Rush Limbaugh attempts to debunk evolution: "Why isn't Harambe the ape one of us?"

[Ragedaug]

Except there was no "intelligent" design in Prometheus. Dropping a seed doesn't negate evolution and you can't "control" the outcome. ID on the other hand very much claims a design by purpose.

meh...there's folks who don't believe in "God" who believe in intelligent design, or to say someone/some power got the ball rolling. So while most religions believe in some type of creation, they don't corner the market.

[jdbond592]

again theory =/= scientific theory

It is really something they can't grasp. Why is this called a theory? Why is this not a law?


I face-palm every-time.

[Edge-]

Yeah, citing definitions... it seems to work wonders on these forums. Here's the first definition of the word "theory" on dictionary.com:



Not exactly set in stone are they?

Did you bother to look up scientific theory? You know, the thing we're actually talking about?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

It's from dictionary.com too. I'll let you have fun with this one <3

[FeedsOnDevTears]

Yeah I know. That's one reason why I felt pretty confident in declaring that science has not observed an animal evolving into another animal. As of right now, I'm even more confident in that statement. Thanks forum.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-observations/
"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. "

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

ere is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

YW! Best of luck with the Darwin Awards.

[Kotori125]

Common theory vs. scientific theory. They may share the same word, but have separate meanings based on its context. Just like 1+1=2 (math) and 1+1=10 (binary), based on the context. Can't use one definition for the wrong context.

[Espe]

Best of luck with the Darwin Awards.

One can only hope.

[Ragedaug]

It is really something they can't grasp. Why is this called a theory? Why is this not a law?


I face-palm every-time.

Sure but many would argue that evolution can't be repeatedly tested and confirmed thus making it a normal theory and not a scientific one.

[Ripster42]

Sure but many would argue that evolution can't be repeatedly tested and confirmed thus making it a normal theory and not a scientific one.

You can make predictions upon it, and while you can't repeat the same tests, you can repeat the same type of tests. Still holds rigor.

[Hammerfest]

again theory =/= scientific theory

Yeah, I'm seeing that now as I look around at the term "scientific theory." Gotta love what they can do with the language. Wasn't like that ten years ago when I graduated college. Looks like they've adapted a new term and definition to stave off the creationist vs evolutionist arguments. Still, since the theory (or "scientific theory") of Evolution can't actually be tested and confirmed like the definition requires, there's no way the idea has graduated to this higher rank of theory.

[Thepersona]

It is really something they can't grasp. Why is this called a theory? Why is this not a law?


I face-palm every-time.

i think that the scientific community should change the name of scientific theory to something else, in order to stop idiots grasping at straws (AGW theory i'm watching you)

[Ragedaug]

Yeah, I'm seeing that now as I look around at the term "scientific theory." Gotta love what they can do with the language. Wasn't like that ten years ago when I graduated college. Looks like they've adapted a new term and definition to stave off the creationist vs evolutionist arguments. Still, since the theory (or "scientific theory") of Evolution can't actually be tested and confirmed like the definition requires, there's no way the idea has graduated to this higher rank of theory.

Makes it easier to shout down anyone who disagrees.

[Kalis]

It's also a non-religious concept...crazy, huh?

No, it is religious...

the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Replacing a deity with an alien is just a sci-fi religion.

[Ragedaug]

No, it is religious...

the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

You are talking about the Bible. I'm not. Who's building strawman now? Way to knock down an argument I didn't make. You looked very courageous.

Replacing a deity with an alien is just a sci-fi religion.

Call it what you want man. Makes no matter to me. "sci-fi religion" has already been ascribed to evolution. So...meh.

[Edge-]

Yeah, I'm seeing that now as I look around at the term "scientific theory." Gotta love what they can do with the language.

"They"? That's how language works, bro. It evolves and adapts to fit the needs of those who use it as it grows more nuanced.

Wasn't like that ten years ago when I graduated college.

If you took any science courses then, you should know this. This has been pretty standard for a few decades or so in science.

Looks like they've adapted a new term and definition to stave off the creationist vs evolutionist arguments.

No, "Scientific theory" is a neutral term in science that's not attached to any particular argument with those that do or don't believe in science (as they may or may not deem convenient to their world beliefs).

Still, since the theory (or "scientific theory") of Evolution can't actually be tested and confirmed like the definition requires, there's no way the idea has graduated to this higher rank of theory.

Have you like, actually read what it means? Because it means more than just your baseline "theory", and in terms of evolution we've already observed it in practice (despite your refusal to believe so despite being shown evidence of it).

[Nihilist74]

Limbaugh lost his job, was just divorced and sitting in a house with a mortgage he couldn't afford. He was a big wrestling fan and he was watching it on TV. A law had just been passed revoking the clause that said if you gave ten minutes of air time to Republicans you had to give ten to Democrats. He decided to create a radio show where he would make heroes and villains out of politicians just like wrestling made heroes and villains.

The show was very successful and he soon had a million listeners.

It was funny at the beginning and grew more and more serious over time.

What I'm saying is I don't think he really believes half the stuff he says, it's all about the ratings.

The problem is he motivated all the nutjob idiots that like his rhetoric into a movement. This is why trump is doing so well.

[Hammerfest]

"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. "

Yeah, the strawman is actually being implemented by the evolutionists in that creationists are taking this...



and saying that this...



... has never been observed by science. To which evolutionists then say that this...



... happens and then equate this...



to this...



in attempting to prove that this...



... has been observed. (Like a certain mod tried to do earlier in this thread.)

[Kalis]

You are talking about the Bible. I'm not. Who's building strawman now? Way to knock down an argument I didn't make. You looked very courageous.

Those are the dictionary definitions of creationism, the reason they keep mentioning the Bible is because creationism is a religious concept.

You said creationism is also a non-religious concept, but that is redefining English and I had enough of that with Hammerfest, so do not go there.

[Hammerfest]

Um... I was being taught what a scientific theory was 20 years ago and it was the same damn thing it is today.

Yeah, I'm sure you were.

[Ragedaug]

Those are the dictionary definitions of creationism, the reason they keep mentioning the Bible is because creationism is a religious concept.

You said creationism is also a non-religious concept, but that is redefining English and I had enough of that with Hammerfest, so do not go there.

I already defined what I meant, so what are you trying to prove? If you want to argue I'm using the wrong term, fine. Pick a term we can agree on. Much more productive to argue the point I'm making, then the words I'm using...unless you are more interested in knocking down strawmen and earning internet points. In which case, still makes no matter to me. I'll award you all the internets you want for being the masterdebater you are.

[Thepersona]

you know, im out. its like arguing with a door.
and i have classes tomorrow