Darwin censored by the Turkish government's internet filter

[not nom]

please do enlighten me. whats wrong with my statement?

it's not about something changing into something entirely else, it's gradual changes, over millions of years usually, and the individuals change rather little (though some bacteria for example can exchange some genetic info during their lifetime, so it's not *just* inherited and mutated genes)

"everyone loves a mythical story of humans someday evolving into lions, or developing wings."

see? you have no clue, so you distort it and make fun of that distortion of your own making.

 

[Revoltingest]

let me know if the following isn't sufficient:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

Since Darwin used the term "race" to mean varieties or species, the above quote doesn't convince me.
(Curse those primitive 19th century writers for their odd sentence structure & different use of words!)
Moreover, Darwin wasn't advocating the results of evolution, speciation & extinction, but rather observing what occurs in nature.

 

[YmirGF]

see? you have no clue, so you distort it and make fun of that distortion of your own making.

What is it that the Strawman wanted on the way to Oz?

 

[Gharib]

it's not about something changing into something entirely else, it's gradual changes, over millions of years usually, and the individuals change rather little (though some bacteria for example can exchange some genetic info during their lifetime, so it's not *just* inherited and mutated genes)

so if i say that a bear evolved into a whale how would my statement be wrong, i'm simply jumping some steps. i'm not an evolutionist so i don't know about all the mini changes that took place, but i sure as hell know that evolutionists them self don't know of those changes from the top of their head. so all you say is 'gradual changes over long periods of time.

i get that, so i'd like to make a question, is there a minimum time frame for one species to go through enough changes for them to be visible outwardly to the naked eye? for example a bear turning into a whale, how long would it have taken a bear to be in the middle of that process?

"everyone loves a mythical story of humans someday evolving into lions, or developing wings."

see? you have no clue, so you distort it and make fun of that distortion of your own making.

to the contrary, what i've said is in accordance to evolutionary belief that most if not all species will go through some changes some day whether it will be a full change or not i don't know, hence i made a full change example; lions, and a not fully change example; wings. i didn't say we'd become birds. you yourself said the following:
it's not about something changing into something entirely else, it's gradual changes,

 

[YmirGF]

to the contrary, what i've said is in accordance to evolutionary belief that most if not all species will go through some changes some day whether it will be a full change or not i don't know, hence i made a full change example; lions, and a not fully change example; wings. i didn't say we'd become birds

It is hard to argue with "logic" such as this... admittedly...

 

[Gharib]

It is hard to argue with "logic" such as this... admittedly...

very good post, run along now.

 

[Noaidi]

i agree, a theory, let me know when it becomes a fact. it's been a theory for centuries now, when exactly is the 'theory' part going to evolve?

....i know for sure it's not a fact because everyone keeps calling it a theory.

...so how much longer is it going to take for some real scientists to come along and take this mythical theory for review and throw it out the window.

Seriously, this has been covered on these forums numerous times.
So .... again..... here's what the word 'theory' means within a scientific framework:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[Gharib]

Seriously, this has been covered on these forums numerous times.
So .... again..... here's what the word 'theory' means within a scientific framework:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

more times than you can think of, lighten up i know you guys somehow think that it is a fact but for some reason still call it a theory. lol maybe because it's not.

 

[Revoltingest]

more times than you can think of, lighten up i know you guys somehow think that it is a fact but for some reason still call it a theory. lol maybe because it's not.

It's about as speculative as the "theory of gravity".

 

[Flankerl]

so if i say that a bear evolved into a whale how would my statement be wrong

You know in science you have to prove what you claim.
So you better have some studies on the gradual changes of the bones of the bears who presumably became whales over time.

Because you know related species have certain characteristics in common.





At first i thought the news was stupid, then i read the thread.

 

[jarofthoughts]

i believe the same thing can be said about evolution, it's not science, it's just wishful thinking to escape the real world, everyone loves a mythical story of humans someday evolving into lions, or developing wings.

Based on that statement it is clear that you neither understand science, nor evolution.

i agree, a theory, let me know when it becomes a fact. it's been a theory for centuries now, when exactly is the 'theory' part going to evolve?

And you obviously have no idea what the words 'Scientific Theory' means.

you mean atheists, i know of scientists who don't believe in this evolution of yours. so it can't be scientists.

Considering that the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming (99.9% according to some polls), scientists would be correct.

i know for sure it's not a fact because everyone keeps calling it a theory.

Again, you are now just flaunting the fact that you have no idea what a Scientific Theory is.
Might I suggest that you educate yourself before we continue this?

so how much longer is it going to take for some real scientists to come along and take this mythical theory for review and throw it out the window.

Like all Scientific Theories it is modified and expanded upon constantly in accordance with the avaliable evidence.
That, by the way, is one of the greatest strenghts of the Scientific Method.

i'f you don't mind, can you explain in brief how humans came to be?

No.
I don't have time nor the patience as it would take much too long if I was to treat the subject properly.
But I can recommend several books if you like.
I'd suggest starting with Neil Shubins book 'Your Inner Fish' ( Amazon.com: Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) (9780307277459): Neil Shubin: Books).

 

[Shermana]

It's about as speculative as the "theory of gravity".

Dark Energy: Is The Theory Of Gravity Wrong?

A Scientist Takes On Gravity - NYTimes.com

http://carlkop.home.xs4all.nl/gravnew.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread605374/pg1

 

[Revoltingest]

Dark Energy: Is The Theory Of Gravity Wrong?
A Scientist Takes On Gravity - NYTimes.com
Gravity does not exist. Physicist proposes new theory.., page 1

Ain't science wonderful!
Clearly, gravity & evolultion share the status of being extremely useful,
yet we still have new things to learn & explore. We're so lucky.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So because it was the mindset of his time, that means he has an excuse for claiming as a matter of fact that they were basically sub-humans?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a modern biologist who subscribes to the notion that there are such a thing as sub-humans or that the 'white race' is somehow superior. What we instead find is that modern evolutionary theory has all but wiped out the notion that there even are such a thing as different races of humans.

The problem with the word "Evolution" is that only part of it is an indisputable fact. Micro-evolution is a fact. The "Theory" part is that all these micro-changes will cause drastically species, beyond just different breeds, which is the only kind of "Speciation" that has been actually observed. Once again, the "Species problem" comes into play. It often becomes a mired semantics game with disregard to the actual observable results and measurable data. I have discussed this in greater depth on other threads.

First off the term 'micro-evolution' has no meaning.
Secondly, what mechanism would stop this 'micro-evolution' from becomming 'macro-evolution?
And thirdly, what is your definition of the word 'species'?

What there IS "tons of evidence" for is Epigenetics, which vindicates Lamarck more and more every day.

Wrong.
While environmental factors can and do change the epigenetic effects it does nothing to change the core genes.

And there are plenty of professional biologists who are anti-macro-evolutionists, though they may not be the majority, they exist and they say the exact same thing I'm saying here.

The support for the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community.
There is no debate about this and there is no conflict.

 

[Shermana]

First off the term 'micro-evolution' has no meaning.
Secondly, what mechanism would stop this 'micro-evolution' from becomming 'macro-evolution?
And thirdly, what is your definition of the word 'species'?

Do I have to post all the Academic books that use the word Micro-evolution yet again? As for the mechanism, that would be the fact that most non-neutral mutations result in the destruction of the specimen, any "useful" traits would be counter-balanced by a deleterious effect. Anyways...I really should just make one link with the list of non-creationist science books that define Microevolution so I don't have to do this over and over again with those who aren't in the know. Feel free to write to their publishers and tell them they're wasting their time, let me know the response. If you want more, let me know. As for the definition of "Species", that's something I personally think needs to be redefined, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the "Species problem". I consider a "Species' as something with radically different genes, for example, wolves and coyotes are the same species. I'd even say that Camels and Llamas are the same, even though they're classed as different genuses.

http://www.amazon.com/Cycles-Life-E...D3CK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...ZVTU/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-7

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...88/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-11

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...07/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-13

http://www.amazon.com/Methods-Appli...04/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1323789682&sr=8-28

Those who say there's no such thing as Micro-evolution in the scientific community are either ignorant/not-up-to-date or deliberately dishonest, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

Wrong.
While environmental factors can and do change the epigenetic effects it does nothing to change the core genes.

Nothing possibly changes the core genes even with years of "Micro-change", that's what I'm getting at. What am I wrong about exactly?

The support for the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community.
There is no debate about this and there is no conflict.

[/quote]

There is no debate among the MAJORITY of the scientific community, and that's basically an appeal to authority as if the problem sweeps away. Meanwhile, there is in fact a large (though not majority) amount of professional biologists who don't get on the train. That doesn't mean there is "no debate".

 

[jarofthoughts]

Do I have to post all the Academic books that use the word Micro-evolution yet again? As for the mechanism, that would be the fact that most non-neutral mutations result in the destruction of the specimen, any "useful" traits would be counter-balanced by a deleterious effect. Anyways...I really should just make one link with the list of non-creationist science books that define Microevolution so I don't have to do this over and over again with those who aren't in the know. Feel free to write to their publishers and tell them they're wasting their time, let me know the response. If you want more, let me know. As for the definition of "Species", that's something I personally think needs to be redefined, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the "Species problem". I consider a "Species' as something with radically different genes, for example, wolves and coyotes are the same species. I'd even say that Camels and Llamas are the same, even though they're classed as different genuses.

Amazon.com: Cycles of Life : Exploring Biology : Microevolution: Biology: Movies & TV

Amazon.com: Plant Microevolution and Conservation in Human-influenced Ecosystems eBook: Briggs: Kindle Store

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...88/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-11

Amazon.com: Microevolution of Fishes: Evolutionary Aspects of Phenetic Diversity (9788170870609): M. V. Mina, A. V. Yablokov: Books

Those who say there's no such thing as Micro-evolution in the scientific community are either ignorant/not-up-to-date or deliberately dishonest, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

All of these look rather shady. Just because someone has written a book does not mean that what it says holds water or is even relevant.
How about you find me some scientific papers from peer reviewed journals instead.

Nothing possibly changes the core genes even with years of "Micro-change", that's what I'm getting at. What am I wrong about exactly?

So your claim is that there is no such thing as a mutation or genetic drift?
Interesting...

There is no debate among the MAJORITY of the scientific community, and that's basically an appeal to authority as if the problem sweeps away. Meanwhile, there is in fact a large (though not majority) amount of professional biologists who don't get on the train. That doesn't mean there is "no debate".

According to certain polls the MAJORITY consists of 99,9% of the relevant scientists.
I'd say that's pretty overwhelming.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to certain polls the MAJORITY consists of 99,9% of the relevant scientists. I'd say that's pretty overwhelming.

Of course, the most important aspect of this is the reason for such high consensus, rather than the consensus itself.
There is simply overwhelming evidence & usefulness for the TOE....& the complete lack of a testable alternative.

 

[Noaidi]

more times than you can think of, lighten up i know you guys somehow think that it is a fact but for some reason still call it a theory. lol maybe because it's not.

You didn't read the link, did you?

 

[Noaidi]

.... so look who's talking about exploring both sides or at least giving students a chance to choose.

Teaching only creationism and ignoring evolution will put Turkish students at a significant disadvantage. You are aware of the roles that changes in allele frequency, mutation and natural selection in pathogens play in the research and development of vaccines, right?
Is Turkey destined to produce future generations of medical researchers who have no knowledge of these concepts, yet still have to battle against continually-evolving bacteria?
Can you explain how studying only creation myths is of practical benefit in modern society?

 

[not nom]

who cares if darwin was a racist? the question is not "do I want to marry his daughter", but "did he have a point". or at least be consistent with this fallacy and compare it to the morals of turkey... maybe start with censorship, and the kurds ^^

i get that, so i'd like to make a question, is there a minimum time frame for one species to go through enough changes for them to be visible outwardly to the naked eye?

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia