Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Origin of Life

2011-07-20T20:05:51Z

Hieverybody: /* Grammatical error */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
h
ttp://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm

== Grammatical error ==

There are numerous instances in this article where "creationist" (singular) should be "creationists" (plural).
:"athiest" should be "atheist" {{unsigned|NathanG}}
:: Fixed, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific Error==
oxygen is O2, ozone is O3, scientists aren't referring to elemental oxygen when they say no oxygen in the air they are referring to breathable oxygen because ozone is toxic

== Bootstrap problem ==

Why no mention thereof?

== Scientific American ==

*Scientific American isn't really a journal. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 15:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
**Fixed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:26, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Essay ==

This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

Would anyone mind if I reformat the links in the references section? And not to involve myself in any controversy, but while the article is well-sourced, the anti-naturalistic origin quotes do seem a little densely packed at the moment... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

==And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one==

And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one, and therefore belongs in the ''See Also'' section. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:Fixed, but could you try and keep your headings shorter? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, I was trying to use a similar style to attract the attention of Conservative [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Heh. There are some people whose examples you should follow, and some you should not! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rebuttals of problems ==

1. Chicken or the Egg problem regarding DNA and proteins: Numerous theories exist as to how either RNA or proteins could have first arisen, but more prosaically, the fact that we do not know exactly how this may have happened does not mean it did not happen. We don't know how gravity works either, but nobody's claiming it doesn't. Also, see #4

2. Complexity of the cell: The complexity of the cell has nothing to do with abiogenesis, as abiogenesis doesn't concern itself with the evolution of the cell, just the genesis of the most basic forms of life.

3. Catch 22 problem regarding oxygen and the early earth: Jason Dwarkin et al. discovered during experiments simulating conditions on early earth that surprising resulted in the formation of fluorescent bubbles capable of absorbing enough UV and converting it to visible light to protect organic molecules. [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/3/815]

4. Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis. Altman and Cech won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for proving that RNA could act as a biocatalyst (like an enzyme) and sequence itself without proteins, proving the RNA world hypothesis plausible. [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html]

5. Chirality problem: much like #1 there are a number of competing theories. Example: Toxvaerd [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=5C0DD80C6FEE2ACD15DF6A7DDB86B8CD.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=335346]

6. Polymerization problem: like #1 again, numerous theories. example: Oro and Stephen-Sherwood [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p805621h4774p6gt/]

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your answers basically amount to ''faith'' that the naturalistic view will one day find evidence to support your point of view. Yes, the fact that we don't know how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't, but the article doesn't put it that way. It merely refers to them as "problems", not "impossibilities". And there's a difference between trying to explain the mechanism of something that's been observed (gravity) and something that has not been observed and which people ''do'' claim never happened. That scientists sometimes find some tiny piece of the puzzle (such as RNA acting like an enzyme in very limited ways) does not mean that the puzzle has been solved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, my answers are to the effect that these particular examples are not considered ''problems'' by biologists at all, they're simply unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories that continue to be tested. As for the gravity example, well, we know that gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know that life originated (and the rough timescale) through observation of its effects, mainly fossils and living creatures. The precise method by which the origin of terrestrial occured is scientifically better understood than the precise method by which gravity occurs. And yes, there are people who [http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/gravity.html deny the existence of gravity]. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Then your answers were ''wrong'', because there ''are'' biologists who consider these to be problems. In any case, "unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories" is a euphemism for "unresolved ''problem''".
::: Yes, we know gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know life originated because it exists and could not always have existed, but we ''don't'' know that it originated naturalistically, because that was not observed nor is that logically deducible, unless you first start with the ''assumption'' of naturalism. Neither is even the rough timescale (the one you are referring to) known, for the same reason. No, the precise method by which terrestrial life occurred is ''not'' scientifically better understood, because scientists have nothing but explanations that don't fit what we do know. If you want to get pedantic about people claiming that gravity doesn't exist, then no, you have not shown that, because ''one person'' (singular) is not ''people'' (plural). If you don't want to be pedantic, then I'm not talking about the odd crackpot that rejects abiogenesis, but millions of people and thousands or tens of thousands of scientists.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The "chicken or egg" problem has been solved for some time now. The answer is neither: RNA. This was shown with the [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Spiegelman-Monster Spiegelman Monster]. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:06, 29 December 2008 (EST)
::: Actually, it's never been a problem. It's been known for about 6,000 years now that God created chickens, not eggs. As for Spiegelman's monster, what does some intelligently-designed replication solve when the organism gradually fades away? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, I realize that God created chickens 6,000 years ago. By putting "chicken or egg" in parentheses I was referencing where the article spoke of whether DNA or proteins came first. The current leading theory that naturalists (those who believe life began without God) have is RNA. The only problem I have with the article is that the stance that naturalists take is being misrepresented. Were their viewpoints to be represented, it would be much more effective when their arguments were taken down. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 09:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::: I realise that you were referring to that puzzle, but just as you were answering that it's "neither", I was also answering that, by obliquely pointing out that God created life fully-functioning, so there is no question as to which came first. The RNA hypothesis is really a case of grasping at straws, because of the implausibility of DNA or proteins, they go for the simpler RNA, but have the problem that RNA needs living things in order to reproduce, another so-called "chicken and egg" problem.
::::: How does the article misrepresent the naturalistic viewpoint?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::::In the modern day, RNA needs living things to reproduce, but in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to naturally. The Spiegleman Monster showed that RNA can reproduce on its own if placed in a RNA nucleotide solution ''without'' proteins or living organisms. As you pointed out, it did not actually solve anything as it never grows more complex.
::::::On how the naturalist view is misrepresented, I should have said that it is not ''presented''. The article mentions abiogenesis and panspermia, but does not explain them. The article jumps directly to disproving the hypotheses without showing what they are. It would be more effective to put down each of the origin of life theories and explain them separately. Abiogenesis, Panspermia, and Intelligent Design should have sections within the article.
::::::Should we start this under a new header in the talk page? We have deviated somewhat from the original question.
::::::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to [reproduce] naturally.''": That's your ''faith'' talking; we don't have evidence of that (unless you forgot the word "view" after "naturalist" or something like that).
::::::: The Spiegleman Monster ''appears'' to have shown that RNA can reproduce without an existing living thing being involved, except that an existing living thing ''was'' involved: Spiegleman! You may think that to be a silly response, but my point is that Spiegleman provided special conditions that do not occur naturally, so it could not have occurred without him (or an equivalent) being involved, so cannot explain the origin of life.
::::::: As for not presenting the naturalistic view, you are correct, and that is a problem that many articles suffer from. Start another section if you want to discuss it further, or just directly edit the article. But please keep in mind that Conservapedia doesn't allow the naturalistic POV to be presented as fact (see my first comment in this post).
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: By saying ''naturalist'', I was implying (or, trying to imply) that I was making a hypothetical statement. Had I been supporting their view, I would have simply put ''in the 3.5 billion years ago earth''. The word "view" would have made the sentence sound redundant to me.
:::::::: You are correct in your rebuttal of the Spiegleman experiment. I am saying that we should include an explanation of such experiments (and reasoning) '''and''' their rebuttals. (continued further down)
:::::::: [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Superfluous link==

It would probably be a good idea to remove the wikilink to "Origin of Life" in the final paragraph. It doesn't make much sense to link to an article from within the article:)--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:24, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
: Done, thanks, and in the previous section also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== Naturalist Views ==

It would make sense to include a clear explanation of each of the naturalist theories. Separated from the explanations can be a section that rebuts them. If we present the theories in a ''calm'' unbiased manner and rebut them logically, the article will have a greater chance of having an effect on people. The article needs to be presented in such a way that any person with an open mind will easily be able to see the truth rather than a way that makes us look like uneducated mules who do not even understand what they are arguing against.

To do this, we need to make sure that we understand exactly what the naturalist views are. The more we know about their views, the easier it will be to find counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Also, the more clearly that we present the naturalist views, the easier it will be to show visitors to this site the fallacies and other problems with naturalist views.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:35, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: I see no problem with that in principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== Claims of "Self-Replicating" Chemicals ==

Evolutionists CLAIM to have used reverse engineered RNA sequences to create what they call "life 2.0"<ref>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html</ref>

They've basically isolated some cell components, put them in a nutrient bath and claimed they're now self replicating. This bit of Frankenstein science is in reality little different than keeping an organ alive for a few months in a nutrient bath, but some people are claiming this proves spontaneous generation theories of life.<ref>http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php/topic,17125.0/topicseen.html</ref>

I think Conservapedia can nip this in the bud the way it did with the claims of bacteria evolving. A good article addressing the flawed science behind the claims would be a great way to at the very least let people read some truth instead of the humanist drivel being spewed by the leftist media. I lack the science know how to do this myself.

<references/>

{{unsigned|AlexC}}

:Well, Alex, I have the know how, however I can verify this is true. Self replicating molecules are quiet common; it is a basic chemical principle that relies on lowest energy states for a molecule. RNA is a self replicator due to RNA replicase, in fact many biochemical processes rely on going from a higher energy state to a lower more stable state (which are more order in the environment of the cell). The Spiegelman Monster is another great example of self replication at a higher level. A great experiment with lots of information can be found [http://www.mpibpc.mpg.de/groups/biebricher/evolution_in_vitro.html here]. I am sorry but this topic has been around and tested quiet thoroughly, to the point that we know exactly what atom bonds where to allow for the replication. Chance of RNA replicase forming naturally from just nucleotides is 1 out of 7.9*10^29, seems like a lot but when you place it in perspective of time this is very feasible due to bonding rate of nucleotides being in nanoseconds. Now there have not been any successes with creating an artificial cell that replicates. The Spiegelman Monster was a virus, not a full cell. Perhaps that might be an area to look? Hope this helps.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)
::So it's not even remotely similar to life, it's more like a burning fire or rusting metal. How then can these people get away with running around claiming it's "life 2.0" when it's nothing more than a basic chemical reaction that continues as long as they feed it raw materials? --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 10:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::: Neither is it the result of random processes, per evolution, but the result of intelligent design: "''And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals.''". But the evolutionists somehow claim it to be a win for evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::I would not consider it evolution, just that it shows a possible way that life could have started. There are many different models of how life started, this is just one. I would not go as far as saying it is intelligent design Philip since everything used for a similar experiment occured naturaly. Consider what is the difference between glucose created in the lab and glcose created from the body? The physical properties are the same. In the case of a similar Spiegelman Monster experiment, the base RNA code mutated over several generations (due to a lack of replication control enzymes) showing that many types of sequences could be formed from one base sequence with RNA.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Yes, in principle, if you are talking about a scientist simply replicating conditions that would have occurred "naturally" (I'll get back to that in a moment), then the fact that the scientist's intelligence was involved does not make an argument for intelligent design.
::::: But we are talking here about the origin of life, so if the materials that he uses are ones that only occur ''as the result of living things'', then they do not occur "naturally", in the sense of being in existence before life started. Glucose is the product of living things (which I would argue requires a designer). Similarly, I believe that both RNA and RNA replicase do not occur "naturally" (without the existence of living things). Is this correct?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Glucose does require life to make it outside of the lab, that we know of. RNA does occur naturally as well as RNA replicase, both molecules are not and should not be considered life (some prions are nothing more than a small strand of RNA with replicase or reverse transcriptase contained in a glob of lipids, would not be considered a protocell). DNA does occur outside of the cell as well, if the conditions are right (very rare), and is much more stable than RNA. However, it is a huge leap from these molecules to life. The whole reason why self replication and self formation of these molecules is possible is that the sum has a more stable energy state than the parts. When the parts of these molecules are found in solution at a neutral pH they react (due to the [[zwitterion]]ic forms of the bases). The chemistry involved for this is not difficult, if you would like I can go into further detail.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
: I know that RNA (and RNA replicase) are not life; my point was that they require living things to make them. You say that they occur naturally—do you mean in the absence of living things or other RNA? If so, can you please provide evidence of that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::Yes, RNA and RNA replicase do occur in the absence of living things, they are just molecules. What kind of evidence would you like? How these molecules can form without a host cell? Evidence of these molecules in nature? I gave an example (prions) of RNA found in nature (some prions can catalyze the formation of RNA particles by just being in a solution with the bases and ribose). Prions are not alive, however they are organic. You can detect RNA everywhere but it would be almost impossible to tell if the fragment came from a living source or not, so you will find very little published information on that. The point is, RNA can form on its own (RNA is a lower energy state than its parts, this has been observed in the lab) and is the only known macromolecule that can both encode genetic information and also act as a biocatalyst (cellular ribosomes, where proteins are made, are mostly RNA), both points very important when talking of self replication. Here is a list of some resources if you would like to read more about it.
::* Eigen, M., Gardiner, W., Schuster, P. & Winkler-Oswatitsch, The origin of genetic information. R. Sci. Am. 244, 88 (1981).
::* Westheimer, F.H. Polyribonucleic acids as enzymes. Nature 319, 534 (1986).
::* Guerrier-Takada, C., Gardiner, K., Marsh, T., Pace, N. & Altman, S. The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme. Cell 35, 849 (1983).
::* Guerrier-Takada, C. & Altman, S. Catalytic activity of an RNA molecule prepared by transcription in vitro. Science 223, 285 (1984).
::* Kruger, K. et al. Self-splicing RNA: autoexcision and autocyclization of the ribosomal RNA intervening sequence of Tetrahymena. Cell 31, 147 (1982).
::* Cech, T.R. Self-splicing RNA: implications for evolution. Int. Rev. Cytol. 93, 3 (1985).
::* Zaug, A.J. & Cech, T.R. The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme. Science 231, 470 (1986).
::* Sharp, P.A. On the origin of RNA splicing and introns. Cell 42, 397 (1985).
::* White, H.B. III, Coenzymes as fossils of an earlier metabolic state. J. molec. Evol. 7, 101 (1976).
::* K. S. Huang, N. Carrasco, E. Pfund, and S. A. Strobel. Transition State Chirality and Role of the Vicinal Hydroxyl in the Ribosomal Peptidyl Transferase Reaction. Biochemistry 47, 8822-8827(2008)
::* S. A. Strobel. Ribonucleic general acid. Nature Chem. Biol. 1, 5-6 (2005)
::* J. Cochrane, R. Batey and S.A. Strobel. Quantitation of free energy profiles in RNA-ligand interactions by nucleotide analog interference mapping. RNA. 10, 1282-1289 (2003)
:: If you would like I can provide a energy state diagram showing the states for each part and then for the total and provide the mechanisms that the molecules go through to achieve the final formation, all of which are progressively lower in energy therefore allowing for the formation of RNA to be a highly favorable chemical reaction.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::: I would like the evidence to be on-line, so that I can easily check it. Or perhaps you could just explain the evidence to me in more detail; that might be enought to convince me. For example, you ask if I want to see evidence of it in nature, but then say that evidence in nature is not conclusive because one can't determine if it came from a living thing or not. So what evidence does exist? Laboratory experiments? (In which case I would want to be convinced that they did replicate natural conditions and didn't rely on living things or intelligent input.) ''Observations'' of RNA occuring naturally? Calculations that show that it should be possible?
::: Also, could you restructure your post to simply have a list of sources at the end, without using the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tags? As you have it now, you have introduced a new top-level heading into the thread (with table of contents entry), and if anybody else puts references on this talk page they will end up in your references list.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Good morning Philip. All of the references I gave are online. You may view the abstracts at pubmed but you have to go to the journals for the full paper. Consider though, they are old publications and you may find newer research than what I posted (I would suggest biochemistry sources for this topic, molecular bio sources will just lead you to signal transduction work). As for your questions we first have to discuss inference. There is no way to tell the absolute source of an RNA particle unless it encodes for something (that is even a stretch). It is common to find RNA particles consisting of 4 to 10 bases on most surfaces (which are too small to encode anything). Now here is the inference part, if you place the parts needed for forming RNA in a vessel and supplied the right environment, RNA will form on its own. Now why we can infer that RNA occurs naturally is that all the parts of RNA form under the same types of conditions common in nature, all of which occur without influence by living organisms. Now keep in mind I am not suggesting that anything can be done with the RNA that forms, just that it does form. I can give you calculations of the energy states and why it is possible for RNA to form naturally, it will take a little time since I would be doing it by hand (I do not believe there is an easy source online for it). To make sure it makes sense to you, I need to understand how much you know about physical chemistry? You will need to understand a little about free energy and chemical equilibrium of biological molecules (basic chemical thermodynamics) and acid-base equilibria for any of the work to make sense. I can email you the finished diagram (with the equations), since I do not have upload, and you can upload it here if you wish. I have to admit I was looking forward to you asking for calculations; I have not worked on stuff like this since grad school. I am sorry about that formatting and will not use the reference tag on talk pages.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:25, 16 January 2009 (EST)

: I should have said that I'd like the evidence to be ''readily available'' online, not requiring a payment or subscription. I did try looking for the first one, but although I found a reference, I didn't find an abstract. Perhaps I didn't look far enough.
: I don't understand the physical chemistry enough for your explanation. But we don't need to go that far.
: You didn't give a clear answer, but I still gather that you are saying that RNA found in nature does ''not'' constitute evidence of RNA occurring without the benefit of living things. So unless I gather incorrectly, let's drop that one.
: Your latest answer seems to be saying that we know that RNA can form naturally without living things because it can be produced in a laboratory in an environment that would mimic the supposed pre-life Earth. Okay, if that is truly the case, then I will accept that. However, I still have some questions and concerns.
: You appear to be saying that RNA ''could be'' created in a laboratory. Is this just theoretical, or has this actually been done?
: You say that if you "place the parts needed for forming RNA in a vessel and supplied the right environment, RNA will form on its own". What are these "parts"? Are they themselves parts that are ''known'' to form without the benefit of living things? I want an assurance that these "parts" are not themselves partially-broken-down RNA, for example. Similarly, what is the "right environment"? Does that include molecules that are formed by living things? Or does it include only molecules that might be found, for example, on lifeless Mars?
: Then there's the important question of coding, and the question of definitions. Perhaps the molecules you are talking about match the appearance of RNA, and perhaps they are therefore classified as RNA, but if RNA is supposed to be the first ''code'' of life, and these molecules don't ''code'' for anything, then they aren't really a ''code'' for life then, are they?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== One, held by creationists, is that life originated supernaturally. ==

"Divinely" would be a better word. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 19:37, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I put "divinely/[[supernatural]]ly". You feedback is certainly welcome. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:28, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-07-20T20:01:54Z

Hieverybody: /* The Answers You've been waiting for! */

Do we want these 15 questions answered? I can answer some of them right here --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll answer some now, I may not be able to get to all of them right now.

1. How did life originate?
Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it deals only with it's diversity. The dictionary definition of evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in living things?
What is "information" in this context? This is never defined.

4. Why is natural selection taught as‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
Natural selection is the mechanism that works with speciation to produce an effect we call evolution.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Because we can see many examples of things we know and can see were designed naturally but look like they should have been designed by human hands. The snowflake is a prime example; it appears extremely complex and designed however we know snowflakes are formed via natural processes. Living things also dont appear designed, at least not designed by anyone with any sense. The human body has some quite complex features but if taken as a whole, it's incredibly poorly thought out.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

8. How did sex originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

9. Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Simply, they arent. We have BOATLOADS of fossils and scientists have spent a great deal of time arguing just were in the evolutionary spectrum many of them fit. Fossils themselves are uncommon simply because the conditions necessary to form them are rare, but we have an incredibly diverse fossil record already (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/)

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
Evolution has not changed "worms into humans." These organisms havent changed because they have had very little evolutionary pressure to do so, they are very well adapted to their environment.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didnt, humans did. These are names we have given to things that help us reinforce our social groups, one of the key reasons humans have become dominant.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ storytelling tolerated?
It isnt. If you can demonstrate another theory that explains what evolution explains in a better way with more data, prepare a place on your mantle for a Nobel. Science encourages informed dissent.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
There are far too many to list here, most of our modern understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and large parts of our medical science rest on evolution being factual; if it werent, these sciences simply wouldnt work.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Evolution is not a theory about history, it is an on-going biological process.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Evolution is not a religious idea.
--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 20:13, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

:Several of your arguments are critically flawed.
:1. Because life was divinely created, even if evolution did occur, it would be affected by the divine grace of God, and not just random chance.
::Can you demonstrate that life was divinely created? Additionally, no one has claimed that random chance guides evolution.

:3. Information is basically stored knowledge, such as God storing the exact series of proteins needed for an organism to survive as DNA.
::You're talking about instincts, right?

:4. Because of natural selection, specialization could never occur, as hypothetical "transitional animals" could never out compete a specialized animal. Thus, the number of species should only decrease as time goes on.
::You misunderstand what speciation is. If you have two groups of the same animal that become separated by some sort of barrier, they will become genetically different as time goes on via genetic drift. Once enough time goes by, those two species will no longer be able to reproduce together because their genes are too different. It's not a question of out-competing one animal, it's a question of adapting to different evolutionary pressures.

:6. A snowflake is not a self-replicating series of biochemical reactions, so it is not an accurate comparison. The human body contains no vestigial organs, even organs previously though of as "useless" have been discovered to have important functions. The human body no redundancy, unless said redundancy is extremely important or advantageous for survival, such as having two eyes or two lungs. random chance could never produce such a perfect system, the only logical explanation is that there was some kind of divine plan for us.
::The human body is FAR from perfect and we have many vestigial features, one example being the goosebump response. In other animals, this response makes the hairs on their bodies stand up when frightened or cold to make them appear larger or trap a thin layer of insulated air. We humans do the same thing, however we do not have enough body hair to make it work as it does in other animals and serves no other purpose. Having two eyes is not an example of redundancy, it's an example of binocular vision which is what helps us perceive in three dimensions.

:9. Those fossils barely contain proof of an organism, let alone a true transitional species. We can't even be sure that they are legitimate fossils, and not just hoaxes propagated by the organizations that claim to study evolutionary "science".
::They show the bone structure and often the physical form of an dead organism, what more do you need? Except for a handful of fakes that the scientific community has expelled from the research, we have no indication that others were faked and I'd like to see your proof that current fossils are faked.

:10. Although a slight oversimplification, the "theory" of evolution does in fact state that over a series of generations, humans did evolve from worms. In addition, because evolution is caused by mutations, shouldn't millions of years of random mutations eventually lead to evolution? Even if only neutral or positive mutations remained in the gene pool, eventually, these ancient species should look at least slightly different.
::No, it does not. It states that we share a common (VERY distant) ancestor, not that we evolved from worms. To the other point, with very little evolutionary pressure to select for a specific set of mutations, the population changes very little because natural selection is not weeding out the weaker genes.

:11. And why do only humans have true morality and altruism? Chemistry has no emotions, and the expression of true, human empathy can only come from a god-fearing Christian.
::You dont know that only humans have morality, you assume that. And altruistic behavior has been demonstrated in many other species. In us, it's a way to reinforce the social group. I cant speak to the existence or not of a "nice" gene, but we are biologically programmed to need and want to be part of a group, it's what helped us survive our days before our dominance.

:12. Such as creation theory, which is more logical and explains the origin of life, among other things, much better.
::Creation theory is poorly supported by established science and rests mainly on supposition, anthropomorphism, and a lack of understanding in science.

:13. Those disciplines study phenomena God created in the first place. Nothing about medicine relies on evolution, even the study of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance occurs because of the transfer of already existing antibiotic resistance plasmids between bacteria.
::There is actually a paper written on the subject, it explains why medicine rests on evolution much better than I can http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112

:14. It's impossible to preform experiments that test evolution, and any attempts have either failed or have been critically flawed. Thus, evolution is not operational science, or really science at all.
::It is not impossible to test at all, but it takes an extremely long time to test as you have to breed MANY successive generations such that they are genetically dissimilar from their parent species to the point where they can no longer breed. Most universities are not willing to fund a study that would last probably three or four human lifetimes, even with an animal that reproduces quickly, to get it's results and prove something the scientific community accepts as true from evidence gathered by other means.

:15. Evolution requires more faith than any religion I have ever encountered, and it is certainly taught religiously by the few teachers who haven't realized how critically flawed it is.
::This claim is repeated again and again but I have seen no indication of it nor has any been presented to me.

:Don't feel bad, if there is one thing evolutionists are good at or understand, its how to deceive and lie like any liberal. Critical thinking is important to any academic study, so you can't accept something as true unless you are willing to appreciate that you might not be learning the truth, as liberals are willing to lie for their own agenda. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:44, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm not interested in this descending into partisan bickering, so I'd thank you to not take the first step down that road and stick to objective discussion rather than name-calling.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is there a campaign about this? It is a waste of time and money could go toward better things.[[User:Agalcal|Agalcal]] 17:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself ==

This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself.

For example:

1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]]. You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.
:Evolution explains the diversity of life, it DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER purported to explain how biological life began.

2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes and/or support for your contentions. But even if you had footnotes and/or "information", you would probably link to or provide junk science "information". (talkorigins, etc.).
:To avoid flooding the page, yes I left footnotes off. What specifically would you like information for and I will provide it.

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true.

I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:The Evolution article is seriously flawed and no, I'm not an Atheist. I actually do believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cant provide any verifiable evidence to support that idea so I dont advance it as fact. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Theistic Evolution is just as valid a theory as Creation, as they both explain the method by which humans were divinely created. The only difference is that Theistic Evolution is directly refuted by The Bible. As someone who has studied biology in both private and academic settings, the evolution article is perfectly valid from a logical viewpoint and brings more than reasonable doubt to the "scientific" theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:15, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Theistic evolution is unbiblical (poor Bible exegesis) and is just jerry-rigged evolution.[http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:17, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the Bible Belt state of Texas, don't we? ==

'''Question:''' When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the [[Bible Belt]] state of Texas, don't we?[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:49, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

But when it comes to evolutionist work ethic vs creationist work ethic in the Midwest, we all know who has already won. NOBODY BECAUSE ARGUING GETS US NOWHERE

==Question Evolution?==
Do you think the campaign will work? I mean, evolution is for some reason very widely accepted within the scientific community... personally I'm hoping to "teach the controversy" where both intelligent design and evolution can be taught in class. And yes, evolution is science, the theory has many holes and personally I don't believe in evolution, but bad science is still science.
--[[User:AwesomeDude111|AwesomeDude111]] 12:00, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

==The Answers You've been waiting for!==

A response from a High School Freshman

I can answer some of your questions right here. Ready? Probably not, but too late for any of that.

1) How did life originate? A: While evolution is actually a theory to explain the diversity of life, it is thought that the first cells could have been formed by the spontaneous formation of plasma membranes due to the polar nature of lipids, thus containing organic molecules required to have life.

2)How did DNA originate? A: Being a high school freshman, the best hypothesis I can give you is that sequences of common organic chemicals were incorporated into early cells, possibly first as RNA then as DNA.

3) How could MUTATIONS create information? A: As you already may know, when cells reproduce, small changes may occur in DNA. These changes are usually very minor changes because much of DNA is just old code that has been passed down but serves no purpose. However, sometimes mutations can be harmful or helpful, creating new proteins by changing the order of codons. The helpful changes tend to be passed on when an organism has reproductive success, thus creating a new organism with that heritable trait. These mutations are NOT the cartoon "mutations" where the character rolls in radioactive waste and grows 4 arms, these are subtle changes in the order of the nucleotides.

4) How is Natural Selection a creative process if it selects from existing data? A: Natural Selection works in combination with the mutations discussed above, so if Bug A has a mutation that makes it darker, it will survive better on a dark background than Bug B, which is pure white. However, if the bugs live in the snow, then Bug B will have a higher chance of surviving. In this example, Natural Selection is not the creative process, it is only the method to sort out the best adapted species.

5) How did new biochemical pathways consisting of multiple enzymes arise? A: I honestly haven't done very much reading on this, but the best response that I have is that chains of enzymes are created to do their job, they have no discrimination because they are only proteins, therefore they work on whatever fits into the active sites. They work in chains because a series of multiple enzymes are created through protein synthesis, allowing the proteins to work in a pathway.

6) How do evolutionists know that organisms were not designed? A: Because things ARE evolving before our eyes. To all those wishing not to have their minds blown, skip to 7. To those remaining, people are evolving. Multiple people in Japan have been born without an appendix, and some people have the genes for webbed feet. Even more important, animals are evolving. Tuskless elephants in the wild tend to live longer due to the amount of poaching for ivory, so the number of elephants with a mutation that causes them to stop growing tusks has increased. One more, from "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. A group on unicellular algae left in a petri dish will develop into clumps of multiple cells when exposed to a predator, but after 1000 cycles only the clumps big enough for each cell to avoid the predator but small enough to take in enough light will be left. The creation of new species is an example against design.

7) How did multicellular life originate? A: This is too easy, so I will go further than the question. We have already discussed the algae example above, so I won't use that one. Instead, I draw your attention to the placozoan, a 4 celled amoebalike predator. The placozoan developed to be able to skim small algae, thus it must be bigger than the algae to feed via phagocytosis. My interpretation of this question, however, is how differentiated multicellular life arose, and my explanation is that only the most basic multicellular life can be undifferentiated, so differentiation must have occurred in response to predation. This happened via mutation and selection, and most likely led to an "arms race" between species to avoid predators and to feed on more developed prey. Species probably came on land later when competition in water caused prey to move onto land and achieve reproductive success, then predators followed. One of the earliest ocean/land transition fossils to date is Tiktallik, which appears to be a predator, and has an amphibious build that shows it's evolutionary history

8) How did sex originate? (get your giggles out now) A: Sex most likely originated when multicellular species grew to sizes where asexual reproduction would cease to be advantageous. Early sexual reproduction might have started with a parent having both gametes and leaving a fertilized egg, then sex may have grown to involve a male and a female when species started schooling and mixing genes created better results. The reason scientists can only hypothesize about this is because fossil records are incomplete (see question 9)

9) Why are we missing countless transitional species? A: It is estimated that 99% of all once living species are extinct, so it should make sense that we would find trillions of fossils in the ground. The problem is that not every species becomes a fossil. In order to become a fossil, the bones must be buried in a sedimentary rock, have the right temperature and pressure, and have a good exposure when a scientist is there. Scientists don't excavate unless they have some sign of fossils, and usually erosion destroys exposed fossils if they are not found in time. In short, we do have the fossils of these transitional species, its called sand. You might just have a little bit of T-Rex in your swimsuit next time you go to the beach.

10) How do living fossils remain unchanged? A: We don't know that these animals are unchanged, the soft tissues may have changed over time but the bones tend to remain the same. These species may be unchanged because they tend exist in isolated groups with very little gene flow, creating the "island time capsule" effect. This only means that the gene flow hasn't changed enough for animals to make a significant change in appearance. This is most observable on Madagascar, which is the only place that has lemurs, a relative of modern monkeys, because lemurs had no competition and no gene flow from the rest of Africa.

11) How did blind chemistry create morality? A: The game theory accounts for morals and altruism. Game theory suggests that animals are bound in groups, defined by either Zero-sum or nonzero-sum. A zero-sum game accounts for hedonism, in which the actions of one have a direct opposite effect on the other. Nonzero-sum games account for altruism because the the entire group either benefits or is harmed. Nonzero sum games account partially for morality when it would be advantageous for a member of the group to act in favor of everyone. A zero-sum game can also account for part of this by creating a psychological debt, in which a member of the group feels that it must repay another for a sacrifice that was made to benefit that member.

12) Why is evolutionary "just-so" tolerated? A: What are you talking about? or is this just a filler question? The only reason an evolutionist can't answer this is because it's not a question, but I swore on my fishes life that I would do my best to answer these all, so here we go. The reason that natural selection might favor a male who spreads his seed (maybe even fish or coral style, hm?) is because it has a higher chance to impregnate more females, thus creating more offspring, but this would be a bad idea in situations where offspring need attention from the parents, like in humans. Human babies actually are born the instant they can survive outside the womb, taking some burden off of the mother. The human baby needs the parents to raise it in order to finish its development, thus the parents stay. The response is not a "just so" response, the response has its nature because the response depends on the situation. Like if I were to tell you, the reader, that you had to catch and kill something, you wouldn't use a fishing rod to kill a deer and you wouldn't use a rifle to kill a fish, the same applies to the survival strategies of species.

13) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? A: Well for one, you are currently reading. That's some pretty nice evolution, eh? Second, we have (get ready...) MOLECULAR BIOLOGY!!! Thats right, we use the principles of evolution to interpret the findings of molecular biology. Third, we have entomology (the study of insects), which is using genetic variations to predict the behaviors of insects. Finally, we have basically anything to do with viruses, though the one I will cite is AIDS research because a friend of mine had a friend staying with her while her parents are at world AIDS day. Without further ado, put your hands together for.. kidding I'll just paraphrase what she said. Anyways, AIDS researchers everywhere know that AIDS is caused by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Viruses have an amazing skill with mutations, and HIV is no different. Currently, AIDS researchers are tracking multiple strands of HIV and hoping that they will never become airborne pathogens or the world would be doomed, but they are also searching for patterns within the reverse transcription based reproduction that might unlock a treatment.

14) Science involves experimenting.. blah blah blah.. why is evolution history based and not experiment based? A: While we have had several evolution experiments (see question 6 for a good example using algae), I would prefer to actually target your first statement. Science can also be observation based, like in astronomy, paleontology, etc. (you don't see us yelling "ASTRONOMY IS A FAKE THEY DON'T EXPERIMENT ON STARS BECAUSE WE BOYCOTT THE NEW HADRON COLLIDER") and the history part of evolution is based on observations made in fossils as well as in the lab. The observations made in the lab can also include moving cells to induce mutations, especially in fruit flies, so not only do evolution researchers experiment, they use real scientific observations.

15) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a belief system based on unproven dogmatic statements, allowed in the classroom. A: It's not religion, its science. If it was religion, we'd be going to a building to pray to natural selection or something, and we'd probably go out and kill Muslims then try to blame the Muslims for it. But let's not open that can of worms, instead I'm just going to say, evolution is science, go reread this if you don't believe me. And seriously, get over the school thing, this is possibly the lowest you could ever go. It's like when a child gets angry because his brother is going to the zoo but he's not in his brothers class so he has to stay at school. Don't try to censor me, don't disbelieve, I could argue with you till the internet blows up from the sheer force of my words.

A note to Mr. "This is a Farce": feel free to send me any questions/requests for footnotes. even better, go on cracked.com, its less of a waste of your time than trying to disprove me, or better yet, go get that book I mentioned, its an introductory text but its fun. Best of all, just go play video games, nothing calms you down like telling your pokemon to fight others or using your awesome skills as Bowser to beat Mario in a kart race by throwing shells and banannas at him.

'''Please leave questions or footnote requests here'''

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-07-20T20:01:06Z

Hieverybody: /* The Answers You've been waiting for! */

Do we want these 15 questions answered? I can answer some of them right here --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll answer some now, I may not be able to get to all of them right now.

1. How did life originate?
Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it deals only with it's diversity. The dictionary definition of evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in living things?
What is "information" in this context? This is never defined.

4. Why is natural selection taught as‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
Natural selection is the mechanism that works with speciation to produce an effect we call evolution.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Because we can see many examples of things we know and can see were designed naturally but look like they should have been designed by human hands. The snowflake is a prime example; it appears extremely complex and designed however we know snowflakes are formed via natural processes. Living things also dont appear designed, at least not designed by anyone with any sense. The human body has some quite complex features but if taken as a whole, it's incredibly poorly thought out.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

8. How did sex originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

9. Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Simply, they arent. We have BOATLOADS of fossils and scientists have spent a great deal of time arguing just were in the evolutionary spectrum many of them fit. Fossils themselves are uncommon simply because the conditions necessary to form them are rare, but we have an incredibly diverse fossil record already (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/)

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
Evolution has not changed "worms into humans." These organisms havent changed because they have had very little evolutionary pressure to do so, they are very well adapted to their environment.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didnt, humans did. These are names we have given to things that help us reinforce our social groups, one of the key reasons humans have become dominant.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ storytelling tolerated?
It isnt. If you can demonstrate another theory that explains what evolution explains in a better way with more data, prepare a place on your mantle for a Nobel. Science encourages informed dissent.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
There are far too many to list here, most of our modern understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and large parts of our medical science rest on evolution being factual; if it werent, these sciences simply wouldnt work.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Evolution is not a theory about history, it is an on-going biological process.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Evolution is not a religious idea.
--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 20:13, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

:Several of your arguments are critically flawed.
:1. Because life was divinely created, even if evolution did occur, it would be affected by the divine grace of God, and not just random chance.
::Can you demonstrate that life was divinely created? Additionally, no one has claimed that random chance guides evolution.

:3. Information is basically stored knowledge, such as God storing the exact series of proteins needed for an organism to survive as DNA.
::You're talking about instincts, right?

:4. Because of natural selection, specialization could never occur, as hypothetical "transitional animals" could never out compete a specialized animal. Thus, the number of species should only decrease as time goes on.
::You misunderstand what speciation is. If you have two groups of the same animal that become separated by some sort of barrier, they will become genetically different as time goes on via genetic drift. Once enough time goes by, those two species will no longer be able to reproduce together because their genes are too different. It's not a question of out-competing one animal, it's a question of adapting to different evolutionary pressures.

:6. A snowflake is not a self-replicating series of biochemical reactions, so it is not an accurate comparison. The human body contains no vestigial organs, even organs previously though of as "useless" have been discovered to have important functions. The human body no redundancy, unless said redundancy is extremely important or advantageous for survival, such as having two eyes or two lungs. random chance could never produce such a perfect system, the only logical explanation is that there was some kind of divine plan for us.
::The human body is FAR from perfect and we have many vestigial features, one example being the goosebump response. In other animals, this response makes the hairs on their bodies stand up when frightened or cold to make them appear larger or trap a thin layer of insulated air. We humans do the same thing, however we do not have enough body hair to make it work as it does in other animals and serves no other purpose. Having two eyes is not an example of redundancy, it's an example of binocular vision which is what helps us perceive in three dimensions.

:9. Those fossils barely contain proof of an organism, let alone a true transitional species. We can't even be sure that they are legitimate fossils, and not just hoaxes propagated by the organizations that claim to study evolutionary "science".
::They show the bone structure and often the physical form of an dead organism, what more do you need? Except for a handful of fakes that the scientific community has expelled from the research, we have no indication that others were faked and I'd like to see your proof that current fossils are faked.

:10. Although a slight oversimplification, the "theory" of evolution does in fact state that over a series of generations, humans did evolve from worms. In addition, because evolution is caused by mutations, shouldn't millions of years of random mutations eventually lead to evolution? Even if only neutral or positive mutations remained in the gene pool, eventually, these ancient species should look at least slightly different.
::No, it does not. It states that we share a common (VERY distant) ancestor, not that we evolved from worms. To the other point, with very little evolutionary pressure to select for a specific set of mutations, the population changes very little because natural selection is not weeding out the weaker genes.

:11. And why do only humans have true morality and altruism? Chemistry has no emotions, and the expression of true, human empathy can only come from a god-fearing Christian.
::You dont know that only humans have morality, you assume that. And altruistic behavior has been demonstrated in many other species. In us, it's a way to reinforce the social group. I cant speak to the existence or not of a "nice" gene, but we are biologically programmed to need and want to be part of a group, it's what helped us survive our days before our dominance.

:12. Such as creation theory, which is more logical and explains the origin of life, among other things, much better.
::Creation theory is poorly supported by established science and rests mainly on supposition, anthropomorphism, and a lack of understanding in science.

:13. Those disciplines study phenomena God created in the first place. Nothing about medicine relies on evolution, even the study of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance occurs because of the transfer of already existing antibiotic resistance plasmids between bacteria.
::There is actually a paper written on the subject, it explains why medicine rests on evolution much better than I can http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112

:14. It's impossible to preform experiments that test evolution, and any attempts have either failed or have been critically flawed. Thus, evolution is not operational science, or really science at all.
::It is not impossible to test at all, but it takes an extremely long time to test as you have to breed MANY successive generations such that they are genetically dissimilar from their parent species to the point where they can no longer breed. Most universities are not willing to fund a study that would last probably three or four human lifetimes, even with an animal that reproduces quickly, to get it's results and prove something the scientific community accepts as true from evidence gathered by other means.

:15. Evolution requires more faith than any religion I have ever encountered, and it is certainly taught religiously by the few teachers who haven't realized how critically flawed it is.
::This claim is repeated again and again but I have seen no indication of it nor has any been presented to me.

:Don't feel bad, if there is one thing evolutionists are good at or understand, its how to deceive and lie like any liberal. Critical thinking is important to any academic study, so you can't accept something as true unless you are willing to appreciate that you might not be learning the truth, as liberals are willing to lie for their own agenda. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:44, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm not interested in this descending into partisan bickering, so I'd thank you to not take the first step down that road and stick to objective discussion rather than name-calling.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is there a campaign about this? It is a waste of time and money could go toward better things.[[User:Agalcal|Agalcal]] 17:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself ==

This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself.

For example:

1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]]. You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.
:Evolution explains the diversity of life, it DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER purported to explain how biological life began.

2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes and/or support for your contentions. But even if you had footnotes and/or "information", you would probably link to or provide junk science "information". (talkorigins, etc.).
:To avoid flooding the page, yes I left footnotes off. What specifically would you like information for and I will provide it.

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true.

I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:The Evolution article is seriously flawed and no, I'm not an Atheist. I actually do believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cant provide any verifiable evidence to support that idea so I dont advance it as fact. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Theistic Evolution is just as valid a theory as Creation, as they both explain the method by which humans were divinely created. The only difference is that Theistic Evolution is directly refuted by The Bible. As someone who has studied biology in both private and academic settings, the evolution article is perfectly valid from a logical viewpoint and brings more than reasonable doubt to the "scientific" theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:15, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Theistic evolution is unbiblical (poor Bible exegesis) and is just jerry-rigged evolution.[http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:17, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the Bible Belt state of Texas, don't we? ==

'''Question:''' When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the [[Bible Belt]] state of Texas, don't we?[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:49, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

But when it comes to evolutionist work ethic vs creationist work ethic in the Midwest, we all know who has already won. NOBODY BECAUSE ARGUING GETS US NOWHERE

==Question Evolution?==
Do you think the campaign will work? I mean, evolution is for some reason very widely accepted within the scientific community... personally I'm hoping to "teach the controversy" where both intelligent design and evolution can be taught in class. And yes, evolution is science, the theory has many holes and personally I don't believe in evolution, but bad science is still science.
--[[User:AwesomeDude111|AwesomeDude111]] 12:00, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

==The Answers You've been waiting for!==

A response from a High School Freshman

I can answer some of your questions right here. Ready? Probably not, but too late for any of that.

1) How did life originate? A: While evolution is actually a theory to explain the diversity of life, it is thought that the first cells could have been formed by the spontaneous formation of plasma membranes due to the polar nature of lipids, thus containing organic molecules required to have life.

2)How did DNA originate? A: Being a high school freshman, the best hypothesis I can give you is that sequences of common organic chemicals were incorporated into early cells, possibly first as RNA then as DNA.

3) How could MUTATIONS create information? A: As you already may know, when cells reproduce, small changes may occur in DNA. These changes are usually very minor changes because much of DNA is just old code that has been passed down but serves no purpose. However, sometimes mutations can be harmful or helpful, creating new proteins by changing the order of codons. The helpful changes tend to be passed on when an organism has reproductive success, thus creating a new organism with that heritable trait. These mutations are NOT the cartoon "mutations" where the character rolls in radioactive waste and grows 4 arms, these are subtle changes in the order of the nucleotides.

4) How is Natural Selection a creative process if it selects from existing data? A: Natural Selection works in combination with the mutations discussed above, so if Bug A has a mutation that makes it darker, it will survive better on a dark background than Bug B, which is pure white. However, if the bugs live in the snow, then Bug B will have a higher chance of surviving. In this example, Natural Selection is not the creative process, it is only the method to sort out the best adapted species.

5) How did new biochemical pathways consisting of multiple enzymes arise? A: I honestly haven't done very much reading on this, but the best response that I have is that chains of enzymes are created to do their job, they have no discrimination because they are only proteins, therefore they work on whatever fits into the active sites. They work in chains because a series of multiple enzymes are created through protein synthesis, allowing the proteins to work in a pathway.

6) How do evolutionists know that organisms were not designed? A: Because things ARE evolving before our eyes. To all those wishing not to have their minds blown, skip to 7. To those remaining, people are evolving. Multiple people in Japan have been born without an appendix, and some people have the genes for webbed feet. Even more important, animals are evolving. Tuskless elephants in the wild tend to live longer due to the amount of poaching for ivory, so the number of elephants with a mutation that causes them to stop growing tusks has increased. One more, from "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. A group on unicellular algae left in a petri dish will develop into clumps of multiple cells when exposed to a predator, but after 1000 cycles only the clumps big enough for each cell to avoid the predator but small enough to take in enough light will be left. The creation of new species is an example against design.

7) How did multicellular life originate? A: This is too easy, so I will go further than the question. We have already discussed the algae example above, so I won't use that one. Instead, I draw your attention to the placozoan, a 4 celled amoebalike predator. The placozoan developed to be able to skim small algae, thus it must be bigger than the algae to feed via phagocytosis. My interpretation of this question, however, is how differentiated multicellular life arose, and my explanation is that only the most basic multicellular life can be undifferentiated, so differentiation must have occurred in response to predation. This happened via mutation and selection, and most likely led to an "arms race" between species to avoid predators and to feed on more developed prey. Species probably came on land later when competition in water caused prey to move onto land and achieve reproductive success, then predators followed. One of the earliest ocean/land transition fossils to date is Tiktallik, which appears to be a predator, and has an amphibious build that shows it's evolutionary history

8) How did sex originate? (get your giggles out now) A: Sex most likely originated when multicellular species grew to sizes where asexual reproduction would cease to be advantageous. Early sexual reproduction might have started with a parent having both gametes and leaving a fertilized egg, then sex may have grown to involve a male and a female when species started schooling and mixing genes created better results. The reason scientists can only hypothesize about this is because fossil records are incomplete (see question 9)

9) Why are we missing countless transitional species? A: It is estimated that 99% of all once living species are extinct, so it should make sense that we would find trillions of fossils in the ground. The problem is that not every species becomes a fossil. In order to become a fossil, the bones must be buried in a sedimentary rock, have the right temperature and pressure, and have a good exposure when a scientist is there. Scientists don't excavate unless they have some sign of fossils, and usually erosion destroys exposed fossils if they are not found in time. In short, we do have the fossils of these transitional species, its called sand. You might just have a little bit of T-Rex in your swimsuit next time you go to the beach.

10) How do living fossils remain unchanged? A: We don't know that these animals are unchanged, the soft tissues may have changed over time but the bones tend to remain the same. These species may be unchanged because they tend exist in isolated groups with very little gene flow, creating the "island time capsule" effect. This only means that the gene flow hasn't changed enough for animals to make a significant change in appearance. This is most observable on Madagascar, which is the only place that has lemurs, a relative of modern monkeys, because lemurs had no competition and no gene flow from the rest of Africa.

11) How did blind chemistry create morality? A: The game theory accounts for morals and altruism. Game theory suggests that animals are bound in groups, defined by either Zero-sum or nonzero-sum. A zero-sum game accounts for hedonism, in which the actions of one have a direct opposite effect on the other. Nonzero-sum games account for altruism because the the entire group either benefits or is harmed. Nonzero sum games account partially for morality when it would be advantageous for a member of the group to act in favor of everyone. A zero-sum game can also account for part of this by creating a psychological debt, in which a member of the group feels that it must repay another for a sacrifice that was made to benefit that member.

12) Why is evolutionary "just-so" tolerated? A: What are you talking about? or is this just a filler question? The only reason an evolutionist can't answer this is because it's not a question, but I swore on my fishes life that I would do my best to answer these all, so here we go. The reason that natural selection might favor a male who spreads his seed (maybe even fish or coral style, hm?) is because it has a higher chance to impregnate more females, thus creating more offspring, but this would be a bad idea in situations where offspring need attention from the parents, like in humans. Human babies actually are born the instant they can survive outside the womb, taking some burden off of the mother. The human baby needs the parents to raise it in order to finish its development, thus the parents stay. The response is not a "just so" response, the response has its nature because the response depends on the situation. Like if I were to tell you, the reader, that you had to catch and kill something, you wouldn't use a fishing rod to kill a deer and you wouldn't use a rifle to kill a fish, the same applies to the survival strategies of species.

13) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? A: Well for one, you are currently reading. That's some pretty nice evolution, eh? Second, we have (get ready...) MOLECULAR BIOLOGY!!! Thats right, we use the principles of evolution to interpret the findings of molecular biology. Third, we have entomology (the study of insects), which is using genetic variations to predict the behaviors of insects. Finally, we have basically anything to do with viruses, though the one I will cite is AIDS research because a friend of mine had a friend staying with her while her parents are at world AIDS day. Without further ado, put your hands together for.. kidding I'll just paraphrase what she said. Anyways, AIDS researchers everywhere know that AIDS is caused by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Viruses have an amazing skill with mutations, and HIV is no different. Currently, AIDS researchers are tracking multiple strands of HIV and hoping that they will never become airborne pathogens or the world would be doomed, but they are also searching for patterns within the reverse transcription based reproduction that might unlock a treatment.

14) Science involves experimenting.. blah blah blah.. why is evolution history based and not experiment based? A: While we have had several evolution experiments (see question 6 for a good example using algae), I would prefer to actually target your first statement. Science can also be observation based, like in astronomy, paleontology, etc. (you don't see us yelling "ASTRONOMY IS A FAKE THEY DON'T EXPERIMENT ON STARS BECAUSE WE BOYCOTT THE NEW HADRON COLLIDER") and the history part of evolution is based on observations made in fossils as well as in the lab. The observations made in the lab can also include moving cells to induce mutations, especially in fruit flies, so not only do evolution researchers experiment, they use real scientific observations.

15) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a belief system based on unproven dogmatic statements, allowed in the classroom. A: It's not religion, its science. If it was religion, we'd be going to a building to pray to natural selection or something, and we'd probably go out and kill Muslims then try to blame the Muslims for it. But let's not open that can of worms, instead I'm just going to say, evolution is science, go reread this if you don't believe me. And seriously, get over the school thing, this is possibly the lowest you could ever go. It's like when a child gets angry because his brother is going to the zoo but he's not in his brothers class so he has to stay at school. Don't try to censor me, don't disbelieve, I could argue with you till the internet blows up from the sheer force of my words.

A note to Mr. "This is a Farce": feel free to send me any questions/requests for footnotes. even better, go on cracked.com, its less of a waste of your time than trying to disprove me, or best of all, go get that book I mentioned, its an introductory text but its fun. Best of all, just go play video games, nothing calms you down like telling your pokemon to fight others or using your awesome skills as Bowser to beat Mario in a kart race by throwing shells and banannas at him.

'''Please leave questions or footnote requests here'''

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-07-20T19:57:09Z

Hieverybody: /* When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the Bible Belt state of Texas, don't we? */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-07-20T19:46:48Z

Hieverybody: /* The Answers You've been waiting for! */

Do we want these 15 questions answered? I can answer some of them right here --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll answer some now, I may not be able to get to all of them right now.

1. How did life originate?
Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it deals only with it's diversity. The dictionary definition of evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in living things?
What is "information" in this context? This is never defined.

4. Why is natural selection taught as‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
Natural selection is the mechanism that works with speciation to produce an effect we call evolution.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Because we can see many examples of things we know and can see were designed naturally but look like they should have been designed by human hands. The snowflake is a prime example; it appears extremely complex and designed however we know snowflakes are formed via natural processes. Living things also dont appear designed, at least not designed by anyone with any sense. The human body has some quite complex features but if taken as a whole, it's incredibly poorly thought out.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

8. How did sex originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

9. Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Simply, they arent. We have BOATLOADS of fossils and scientists have spent a great deal of time arguing just were in the evolutionary spectrum many of them fit. Fossils themselves are uncommon simply because the conditions necessary to form them are rare, but we have an incredibly diverse fossil record already (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/)

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
Evolution has not changed "worms into humans." These organisms havent changed because they have had very little evolutionary pressure to do so, they are very well adapted to their environment.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didnt, humans did. These are names we have given to things that help us reinforce our social groups, one of the key reasons humans have become dominant.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ storytelling tolerated?
It isnt. If you can demonstrate another theory that explains what evolution explains in a better way with more data, prepare a place on your mantle for a Nobel. Science encourages informed dissent.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
There are far too many to list here, most of our modern understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and large parts of our medical science rest on evolution being factual; if it werent, these sciences simply wouldnt work.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Evolution is not a theory about history, it is an on-going biological process.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Evolution is not a religious idea.
--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 20:13, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

:Several of your arguments are critically flawed.
:1. Because life was divinely created, even if evolution did occur, it would be affected by the divine grace of God, and not just random chance.
::Can you demonstrate that life was divinely created? Additionally, no one has claimed that random chance guides evolution.

:3. Information is basically stored knowledge, such as God storing the exact series of proteins needed for an organism to survive as DNA.
::You're talking about instincts, right?

:4. Because of natural selection, specialization could never occur, as hypothetical "transitional animals" could never out compete a specialized animal. Thus, the number of species should only decrease as time goes on.
::You misunderstand what speciation is. If you have two groups of the same animal that become separated by some sort of barrier, they will become genetically different as time goes on via genetic drift. Once enough time goes by, those two species will no longer be able to reproduce together because their genes are too different. It's not a question of out-competing one animal, it's a question of adapting to different evolutionary pressures.

:6. A snowflake is not a self-replicating series of biochemical reactions, so it is not an accurate comparison. The human body contains no vestigial organs, even organs previously though of as "useless" have been discovered to have important functions. The human body no redundancy, unless said redundancy is extremely important or advantageous for survival, such as having two eyes or two lungs. random chance could never produce such a perfect system, the only logical explanation is that there was some kind of divine plan for us.
::The human body is FAR from perfect and we have many vestigial features, one example being the goosebump response. In other animals, this response makes the hairs on their bodies stand up when frightened or cold to make them appear larger or trap a thin layer of insulated air. We humans do the same thing, however we do not have enough body hair to make it work as it does in other animals and serves no other purpose. Having two eyes is not an example of redundancy, it's an example of binocular vision which is what helps us perceive in three dimensions.

:9. Those fossils barely contain proof of an organism, let alone a true transitional species. We can't even be sure that they are legitimate fossils, and not just hoaxes propagated by the organizations that claim to study evolutionary "science".
::They show the bone structure and often the physical form of an dead organism, what more do you need? Except for a handful of fakes that the scientific community has expelled from the research, we have no indication that others were faked and I'd like to see your proof that current fossils are faked.

:10. Although a slight oversimplification, the "theory" of evolution does in fact state that over a series of generations, humans did evolve from worms. In addition, because evolution is caused by mutations, shouldn't millions of years of random mutations eventually lead to evolution? Even if only neutral or positive mutations remained in the gene pool, eventually, these ancient species should look at least slightly different.
::No, it does not. It states that we share a common (VERY distant) ancestor, not that we evolved from worms. To the other point, with very little evolutionary pressure to select for a specific set of mutations, the population changes very little because natural selection is not weeding out the weaker genes.

:11. And why do only humans have true morality and altruism? Chemistry has no emotions, and the expression of true, human empathy can only come from a god-fearing Christian.
::You dont know that only humans have morality, you assume that. And altruistic behavior has been demonstrated in many other species. In us, it's a way to reinforce the social group. I cant speak to the existence or not of a "nice" gene, but we are biologically programmed to need and want to be part of a group, it's what helped us survive our days before our dominance.

:12. Such as creation theory, which is more logical and explains the origin of life, among other things, much better.
::Creation theory is poorly supported by established science and rests mainly on supposition, anthropomorphism, and a lack of understanding in science.

:13. Those disciplines study phenomena God created in the first place. Nothing about medicine relies on evolution, even the study of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance occurs because of the transfer of already existing antibiotic resistance plasmids between bacteria.
::There is actually a paper written on the subject, it explains why medicine rests on evolution much better than I can http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112

:14. It's impossible to preform experiments that test evolution, and any attempts have either failed or have been critically flawed. Thus, evolution is not operational science, or really science at all.
::It is not impossible to test at all, but it takes an extremely long time to test as you have to breed MANY successive generations such that they are genetically dissimilar from their parent species to the point where they can no longer breed. Most universities are not willing to fund a study that would last probably three or four human lifetimes, even with an animal that reproduces quickly, to get it's results and prove something the scientific community accepts as true from evidence gathered by other means.

:15. Evolution requires more faith than any religion I have ever encountered, and it is certainly taught religiously by the few teachers who haven't realized how critically flawed it is.
::This claim is repeated again and again but I have seen no indication of it nor has any been presented to me.

:Don't feel bad, if there is one thing evolutionists are good at or understand, its how to deceive and lie like any liberal. Critical thinking is important to any academic study, so you can't accept something as true unless you are willing to appreciate that you might not be learning the truth, as liberals are willing to lie for their own agenda. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:44, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm not interested in this descending into partisan bickering, so I'd thank you to not take the first step down that road and stick to objective discussion rather than name-calling.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is there a campaign about this? It is a waste of time and money could go toward better things.[[User:Agalcal|Agalcal]] 17:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself ==

This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself.

For example:

1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]]. You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.
:Evolution explains the diversity of life, it DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER purported to explain how biological life began.

2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes and/or support for your contentions. But even if you had footnotes and/or "information", you would probably link to or provide junk science "information". (talkorigins, etc.).
:To avoid flooding the page, yes I left footnotes off. What specifically would you like information for and I will provide it.

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true.

I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:The Evolution article is seriously flawed and no, I'm not an Atheist. I actually do believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cant provide any verifiable evidence to support that idea so I dont advance it as fact. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Theistic Evolution is just as valid a theory as Creation, as they both explain the method by which humans were divinely created. The only difference is that Theistic Evolution is directly refuted by The Bible. As someone who has studied biology in both private and academic settings, the evolution article is perfectly valid from a logical viewpoint and brings more than reasonable doubt to the "scientific" theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:15, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Theistic evolution is unbiblical (poor Bible exegesis) and is just jerry-rigged evolution.[http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:17, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the Bible Belt state of Texas, don't we? ==

'''Question:''' When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the [[Bible Belt]] state of Texas, don't we?[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:49, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==Question Evolution?==
Do you think the campaign will work? I mean, evolution is for some reason very widely accepted within the scientific community... personally I'm hoping to "teach the controversy" where both intelligent design and evolution can be taught in class. And yes, evolution is science, the theory has many holes and personally I don't believe in evolution, but bad science is still science.
--[[User:AwesomeDude111|AwesomeDude111]] 12:00, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

==The Answers You've been waiting for!==

A response from a High School Freshman

I can answer some of your questions right here. Ready? Probably not, but too late for any of that.

1) How did life originate? A: While evolution is actually a theory to explain the diversity of life, it is thought that the first cells could have been formed by the spontaneous formation of plasma membranes due to the polar nature of lipids, thus containing organic molecules required to have life.

2)How did DNA originate? A: Being a high school freshman, the best hypothesis I can give you is that sequences of common organic chemicals were incorporated into early cells, possibly first as RNA then as DNA.

3) How could MUTATIONS create information? A: As you already may know, when cells reproduce, small changes may occur in DNA. These changes are usually very minor changes because much of DNA is just old code that has been passed down but serves no purpose. However, sometimes mutations can be harmful or helpful, creating new proteins by changing the order of codons. The helpful changes tend to be passed on when an organism has reproductive success, thus creating a new organism with that heritable trait. These mutations are NOT the cartoon "mutations" where the character rolls in radioactive waste and grows 4 arms, these are subtle changes in the order of the nucleotides.

4) How is Natural Selection a creative process if it selects from existing data? A: Natural Selection works in combination with the mutations discussed above, so if Bug A has a mutation that makes it darker, it will survive better on a dark background than Bug B, which is pure white. However, if the bugs live in the snow, then Bug B will have a higher chance of surviving. In this example, Natural Selection is not the creative process, it is only the method to sort out the best adapted species.

5) How did new biochemical pathways consisting of multiple enzymes arise? A: I honestly haven't done very much reading on this, but the best response that I have is that chains of enzymes are created to do their job, they have no discrimination because they are only proteins, therefore they work on whatever fits into the active sites. They work in chains because a series of multiple enzymes are created through protein synthesis, allowing the proteins to work in a pathway.

6) How do evolutionists know that organisms were not designed? A: Because things ARE evolving before our eyes. To all those wishing not to have their minds blown, skip to 7. To those remaining, people are evolving. Multiple people in Japan have been born without an appendix, and some people have the genes for webbed feet. Even more important, animals are evolving. Tuskless elephants in the wild tend to live longer due to the amount of poaching for ivory, so the number of elephants with a mutation that causes them to stop growing tusks has increased. One more, from "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. A group on unicellular algae left in a petri dish will develop into clumps of multiple cells when exposed to a predator, but after 1000 cycles only the clumps big enough for each cell to avoid the predator but small enough to take in enough light will be left. The creation of new species is an example against design.

7) How did multicellular life originate? A: This is too easy, so I will go further than the question. We have already discussed the algae example above, so I won't use that one. Instead, I draw your attention to the placozoan, a 4 celled amoebalike predator. The placozoan developed to be able to skim small algae, thus it must be bigger than the algae to feed via phagocytosis. My interpretation of this question, however, is how differentiated multicellular life arose, and my explanation is that only the most basic multicellular life can be undifferentiated, so differentiation must have occurred in response to predation. This happened via mutation and selection, and most likely led to an "arms race" between species to avoid predators and to feed on more developed prey. Species probably came on land later when competition in water caused prey to move onto land and achieve reproductive success, then predators followed. One of the earliest ocean/land transition fossils to date is Tiktallik, which appears to be a predator, and has an amphibious build that shows it's evolutionary history

8) How did sex originate? (get your giggles out now) A: Sex most likely originated when multicellular species grew to sizes where asexual reproduction would cease to be advantageous. Early sexual reproduction might have started with a parent having both gametes and leaving a fertilized egg, then sex may have grown to involve a male and a female when species started schooling and mixing genes created better results. The reason scientists can only hypothesize about this is because fossil records are incomplete (see question 9)

9) Why are we missing countless transitional species? A: It is estimated that 99% of all once living species are extinct, so it should make sense that we would find trillions of fossils in the ground. The problem is that not every species becomes a fossil. In order to become a fossil, the bones must be buried in a sedimentary rock, have the right temperature and pressure, and have a good exposure when a scientist is there. Scientists don't excavate unless they have some sign of fossils, and usually erosion destroys exposed fossils if they are not found in time. In short, we do have the fossils of these transitional species, its called sand. You might just have a little bit of T-Rex in your swimsuit next time you go to the beach.

10) How do living fossils remain unchanged? A: We don't know that these animals are unchanged, the soft tissues may have changed over time but the bones tend to remain the same. These species may be unchanged because they tend exist in isolated groups with very little gene flow, creating the "island time capsule" effect. This only means that the gene flow hasn't changed enough for animals to make a significant change in appearance. This is most observable on Madagascar, which is the only place that has lemurs, a relative of modern monkeys, because lemurs had no competition and no gene flow from the rest of Africa.

11) How did blind chemistry create morality? A: The game theory accounts for morals and altruism. Game theory suggests that animals are bound in groups, defined by either Zero-sum or nonzero-sum. A zero-sum game accounts for hedonism, in which the actions of one have a direct opposite effect on the other. Nonzero-sum games account for altruism because the the entire group either benefits or is harmed. Nonzero sum games account partially for morality when it would be advantageous for a member of the group to act in favor of everyone. A zero-sum game can also account for part of this by creating a psychological debt, in which a member of the group feels that it must repay another for a sacrifice that was made to benefit that member.

12) Why is evolutionary "just-so" tolerated? A: What are you talking about? or is this just a filler question? The only reason an evolutionist can't answer this is because it's not a question, but I swore on my fishes life that I would do my best to answer these all, so here we go. The reason that natural selection might favor a male who spreads his seed (maybe even fish or coral style, hm?) is because it has a higher chance to impregnate more females, thus creating more offspring, but this would be a bad idea in situations where offspring need attention from the parents, like in humans. Human babies actually are born the instant they can survive outside the womb, taking some burden off of the mother. The human baby needs the parents to raise it in order to finish its development, thus the parents stay. The response is not a "just so" response, the response has its nature because the response depends on the situation. Like if I were to tell you, the reader, that you had to catch and kill something, you wouldn't use a fishing rod to kill a deer and you wouldn't use a rifle to kill a fish, the same applies to the survival strategies of species.

13) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? A: Well for one, you are currently reading. That's some pretty nice evolution, eh? Second, we have (get ready...) MOLECULAR BIOLOGY!!! Thats right, we use the principles of evolution to interpret the findings of molecular biology. Third, we have entomology (the study of insects), which is using genetic variations to predict the behaviors of insects. Finally, we have basically anything to do with viruses, though the one I will cite is AIDS research because a friend of mine had a friend staying with her while her parents are at world AIDS day. Without further ado, put your hands together for.. kidding I'll just paraphrase what she said. Anyways, AIDS researchers everywhere know that AIDS is caused by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Viruses have an amazing skill with mutations, and HIV is no different. Currently, AIDS researchers are tracking multiple strands of HIV and hoping that they will never become airborne pathogens or the world would be doomed, but they are also searching for patterns within the reverse transcription based reproduction that might unlock a treatment.

14) Science involves experimenting.. blah blah blah.. why is evolution history based and not experiment based? A: While we have had several evolution experiments (see question 6 for a good example using algae), I would prefer to actually target your first statement. Science can also be observation based, like in astronomy, paleontology, etc. (you don't see us yelling "ASTRONOMY IS A FAKE THEY DON'T EXPERIMENT ON STARS BECAUSE WE BOYCOTT THE NEW HADRON COLLIDER") and the history part of evolution is based on observations made in fossils as well as in the lab. The observations made in the lab can also include moving cells to induce mutations, especially in fruit flies, so not only do evolution researchers experiment, they use real scientific observations.

15) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a belief system based on unproven dogmatic statements, allowed in the classroom. A: It's not religion, its science. If it was religion, we'd be going to a building to pray to natural selection or something, and we'd probably go out and kill Muslims then try to blame the Muslims for it. But let's not open that can of worms, instead I'm just going to say, evolution is science, go reread this if you don't believe me. And seriously, get over the school thing, this is possibly the lowest you could ever go. It's like when a child gets angry because his brother is going to the zoo but he's not in his brothers class so he has to stay at school. Don't try to censor me, don't disbelieve, I could argue with you till the internet blows up from the sheer force of my words.

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-07-20T19:46:07Z

Hieverybody: /* Question Evolution? */

Do we want these 15 questions answered? I can answer some of them right here --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll answer some now, I may not be able to get to all of them right now.

1. How did life originate?
Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it deals only with it's diversity. The dictionary definition of evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

2. How did the DNA code originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in living things?
What is "information" in this context? This is never defined.

4. Why is natural selection taught as‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
Natural selection is the mechanism that works with speciation to produce an effect we call evolution.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Because we can see many examples of things we know and can see were designed naturally but look like they should have been designed by human hands. The snowflake is a prime example; it appears extremely complex and designed however we know snowflakes are formed via natural processes. Living things also dont appear designed, at least not designed by anyone with any sense. The human body has some quite complex features but if taken as a whole, it's incredibly poorly thought out.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

8. How did sex originate?
I do not have the background to properly answer this question

9. Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Simply, they arent. We have BOATLOADS of fossils and scientists have spent a great deal of time arguing just were in the evolutionary spectrum many of them fit. Fossils themselves are uncommon simply because the conditions necessary to form them are rare, but we have an incredibly diverse fossil record already (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/)

10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
Evolution has not changed "worms into humans." These organisms havent changed because they have had very little evolutionary pressure to do so, they are very well adapted to their environment.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didnt, humans did. These are names we have given to things that help us reinforce our social groups, one of the key reasons humans have become dominant.

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ storytelling tolerated?
It isnt. If you can demonstrate another theory that explains what evolution explains in a better way with more data, prepare a place on your mantle for a Nobel. Science encourages informed dissent.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
There are far too many to list here, most of our modern understanding of biochemistry, genetics, and large parts of our medical science rest on evolution being factual; if it werent, these sciences simply wouldnt work.

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Evolution is not a theory about history, it is an on-going biological process.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Evolution is not a religious idea.
--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 20:13, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

:Several of your arguments are critically flawed.
:1. Because life was divinely created, even if evolution did occur, it would be affected by the divine grace of God, and not just random chance.
::Can you demonstrate that life was divinely created? Additionally, no one has claimed that random chance guides evolution.

:3. Information is basically stored knowledge, such as God storing the exact series of proteins needed for an organism to survive as DNA.
::You're talking about instincts, right?

:4. Because of natural selection, specialization could never occur, as hypothetical "transitional animals" could never out compete a specialized animal. Thus, the number of species should only decrease as time goes on.
::You misunderstand what speciation is. If you have two groups of the same animal that become separated by some sort of barrier, they will become genetically different as time goes on via genetic drift. Once enough time goes by, those two species will no longer be able to reproduce together because their genes are too different. It's not a question of out-competing one animal, it's a question of adapting to different evolutionary pressures.

:6. A snowflake is not a self-replicating series of biochemical reactions, so it is not an accurate comparison. The human body contains no vestigial organs, even organs previously though of as "useless" have been discovered to have important functions. The human body no redundancy, unless said redundancy is extremely important or advantageous for survival, such as having two eyes or two lungs. random chance could never produce such a perfect system, the only logical explanation is that there was some kind of divine plan for us.
::The human body is FAR from perfect and we have many vestigial features, one example being the goosebump response. In other animals, this response makes the hairs on their bodies stand up when frightened or cold to make them appear larger or trap a thin layer of insulated air. We humans do the same thing, however we do not have enough body hair to make it work as it does in other animals and serves no other purpose. Having two eyes is not an example of redundancy, it's an example of binocular vision which is what helps us perceive in three dimensions.

:9. Those fossils barely contain proof of an organism, let alone a true transitional species. We can't even be sure that they are legitimate fossils, and not just hoaxes propagated by the organizations that claim to study evolutionary "science".
::They show the bone structure and often the physical form of an dead organism, what more do you need? Except for a handful of fakes that the scientific community has expelled from the research, we have no indication that others were faked and I'd like to see your proof that current fossils are faked.

:10. Although a slight oversimplification, the "theory" of evolution does in fact state that over a series of generations, humans did evolve from worms. In addition, because evolution is caused by mutations, shouldn't millions of years of random mutations eventually lead to evolution? Even if only neutral or positive mutations remained in the gene pool, eventually, these ancient species should look at least slightly different.
::No, it does not. It states that we share a common (VERY distant) ancestor, not that we evolved from worms. To the other point, with very little evolutionary pressure to select for a specific set of mutations, the population changes very little because natural selection is not weeding out the weaker genes.

:11. And why do only humans have true morality and altruism? Chemistry has no emotions, and the expression of true, human empathy can only come from a god-fearing Christian.
::You dont know that only humans have morality, you assume that. And altruistic behavior has been demonstrated in many other species. In us, it's a way to reinforce the social group. I cant speak to the existence or not of a "nice" gene, but we are biologically programmed to need and want to be part of a group, it's what helped us survive our days before our dominance.

:12. Such as creation theory, which is more logical and explains the origin of life, among other things, much better.
::Creation theory is poorly supported by established science and rests mainly on supposition, anthropomorphism, and a lack of understanding in science.

:13. Those disciplines study phenomena God created in the first place. Nothing about medicine relies on evolution, even the study of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance occurs because of the transfer of already existing antibiotic resistance plasmids between bacteria.
::There is actually a paper written on the subject, it explains why medicine rests on evolution much better than I can http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112

:14. It's impossible to preform experiments that test evolution, and any attempts have either failed or have been critically flawed. Thus, evolution is not operational science, or really science at all.
::It is not impossible to test at all, but it takes an extremely long time to test as you have to breed MANY successive generations such that they are genetically dissimilar from their parent species to the point where they can no longer breed. Most universities are not willing to fund a study that would last probably three or four human lifetimes, even with an animal that reproduces quickly, to get it's results and prove something the scientific community accepts as true from evidence gathered by other means.

:15. Evolution requires more faith than any religion I have ever encountered, and it is certainly taught religiously by the few teachers who haven't realized how critically flawed it is.
::This claim is repeated again and again but I have seen no indication of it nor has any been presented to me.

:Don't feel bad, if there is one thing evolutionists are good at or understand, its how to deceive and lie like any liberal. Critical thinking is important to any academic study, so you can't accept something as true unless you are willing to appreciate that you might not be learning the truth, as liberals are willing to lie for their own agenda. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:44, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm not interested in this descending into partisan bickering, so I'd thank you to not take the first step down that road and stick to objective discussion rather than name-calling.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is there a campaign about this? It is a waste of time and money could go toward better things.[[User:Agalcal|Agalcal]] 17:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself ==

This is a farce, you are embarrassing yourself.

For example:

1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]]. You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.
:Evolution explains the diversity of life, it DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER purported to explain how biological life began.

2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes and/or support for your contentions. But even if you had footnotes and/or "information", you would probably link to or provide junk science "information". (talkorigins, etc.).
:To avoid flooding the page, yes I left footnotes off. What specifically would you like information for and I will provide it.

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true.

I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:The Evolution article is seriously flawed and no, I'm not an Atheist. I actually do believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cant provide any verifiable evidence to support that idea so I dont advance it as fact. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:46, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Theistic Evolution is just as valid a theory as Creation, as they both explain the method by which humans were divinely created. The only difference is that Theistic Evolution is directly refuted by The Bible. As someone who has studied biology in both private and academic settings, the evolution article is perfectly valid from a logical viewpoint and brings more than reasonable doubt to the "scientific" theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:15, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Theistic evolution is unbiblical (poor Bible exegesis) and is just jerry-rigged evolution.[http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:17, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the Bible Belt state of Texas, don't we? ==

'''Question:''' When it comes to the biblical creationist work ethic vs. the atheist/evolutionist work ethic, we all know who is going to win in the [[Bible Belt]] state of Texas, don't we?[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:49, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==Question Evolution?==
Do you think the campaign will work? I mean, evolution is for some reason very widely accepted within the scientific community... personally I'm hoping to "teach the controversy" where both intelligent design and evolution can be taught in class. And yes, evolution is science, the theory has many holes and personally I don't believe in evolution, but bad science is still science.
--[[User:AwesomeDude111|AwesomeDude111]] 12:00, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

==The Answers You've been waiting for!==

A response from a High School Freshman

I can answer some of your questions right here. Ready? Probably not, but too late for any of that.
1) How did life originate? A: While evolution is actually a theory to explain the diversity of life, it is thought that the first cells could have been formed by the spontaneous formation of plasma membranes due to the polar nature of lipids, thus containing organic molecules required to have life.

2)How did DNA originate? A: Being a high school freshman, the best hypothesis I can give you is that sequences of common organic chemicals were incorporated into early cells, possibly first as RNA then as DNA.

3) How could MUTATIONS create information? A: As you already may know, when cells reproduce, small changes may occur in DNA. These changes are usually very minor changes because much of DNA is just old code that has been passed down but serves no purpose. However, sometimes mutations can be harmful or helpful, creating new proteins by changing the order of codons. The helpful changes tend to be passed on when an organism has reproductive success, thus creating a new organism with that heritable trait. These mutations are NOT the cartoon "mutations" where the character rolls in radioactive waste and grows 4 arms, these are subtle changes in the order of the nucleotides.

4) How is Natural Selection a creative process if it selects from existing data? A: Natural Selection works in combination with the mutations discussed above, so if Bug A has a mutation that makes it darker, it will survive better on a dark background than Bug B, which is pure white. However, if the bugs live in the snow, then Bug B will have a higher chance of surviving. In this example, Natural Selection is not the creative process, it is only the method to sort out the best adapted species.

5) How did new biochemical pathways consisting of multiple enzymes arise? A: I honestly haven't done very much reading on this, but the best response that I have is that chains of enzymes are created to do their job, they have no discrimination because they are only proteins, therefore they work on whatever fits into the active sites. They work in chains because a series of multiple enzymes are created through protein synthesis, allowing the proteins to work in a pathway.

6) How do evolutionists know that organisms were not designed? A: Because things ARE evolving before our eyes. To all those wishing not to have their minds blown, skip to 7. To those remaining, people are evolving. Multiple people in Japan have been born without an appendix, and some people have the genes for webbed feet. Even more important, animals are evolving. Tuskless elephants in the wild tend to live longer due to the amount of poaching for ivory, so the number of elephants with a mutation that causes them to stop growing tusks has increased. One more, from "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. A group on unicellular algae left in a petri dish will develop into clumps of multiple cells when exposed to a predator, but after 1000 cycles only the clumps big enough for each cell to avoid the predator but small enough to take in enough light will be left. The creation of new species is an example against design.

7) How did multicellular life originate? A: This is too easy, so I will go further than the question. We have already discussed the algae example above, so I won't use that one. Instead, I draw your attention to the placozoan, a 4 celled amoebalike predator. The placozoan developed to be able to skim small algae, thus it must be bigger than the algae to feed via phagocytosis. My interpretation of this question, however, is how differentiated multicellular life arose, and my explanation is that only the most basic multicellular life can be undifferentiated, so differentiation must have occurred in response to predation. This happened via mutation and selection, and most likely led to an "arms race" between species to avoid predators and to feed on more developed prey. Species probably came on land later when competition in water caused prey to move onto land and achieve reproductive success, then predators followed. One of the earliest ocean/land transition fossils to date is Tiktallik, which appears to be a predator, and has an amphibious build that shows it's evolutionary history

8) How did sex originate? (get your giggles out now) A: Sex most likely originated when multicellular species grew to sizes where asexual reproduction would cease to be advantageous. Early sexual reproduction might have started with a parent having both gametes and leaving a fertilized egg, then sex may have grown to involve a male and a female when species started schooling and mixing genes created better results. The reason scientists can only hypothesize about this is because fossil records are incomplete (see question 9)

9) Why are we missing countless transitional species? A: It is estimated that 99% of all once living species are extinct, so it should make sense that we would find trillions of fossils in the ground. The problem is that not every species becomes a fossil. In order to become a fossil, the bones must be buried in a sedimentary rock, have the right temperature and pressure, and have a good exposure when a scientist is there. Scientists don't excavate unless they have some sign of fossils, and usually erosion destroys exposed fossils if they are not found in time. In short, we do have the fossils of these transitional species, its called sand. You might just have a little bit of T-Rex in your swimsuit next time you go to the beach.

10) How do living fossils remain unchanged? A: We don't know that these animals are unchanged, the soft tissues may have changed over time but the bones tend to remain the same. These species may be unchanged because they tend exist in isolated groups with very little gene flow, creating the "island time capsule" effect. This only means that the gene flow hasn't changed enough for animals to make a significant change in appearance. This is most observable on Madagascar, which is the only place that has lemurs, a relative of modern monkeys, because lemurs had no competition and no gene flow from the rest of Africa.

11) How did blind chemistry create morality? A: The game theory accounts for morals and altruism. Game theory suggests that animals are bound in groups, defined by either Zero-sum or nonzero-sum. A zero-sum game accounts for hedonism, in which the actions of one have a direct opposite effect on the other. Nonzero-sum games account for altruism because the the entire group either benefits or is harmed. Nonzero sum games account partially for morality when it would be advantageous for a member of the group to act in favor of everyone. A zero-sum game can also account for part of this by creating a psychological debt, in which a member of the group feels that it must repay another for a sacrifice that was made to benefit that member.

12) Why is evolutionary "just-so" tolerated? A: What are you talking about? or is this just a filler question? The only reason an evolutionist can't answer this is because it's not a question, but I swore on my fishes life that I would do my best to answer these all, so here we go. The reason that natural selection might favor a male who spreads his seed (maybe even fish or coral style, hm?) is because it has a higher chance to impregnate more females, thus creating more offspring, but this would be a bad idea in situations where offspring need attention from the parents, like in humans. Human babies actually are born the instant they can survive outside the womb, taking some burden off of the mother. The human baby needs the parents to raise it in order to finish its development, thus the parents stay. The response is not a "just so" response, the response has its nature because the response depends on the situation. Like if I were to tell you, the reader, that you had to catch and kill something, you wouldn't use a fishing rod to kill a deer and you wouldn't use a rifle to kill a fish, the same applies to the survival strategies of species.

13) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? A: Well for one, you are currently reading. That's some pretty nice evolution, eh? Second, we have (get ready...) MOLECULAR BIOLOGY!!! Thats right, we use the principles of evolution to interpret the findings of molecular biology. Third, we have entomology (the study of insects), which is using genetic variations to predict the behaviors of insects. Finally, we have basically anything to do with viruses, though the one I will cite is AIDS research because a friend of mine had a friend staying with her while her parents are at world AIDS day. Without further ado, put your hands together for.. kidding I'll just paraphrase what she said. Anyways, AIDS researchers everywhere know that AIDS is caused by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Viruses have an amazing skill with mutations, and HIV is no different. Currently, AIDS researchers are tracking multiple strands of HIV and hoping that they will never become airborne pathogens or the world would be doomed, but they are also searching for patterns within the reverse transcription based reproduction that might unlock a treatment.

14) Science involves experimenting.. blah blah blah.. why is evolution history based and not experiment based? A: While we have had several evolution experiments (see question 6 for a good example using algae), I would prefer to actually target your first statement. Science can also be observation based, like in astronomy, paleontology, etc. (you don't see us yelling "ASTRONOMY IS A FAKE THEY DON'T EXPERIMENT ON STARS BECAUSE WE BOYCOTT THE NEW HADRON COLLIDER") and the history part of evolution is based on observations made in fossils as well as in the lab. The observations made in the lab can also include moving cells to induce mutations, especially in fruit flies, so not only do evolution researchers experiment, they use real scientific observations.

15) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a belief system based on unproven dogmatic statements, allowed in the classroom. A: It's not religion, its science. If it was religion, we'd be going to a building to pray to natural selection or something, and we'd probably go out and kill Muslims then try to blame the Muslims for it. But let's not open that can of worms, instead I'm just going to say, evolution is science, go reread this if you don't believe me. And seriously, get over the school thing, this is possibly the lowest you could ever go. It's like when a child gets angry because his brother is going to the zoo but he's not in his brothers class so he has to stay at school. Don't try to censor me, don't disbelieve, I could argue with you till the internet blows up from the sheer force of my words.

Nirvana (Band)

2011-07-17T15:28:33Z

Hieverybody: /* Themes of nihilism and alienation */

'''Nirvana''' was a [[grunge rock]] band from Aberdeen, [[Washington]], formed by [[Kurt Cobain]] and Krist Novoselic in early 1988. They first achieved mainstream success with the release of their single "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in 1991. Since their debut, over 60 million Nirvana albums have been sold worldwide, making the band one of the most popular non-active musical acts in history.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WolfFiles/story?id=2619535&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Elvis No Longer King of Dead Celebrities], ''ABC News''</ref> Cobain, the band's lead singer and guitarist, was often labeled as the "spokesman for a generation", referring to [[Generation X]].<ref>[http://hubpages.com/hub/KurtCoabinGenerationXSpokesman Kurt Cobain, Misunderstood Spokesman of the Generation X]</ref> Cobain committed suicide on April 5, 1994, in his [[Seattle]] home. After Nirvana disbanded, drummer Dave Grohl formed [[Foo Fighters]], which was labeled a post-grunge band.

==Group members<ref>http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifexqr5ld6e</ref>==
*Kurt Cobain - guitar and vocals
*Krist Novoselic - bass
*Dave Grohl - drums
*Chad Channing - drums (left 1989)

==Discography<ref>http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifexqr5ld6e~T2</ref>==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Title
! Release year
! Singles
|-
| ''Bleach''
| 1989
| "About a Girl"
|-
| ''Nevermind''
| 1991
| "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Come as You Are", "Lithium", "On a Plain"
|-
| ''In Utero''
| 1993
| "All Apologies", "Heart Shaped Box"
|}

==Moral impact of Nirvana==

The moral impact of Nirvana is difficult to gauge directly from their lyrics, as the band pursued an extremely abstract form of songwriting. Few of the band's songs give a direct plotline, and can only be concretely judged for appropriateness by the overall "theme" of the expressions and vocabulary used.

===Themes of nihilism and alienation===
Probably the most condemning argument which can be made against Nirvana is that their music fails to be morally uplifting.

''"Silence /Here I am /Here I am /Silent.
/Bright and clear /It's what I am /I have Died"''
--Endless Nameless (Nevermind album)

''"I've got some rope/
You have been told/
Promise you/
ever true/
Let me take a ride/
Cut yourself/
Wants some help/
To help myself."''
--Polly (New Wave)

*However, it must be noted that "Polly" was written in response to a series of rapes in the area, and was written to prevent the act of rape rather than promote it

The most clearly objectionable song performed on a Nirvana album was their cover of the song "Jesus Don't Want Me for a Sunbeam" (originally by [[punk]] band The Vaselines) on the "Unplugged in New York" album. The song is a disrespectful parody of the Sunday School song "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam", in which the lyrics are mocked with atheistic messages:

"''Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam/
Sunbeams are not made like me/
Don't expect me to cry/
For all the reasons you had to die/
Don't ever ask your love of me.''"
--Jesus Don't Want Me for a Sunbeam (Unplugged)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Alternative Rock Bands]]
[[Category:Grunge Bands]]