Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds

Devolution,

I suggest you read Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins; at the very least The View from Mount Improbably, an extract from the same book, published as part of the 70th anniversary of Penguin books. It deals specifically with the fallacy you're trying to perpetuate, re the evolution of complex eyes.

Also, our greater understanding of genetics has done nothing but strengthen the case for evolution.

Cue preator605...

These are such tired arguments. I couldn't be bothered refuting them at first.

Here's some food for thought Devolution, Would you rather have 50% of an eye or no eye at all? 50% of an eye is a very useful thing when the alternative is no eye. One light sensitive cell is useful against the alternative of nothing.

You see the way evolution works is by blind incremental change. If something has a survival benefit, it will, statistically, survive more than the alternative.

So as an example:

1 light receptive cell, you can now sense shadow, and be more able to avoid prey
2. several light receiving cells, at an acute angle to each other, you can now sense shadow and direction
3. Deepen the "cup" and you can now start to form images
4. Put a fluid filled sack over the opening and you can now focus the image

All these things are incremental (and generalised increments, not the minuscule ones that would actually accumulate to give these steps) changes that improve the eye. The eye is still useful every step of the way. You're inability to comprehend that isn't a fault in the Theory of Evolution. Though it is perhaps a result of it.

You should also note that the purpose the item is used for in it's current evolutionary phase, doesn't have to be the same purpose it was always used for. It just has to have been beneficial at all stages of its development.

Look why this article started in the first place

To illustrate the sorry state of scientific thought in the US, and how pitifully backwards we are in some aspects?

btw im not going to collect all the anti-evolution scientists names just to please you sorry too much work.

Actually, you not collecting those names pleases your detractors, since you've given yourself no legs to stand on. It makes our job devastatingly easy.

Has there been a case of observing the "evolution" of a new language from an old one? I'm not aware of any, but the dramatic similarities between languages, combined with excerpts (i.e. fossils) of now dead languages, gives some indication that one did come from another. Or are you prepared to say that God created languages too (a la Babel)? After all, languages are incredibly complicated things with millions of different words coming together in the most frightfully complicated manner to produce such utterly bizarre sentences that they could not have come from pure chance variation.

Ohh yeah also tell me why arent we observing change of species now?

Actually, we are constantly observing (and effecting) evolution in viruses and bacteria. But, I suppose your naive glibness is more powerful than scientific evidence.

If you're talking about why there have been no observed instances of large, complex organisms speciating, I hope that it is possible within your framework of ignorance to consider the very, very, very basic scientific fact that all known evidence points to macroevolutionary speciation of highly complex organisms (e.g. wolves, elephants, kangaroos), occurring on a large timescale (on the order of many thousands of years). If you know of any comparative biological studies that lasted from before the rise of ancient Egypt to now, please tell me.

Seriously, kid, go learn a bit about science in the real world. You just might stop regurgitating your cute little internalized philosophies and hacked-together self-righteous frameworks of based on nothing more than Discovery Channel trivia as anything coming close to resembling science.

Anyway, thank you for letting yourself be a shining example of absolutely everything wrong with American public perceptions of evolutionary theory (short of falling back on God). We've gotta define the spectrum somehow.

P.S. - If evolution is so horribly wrong, have you got anything better? Say, something less ridiculously unscientific than intelligent design?

Yes, and all three of them are without value because they are based on faulty logic.

"Although bacteria simply multiply by dividing into two, they also often exchange genetic material, usually by releasing small fragments called plasmids which can be absorbed by nearby bacteria. In this way, beneficial mutations are shared. This might arguably be considered to be the earliest form of sex." - Source

I don't know what magical land you live in, but here on most of the secular world - evolution is accepted as the dominant theory of how life became what it is today. It has never been "proven wrong" - unless you consider 2000 year old documents to be absolute truth on the matter. As for your second point, which was extremely difficult to read - I recommend you look into the technological singularity. The page clearly shows the law of accelerating returns that shows that technology is changing at an exponentially increasing rate. I would go into it here, but the Wikipedia has a fairly good article on the subject. In any case, technology started off slowly - could you tell the difference between the 1300s and the 1400s? Now, could you tell the difference between the 1900 and 2000? It's not because it's further in the past - it's because many more things have happened and been discovered in the world between 1900 and 2000 than between 1300 and 1400.

Evolution happens - your opinion [especially with no scientific backing] does not change that.

Darkness Here some things about astronomy: Lets start with the Big Bang... My biology book states that a lot of matter (enough to make our solar system) got compressed in a small dot not bigger then the period at the end of this sentence. (by some extreme unknown force) Firs of all how can that much matter be compressed that much especially in no gravity conditions? Then my book states that the dot begun to spin clockwise, faster and faster it was spinning until it exploded and thus created our solar system. 1. When the Big Bang happened the spin was in one direction, so every planet and moon should be spinning in the same direction as all matter was spinning. Nevertheless we have witnessed that not all moons and planets spin in the same direction. (of course there is a theory that a large comet hit and reversed the spin miraculously without destroying the object.) But there are no large craters that could have been caused by such a comet... and its not just one moon that got a reverse spin.
2. Saturn rings they are disappearing rapidly and if our universe would be billions of years old we would not see the rings at all.
3. Moon is getting closer to Earth every year if the moon was billion years old the moon already would be here with us. 4. Dust on the moon: When NASA made its first landing on the moon they calculated the settling of the dust on the moon every year and then multiplied that amount 4.5 billions or so and they thought that they would sink in the dust when they land. So they made really long legs on the landing pod.
To everyone's surprise there wasn't much dust at all.
There are many other factors on astronomy and evolution and biology at this site check it out:
www . scienceagainstevolution . org/topics.htm

1) But we're not in that universe. After the big bang, stars and other large bodies formed. These produce something called "gravitational force," which changes the motion of nearby objects. Furthermore, I posit that, regardless of which way the world turns, evolution would work the same.

2) How rapidly and how much? Because where mgr=mv^2/r there is no net force. For example, I could argue that all the satellites orbiting the Earth should be dropping like flies. But they aren't. Because of science!

3) I'm going to need a reference for that one. Especially since I recall seeing articles on how its getting further from the Earth.

4) Or the dust blew off again, or was compacted into a new surface, or the calculations were wrong. I notice that we aren't covered in dust either...

5 (bonus point): The age of the moon does not effect the age of the Earth. Nor does it refute the time-scale of evolution. We have plenty of evidence on Earth (like, say, rocks. Or mountains), to indicate that the Earth is quite old.

An article would do everyone good, as it'd be an opportunity for you to collect your large number of thoughts into an easily parsed format and give us the opportunity to really know exactly why you think the things you do.

For example, in your article (or in a long comment, though an article is much, much preferred), can you address the following questions:

1. It's been proven wrong by Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Anatomy.

Your current support for the astronomy is nonsensical. You're not saying that astronomy is disproving evolution, you're saying that the prevalent theory of the Big Bang as a 4-billion-year-old creative event is utterly wrong. Please support your arguments a bit more (and citing a website like "scienceagainstevolution.org" really gets old fast. Such sites are filled with arguments that make an iota of sense only to the scientifically ignorant who are unwilling to question the outspoken skeptics about their unsupported talking points). Can you elaborate on the physics, biology, and anatomy points against evolution. Again, please don't just regurgitate talking points from a single hopelessly biased website.

2. It seems more like history and doesnt really contribute to science...
Knowing where we came from wont help us much sience it takes million of years...

Oh, I don't know. Most scientists consider microevolution and macroevolution as a single process, as the division between the two has become popular due to purely political partisan antics. That being said, without the theory of evolution, modern antibiotics and vaccines would not exist. Neither would genetically engineered foods, or at a more basic level, neither would toy poodles or greyhounds.

A bit more about the Big Bang theory, as a biology book is an incredibly bad foundation for all of your knowledge about the Big Bang: The Big Bang singularity contained all matter which formed the entire Universe, not just the Solar System. (I am not aware of clockwise spin, can you elaborate on that?) Saturn's rings may be thinning, yes, but your argument against the age of the Universe assumes two things: 1. Saturn's rings are as old as the Universe, 2. Their growth and decay must be gradual, over the entire existence of the Universe. According to all known research, (1) is false. Saturn's rings formed during or after Saturn's own formation. For example, Saturn's rings could either have come from remnants of Solar System formation, or comets and asteroids that were trapped into orbit by Saturn's gravitational field. They could even have formed from a structurally unstable moon which was shredded by gravitational shear forces. (2) is not necessarily true, as Jupiter's Great Red Spot is thought to be only a few tens of thousands of years old. It's disappearing as we speak.

By the way, I would take a hefty spoonful of salt when reading an intelligent design website that uses Super Millionaire as a criticism against... the scientific establishment, or uses a lack of understanding of scientific language (Such as the fact that, while proteins are composed of amino acids, proteins aren't amino acids) to pull the wool over the layman's eyes. If you can find any citation in any scientific journal to back up their assertions, I'd be very impressed. Otherwise, it has the same credibility as a 12-year-old reading Zoobooks in one hand and the Bible in the other, treating both as definitive texts in science.

Dust could be "blown" off the moon without needing wind or atmosphere (which would just get in the way). The absence of of these forces is exactly what could allow dust to escape the moon's gravitational field. Since you like science, here is a convenient experiment to test whether dust remains on the moon. Take a bunch of small objects (pencil shavings, dust bunnies, whatever you have), and put them on top of a car. Then drive the car. Now get out and examine the car. If you didn't notice, there should be very little of whatever you put there. In other words, inertia and weaker gravitational forces would allow dust to escape. This could be tested by observing a gradient in dust concentrations or some form of dust shadow behind the moon's orbit.

Also, there is lots of good astronomical evidence to date the age of the universe which puts it at billions of years old. Try looking at quasars.

Radioactive dating is an accurate method. Among other things, it is corroborated (alternative dating techniques (e.g. racemization) do not contradict it) and consistent (i.e. no wildly varying results).

Finally, the moon was launched into a position near its current one by impact. If it were closer, gravitational force (1/r^2) would pull it in. I could go into this more, but I think I'll wait for your article.

P.S. what college do you go to?

Questioning established science is healthy, but when the line of questioning begins with foregone conclusions of

Darkness you missed the point.... I was trying to tell you that the universe isnt billions of years old, not even millions. And about dust being blown off the moon.... you would need wind for that and an atmosphere. Radioactive rock dating isnt accurate, there were findings of stainless steel tools found in a rock that was dated over 4 billion years old. There are others findings as well ill try to include all that in my coming up article.

Then, I begin to question the sincerity of the "I'm just a skeptic" defense. I'm sorry, maybe it's just that the only "skepticism" you've been exposed to is of the kind you use, but it's much less suggestive of sincere curiosity and a desire for understanding, than an attempt to "convert" against established science.

Prevailing scientific theories prevail because of the reams of real-world data that support them.

Radiocarbon dating is supported by short-term laboratory experiments on carbon half-lives, as well as extensive dendrochronological records which serve as baselines for radiocarbon readings. While it's good to hear you make references to the grand concept of scientific skepticism, your skepticism seems to be of a starkly different brand, one that I've seen far too often among "skeptics" pushing Biblical creation theories and the poppycock of intelligent design as "scientific theories," using folksy "common sense" arguments to somehow invalidate centuries of scientific data collection.