All DEMS that believe in evolution, please raise your hand!

[RiverStone]

Per the rethug debate; Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas already voted NO.




Do you believe in EVOLUTION?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I also believe in gravity, 2 + 2 = 4, and germ theory of disease.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Doesn't really matter - nowadays the cowardly or the stupid claim to believe in ID.

[Taverner]

3. OK....Dems who believe in GRAVITY raise your hand!

[AgadorSparticus]

40. omg, your reply gave me the biggest chuckle.

:spray:

[JackBeck]

4. But God buried those skulls and dinosaur bones to show His awesome power.

Or so says my SIL from Ohio.

[flobee1]

10. I was told it was satan

they were planted to decieve us
:rofl:



last time I was in church, the pastor started going off about the big bad media portraying catholics in a bad light
walked out and havent been back since



evolution really is the answer

[eppur_se_muova]

27. God, Satan ... who can keep those two straight? nt

[unpossibles]

29. Devil-ution! n/t

[JackBeck]

34. I've got one for ya'.

The priest, who my dad went to for spiritual counseling after I came out, told me that it was OK for me to be at my dad's funeral!

[bryant69]

5. This is an interesting debate

It's a little bit like Conservatives boiling down the many shades of environmentalist to "tree huggers." Obviously you can believe in a divine origin of Humanity without believing in young earth creationism.

Let me put it another way, is this question the equivalent to the poll's question --> "Do you believe that God or Gods had no hand in the creation of humanity?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[demnan]

6. I had a little fun with your graphic

[RedCappedBandit]

11. LOL

[IChing]

7. All dems that believe in telekinesis

raise my hand

[RiverStone]

14. Good one!

:rofl:

[Labors of Hercules]

8. I don't believe in Evolution...

I know it to be true, and thus "belief" has no relevence in the matter.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Are you the one who voted NO?

[Labors of Hercules]

13. yes.

:evilgrin:

[BuyingThyme]

15. I was hoping it was a troll.

Not enough troll action around here lately.

[bryant69]

32. Only a troll would fail to believe in evolution?

Bryant

[BuyingThyme]

33. If you say so.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Well, if you hadn't, I would have.

Not that I think evolution is incorrect; it's just that I believe that in a democracy, NOTHING should be unanimous.

[Labors of Hercules]

20. Spoken like a true North Carolina Democrat!

:toast:

[HereSince1628]

12. I believe most people are clueless as to what evolution means. I have a degree of certitude

that Hardy-Weinberg violations have and do occur, phylogenesis has occurred and extinction has and is occurring.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Out of curioisity what do you classify as Hardy-Weinberg violations?

I learned Hardy-Weinberg to mean that sexual reproduction alone doesn't result in speciation. Are you suggesting that's untrue?

[HereSince1628]

42. Hardy-Weinberg rules are the requirements for genetic equilibrium

They are cornerstones of population genetics. Violations of these rules result in change in the frequencies of alleles in a population, which by definition is microevolution.

The H-W rules are for sexually reproducing species, and are typically introduced to students as an algebraic model that traces allelic frequencies of simple Mendelian traits over generations.
That model of sexual reproduction over many generations does not show shifts in allelic frequencies over time. This may be why you remember H-W suggesting that sexual reproduction doesn't result in speciation. But really the H-W equilibrium is about unchanging gene frequencies and much change in gene frequency occurs without speciation.

The model represents a special case that in nature depends upon quite restrictive conditions being met. The rules for genetic equilibrium are in a practical sense impossible to meet ... consequently violations of these rules are used to explain how it is that microevolution/changes in the frequencies of allele are always going on.

The rules that must be met to achieve genetic equilibrium can be stated in various ways. Here is one way:

1. The population is composed of a very large number of sexually reproducing diploid individuals.
2. Mating is completely random.
3. All variations on a gene are adaptively neutral
4. There is no migration
5. Genetic mutations do not occur
6. Generations do not overlap
7. All members of the population have equivalent reproductive potential
8. Meiosis is completely normal--chance is the only factor operative in gametogenesis and segregation of alleles into functional gametes.
9. Gene frequencies are identical in both sexes.
10. Parents make equal contributions to the heredity of their offspring.

The occurrence of microevolution can be demonstrated with many lines of evidence including experimental data. Microevolution is about changes in gene frequency in a population; the sort of changes it generates contributes to differences between the many ancestor-decendent lineages that make up populations and it goes on all the time.

[Cleita]

16. There is really no believing involved. It's acknowledging

empirical scientific evidence as fact. I believe in fairies and I acknowledge the fact that humans evolved from an ape ancestor.

[cannabis_flower]

17. A totally different opinion...

When I went to catholic school in about 1972 we had a teacher who was a nun, who explained a relationship between creation and evolution. She said that the creationism story in the bible was allegory and that when the bible says God created everything in 7 days, they were days in God's time and that a day to God could be a million years. If you think of it that way you could see evolution as a tool that God used to create life on earth and make life on earth as we see it today. I think that if you believe in God it is a very beautiful way too think of the entire issue. I have talked to evangelicals and actually had a few of them accept this alternate view.

[Cleita]

23. I went to Catholic school and the nuns were able to separate

religion and science with no problem. We were taught Darwinism and evolution in science classes and Bible stories in religion class, sometimes by the same nun and never did one interfere with the other. Most religions don't take the bible literally and acknowledge that the lessons are written with the mindset of the time they were written and are not to be believed word for word. It's the lesson we are to learn from the stories that counts. The creation story merely states that God created the universe in certain steps and then he created humanity in his image. That's basically it. It in no way conflicts with science.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Homo Fearus Erectus

[Ishoutandscream2]

21. LOL!!!

:applause: :rofl:

[Ilsa]

39. Oh. I thought that was Bush's x-ray. nt

[Old and In the Way]

22. I'm afraid the Republicans will learn much more about evolution come 2008

Looks like their family tree is about to be uprooted. Poor things...they couldn't adapt to intelligence and the changing world around them. Sometimes it's gradual, other times it quite abrupt.

[Cleita]

26. I think they are deevolving. I swear I almost saw some knuckle

dragging there.

[eppur_se_muova]

24. Homo republicanus: Brain capacity irrelevant, since not utilized. nt

[sutz12]

31. White mice: We need your brain.

Arthur Dent: But I'm using it!

White mice: Hardly.

:evilgrin:

[rasputin1952]

25. Since evolution is going on today it is kind of hard to disagree

w/it, although there are some parts that still need to be explained, like why R's haven't evolved past Neanderthals...:D

[ck4829]

28. I am a religious person, but at the same time, I have seen proof of evolution

And I know it exists.

I know you're not saying it, but we need to get as a culture need to get over the erroneous belief that belief in God and belief in evolution are irreconcilable.

[HereSince1628]

35. Cool, though that sort of begs the question of whether proof is even possible

in science.

[RiDuvessa]

30. I'm Catholic

And I and my family have been able to separate evolution and the scientific study thereof and our faith. I don't see why it's so hard for other people. Religion has no place in schools other then the study of it in a historical context. It should definitely have no bearing on what is studied in a particular curriculum.

[snooper2]

36. These guys got it right...

http://icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/


Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

[snooper2]

37. these guys got it right

http://icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

[damntexdem]

38. Evolution, yes!

But Republicans, no!