Israel's Chief Scientist dismissed for doubting evolution & global warming

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It's refreshing to see a Jew saying the things that he said, since so many Jews have sold out to the theology of Amalek.  Scientists are not allowed to question evolution now and it's the same story more and more so with global warming, which the anti-G-d, anti-human atheist establishment is currently working feverishly to get an academic monopoly on.

Oh please.  There is no monopoly except that engineered by facts.   Anyone who conducts an experiment that disproves any tenet of evolution or calls it into doubt is free to publish such work.   The problem is, those experiments don't exist because they've never happened, and no one is able to produce work that calls evolution into question.   

There is a monopoly already with evolution, and global warming being caused by man is not a monopoly yet but is quickly becoming a monopoly.  They are still building the "tenets" on the global warming hoax around the anti-human aspect of the atheist religion just like they built "tenets" of evolution around the anti-G-d aspect of the atheist religion and anyone who dares interpreting the evidence a different way is anathema (or whatever atheists call it).  It would be like submitting a paper proving the Quran is wrong to a bunch of mullahs expecting to get a fair evaluation, no matter how true it is.  

This is absurd.   You are basically saying that since no one has published articles disproving evolution with experiments that directly address the claims and principles of evolution, that therefore there is a monopoly.   That's simply not the case.   The reason there are no such publications is because no one has been able to produce experiments which come even close to disproving evolution or its principles.

The entire field of medicine with all its advances operates on the premises of evolution.   If evolution were "not true" none of the medicine being developed would ever work.

Actually I'm saying there is a monopoly because the atheists won't accept creationist research like the mullahs wouldn't accept clear Jewish proofs that the Quran is false--not out of lack of substance but out of a preconceived idea that it's wrong because atheism, not science, is the primary motivator for the evolution position.  And medicine has nothing to do with theories about all life coming from a common anscestor which was seeded onto earth by aliens. Medical advances come from results you can produce over and over again in a lab.

There is no way to prove creationism!  There is nothing to test.  It is beyond the grasp of scientific tools or human measurement.  Because that is what real creation ex nihilo is.  Beyond examination.  Anything else is confusion.

What the hell is "creationist research?"   Anyone can research anything.   In fact, if there were really researchers setting out to disprove evolution WITHIN the scientific method, WITH verifiable scientific experimentation that could actually do so, I'm sure there would be Christian fundamentalist groups and churches lining up all over the country to fund them with millions of dollars for work they would consider so important.    These researchers do not exist and their studies do not exist.   The "monopoly" is simply your imagination because you cannot call reality a monopoly.  The reality is that there is not any research that disproves evolution.  There is a host of research that provides vast evidence for it.

Btw, where are all these researchers who are saying their work was denied publication because they "disproved evolution?"   They don't exist.  If such people existed, there would be magazines and newspapers and all sorts of media lining up to give their work the light of day in front of the public because this is a really hot topic in today's society and a fiercely debated issue.   Churches would be promoting these people.  All sorts of programs would be speaking about them.   But alas they don't exist.

"And medicine has nothing to do with theories about all life coming from a common anscestor which was seeded onto earth by aliens. Medical advances come from results you can produce over and over again in a lab. "

Evolution and the evolutionary relationships among different species or simply molecular evolution -  plays a major role in medicine.   Your statement is an uninformed one.   I'll cite some examples but I'm too tired as of right now and have lost patience.  I'll return to the thread tomorrow.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "You have provided an example of adaptation, not evolution. Two different things, no?

Chew meeen no ! zeeway Ricky Ricardo ask Lucy "Chew lyke eeet, jes ?" but having it come out as

"Chew lyke eeet, NO ? "

Or do you mean "Jes, no lyke !

Chew talk lyke sum' kyna chili choker, NO?

"Jes ! "  "NO " ?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

[Meerkat]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

[Meerkat]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches?   They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!

Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.

[Meerkat]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches?   They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!

Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.

If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not.  Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things.  Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics.  So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.

if we take a DNA sample of a dinosaur fossil and re-generate it like in Jurassic park, would you believe evolution than? how about some of the ape-man transitions? we  will probably be able to do that in 35 years

[wonga66]

No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian, has ever been observed.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".

The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.

The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed, as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.

The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.



The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle"

[Meerkat]

No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian,                
has ever been observed.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".

The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed,as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.

The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.

The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle".

the fruit flies did become there own species, the 2 had such genetic variation that they were no longer able to reproduce together. there may have been dark moths, but back than they could still mix with light ones.

[Meerkat]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches?   They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!

Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.

If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not.  Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things.  Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics.  So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.

if we take a DNA sample of a dinosaur fossil and re-generate it like in Jurassic park, would you believe evolution than? how about some of the ape-man transitions? we  will probably be able to do that in 35 years

No because live dinosaurs or other animals don't prove evolution anymore than dead ones do.  I already believe in evolution that creates variation, but this does not mean all life came from the same anscestor.

what would cause you to believe in evolution?

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle" "

A colossal riddle all right! ...

One like "Who's the 'schmuck' that put dark grey plaster of paris all over the huge gefilte fish loaf that Bubbe made for Shabbos dinner?"

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches?   They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!

Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.

If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not.  Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things.  Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics.  So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.

But evolution doesn't claim that a moth turned into a finch.   So you have created a simplistic straw-man that you are beating senseless.  But it's not related to the argument at hand.

[Meerkat]

Here's an interesting article.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/

Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation.  You could be a creationist and use those same principles.  To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.

we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)

The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.

it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.

So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches?   They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!

Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.

If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not.  Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things.  Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics.  So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.

But evolution doesn't claim that a moth turned into a finch.   So you have created a simplistic straw-man that you are beating senseless.  But it's not related to the argument at hand.

I FOUND THE TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL ALL THE CREATIONISTS WANT TO SEE



THIS THING WAS IN MY BACK YARD!

now wheres my 10 million dollars for finding it?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian, has ever been observed.  

Likewise, we have never observed light or darkness, we have never observed the moon, we have never seen galaxies or planets, and we have never seen boats sailing in the sea, or automobiles driving by land because well... I'm just going to say so even though we have observed that.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".  

Gee it makes a lot of sense to quote Darwin when the field has evolved (no pun intended) for 130 years since his death and assembled a host of evidence to support many of his ideas and claims.  

Further, to physically OBSERVE a finch becoming a new type of finch would have required first the video camera to be invented and then to record over many years.   However, we have the next best thing which are fossils which show processes like these over many years even if we didn't watch them happen physically with our eyes like a movie.  Stop playing these silly semantic games.

The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.  

Moronic.   They are not trying to change them into something else.   When they alter fruitfly genetics, they do so in order to test different genetic models and do experiments with them.  They are not trying to create a human from a fruit fly.

The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed, as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.  

But you admit that the dark variety became more prevalent while light died out.  This IS a form of evolution, even if it's not the "type" or "subset" of evolutionary theory which you personally rail against because of your theological convictions and ignorance.

The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle"

Yeah, because pointing out surprising findings or new discoveries is somehow supposed to discredit scientists and the entirety of their work?  Unlike you, scientists embrace new riddles and new discoveries with intellectual honesty and they set out to solve the riddles and find explanations.   But many things are not riddles and are well established based on the known facts.   So how is this coelocanth relevant to the overall question?  It isn't.   You are basically saying "Na, na,  scientists thought this was extinct but really it wasn't!   Poopy heads!"

That offers nothing to the discussion.

[muman613]

!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!

Point being?

[Meerkat]

!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!

your point?

that general shape is a huge evolutionary advantage

[muman613]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

[muman613]

!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!

your point?

that general shape is a huge evolutionary advantage

I don't know why you think that. Could you explain what advantage there is in this # of fingers? It seems that more fingers and more arms, and maybe even wings would be an evolutionary advantage which would make humans more fit for survival.

[muman613]

I have yet to see any proof of evolution. Everyone who supports it here is simply saying that genetic mutations lead to evolutionary progression. As others against it said, there is no fossil record of this ever happening. Last time I checked there is no reproducable example of one creature turning into anything new.

I do not believe that even over millions of years that a creature as intelligent and built as frail as humans would evolve under the rule 'survival of the fitest'... Also it would seem statistically proproble that humans would not be the only species to develop language, music, theater, math, science, and other intellectual pursuits. If it was just random mutation then something is definitely wrong with the theory.

Im sorry if that is disturbing to our science worshippers, but it is just what I have learned over the years about 'science'.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation.

What?   What are you talking about?

Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-on-land-evolution-of-five-fingers.html

I really don't know where you get the idea that more than 5 fingers would be better for humans.   Better in what way?   More useful?  More ergonomic?   More efficient?   How so?   Anatomically, how would extra fingers function more optimally given the current structure we exhibit?    This seems to be something you've made up.

It seems that the evolution to the 5-finger creature happened a long long time ago and it never looked back.  That would suggest that 5 fingers was highly beneficial.

[Meerkat]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.

while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.

before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.  

those are several factors off the top of my head.

[muman613]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation.

What?   What are you talking about?

Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-on-land-evolution-of-five-fingers.html

I really don't know where you get the idea that more than 5 fingers would be better for humans.   Better in what way?   More useful?  More ergonomic?   More efficient?   How so?   Anatomically, how would extra fingers function more optimally given the current structure we exhibit?    This seems to be something you've made up.

It seems that the evolution to the 5-finger creature happened a long long time ago and it never looked back.  That would suggest that 5 fingers was highly beneficial.

The same question can be turned back to you... Why five fingers? That article did not really answer the question..

[muman613]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.

while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.

before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.  

those are several factors off the top of my head.

Sounds like a fantasy world...

I also doubt the scientists believe we descended from monkeys... I believe that the actual theory is that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.

[Meerkat]

What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.

all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.

while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.

before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.  

those are several factors off the top of my head.

Sounds like a fantasy world...

I also doubt the scientists believe we descended from monkeys... I believe that the actual theory is that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.

how so?