Ghbvft6 wrote:

Escutcheon, why don't you just read and try to comprehend my post as a whole instead of trying to pull some pointless argument? Not to be rude or anything, but you guys use way too much words to say nothing. I mean, you say nothing new, nothing great and here you are making a big tl;dr fuss about it. Especially pat771s. Longloadr at least doesn't make it so long. I'm seriously wondering whether you guys are just trolling or what. ab559950, I heard this story from a friend of mine few years ago. I've completely forgotten all the details, sorry.

You just used a lot of words to say virtually nothing.

I admire Richard Leakey and would like to think what he is saying is true. But the unfortunate reality is that he is being way too optimistic about the capacity for scientific facts to overcome human stupidity, especially when it comes to religion.

pat771s wrote:

Ghbvft6 wrote: Escutcheon, why don't you just read and try to comprehend my post as a whole instead of trying to pull some pointless argument? Not to be rude or anything, but you guys use way too much words to say nothing. I mean, you say nothing new, nothing great and here you are making a big tl;dr fuss about it. Especially pat771s. Longloadr at least doesn't make it so long. I'm seriously wondering whether you guys are just trolling or what. ab559950, I heard this story from a friend of mine few years ago. I've completely forgotten all the details, sorry. You just used a lot of words to say virtually nothing.

I could always say:
Escutcheon, read my post again.
Escutcheon, pat771s, Longloadr stop spamming.
ab559950, I don't remember.

But I bet that would lead to misunderstandings and I would eventually end up saying all what I said in many more posts.

And now, If you excuse me, I don't want to off top anymore.

Longloadr wrote:

Evolution skeptics silenced? In Richard Leakeys dreams maybe. Science over the next 15 years or so will have many more people will be realizing the absurdities... the just so stories... and the non scientific beliefs involved in evolutionism.

There are no non-scientific beliefs involved in evolutionism. The vast majority even of Christian scientists are evolutionists.

Longloadr wrote:

50 years ago a conference celebrating Darwin predicted that science would silence the evolution deniers. At a conference celebrating 200 years of Darwinism, there was concern that the public were not buying into evolutionism.

What non-scientists believe in is irrelevant. There are almost no scientists who denies evolution.

ChrisShiva wrote:

I admire Richard Leakey and would like to think what he is saying is true. But the unfortunate reality is that he is being way too optimistic about the capacity for scientific facts to overcome human stupidity, especially when it comes to religion.

I think so too. I admire what he's saying and hope that what he says comes to pass, but this is a society where people can believe en masse that the American president isn't American, that the moon landing was faked, that diluting oils into large quantities of water has medicinal value, and that evolution cannot be true because "I've never seen a fronkey" (frog crossed with a monkey).

I don't have much faith in human intelligence.

It depends on the sort of mindset of the person. If a person is raised in their faith to think a scientific idea is at mortal odds to their faith (as many Christian fundamentalists are) I think at least if they never receive a critical scientific education, they will question the idea of evolution. Really every scientific idea I ever accepted, I only accepted because it seemed to be the truth on the basis of the evidence before me; the same approach has to be adopted for anyone seeking the truth about something in science, no matter at what level they are at.

ChrisShiva wrote:

I admire Richard Leakey and would like to think what he is saying is true. But the unfortunate reality is that he is being way too optimistic about the capacity for scientific facts to overcome human stupidity, especially when it comes to religion.

Chris, the problem is not with scientific facts. We can all agree on facts. But Leakey is discussing his beliefs, or his religion, which he confuses with science. I can point out several ridiculous things that he says. For example:
“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?”
His statement is nonsense for a few reasons.
1. Nobody is claiming that "science is nonsense"! He is attacking a strawman he creates.
2. Some people do claim that "evolution is nonsense". Leakey is correct on this. But Not believing in evolution (molecule to man / common ancestor) will not lead to the extinction of humanity as Leakey claims.
3. "How do we combat new strains of disease that are evolving?" Foolish silly question... Everyone know that bacteria can adapt... that they can mutate... That they can evolve. Everyone knows that genetic burden is weakening the human genome causing us to be more susceptable to disease. But its hilarious that Leakey thinks people in the sciences can't fight diseases if they don't believe in common ancestry evolution. Advancements in the medical field are not determined by a belief about origins. There are great scientists on both sides of the origins issue, and they perform science daily without a thought to creation / evolution.

Longloadr wrote:

2. Some people do claim that "evolution is nonsense". Leakey is correct on this. But Not believing in evolution (molecule to man / common ancestor) will not lead to the extinction of humanity as Leakey claims. 3. "How do we combat new strains of disease that are evolving?" Foolish silly question... Everyone know that bacteria can adapt... that they can mutate... That they can evolve. Everyone knows that genetic burden is weakening the human genome causing us to be more susceptable to disease. But its hilarious that Leakey thinks people in the sciences can't fight diseases if they don't believe in common ancestry evolution. Advancements in the medical field are not determined by a belief about origins. There are great scientists on both sides of the origins issue, and they perform science daily without a thought to creation / evolution.

Again you show that you simply do not understand the theory of Evolution. Isn't it time to give it a rest and go read up on it?

'molecule to man' is an argument you keep repeating, but that is nothing to do with ToE, try abiogensis instead. When you finally understand this point, and that 'macroevolution' is something invented by others to cloud peoples understanding of evolution, you'll see that you accept ToE even though you aren't quite ready to admit it yet... "Everyone know that bacteria can adapt... that they can mutate... That they can evolve."

The 'scientists' that disagree with the theory of evolution generally aren't the ones in the labs finding these cures for diseases, they're the ones in book stores doing book signings for their new amazing 'truths' about it all in book form... just saying

CarlosFandangos wrote:

Longloadr wrote: 2. Some people do claim that "evolution is nonsense". Leakey is correct on this. But Not believing in evolution (molecule to man / common ancestor) will not lead to the extinction of humanity as Leakey claims. 3. "How do we combat new strains of disease that are evolving?" Foolish silly question... Everyone know that bacteria can adapt... that they can mutate... That they can evolve. Everyone knows that genetic burden is weakening the human genome causing us to be more susceptable to disease. But its hilarious that Leakey thinks people in the sciences can't fight diseases if they don't believe in common ancestry evolution. Advancements in the medical field are not determined by a belief about origins. There are great scientists on both sides of the origins issue, and they perform science daily without a thought to creation / evolution. Again you show that you simply do not understand the theory of Evolution. Isn't it time to give it a rest and go read up on it? 'molecule to man' is an argument you keep repeating, but that is nothing to do with ToE, try abiogensis instead. When you finally understand this point, and that 'macroevolution' is something invented by others to cloud peoples understanding of evolution, you'll see that you accept ToE even though you aren't quite ready to admit it yet... "Everyone know that bacteria can adapt... that they can mutate... That they can evolve." The 'scientists' that disagree with the theory of evolution generally aren't the ones in the labs finding these cures for diseases, they're the ones in book stores doing book signings for their new amazing 'truths' about it all in book form... just saying

Carlos, just one slight correction. Despite what you said 'macroevolution' is a valid scientific term which is just as relevant to the ToE as natural selection. Many debate its autonomy from the microevolution but it does not in any way make the term any less legitimate.

hmm I'll drop that one then, to me macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different scales, so they are described by the same processes. If people in the field use these terms then so be it

Anyway I think you know what I was referring too, I know bradjaeger does with his 'fronkey'