call based upon evidence that is not there? Thats like giving up the football game in the first half, or maybe because the Goalie is short. Just because there is no evidence yet, does not mean there never will be.
And I dont think that the scientists are single-tracked in this either. There have to be some that are exploring avenues that are bound to either dead-end or bear fruit. It is the same with ANY investigation, really. You have to cover the bases, dot the i's, cross the t's.

If you are an authority, and you have evidence, then publish.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2014
@JVK
I have a problem when what causes diseases is used in the context of causing evolution.

so you are saying ALL mutations cause disease.
That means that ANY change in the DNA is a disease?

And THERE lies the whole argument... what we are trying to get answered.

and before you start in with the techno-jargon... remember the definition that i linked to.
https://en.wikipe...Mutation

The definition says: any change to DNA is a mutation. You say it is not true, but I would have to understand your techo-jargon. Which leads us right back to the beginning with me asking
Perhaps you could be a little MORE specific TO ME while dropping your jargon and explaining WHY it is that your DNA changes are NOT mutations

while using clear, concise wording that can stand up to scrutiny, and meets the requirements of teveryone as well as the definitions which are published as being explanatory for biology. Something that can be looked up and verified, etc.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Biophysical constraints exclude mutations from any process of evolution. I don't have a beef with using the word, since it obviously is important in discussion of diseases.
I have a problem when what causes diseases is used in the context of causing evolution. But next you will tell me that mutations cause natural selection, and there is no experimental evidence that suggests that is possible.
But you will tell me there is plenty of evidence, and cite it without telling me how mutation-initiated natural selection is possible.
(yada, yada, yada...)
At some point someone had to show evidence of cause and effect in the context of mutation-driven evolution, and they have never done that.

How bout this;
cause - an African gnu ages (a change/mutation caused by a gradual inability to process amino acids in it's nutrient uptake) ) and it's reaction time slows (a biophysical constraint).
Effect - The lion pheremonally senses that and "naturally" selects it for dinner.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
@JVK

is this asking a little too much?
you are condemning the youth of today for their folly
The point of this article was to show people that high school freshman have already been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection

but you sure AINT helping any. if i cant get a clear concise answer, then either:
-you dont know what the answer is
-you know AN answer but you dont know it well enough to explain it simply (and it may/may not even apply)
-you know the answer but we cannot understand each other
-you are working on a theory and no one besides YOU understands the answer (at which point i would suggest you seek medical attention)

not trying to be a jerk. trying to understand.

and in order for it to happen we must agree on ground rules. such as definitions and simple language that everyone can understand.
the minute you try jargon, it all goes Pflooey!

keep it simple.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
and in order for it to happen we must agree on ground rules. such as definitions and simple language that everyone can understand.
the minute you try jargon, it all goes Pflooey!

keep it simple.

Cap'n. He won't. Because the obfuscational jargon is his crutch to refuse admitting he misunderstands a term. Mutation is change, that's all. Hell, my mind mutates every 30 seconds. Is that a disease? Uh-oh... ADHD...
My suggestion is he takes a few days off, have a little whiskey and get a hooker. Might help his perspective, cuz I think he's been workin' way too hard.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
i just saw this:
Funny thing about rabid evolutionists is that while they say creationist are closed minded it is really them who are closed minded. They will admit that there is nothing, no proof that could convince them that evolution is not true

@freethinking
this is absurdly false.
IF you could provide irrefutable evidence that evolution is not true, I would not only consider it, I would have to admit it was true. However, better men/women than YOU have tried THAT one.
Methinks YOUR issue is the definition of evolution. Or maybe mutation?
Or perhaps you are talking about the contributions of religion? In such a matter, I would refer you to the fact that there are more religions in the world than countries. And it seems that number is growing... plus the fact that every ONE claims to be the one true religion. Therefore, are you going to grade them based upon age? Creativity? Color? Adherents? Number of small farm animals present? Costumes?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
@freethinking
and before you respond, consider this:
the Christian bible is based upon the Jewish Tanakh
https://en.wikipe...ew_Bible
which is where yall derive your "origins"
which, by definition, also means, that only the Jews were Created by your god. The rest of humanity is monkeys, bubba.
Dont believe me? Read Genesis again. If Adam and Eve had only Sons, where did their wives, and therefore the rest of us, come from?
But that is beside the point... the moment you try to talk bible here Otto will jump in and destroy all your arguments.
If your god gave you intelligence, and humans have proven, time and again, that Quantum theory is not only valid, but it is the MOST successful theory that we've ever had, then you also have the answer to the age of the earth, which directly refutes ANY creationist argument.
PERIOD

argue semantics and whatever all you want. the TRUTH is the TRUTH. and what YOU cant stand, is that creationists are PROVEN wrong.
END OF STORY.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
1) Evolution is well understood by tens of thousands of scientists - who have spent their lives developing this body of knowledge.
2) If you are an authority, and you have evidence, then publish.
3) keep it simple.

I've published a book, an award-winning book chapter, and 4 peer-reviewed review articles during the past two decades.

Here we have antagonists who want me to keep my explanation simple so it can be compared to the "evolution for dummies" simplicity of mutation-initiated natural selection that they've been taught to believe in. No experimental evidence suggests that mutations are fixed in the genome or that anything else would enable them to be "selected" as something beneficial to species survival. That's no problem for a theorist, and apparently everyone else here enjoys being a theorist.

Serious scientists do not experiment; report their results; integrate their results etc and publish -- to argue with theorists who believe in "evolution for dummies".
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
"... the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists! --Dobzhansky (1964) Biology, molecular and organismic http://icb.oxford...citation]http://icb.oxford...citation[/url]

"... the process of adaptation to the environment is the main propellant of evolutionary change. Evidence is rapidly accumulating which, in my opinion, substantiates the hypothesis. It remains, however, not only to convince the doubters but, what is more important, to discover just how the challenges of the environment are translated into evolutionary changes." --Dobzhansky (1964) Biology, molecular and organismic http://icb.oxford...citation]http://icb.oxford...citation[/url]

Ecological variation requires adaptations; mutations are not adaptive and they cannot be selected so that they become adaptations. Selection of food enables adaptations.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
Dobzhansky made it clear what "serious scientist" meant, without defining what he meant by "serious" or what he meant by "scientist." A "serious scientist" is not a bird-watcher or butterfly collector. A "serious scientist" has learned the difference between mutations and ecological adaptations. He also made this clear: "It remains, however, not only to convince the doubters but, what is more important, to discover just how the challenges of the environment are translated into evolutionary changes."

Clearly, as a serious scientist, Dobzhansky realized it was a waste of time discussing biological facts with theorists. I will reiterate this fact: Nothing has changed in 50 years!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK
Here we have antagonists who want me to keep my explanation simple ..."evolution for dummies"... taught to believe in.

I prefer to think of myself as a student. i'm not TRYING to me antagonistic, just tryign to establish the ground rules of communication... albeit unsuccessfully.
I've published a book, an award-winning book chapter, and 4 peer-reviewed review articles during the past two decades.

a link would be nice...
or more info than "i did blah blah blah"... that doesn't help at all
Ecological variation requires adaptations; mutations are not adaptive and they cannot be selected so that they become adaptations.

so you are saying that adaptations and mutations are different?
if an adaptation CHANGES the DNA, doesn't that make it a mutation?
It seems to me that adaptation is a mechanism that is essentially another side to the coin. But doesn't it still eventually end up changing the DNA? Once the DNA changes, what do you call that (if not mutation)?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK cont...
[q[Clearly, as a serious scientist, ... waste of time discussing...
and so how is ANYONE to learn ANYTHING unless someone gets off their duff and does the legwork of discussing it?

I think I have legitimate questions. You keep putting them off. I am not a biologist, but you are also not very adept at communication... I figure this makes us even.
Just link your book, we will start with that.

I really am NOT trying to be antagonistic. You are just not clarifying your answers. Just because YOU think your jargon makes sense, doesn't mean it does. How would you like it if I started using MY lingo, then calling YOU antagonistic or (essentially) a dummy? Which is pretty much the impression I am getting...

and keeping it simple means:
quit using jargon
use simple easy to look up references
leave the technical doctoral level crap out
explain the whole idea that changes to DNA are NOT mutations whereas the biological definition states that all changes ARE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK cont...
Try to think of this as an exercise in clear, concise communication rather than talking down your nose at someone who is trying to understand but has not received their doctoral in biology etc.

think like ISO 9000. you really DONT have to use your jargon or highly technical explanations to explain why a change to DNA is not a mutation. This is where we need to start.

Then put a link to your book.

Once we get the basics out of the way we can start getting into the detail where your jargon comes into play.

But if you cannot explain it so that the average person can understand it, why the heck get pissed because the average person doesn't understand it and questions it?
i'm not totally uneducated here... you are just not being clear.

i will be back later today, or tonight.... just THINK about that, huh?
davidivad
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
yep they're almost ready to build a church on it.
JVK
2 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
18 hours ago I provided a link to my most recent review article: http://www.socioa...53/27989

In the conclusion, I wrote:

"If this genes-to-behavior-and-back model of systems biology is correct, it shows what has gone missing from cause and effect in the context of adaptive evolution of the human brain and behavior. What is missing is the complex interplay of intrinsic properties, sensory drive, and the feedback activity, which requires the acknowledgement that mammalian pheromones, including human pheromones, obviously exist. That fact should be as obvious as the fact that the ecological epigenetics of food odors exist."

There are examples of how 1) ecological variation and 2) natural selection for food and 3) its metabolism to pheromones link alternative splicings of pre-mRNA to amino acid substitutions and species diversity sans mutations.

Let's discuss your idea of how mutations cause evolution for comparison.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
The Scent of Eros
Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality
By James V. Kohl, Robert T. Francoeur
http://bookstore....ros.aspx

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html
"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation...[via amino acid substitutions]

http://www.socioa...53/27989
"Differences in the behavior of nematodes are determined by nutrient-dependent rewiring of their primitive nervous system (Bumbarger et al., 2013). Species incompatibilities in nematodes are associated with cysteine-to-alanine substitutions (Wilson et al., 2011)...."

Nutrient uptake differentiates every cell type in every individual of every species via amino acid substitutions sans mutations. Simple as 1,2,3!
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
JVK - you just keep avoiding the big question. You want to get buried in technicalities - that the vast majority of us do not have the training and depth of knowledge to understand.

There is 3.8 billion years of fossil record. 3.8 billion years ago - there were only single celled life forms. As the years progress - the life forms become more complex. How do you account for this interesting reality - if not evolution?
davidivad
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@jvk;

have you gotten any peer reviews on this? i definitely see possibilities with it.
davidivad
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@jvk;

what is your education level? can you get published in a journal?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
As the years progress - the life forms become more complex. How do you account for this interesting reality - if not evolution?


Thanks for asking. What don't you understand about my model of ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction? Do you disagree with fact that the model refutes mutation-driven evolution and replaces a ridiculous theory with a model of increasing organismal complexity that explains how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations result in species diversity via alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions?

Did you see the title of the paper? Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

How do you account for this interesting reality - if not evolution?


How do you account for your interesting reality in which a model of adaptive evolution results in your question about "-if not evolution?" ????????

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@jvk;

have you gotten any peer reviews on this? i definitely see possibilities with it.


Re: my award-winning 2006 journal article and concurrently published book chapter

"This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions." -- Simon LeVay

http://www.amazon...99737673
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
JVK - "Do you disagree with fact that the model refutes mutation-driven evolution"

No I don't disagree with this - because I don't understand either theory in great enough depth. I do know that many who do understand the theory of evolution in great depth have taken your model apart. What you appear to not understand is how science works. Theories are advanced - and then tested - over and over. Tens of thousands of minds - all subjecting the theory to rigorous development - or debunking. Currently evolution has stood the test. This is not the forum to advance new theories - that is with the community of trained scientists. As you are of course aware - there are reams of debate about your theory on the internet - and much discussion of your interest in making and promoting pheromone products - that most agree are not scientifically based. See - http://www.slate....man.html
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
JVK - I wanted to go back to one more issue. I responded to a post from freethinking about creationism. Are you a creationist? In your response to my comment - you rail against evolutionists telling creationists they don't understand science.

When someone claims the earth is only 10,000 years old - don't you think that is a fair criticism?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
I'll stick with the main issue. SCIENCE! It makes no more difference whether I am a Creationist than it did for Dobzhansky, who was the Creationist who wrote: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (1973) American Biology Teacher 35: 125-129. I have thoroughly detailed a model that you now refer to as a theory that needs to be tested, when the molecular mechanisms involved are conserved across species from microbes to man.

I think it is a fair criticism of people who are more concerned with others religious beliefs than they are with SCIENCE to say they are ignorant fools incapable of intelligent conversation because they typically believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that was never supported by experimental evidence.

"We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years." What do you think that means to a Creationist?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
@jvk
the model refutes mutation-driven evolution and replaces a ridiculous theory with a model of increasing organismal complexity that explains how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations result in species diversity via alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions?

you know... it seems that I am beating a dead horse, but until you can stop and think for a minute, we really are not going to go anywhere but in circles:
how can
alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions?

NOT be mutations IF:
said changes affect DNA
AND cause CHANGES to DNA
WHICH, by definition than is called a MUTATION?

We keep coming back to this simple argument. And so far you have NOT addressed it. It is simpe: how can a CHANGE to DNA (which is called a MUTATION) not be considered a mutation. I will beat this dead horse until you reply with a logical explanation. Thus far, you have NOT.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK
I'll stick with the main issue. SCIENCE!

I beg to differ... so far you have used techno-jargon to confuse the situation, and as Cocoa points out:
What you appear to not understand is how science works. Theories are advanced - and then tested - over and over. Tens of thousands of minds - all subjecting the theory to rigorous development - or debunking. Currently evolution has stood the test.

and the problem comes when FAITH interferes with SCIENCE
I think it is a fair criticism of people who are more concerned with others religious beliefs than they are with SCIENCE to say they are ignorant fools incapable of intelligent conversation because they typically believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that was never supported by experimental evidence.

but YOUR theory espouses evolution in which there are STILL changes in DNA
(which is called MUTATION by the way)
so you are calling yourself ignorant?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK
I have thoroughly detailed a model that you now refer to as a theory that needs to be tested, when the molecular mechanisms involved are conserved across species from microbes to man.

uh... actually, it would be considered a HYPOTHESIS as the general consensus of scientists do not agree and are supporting evolution models that differ
If all these characteristics come to be attractive ...specific pheromone, ...absence of complex genetically coded instructions

so... what if those characteristics are attractive and one/both person(s) are blocked from transmission?
(see Cocoa's link)

now, I know you think you are smart BUT:
if ya cant explain it so that the average person can understand it...

but that is another dead horse entirely.

are you the
"Kohl
Independent Researcher"
listed in the link you posted way back there?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK
and as Cocoa so eloquently put it:
What you appear to not understand is how science works. Theories are advanced - and then tested - over and over. Tens of thousands of minds - all subjecting the theory to rigorous development - or debunking. Currently evolution has stood the test.


GIVEN that you are a scientist AND
you are posing a theory AND
you are not being supported by the scientific community at large THEN
the average user MUST assume that you are NOT legitimate AND
you do not have irrefutable evidence AND
your theory contains NO empirical data AND
the theory has no reproducible experimentation BECAUSE
if it DID have these things, and you COULD prove it, then the scientific community at large would be FORCED into admitting that you were right, THEREFORE
there MUST be a flaw in the theory.

ya want to talk to the average joe and not seem like a pretentious overbearing techno-snob, ya gotta talk average joe talk

dead horse is still dead, but i am beating away
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
"how can a CHANGE to DNA (which is called a MUTATION) not be considered a mutation."

Thanks for asking: The change to DNA is not considered a mutation when it is placed into the context of ecological variation, which is responsible for adaptations. In such cases, amino acid substitutions are clearly linked to the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and clearly linked from ecological variation to a benefit.

The change to DNA is not considered a mutation, because the benefit is biophysically constrained, which means it cannot simple randomly arise. Also fixation may occur via a controlled molecular mechanism. Mutations are not fixed in the genome because they destabilize protein folding. Amino acid substitutions stabilize protein folding, which is required for the nutrient-dependent creation of new genes.

How can you not be learning anything about this in school, or from reading the extant literature? Why would you tell someone like me I must be wrong?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
"New versions of genes, called alleles, can appear by mutation in populations. Even when these new alleles turn the individuals carrying them more fit to survive and reproduce, the most likely outcome is that they will get lost from the populations. The theory that explains these probabilities has been postulated by the scientist J.B.S. Haldane almost 90 years ago. This theory has become the cornerstone of modern population genetics, with studies on adaptation to novel environments and conservation of species, for example, being based on it. However, until now there were no explicit experimental tests of this theory."

WHAT KIND OF IDIOT ARGUES AGAINST A MODEL WITH A THEORY THAT WAS NEVER TESTED? http://www.scienc...5804.htm

For example, in my model, the change from a grazing nematode to a predatory nematode with teeth results from fixation of a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitution.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
As I always conclude, discussion of biological facts is pointless in this type of venue. Virtually everyone prefers a ridiculous theory, because it is geared to the most basic understanding of the uninformed and unenlightened -- the people who can't learn anything about anything, and thus believe what they are told by masses of people like them, who could not learn from Darwin about his 'conditions of life' or from Dobzhansky about Creation.

The ignorant masses are convinced that de novo gene creation occurs via mutations that lead to benefits and increasing organismal complexity via natural selection. There has never been any experimental evidence to support such ridiculous beliefs, which is why the ignorant masses are referred to as the ignorant masses. They are too ignorant to be referred to in any other way. Being polite fails; attempting to teach fails; attempting to get them to read fails. They cannot fail to remain ignorant because it is the easiest thing to do.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
The Secret Anarchy of Science: Free Radicals [Kindle Edition] by Michael Brooks
http://www.amazon...057N4AY2

Excerpt: This thrilling exploration of some of the greatest breakthroughs in science reveals the extreme lengths some scientists go to in order to make their theories public.

My comment:

Like Lynn Margulis, I wrote a book first (in 1995) and then started writing articles for peer-reviewed journals. Like others with ideas outside the mainstream, the model of amino acid substitutions that are responsible for determination of cell types in individuals of all species, will probably be suppressed by irresponsible academics whose only real concern is to avoid looking like fools. Yet, decade after decade, that is exactly what happens.

They teach generation after generation the same foolish ideas, until someone forces them to stop. Then, suddenly, it's as if they knew the new scientific truth all along and they begin teaching it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK
As I always conclude, discussion of biological facts is pointless in this type of venue. ...BLAH ... it is the easiest thing to do.


now... you might think that, and I will not begrudge you your belief, but SOME people are actually here to learn... the problem is... there are SOME who come here thinking they should be allowed an audience befitting their perceived status, usually imagined, and expect everyone to immediately agree with them.
You offered your evidence and I asked for clarification. You gave what YOU perceived as clarification but you still cant see that your "clarification" still does not address the main issue. It uses Technological jargon which is not understandable. You expect everyone to agree with your assessment based on your status, but offer no explanation to clarify the details- you ask for belief BY FAITH. You cannot explain or teach. Which is BAD in this forum.
This is an issue with THE PRESENTER and NOT with the audience.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2014
@JVK Cont...
You cannot talk to a room full of average joe's and expect them to understand specific jargon to your field without training consistent with others in your field.
IOW- you lash out because YOU cant explain things well enough for the masses.

Why would you tell someone like me I must be wrong?

when you TELL someone that they MUST accept your knowledge BY FAITH but cannot explain your reasoning or your logic, and contradict MAINSTREAM definitions then you WILL be challenged, even if only to get you to clarify yourself.
Asking someone to just "accept" your knowledge is not a good idea when you are a sceintist. You must PROVE yourself. This doesn't end when you get your degree's etc., in fact, it becomes MORE important.

it seems to me that you are assuming that all mutations are negative in nature, and all I really see is that MUTATION is just another word for CHANGE, just specifically assigned to DNA etc in biology.

Now do YOU understand?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
JVK - "they are ignorant fools incapable of intelligent conversation because they typically believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that was never supported by experimental evidence."

There is gigatonnes of evidence to support evolution - which is the reason it is taught in every biology text in the world. Eg: the chart I referenced earlier, or the similarity in design of structures such as a whales fin, a horses foot, a birds wing, and the human hand.

I understand that you are not challenging the idea that organisms change over time - but you are challenging the mechanism by which this change occurs. Perhaps you are correct - and tens of thousands of biologists across the world are "ignorant fools" So go prove your point - but not on the comments section of a popular science site - trying to prove your point here tells me that you have tried the science community - and they have found you wanting. cont.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
cont. - It seems very common for individuals to come on to a site like Physorg - and to proclaim themselves the holder of truth - and the whole science community (millions of the most highly educated people in the world) a bunch of "ignorant fools". Of course there have been examples of people who have turned scientific consensus on its head. Most of those examples go back many hundreds of years - to a time when the average person could not read, and science was in a very different state. Individuals working in a laboratory could develop new theories - (Maxwell could be an example). Today - calling the whole science community a bunch of "ignorant fools" smacks of arrogance and hubris.

Go prove your point - but not on a lay persons comments stream - in the real world of scientific ideas.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
What's currently being taught won't be replaced for a few more years because people would rather believe what their professors were taught and they can't grasp the biological facts in new published works like this one: Primate CpG Islands Are Maintained by Heterogeneous Evolutionary Regimes Involving Minimal Selection (2011), which not only removed most of what you were taught about mutations, but it also removes most of what you thought was natural selection. http://linkinghub...1100482X

It replaces that nonsense with what's been known about selection of nutrients and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations for several years: http://www.ncbi.n...1635129/ in the context of ecological adaptations.

You mentioned whales: "Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence." http://rspb.royal...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
Go prove your point - but not on a lay persons comments stream - in the real world of scientific ideas.


I already have. This is where the ignorance is, which is why I am here. My point is that:

"Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence."

I wonder why no one else here knows that. Could it be they're all ignorant? Shall I start with viruses and run through it again for just you?

Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution http://www.scienc...abstract

Having gone from the smallest non-living form I could think of to the largest form of mammal via conserved molecular mechanisms, I wonder what everyone else has been doing to contribute to scientiifc progress by eliminating ridiculous theories. Could it be they are all doing NOTHING? Who pays them to do NOTHING?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
And you completely missed the part where I said that this is the wrong forum for trying to prove a new theory - and that calling the whole science community a bunch of "ignorant fools" is the height of arrogance and hubris. Wonder why you might have missed that part - considering it was basically the major part of several of my posts. Can't get an audience in the community of science right? Wonder if that has something to do with calling them all "ignorant fools".
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
What can I call Feierman?

Jay R. Feierman: I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that "Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts" is a correct and true statement. http://tech.group...ge/48229

James V. Kohl: "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that." http://tech.group...ge/48152

Jay R. Feierman: Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don't know that you have an incorrect understanding Darwinian biological evolution. http://tech.group...ge/48182
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
What you call an individual is your business - I have no interest in getting in the middle of a spat - one of many that you spend your time on the internet with. What is significant is that you call the whole field of science - "ignorant fools". Nuf said for me. But as i keep repeating - if you have information that discredits the whole field of evolutionary biology - put it out there - and change the world - it is more likely that you have already tried that - been well and truly rebutted - and are now resorting to starting arguments on the comments section of a popular science web site.
davidivad
3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
great tag team guys.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
You mentioned whales: "Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence." http://rspb.royal...abstract

Not one person has commented on my published works or on the data in the links I've provided.
Zephir_fan
Jan 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2014
You mentioned whales: "Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence." http://rspb.royal...abstract

Your link does not work.

I thought that you were arguing that evolution is only believed by ignorant fools. Now you reference natural selection and evolutionary divergence. Seems contradictory.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
James V. Kohl: "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that."

Okay. I think I might see the difference of viewpoint.
An organism has already performed the AA substitutions necessary to survive(selected) a potential ecological variation that would change it's nutrient uptake prior to that variation event, right?
Maybe, it's just that no pre-existing conditions appearing evident prior to that AA substitution event have been observed in your research - (here's the catch) YET...

You are aware that EVERYTHING in our Universe from quarks (an arbitrary reference point) on up requires a pre-existing condition of some kind to react to, right?
You appear to be a smart man. Don't close your mind to the possibility of potential possibilities that you might have (accidentally, I'm sure) missed.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
"...no pre-existing conditions appearing evident prior to that AA substitution event have been observed in your research..."

Thanks. You're wrong! Biophysical constraints on the ability of cells to acquire nutrients via movement across a chemical gradient have been detailed -- but not in my model (because they must obviously be involved and I am not a biophysicist).

However, as we now see, I must explain everything in the universe (I get that a lot) if I am to convince anyone here that 1) mutation-initiated natural selection is the most ridiculous idea I can imagine; 2) there is no experimental evidence to support that idea; and 3) there is no alternative model for comparison to my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via amino acid substitutions in cells of individuals in all species.

Indeed, I might have missed something, but the weight of experimental evidence from every species suggests I have not.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
You mentioned whales: "Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence." http://rspb.royal...abstract

Your link does not work.


It's the second time I provided it: http://rspb.royal...abstract

I thought that you were arguing that evolution is only believed by ignorant fools. Now you reference natural selection and evolutionary divergence. Seems contradictory.


What you think cannot be compared to the typical thought processes of an intelligent person. Thus, there are probably many similar contradictions in your world -- as there are in the worlds of people who believe in mutation-driven evolution and that Creationists are not capable of understanding science, when Dobzahansky himself was a Creationist and so is the current director at the National Institutes of Health: Francis Collins, who wrote the book: The Language of God.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
"What you think cannot be compared to the typical thought processes of an intelligent person."

Wow - smack down - do you feel better after that?

I guess that puts me in the same category as tens of thousands of "ignorant fools" who believe in the theory of evolution - for which there is gigatons of supporting evidence - but you being the only smart one on the planet - know that it is just group delusion.

Best wishes.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
@JVK - wow what an arrogant ass you are!
As I always conclude, discussion of biological facts is pointless in this type of venue.
And yet you started it! Your very first comment in this article was set out in such a manner as to provoke argument, immediately followed by an appeal to an authority that turned out to be yourself. That type of circular reasoning is exactly the type of illogicality that pseudo-scientists use to promote a theory that has (usually) already been looked at by those with the training and understanding to consider the merits of the argument present and have already rejected the premise.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
However, as we now see, I must explain everything in the universe (I get that a lot) if I am to convince anyone here
Oh boo hoo! No, you arrogant ass, you have to explain why the bulk of scientific understanding and (god must I point it out to you) scientific experimentation done to date is all wrong, and Your Eminence has discovered, all on his own, the real Truth!
1) mutation-initiated natural selection is the most ridiculous idea I can imagine;
Then you have zero imagination. You obviously follow the theories of Denton and/or Cuvier. Therefore, the critiques against their arguments most likely stand resolute against the arguments you are trying to portray here. The suggestion that a mutation must necessarily cause a whole scale change over a single generation is ridiculous, and yet that is what your argument boils down to. Manipulated natural selection is the basis for modern farming, and uses those exact mutations you claim do not exist to perpetuate a desired .
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
..cont.. trait in the offspring of the species being bred. This applies across and incredibly broad range of species, from grasses, to root vegetables, to cloven-hoofed animals, to bacteria. To state with such arrogance that such mutational manipulation has no example makes you the fool, not the readers you chastise.
Frankly, your argument from your own incredulity is a fallacy, but more importantly points to your own lack of understanding of generational adaptation and change. You appear to be arguing from the creationist perspective that there has not been enough time for random mutational changes in DNA to have perpetuated the degree of species diversification that we see. You argument, assuming I have it right, fails on at least two points. The first being that time is not really a factor, as the number of offspring and the time to their maturity is the important consideration, the second being the number of offspring that survive to sexual maturity.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
Go prove your point....
I already have. This is where the ignorance is, which is why I am here. My point is that:

"Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence."

I wonder why no one else here knows that. Could it be they're all ignorant? Shall I start with viruses and run through it again for just you?
No you have not! Yet what you quoted here is actually true, albeit you have bastardized its meaning. Ecological variation does indeed drive evolutionary divergence, by allowing those individuals who survive to sexual maturity to have offspring. A small mutation which changes a minor expression (such as color variation) and which allows that individual to survive and pass on that trait will see the mutation expressed in some percentage of its offspring. If they too survive, whereas their siblings who do not have the trait do not, then the mutation will carry on. Why are you so ignorant to this fact?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
@JVK
I already have. This is where the ignorance is, which is why I am here.

wow... so you are saying that you are far more intelligent than everyone else?
I wonder why no one else here knows that. Could it be they're all ignorant?

yep...sounds like thats what you are saying
they can't grasp the biological facts in new published works

BUT
and I laugh at this
YOU come to a LAY-person PUBLIC site to voice this opinion
Tell you what... try doing that at a public conference of your peers. See ow far it gets you... or is THAT the reason you are venting HERE?
AND THEN you get MAD because there are no biologists that can argue with you
while venting and calling the rest of the average people idiots
because YOU cannot communicate what you want known

WOW
you are showing yourself to be one narcissistic sociopathic loon

and you call US ignorant?
better re-read Cocoa
and Maggnus too

perhaps YOU will learn something by being HERE
manners would be nice...
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
Thanks Maggnus. It's great to have comments like yours from yet another under informed anonymous participant.

Human skin color variation is nutrient-dependent as is the morphology of beaks and plumage color in birds. All are associated with amino acid substitutions via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Of course, you would realize this if you simply took the time to read my most recent review before regurgitating the misrepresentations of cause and effect that have been taught in the context of "evolution for dummies."

See instead: Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection http://www.g3jour...abstract [in 10K years]

Compare it to the scientific truth about morphological changes in:
Difference in Plumage Color Used in Species Recognition between Incipient Species Is Linked to a Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Melanocortin-1 Receptor
http://www.journa...6/600084
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
JVK writes
What you think cannot be compared to the typical thought processes of an intelligent person. Thus, there are probably many similar contradictions in your world --

@JVK
so you are saying that you are right and everyone else is a moron.

again, i refer you to Cocoa's post
And you completely missed the part where I said that this is the wrong forum for trying to prove a new theory - and that calling the whole science community a bunch of "ignorant fools" is the height of arrogance and hubris


yes, when YOU come to a LAY-person site, you must EXPLAIN everything, in terms the LAY-person can understand, and calling us names is only going to make you look like:
@JVK - wow what an arrogant ass you are!

Thank you Maggnus for that quote

feel free to read the rest of the posts above... no need to rub it in here.

before you post, you had better THINK.
judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree is stupid. and that's what YOU are doing here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Thanks Maggnus. It's great to have comments like yours from yet another under informed anonymous participant.


WOW
you really DIDNT read the posts above at all, did you?

and you tell US that WE are ignorant?

at least WE can read...

makes me think that YOU are nothing more than an educated TROLL that is pushing a pet theory that the Educated Peers of your field are ignoring due to ??(some errors maybe?), so you come here to feel like a big fish?
what?
RE READ THIS by Maggnus
And yet you started it! Your very first comment in this article was set out in such a manner as to provoke argument, immediately followed by an appeal to an authority that turned out to be yourself. That type of circular reasoning is exactly the type of illogicality that pseudo-scientists use to promote a theory that has (usually) already been looked at by those with the training and understanding to consider the merits of the argument present and have already rejected the premise.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
@JVK
I dont understand why you are on this site:
why aren't you on a site with other educated people arguing with THEM? Why aren't you on a site where you can get the recognition that you THINK you deserve?
Coming here and posting your thoughts and thinking that you are going to have everyone falling all over you is plain STUPID as there are people here that argue about the physics that Hawking published!
And YOU are NO Hawking!

Tell you what I will do for you.
You send me your ENTIRE report, findings, experimental data, etc, etc, and I will submit it to AAAS Science in YOUR NAME and we can THEN see what the EXPERTS think about it.

how about THAT?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
Captain: "I dont understand why you are on this site:"

I am trying to run some of JVK's technobabble by some biologists - who can give a more informed opinion of them. At this point - I am pretty comfortable believing that it is actually gobblydygook - and we are talking to someone with a bona fide mental illness.

The whole issue of the comments section is very interesting to me. It does not seem as if there is much interest in the informed exchange of ideas. A lot of political yelling by folks like Rygg, and of course the AGW conspiracy theorists. For my money - better moderation would increase the chance of the comments section actually being meaningful - but perhaps that is not the point - perhaps the point is just the generation of noise.

At least you seem to have a pretty good perspective in terms of not getting too dragged into the abyss Captain.

Upward and onward I guess...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
Cocoa
you seem to have a pretty good perspective in terms of not getting too dragged into the abyss

thanks.
The whole issue of the comments section is very interesting to me

I really DO come here to try to LEARN.
And I TRY not to be snarky ...until I hit issues (ie: Rygg)
If he had some legitimate science that I should know, I would be all over it and attempt to absorb it, but, he cant agree to basic terms for communication to occur- like an agreement on terms (like mutation), he uses circular logic, refers to himself instead of supporting arguments form other reliable sites, and then he decides to use derision and insult to ..?

perhaps he IS like Ryggy... just make noise...

PLEASE let me know what you find out about the techno-babble. i am really curious now... and i dont have the ability to corner a few biologists myself
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
The biology teacher PZ Myers has commented on all this on his blog.

One crank dies, another rises to take his place

http://freethough...t-733974

He sees no need to comment on the content of my peer-reviewed publications. Instead, he seems much like a pissy little school girl, but I suspect many of the little school boys here will like what he has to say about me.

Oddly, however, he first acknowledges that "It was Van Valen who said in 1973 that "Evolution is the control of development by ecology…" That's pretty much the mainstream view, so there's nothing novel in what Kohl wrote."

He then attempts to move forward by ignoring the fact that I just detailed the molecular mechanisms that allow ecological adaptations to result in species diversity via the de novo creation of genes. Dobzahansky, the Creationist, would have done this himself if he knew what is known now.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2014
"...no pre-existing conditions appearing evident prior to that AA substitution event have been observed in your research..."

Thanks. You're wrong! Biophysical constraints on the ability of cells to acquire nutrients via movement across a chemical gradient have been detailed -- but not in my model (because they must obviously be involved and I am not a biophysicist).

However, as we now see, I must explain everything in the universe (I get that a lot) if I am to convince anyone here that 1) mutation-initiated natural selection is the most ridiculous idea I can imagine; 2) there is no experimental evidence to support that idea; and 3) there is no alternative model for comparison to my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via amino acid substitutions in cells of individuals in all species.

Indeed, I might have missed something, but the weight of experimental evidence from every species suggests I have not.

You were an only child, weren't ya...
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
Ask an evolutionist what would convince them that evolution isn't true.... Their answer is nothing will ever convince them that evolution isn't true.

Closed minded, not willing to examine evidence, yet they call creationists closed minded.

Pot calling the kettle black...
davidivad
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
a rolling stone gathers no moss... what does this sentence mean?

logic is but a small portion of our perceptions, why deny it?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
Closed minded, not willing to examine evidence, yet they call creationists closed minded.


A postulate based on lack of evidence is NOT convincing evidence.

What would it take to convince you evolution IS true?
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
@JVK
Tell you what I will do for you.
You send me your ENTIRE report, findings, experimental data, etc, etc, and I will submit it to AAAS Science in YOUR NAME and we can THEN see what the EXPERTS think about it.

how about THAT?


Thanks anyway. I don't care what the EXPERTS think. I care about what can be exemplified across species with experiimental evidence of conserved molecular mechanisms, which I integrated in my most recent published review.

THE experts care only about trying to make others believe that they have enough expertise to limit new ideas or limit dissemination of new data on cause and effect that challenges their expertise.

I cited Panksepp et al (2002) on that: "Evolutionary psychologists and other social scientists, for example, refused to tether their hypotheses to a new discipline called 'neuroevolutionary psychobiology', to neurogenetics (Zoghbi & Warren, 2010), or to any biologically based discipline whatsoever..."
JVK
2 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
Panksepp et al (2002): "Comparative approaches in evolutionary psychology: molecular neuroscience meets the mind" won the same award my group won in 2001, for publication in Neuroendocrinology Letters of "Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology."
Cocoa
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
PZ Meyers - who is an evolutionary biologist - nails JVK's pattern - check out the link. http://freethough...t-733974

Here is the pertinent section. "maybe he's saying something I should know about. No, he's not. He's babbling in scientese."

JVK "I don't care what the EXPERTS think."

Of course you don't - becuase they understand that you have no clue about what you are talking about. It is easier to try to intimdate the comments section of a science site like Physorg with your babbling scientese.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2014
[q I care about what can be exemplified across species with experiimental evidence of conserved molecular mechanisms, which I integrated in my most recent published review.
What cell species did you use? How many different cells? How many generations?
THE experts care only about trying to make others believe that they have enough expertise to limit new ideas or limit dissemination of new data on cause and effect that challenges their expertise.

Wait - did you just cause and effect? As in - evolving?

I cited Panksepp et al (2002) on that: "Evolutionary psychologists and other social scientists, for example, refused to tether their hypotheses to a new discipline called 'neuroevolutionary psychobiology', to neurogenetics (Zoghbi & Warren, 2010), or to any biologically based discipline whatsoever..."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
JVK writes
Thanks anyway. I don't care what the EXPERTS think.

as well as
THE experts care only about trying to make others believe that they have enough expertise to limit new ideas or limit dissemination of new data on cause and effect that challenges their expertise.

and you suppose that isn't exactly what YOU are doing?
You are telling US you have evidence, but you dont CARE what the experts (peers in YOUR field) think because... why?
If you DIDNT care what people thought, why the heck are you so nasty in your feedbacks here?
If you didnt CARE, then you would NOT be here trying to convince everyone that you are right.

Cocoa is right... if you DIDNT care, you wouldn't be bullying people here with your "scientese"...

and my wife pretty much said the same thing.

IOW- you are doing what every other pseudo-science hack does on this thread. bully, talk circles, reference yourself, or material that cannot be verified, OR that is proven worthless.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
JVK writes
Thanks anyway. I don't care what the EXPERTS think.

as well as
THE experts care only about trying to make others believe that they have enough expertise to limit new ideas or limit dissemination of new data on cause and effect that challenges their expertise.


methinks the real reason might just well be that you are afraid that the "experts" whom HAVE the expertise to understand what you are talking about, and whom also have the ability to defend a biological position, or attack a scientific fallacy, are already dismissing you as nothing more than a crank.
Why else rant away here?
You dont care because, In Cocoa's words
Of course you don't - becuase they understand that you have no clue about what you are talking about. It is easier to try to intimdate the comments section of a science site like Physorg with your babbling scientese.


thank you Cocoa for the clear, concise summation

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
@JVK
from your link http://freethough...t-733974
Pretentious phrasing. Repetition: if the audience didn't get it the first time, just say the same thing again, twice. A kind of sneering anger that people don't understand how smart he is. An obsession with one narrow idea, which is his, which explains all of evolution and proves that everyone else is wrong.

this IS pretty accurate.
So far, he has YET to say anything that hasn't been said to you HERE.

And it also appears that he has a pretty good grasp on what YOU are saying, and then completely destroys your argument...
but you will just come back and post a repeat of what he didnt address, according to YOUR theory and then, in your little world, this is justification of why You are right and everyone else is wrong...
see argument about sneering anger above
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
@JVK
from your link http://freethough...t-733974
Further, what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain.


PZ Myers also uses clear, concise verbiage that everyone can understand, though some may require a trip occasionally to the dictionary.
that's what he does. He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again

pretty spot on here
He's babbling in scientese.
And he just keeps hammering away with his pseudo-scientific pronouncements.

no argument here

so... are you getting some kind of perverse pleasure from being a jerk?
or are you making $ off of clicks to your pseudo-science sites?
Kohl also sells a line of beauty products

Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Freethinking: "Ask an evolutionist what would convince them that evolution isn't true.... Their answer is nothing will ever convince them that evolution isn't true"

This is totally false Free. Evolution is a theory - and like all science - open to evaluation - and replacement with a better theory if it comes along. What you need to replace a theory - is evidence. JVK thinks that science works by going on a science blog - and announcing your new theory. Sorry - I don't get to dislodge the theory of gravity - by announcing that all the established scientists are "ignorant fools" - and I now declare the new theory of the attraction of matter via the 6th energy scource (which is being covered up by the main stream scientists).

What is an evolutionist anyway? Am I a gravitist - because I believe in gravity?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
Ask an evolutionist what would convince them that evolution isn't true.... Their answer is nothing will ever convince them that evolution isn't true.

I dont know about the others, but it would require PROOF for me. Empirical data backed by experimentation that cab be replicated and verified. Etc, etc
IOW- REAL SCIENCE
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Thanks Maggnus. It's great to have comments like yours from yet another under informed anonymous participant.
Your welcome. Similarly it's great to be able to respond to comments like yours, yet another pseudo-scientist wrapped in a cloak of persecution.

Human skin color variation is nutrient-dependent as is the morphology of beaks and plumage color in birds.
True, to a point; however you overlook other environmental factors that could play an equally important role, and you appear to disregard completely sexual attraction traits. All have a role.
All are associated with amino acid substitutions via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
No, they are not "all" associated with aa subs (at least not in the context you've put it here), and while pheromones appear to play a role in reproduction, they appear to be secondary to hormonal signals.

As to your rant, it appears you should read about social retardation. Do you have autism?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
True, to a point; however you overlook other environmental factors that could play an equally important role, and you appear to disregard completely sexual attraction traits. All have a role.


@Maggnus
and thats not even the FUNNIEST part about that whole statement!
the funniest thing about that is that he uses his "pheromone" hack science to sell pheromone sprays that do NOT work... he has made his living selling a product to enhance sexual attraction via a method debunked by science, and he calls US uninformed!
As to your rant, it appears you should read about social retardation. Do you have autism?

you know, this may be more related to Asperger Syndrome
https://en.wikipe...syndrome

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
My comments may continue at: http://freethough...t-734464

The ignorance here has become intolerable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
My comments may continue at: http://freethough...t-734464

The ignorance here has become intolerable.


fascinating.
WE use SCIENCE and
YOU are proven WRONG
a page link that YOU brought to us uses SCIENCE
to prove YOU wrong
you cannot agree on simple communication that even SCIENCE uses

and you call US ignorant?
WOW

P.S.
DO NOT follow his links everyone, it is most likely set up to pay him per click!

this is how PSEUDO-SCIENCE works, and given the nature of the research, and the nature of the argument,
since proven WRONG,
it is LIKELY that the links only provide income,
which would explain WHY he came here in the first place...

to drum up business.

PEACE
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
...his "pheromone" hack science to sell pheromone sprays that do NOT work...
OMG I didn't pick up on that! Good catch Stumpy. As seems usual, a pseudo-scientist with an agenda! Too funny!

you know, this may be more related to Asperger Syndrome
Yep, thing is that the American Psychological Manual (I may have the name wrong!) no longer recognizes Asperger's as a separate syndrome under the autism umbrella. You are exactly right though, it would have fallen under that branch.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2014
Yep, thing is that the American Psychological Manual (I may have the name wrong!) no longer recognizes Asperger's as a separate syndrome under the autism umbrella. You are exactly right though, it would have fallen under that branch.


so sorry, i didnt realise that! (Aspergers under Autism umbrella)

i should have looked that up further. my bad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
@Maggnus
check out Cocoa's link below
http://www.slate....man.html]http://www.slate....man.html[/url]

JVK (AKA JV Kohl)
He is certified with:
• American Society for Clinical Pathology
• American Medical Technologists
this according to his page.

Cocoa's link below
http://www.slate....man.html]http://www.slate....man.html[/url]

is WRITTEN by a biologist, and as I REFUTES JVK with his own gobbledy-goop and with logic and SCIENCE, then it shows that JVK is nothing more than a pseudo-science HACK.

So when JVK states
I'll stick with the main issue. SCIENCE!

you can BET all you are going to get is pseudo-scientific babble with maybe 1% science and 99% excess verbiage, and ALL garbage and hostility.

i TOLD you i would post it when i found out the truth...

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
sorry... modification to the above:

This link below
http://freethough...t-733974

is WRITTEN by a biologist, and as I REFUTES JVK with his own gobbledy-goop and with logic and SCIENCE, then it shows that JVK is nothing more than a pseudo-science HACK.

JVK
is nothing more than a snake-oil salesman and you find this garbage all over the internet. this is probably filling up most people's SPAM mail folder... his pheromone spray for love/sex/whatever.

and he called US ignorant fools! wow
goracle
4 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2014
Ask an evolutionist what would convince them that evolution isn't true.... Their answer is nothing will ever convince them that evolution isn't true.

Closed minded, not willing to examine evidence, yet they call creationists closed minded.

Pot calling the kettle black...

The term 'logical fallacy' means nothing to a desperate troll.
goracle
not rated yet Jan 10, 2014
...his "pheromone" hack science to sell pheromone sprays that do NOT work...
OMG I didn't pick up on that! Good catch Stumpy. As seems usual, a pseudo-scientist with an agenda! Too funny!

you know, this may be more related to Asperger Syndrome
Yep, thing is that the American Psychological Manual (I may have the name wrong!) no longer recognizes Asperger's as a separate syndrome under the autism umbrella. You are exactly right though, it would have fallen under that branch.

How does that compare to selling funky 'science' lamps?
goracle
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2014
Why Evolution is True and Why Many People Still Don't Believe It https://www.youtu...G2YVtBYc
goracle
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2014
Personally, I can accept evolution, though the development of noodles would seem to indicate some intelligent intervention by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.