Glenn Beck On Evolution: Where Are The Half-Monkey/Half-Human Hybrids?

The extent to which denial of basic science is becoming de rigueur on the right is summed up in this excerpt from Glenn Beck’s radio program today:

Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half-person? No? Well neither has Glenn Beck, which is how he knows evolution doesn’t exist.

On his radio show today, Beck wondered how many people in the country believe in evolution, and said he doesn’t: “I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.”

Audio:

This is what conservatism has come to ?

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, Science & Technology, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Doug,

    In fairness, Beck is a world class moron. He obviously has no understanding of evolution (we came from ape-like ancestors and are ourselves apes) and probably has no desire to. Given his target audience, he’ll probably make more money saying things like this.

  2. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    “Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half-person?”

    The only ones I have seen are in Congress.

  3. JD says:

    “This is what conservatism has come to ?”

    No.

    Should we attribute moronic statements that liberal talking heads make and then ask questions like “This is what liberalism has come to?”

  4. john personna says:

    There is a book-length treatment on this:

    The Republican War on Science

    More right than wrong.

  5. mantis says:

    Should we attribute moronic statements that liberal talking heads make and then ask questions like “This is what liberalism has come to?”

    Denial of basic science is embraced widely among Republicans/Conservatives, and often serves as a campaign plank. It isn’t just some nutty thing Glenn Beck says.

  6. mantis says:

    “They have to make you care,” Beck continued. “They have to force it down your throat. When anybody has to force it — it’s a problem. You didn’t have to force that the world was round. Truth is truth.

    Glenn, Galileo Galilei would like to dispute your contention that “truth is truth.”

  7. Mike says:

    He’s right.

    For Classical Darwinian Evolution, anyway, which is 95 percent wrong.

    Punctuated Evolution, which highlights the utter idiocy of the “Out of Africa” theory, is another matter.

    Hominid life didn’t originate in one place. If it did, our ancestors would never have survived the various ice ages.

    As for what set evolution in motion, my money’s on God, even though I’m agnostic. Science does a pathetic job of explaining anything else and resorts to its own threats, campaigns of character assassination and defense of its dogma when challenged. We’ve seen what happens when you challenge the Church of Science, in the case of global warming. Another of their crackpot “theories.” They’re liars and they viciously and underhandedly attack anyone who demands proof.

  8. Mike says:

    Oh, and before anybody gives me that line, “but Africa’s where the fossil record is!”
    Really?
    You assume because there are older fossils there that there weren’t fossils as old or older elsewhere? Now who’s resorting to junk science and false assumptions? Flooding, quakes, mountain-building and acidic soil every but Africa couldn’t have wiped out other records, huh?

    When I hear this defense, usually applied to the now hopelessly compromised Original Eve DNA theory, I think of the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys: “The light’s much better over here.”

  9. Steven W. says:

    The central tenet of evolution includes adaptation of species and survival of the fittest. It is very easy to believe in evolution AND creator – in fact the dynamics of evolution only further the greatness of God as creator. HOWEVER as Glenn rightly suggests, there is a reason the “missing link” remains missing – there is no crossing of one species to another as the atheists & religious bigots would have us believe and in fact Darwin himself refuted such on his death bed.

  10. “Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half-person?”

    Maybe not yet, but I’m working on it.
    “Hey there, chimpanzee-babe. Nice dress. Can I buy you a drink?”

  11. sam says:

    @Mike

    “Punctuated Evolution, which highlights the utter idiocy of the “Out of Africa” theory, is another matter.”

    I’m not aware that Steven Jay Gould ever disputed the out of Africa theory. As a matter of fact, in this interview endorses the out of Africa thesis:

    Is it correct to say, ‘We’re all Africans?’

    The human species started in Africa. In that sense, yes, we’re all Africans. But it’s important to keep in mind that current African peoples are as descended from that original entity as people of European extraction are. We’re all equally African is the only way to think of it, because that’s where the species started.

    And that’s pretty clear. I don’t think there’s much debate about that.

    The big debate has been when do the non-African people get out of Africa. And that’s been complicated because clearly, close relatives of modern humans were in Europe, where they eventually evolved to the Neanderthal people, and were in Eastern Asia – Java Man, Peking Man, and the old types of Homo Erectus, probably a million and a half to two million years ago. So there were folks moving out of Africa a long time ago, and it was widely thought until recently that it was that first migration that gave rise to human racial variation. In which case human races would be fairly old, even in evolutionary terms.

    It turns out that’s not true. I think there’s almost genetic proof now – I wouldn’t say the issue is totally resolved – that those lineages just died out, that Neanderthals in Europe died, that Homo Erectus in Asia died, that there was a second migration of our modern species, Homo sapiens, which emerged from an Erectus stock, but an Erectus stock in Africa, and that all modern humans are the products of this second migration, which is probably less than a hundred thousand years old by the best current evidence.

    It looks as though all non-African diversity is a product of the second migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa – a migration so recent that there just hasn’t been time for the development of much genetic variation except that which regulates some very superficial features like skin color and hair form. For once the old cliché is true: under the skin, we really are effectively the same. And we get fooled because some of the visual differences are quite noticeable.

    Race the Power of an Illusion – Interview with Steven Jay Gould

  12. sam says:

    And BTW, on the substance implicit in Beck’s question, there is a horrifying possibility that you could have a human-chimp hybrid. See, Humanzee.

  13. I’m pretty sure that Mike is making an argument that no one else is making and then disagreeing with it. Biologists don’t argue that the oldest fossils are found in Africa, but instead that they are found in the oldest geological layers. Humans migrated out of Africa.

  14. john personna says:

    I think I heard something of what Mike heard. Beck seemed to be buying the scientific model, that we build from evidence, bit by bit, and truth emerges. It was just odd that superimposed on that was an astounding lack of awareness about what picture had emerged. It seemed like the he had the scientific method, but with a creationist’s hit-list of fossil evidence. Not a good combo.

    He complains about the lack of a “half-monkey, half-person” but then scoffs at Lucy, not because Lucy is a fraud, but because Piltdown Man was. Seriously?

  15. jesse says:

    An ape is actually half man half monkey

  16. george says:

    “An ape is actually half man half monkey”

    Actually no. But Beck is still very wrong. I’m kind of waiting for him to come right out and suggest that science no longer be taught in American schools, since it just seems to get in the way.

  17. Chimpanzee babe says:

    “Hey there, chimpanzee-babe. Nice dress. Can I buy you a drink?”

    Ook?

  18. Is it too late in the thread to suggest that Beck get a mirror?

  19. Steve Verdon says:

    sigh

    You conservatives do realize that a half-man/half-monkey would disprove evolution right? Right? Just as a cat giving birth to a dog would pretty much destroy evolution. I love how dimbulb’s set up these kinds of criteria for evolution to be true without apparently realizing it would shoot the theory down.

    Talk about blindingly ignorant.

  20. Franklin says:

    Is it too late in the thread to suggest that Beck get a mirror?

    There it is. I was waiting for a witty response and that will have to do.

  21. […] Glenn Beck On Evolution: Where Are The Half-Monkey/Half-Human Hybrids? (outsidethebeltway.com) […]

  22. Juneau: says:

    @ Steve Verndon

    You conservatives do realize that a half-man/half-monkey would disprove evolution right? Right?

    Fine, then just kindly provide me with a hundred or so intermediate steps – out of the hundreds of thousands that MUST have existed for evolution to be true – and I’ll go away satisfied that at least some sort of evolution took place. Evolutionists have yet to come up with a single – repeat, not one – intermediate species that can be directly linked to man and not ape. Similar yes, much as a chimpanzee is “similar.” Linked to humans? No. Only by automatic assumption on the part of evolutionary theorists, not empirical proof.

    This is the main reason why the theory keeps changing. First evolutionists used the concepts of enormous amounts of time as the engine that drove the supremacy of positive mutations in the gene pool. Then they realized that even the unimaginable ages didn’t provide ENOUGH time. Hence the rise of the idea of “punctuated” evolution – periods of normal mutation followed by frenetic activity where great leaps and bounds took place towards a positive development of any given species. Driven by what? They don’t know – or even really care. The theory is its own justification to them. It doesn’t have to be truly scientific, as long as they can cower anyone who disagrees (i.e Intelligent Design advocates).

    Just like the hoax of Anthropological Global Warming, this is what passes for science today. It is driven by the pursuit of grant money, vested interests, and politics. Not science.

  23. Juneau: says:

    My apologies, the word should be “Anthropogenic” not “Anthropological.” My mind was stuck on the studies in Anthropology as I wrote the post…

  24. G.A.Phillips says:

    I just got this thought in my head about the first human, er, human ancestor trying to **** itself to procreate, I think we will call it Libdown Man……..

  25. Tano says:

    Juneau,

    Sorry bud, but your comment is just chock full of utter nonsense.

    ” Evolutionists have yet to come up with a single – repeat, not one – intermediate species that can be directly linked to man and not ape. ”

    What on earth are you talking about here? What do you mean “linked to man”?
    From the point of view of the evolutionary tree of life, humans ARE apes. We are one species within the larger grouping “Hominoidea” which is the scientific name for apes – including gibbons, orangs, gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and humans. There are many many fossils of apes on all of the lineages within the group, including the lineage leading to modern humans.

    “Then they realized that even the unimaginable ages didn’t provide ENOUGH time. ”

    That is a ridiculous untruth. There is no such realization in the field of evolutionary biology.

    “Hence the rise of the idea of “punctuated” evolution ”

    The notion of punctuated evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with any sense that there was not enough time for evolution. It is, rather, an empirical claim – that the fossil record gives concrete evidence that many forms persist for millions of years unchanged, and then there seems to be significant change in relatively short bursts. There is nothing unusual about these rapid changes – all you need do is look at a wolf and a chihuahua and see what can be done with some strong selection pressure over a few thousands of years. And when evolutionists talk about short bursts of evolution in punctuated equilibrium models, they are talking about change over thousands of years, rather than millions.

    “Driven by what? They don’t know – or even really care.”

    This is just downright stupid. We certainly know in general what drives evolution, including
    “punctuated equilibrium” examples. And the specifics of what drives it in individual cases is one of the major research projects that evolutionary biologists are involved with. Finding out how and why evolution occurred is what the whole field is all about! Seriously, your statement here is about as absolutely stupid as saying that the members of our armed forces care nothing about national security.

    Evolutionary change is driven by the selection pressures that arise from the environment that a species lives in. If the environment is stable over millions of years, then you would not expect there to be very much evolution – the species is well adapted to the environment, the environment doesn’t change, why would you expect the species to evolve into something different? When the environment changes (and that includes the living environment – new predators or new prey, for example), then there are a new set of pressures that may well select for new varieties, and the species evolves. Or perhaps it fails to evolve and goes extinct.

    You really would be well advised to actually learn a few things about the subjects you rant about, instead of just mouthing this nonsense political propaganda. But you have put yourself in quite a box, haven’t you. All the scientists are in on the grand conspiracy, so you have to learn your science from the hucksters and the political hacks. And they are just keeping you stupid. And proud of it.

  26. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    Seriously, your statement here is about as absolutely stupid as saying that the members of our armed forces care nothing about national security.

    No, they are actually exactly on the mark and it is your “defense” which severely lacks intellectual merit. For example, the idea that “punctuated evolution is an empirical theory supported by the fossil record is simply not true. This whole line of thought came about when micro-biology and other sciences developed to the point where it was realized how many MILLIONS of positive mutations would need to take place for even the simplest form of multi-cell life to “evolve.” It was then realized that, even given an extremely generous ratio of positive to negative mutations, there was simply not enough time to develop all of the unique characteristics of the millions of distinct species that exist.

    Your claim that punctuated evolution is supported by the fossil record is simply evolutionist’s attempt to explain away the lack of intermediary fossils. It uses a circular logic argument (which is SUPPOSED to be anathema to science) which states, in effect, ” There are no intermediary fossils for species evolution. There should be millions and statistics mandate that we should have found numerous examples of intermediary fossils. Therefore they do not exist. Therefore, they never existed and, since evolution is a fact then this means that there were no intermediate species. Nature simply (dare I say “miraculously?”) made huge POSITIVE leaps in millions of species’ gene mutation to evolve species.

    In other words, the admitted fact that there is no intermediate evidence of species evolution is proof of evolution. Nice trick, if you can carry it off. Of course, that involves silencing any dissent and ridiculing anyone who points out the glaring deficiencies in the logic of the argument. Which is par for the course today.

  27. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    If evolution is not something that requires faith on the level of religion. Someone please show me what directly, which was not exactly, but close enough to recognize as, homo sapien evolved from. Then explain why the process stopped with our branch. Chimps remain chimps yet they lived at the same time. I am sure the first one is as smart as the last one. Next question. Why did human evolution stop with us? No noticable change since Cro Magnon. Explain. If it is science and not theory, It can be shown over and over to exist. You do not have the evidence so you ain’t got shit.

  28. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    After comming back to read all the posts from the usual suspects, I could have predicted who would defend the undefendable. Tano, you have Lucy’s bones. If that is an ancestor. Show the link. Not rhetoric but link. All you have in opinion. I am simply asking for rock solid proof. Got some? Fine otherwise STFU.

  29. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    All the scientists are in on the grand conspiracy, so you have to learn your science from the hucksters and the political hacks. And they are just keeping you stupid. And proud of it.

    What you fail to take into account Tano is the box that scientists have put themselves into, not me. When they decided to get into the “origin of life” game scientists committed to Darwin’s theory at a time when scientific knowledge was limited and relatively rudimentary. The problem now is that the theory has major and fatal flaws which some scientists feel so strongly about they are speaking out. They are painfully aware that the theory is unsustainable based upon observable evidence. As scientists, they are not looking for a religious alternative to evolution, and this is where the “Intelligent Design” scientific study field came into being.

    But the problem science now has is that if they admit that the theory of species evolution is defunct, then they will be conceding to creationists and admitting by default that there is, in fact, a God. Numerous extremely credentialed and (previously) well-respected scientists have been ostracized for calling out the fallacies in evolution theory and teaching – most of whom do not describe themselves as “religious.”

    Scientists have too much at stake (to them it is science itself which is under attack) to admit that their theory, to put it bluntly, has more contradictions than proofs. But most will never admit to that, instead arguing that to question the theory at all is anti-science. So, yes, it is in many ways a conspiracy. However, it is not based upon an attempt to deceive outright (although there are several examples of this, such as Piltdown Man), rather it is because they reason that to abandon the theory of evolution is to abandon science. This is what happens when, instead of scientifically studying what things are made of you decide to pick a fight with God. That analogy is oversimplified and figurative, but still essentially accurate.

  30. Tano says:

    “the idea that “punctuated evolution is an empirical theory supported by the fossil record is simply not true. This whole line of thought came about when micro-biology and other sciences developed to the point where it was realized how many MILLIONS of positive mutations would need to take place for even the simplest form of multi-cell life to “evolve.””

    Sorry Juneau, but this is just false. Where do you get this stuff from? Punctuated equilibrium was first put forth by Steve Gould and NIles Eldridge in 1972. These men were paleontologists – they studied the fossil record, and their experience told them that rather than a smooth gradual evolution, the pattern they saw in the fossil record was one of stasis interrupted by rapid change.

    Here is the original paper defining the idea
    http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Gould_Eldredge_1977.pdf

    – it has nothing whatsoever to do with microbiology. And the notion that MILLIONS of positive mutations are needed for evolution is completely idiotic. There are species that are separated from their nearest relative by ONE mutation. You really do need to understand the basics of biology y’know – this is not a political question.

  31. Tano says:

    “Your claim that punctuated evolution is supported by the fossil record is simply evolutionist’s attempt to explain away the lack of intermediary fossils.”

    huh? Now you are changing your tune? Are you now trying to argue that punc-eq really is an attempt to explain the fossil record? You are just floundering around, contradicting your own arguments.

    “There are no intermediary fossils for species evolution. ”

    Fer chrissakes man, have you never been in a museum? You should go sometime. And even better, if you could find someone to show you around behind the public displays to the actual collections of specimens. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils of critters that no longer exist, but do find their place on the phylogenetic tree – all of them “intermediate” forms between other species, including extant ones.

  32. Tano says:

    Finally, Juneau. I should inform you that “Intelligent Design” is creationism, plain and simple. It is simply the latest scam by the political and religious hucksters who have been trying to put creationism into the schools for decades now. They always lose, and then repackage their nonsense under another name and try again.

    There is a certain strain of Christianity – certainly not the majority (the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant churches, for example, have no problem with evolution) – that seek to impose their very narrow belief system on the rest of the country. These are the people who have been pushing this nonsense, and they seem to have you in their sway. They are not scientists – they really are anti-science. Science has no room for magical creation stories. You can be a believer and be a scientist, but you cannot put god into your science, for that is simply not the job of science. Its like being a caterer – you can believe in god all you want, but you better not show up at the big wedding with a couple fishes and a few loaves of bread and the faith that god will provide.

    The job of science is to explain the world in material terms, using the knowledge and experience we have gained throughout history. If you believe that there is far more to the story, then fine, you are free to believe whatever you want, to teach it to whomever wants to learn about it. But you don’t get to tell the scientists that your beliefs are properly to be seen as part of science – they are not. They are religion.

    I really don’t understand why any honest believer would try to deny this – why they would try to pretend that their beliefs are “science” and should be taught as if they were science. This dispute really does come down to that – the main focus of the Discovery Institute and other ID propagandists is to force their way into the public schools. It is a scam.

  33. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    There are species that are separated from their nearest relative by ONE mutation.

    I’ll address these in pieces. (By the way – you really don’t do yourself any service by leading or finishing your (weak) points with a comment about how ignorant I am to question your statement)

    Instead of proving your point you have actually weakened it. This issue is known as the “species problem.” Defining two unique “species” by using such a narrow (miniscule) difference is 1) only used in certain fields of scientific study – it is not uniform, and 2) this narrow and expansive definition is an ongoing topic of debate in science. Your observation does not really support your point.

    Now you are changing your tune? Are you now trying to argue that punc-eq really is an attempt to explain the fossil record? You are just floundering around, contradicting your own arguments.

    *Sigh* No, Tano. The introduction of the concept of punctuated evolution was not the sole property of paleontologists, and you might want to look up a Microbiologist by the name of J. B. S. Haldane to see where this problem began for evolutionists. Punctuated evolution in paleontology was an extension of the thought already percolating as a theory of how to explain more beneficial mutations than was physically possible given the time restraints. The “fossil record” evidence of punctuated evolution( which as I have already pointed out is actually a negative proof, not a supporting one) was simply a well known observation – the lack of fossils – brought in to provide the circular “proof” of evolution, and solve “Haldane’s Dilemma” at the same time.

  34. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    all of them “intermediate” forms between other species, including extant ones.

    Yes, Tano I’ve been to a museum. And your statement above is based upon what? The so-called “foot” bones in a whale’s flippers? Just like the “tail” on a human fetus was taught in schools to be the remains of a vestigial tail and evidence of our relation to evolutionary ancestors (officially refuted)? Or how our appendix was evidence of evolution because it served no purpose and was simply a “holdover” from evolution (officially refuted)?.

    The only thing that makes all of the forms in our museums “intermediate” is how badly evolutionists want to convince people that they are. How long has science been looking for a reptile fossil with feathers? And please don’t offer up measly Archaeopteryx as an example – remember that ALL life forms were supposed to have gone through the intermediate bird phase. Millions of them. Evolutionists had two swings at the bat for transitional fossils for some species – from sea-adapted to land-adapted, and them back to sea-adapted. Please direct me to a museum where I can find fossils for just one sample of one species making this circular transition. You can’t.

  35. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    Science has no room for magical creation stories.

    Except for the current one, where everything came from nothing – somehow. The official scientific explanation right now regarding how to address the great question of where everything in the universe came from is …. it all came from nothing. Prior to the big bang, there was…. nothing. This, incidentally, violates the foundational principles of science regarding the laws of physics and matter. But nonetheless, we are instructed – scientifically of course – to take it on faith that everything came from nothing.

    No, science doesn’t have room for magical creation stories at all. Except the current one. At least I am intellectually honest enough to know the difference between science and faith. You call faith science and refuse to see the insurmountable and foundational contradiction in your position.

    Its been a pleasure … despite your rudeness.

  36. sam says:

    First they came for the evolutionary biologists. And I did nothing. Then they came for the paleontologists. And I did nothing. Then they came for the quantum physicists. And I did nothing. Then they came for the cosmologists. And I did nothing. Then they came for me. But I had put a Palin for President sign on my front lawn. And had all three televisions tuned to Glenn Beck. And made damn sure I didn’t use any big words when the questioned me. So I go off scot free. Of course, I had to quit my job teaching science and find work as an egg-candler. But hey, at least I not in the stocks like my erstwhile colleagues. I only hope they don’t start messing around in my back yard. I’m not sure all my books were completely consumed in the fire.

  37. Franklin says:

    Prior to the big bang, there was…. nothing.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the theory is that everything was there, just in a singularity. Regardless, all laws of physics break down at some point – there’s a reason some of them have names like “ideal gas law”. That doesn’t mean they’re useless and false.

  38. sam says:

    Dunno about the “official” part, and in an effort, that I hope he sees as sincere, to ameliorate Juneau’s ignorance of the state of current thinking on the Why of it all, I recommend The Biggest Big Question of All.

  39. john personna says:

    I don’t know why I waste time … but Juneau, in your Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 22:35 comment you express surprise and frustration that evolution cannot give you a fixed and precise answer.

    Why would you expect that from science? It is not fixed as in religious doctrine. It gets to change, constantly.

    Evolution gets to change as new fossils are found or old ones are reinterpreted.

    Science can happily occupy itself this way forever.

  40. Tano says:

    “This issue is known as the “species problem.””

    Juneau,

    You seem to misunderstand my point. I was not claiming that “one mutation = a separate species” should be the rule. I was claiming that some species – under any well accepted definition of what a species is – are distinct because of the effects of one mutation.

    I’ll take it further – there are even cases of species that are distinct from their nearest relatives while having no consistent genetic differences. All you really need to form different species – two lineages that are on independent evolutionary paths – is to have a single species divide into two parts that no longer interbreed with each other – that no longer share genes. This could come about simply by the two parts becoming physically separated by a barrier that they can not overcome. Or there can be be behavioral differences, or habitat choices that lead to the two parts no being ready for mating at the same time of year, or the same place, and so they no longer interbreed.

    There are many physical or physiological characters that can be quite different in organisms that have the exact same genes. Genes can be turned on and off at different times in development, or on and off in different suites of cells resulting in very different appearances. And in some cases, that can lead to mating incompatiability.

    Its a fascinating field. You should spend a few years seriously studying it before you spout this political nonsense.

  41. Tano says:

    Microbiologist by the name of J. B. S. Haldane to see where this problem began for “evolutionists.”

    Huh?
    I am well aware of Haldane’s work. He was a founder of the field of population genetics. He was not a microbiologist. Do you even know what that word means?

  42. Tano says:

    ” – remember that ALL life forms were supposed to have gone through the intermediate bird phase.’

    I cannot even begin to imagine what this sentence means.

    ‘Evolutionists had two swings at the bat for transitional fossils for some species – from sea-adapted to land-adapted, and them back to sea-adapted. Please direct me to a museum where I can find fossils for just one sample of one species making this circular transition. You can’t.”

    Nor this. What on earth is this supposed to mean? There are plenty of fossils of critters that evolved into terrestrial vertebrates. And there are plenty of fossils of “transitional forms” for those that evolved back into the sea (the whales and dolphins). I really dont know what you are trying to say here….

  43. John Lavery says:

    It’s always the same. Evolutionists claim “theories as facts” where they only have evidence. The evidience only proves that a creature of a specific type did exist, and may or may not exist now. Creationists claim the Bible is ( some extent or another) a reocrded history and eye-witness account, with God as the eye witness that cannot be called to testify. If neither can be proven, and they can’t, and each must be accepted by faith, and they must, why is it so absurd to teach both of them and let each student decide for themselves? Please don’t throw “seperation of Church and State.” The local school district (read: parents who have a vested interest), not the Federal or State government, nor the ACLU should decide. I personally believe in Creation, as written in KJV, call me crazy, but evolution not only can’t be proven, most of it’s precepts are ridiculous. I believe in God, and His creation, and purpose for man. I don’t find it hard to believe that he could create the universe, or man, or part the Red Sea. I don’t need to make excuses to “allow” for evolution, I don’t care if anyone calls me names. It’s a free country. I’m in Afghanistan now, and will gladly defend to my death the right for any American to believe according to their conscience as long as they respect the rights of others. Sign me Patriot and Believer.

  44. sam says:

    ” – remember that ALL life forms were supposed to have gone through the intermediate bird phase.”

    I think Juneau should write a letter to the cereal folks and complain that there are errors on the back of the box.

    Oh, and

    “How long has science been looking for a reptile fossil with feathers? And please don’t offer up measly Archaeopteryx as an example”

    See, Feathered Dinosaurs

  45. john personna says:

    It’s always the same. Evolutionists claim “theories as facts” where they only have evidence

    Thanks for being in Afghanistan, but when you have time you could do some more reading on this.

    The “facts” are things like “I dug up this fossil.” The “theory” would be “I think fits before Ed’s fossil in evolution.”

    The facts, stay the same (ok, there have been a couple hoaxes) but the theories get to change again and again.

    FWIW, the danger to the whole country when people get too divorced from the scientific method, is that they do dumb us all down. It’s a classic question, but do you really want a surgeon who makes up his own theories of the body and healing? If you need an antibiotic should it be created with science’s rigorous tests, or is prayerful consideration by the drug company enough?

    Science is about careful observation of the physical world, and deduction of rules consistent with those observations. That’s all, but it’s important.

  46. john personna says:

    Maybe I should also remind you that while some scientists are militant atheists, they are a minority. Who has the majority might depend on how you view agnostics 😉

    Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 believe in God.[52][75][76] Belief also varies by field: psychologists, physicists and engineers are less likely to believe in God than mathematicians, biologists and chemists.[77][78] Doctors in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).[79]

    wikipedia

  47. M1EK says:

    I can’t believe anybody with the slightest grounding in science is still willing to vote Republican. Cognitive dissonance FTW.

  48. mantis says:

    Except for the current one, where everything came from nothing – somehow.

    See, when you demonstrate an absolute lack of understanding of the scientific theories you are talking about, it kind of takes something away from your criticisms. Everything, in fact.

  49. Tano says:

    “…why is it so absurd to teach both of them and let each student decide for themselves? ”

    But that is what we have now. We teach science in science class. We teach Bible in Sunday school. We have freedom in this society.

    No one in America, not one single person who I have ever heard of, no matter how much of an “evolutionist” they are, no one has ever proposed trying to prevent anyone from studying or learning about the Bible.

    On the other hand though, there is a very active movement amongst some relatively small segment of Christians who are trying their best to either prevent the teaching of evolution, or to water it down, or to pretend that religion is somehow a subject that should also be taught in science class.

    The obvious solution here is very clear. Respect freedom. Scientists should not make any attempt to regulate or influence what gets taught in Sunday school (and so scientist I know of has ever even tried). And religious folk should make no attempt to regulate or influence what gets taught in science class.

  50. mantis says:

    “…why is it so absurd to teach both of them and let each student decide for themselves? ”

    Fine. But we also must teach the real truth as well: that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

    Mmmkay?

  51. G.A.Phillips says:

    Liberals don’t understand any religions even their own:(

  52. mantis says:

    Single-helix Phillips apparently thinks there’s a religion all liberals belong to. But we’re the ones who are confused!

  53. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    See, when you demonstrate an absolute lack of understanding of the scientific theories you are talking about, it kind of takes something away from your criticisms. Everything, in fact.

    And your counterpoint, citing the formal scientific position about what preceded the Big Bang is…. where? Science acknowledges that if you continue to retreat back into time, space. matter and (of course) time cease to exist under the current big bang model. As per usual mantis, you dismiss by not answering at all because you claim the position is not worth answering. I should just pretend to be you; claim all opposing ideas are bred of stupidity, not answer with any substance, then declare victory based upon the fact that I imagine myself to be superior.

    You’re lack of substance is really taking on the background noise of a fly; you can always hear it, but it never shows itself for fear it may be swatted down.

  54. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    Microbiologist by the name of J. B. S. Haldane … He was not a microbiologist. Do you even know what that word means?

    Please… molecular geneticist or microbiologist. Is the distinction that important to you, or are you just using that as an excuse to not address my point about how punctuated evolution theory was “fostered” by the fatal flaw Haldane pointed out regarding evolutionary theory?

  55. mantis says:

    And your counterpoint, citing the formal scientific position about what preceded the Big Bang is…. where?

    It’s already been explained above. It’s basic stuff you can easily find on the web and don’t need me to explain it to you more poorly than physicists can. My point, which was obvious to non-morons, is that you don’t even understand what you’re trying to refute. It’s makes your position ridiculous. No proponent of Big Bang theory claims that “everything came from nothing.” The fact that you think they do only shows how little you know about the subject. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  56. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    I really dont know what you are trying to say here….

    I don’t believe that for a second. You know exactly what I’m pointing out, and you are retreating into the circular argument. You state that there are plenty of intermediate fossils, “ And there are plenty of fossils of “transitional forms” for those that evolved back into the sea (the whales and dolphins)“. And by offering this you are once again stating that the “proof” of intermediate life forms is found in a fully functioning organism.

    What happened to all of the life forms which had less than optimal adaptation to their environment? Where are those fossils? By necessity, there would have to be generations of organisms that were perfectly functional, but lacked the optimal gene to dominate. Where are these fossils? Again, there should be millions.

    You’re making the claim that ANY fossil we have represents an intermediate life form. This is logically nonsense and we are back to the “absence of intermediate life forms is proof of intermediate life forms” circular logic.

    As Personna states, “Science is about careful observation of the physical world, and deduction of rules consistent with those observations. That’s all, but it’s important.” Science should have stuck with this and not gotten into the faith and religion business. But it didn’t and now it finds itself insisting on belief in the fact that it can address all issues, and interpreting the facts to match the theory rather than develop the theory based upon the observable facts.

  57. john personna says:

    What happened to all of the life forms which had less than optimal adaptation to their environment?

    Do you own a mirror?

  58. Juneau: says:

    @ sam

    Thanks for the link to the wiki article named Feathered Dinosaurs.” You should have read it before including the link. Also from the entry;

    Genuine feathers?

    There have been claims that the supposed feathers of the Chinese fossils were a preservation artifact.

    See also,

    The “Archaeoraptor” fake

    In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named Archaeoraptor turned out to be a fake

    Yeah Sam, “feathered” dinosaurs are so common that National Geographic was burned by the above hoax – they were so anxious to publish “proof” of the intermediate fossil between dinosaurs and birds that it took an independent scientist to discover the fraud.

    Nice try.

  59. john personna says:

    As Personna states, “Science is about careful observation of the physical world, and deduction of rules consistent with those observations. That’s all, but it’s important.” Science should have stuck with this and not gotten into the faith and religion business. But it didn’t and now it finds itself insisting on belief in the fact that it can address all issues, and interpreting the facts to match the theory rather than develop the theory based upon the observable facts.

    There are a few militant atheists who are in the faith business. It’s important to remember when you fight them that you are fighting militant atheists, and not scientists, who may say believe in both evolution and God.

  60. mantis says:

    What happened to all of the life forms which had less than optimal adaptation to their environment. Where are those fossils?

    We’re lucky to have the limited fossil record that we do have. We have fossils of flora and fauna which were successful for good reason. Mutations that provide evolutionary benefit lead to the survival and expansion of the resulting species or sub-species. Mutations that provide no benefit, or are detrimental, go nowhere. Those animals and plants do not succeed and spread, so there is no reason to expect to find fossils of them.

    It’s a simple matter of probability. An adaptation produces a new species which prospers, leading to millions upon millions of examples of that species. Chances are decent that one of them would find its way to being fossilized. Another adaptation produces a new species which fails to spread its new DNA to offspring. The chances of that one animal or plant being fossilized are incredibly miniscule.

    You’re making the claim that ANY fossil we have represents an intermediate life form.

    Well, apart from evolutionary dead-ends, which I explain above, all fossils are intermediate life forms. That’s why it’s an evolutionary tree, not an evolutionary scattering of random points.

    Science should have stuck with this and not gotten into the faith and religion business.

    It didn’t. Dogmatic religionists decided to get into the science business. You all are woefully unprepared for it.

  61. sam says:

    Oh, don’t be an idiot, Juneau. Why don’t you just admit you’re not up to any of this? Twit. From that wiki page

    List of dinosaur genera preserved with evidence of feathers

    Fossil of Sinornithosaurus millenii, the first evidence of feathers in dromaeosaurids.

    Fossil cast of NGMC 91, a probable specimen of Sinornithosaurus.

    Jinfengopteryx elegans fossil

    A number of non-avian dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following genera, listed in the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those marked with an asterisk (*), which denotes genera known to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs.
    Avimimus* (1987)[8][9]
    Sinosauropteryx (1996)[10]
    Protarchaeopteryx (1997)[11]
    Caudipteryx (1998)[12]
    Rahonavis* (1998)[13]
    Shuvuuia (1999)[1]
    Sinornithosaurus (1999)[14]
    Beipiaosaurus (1999)[15]
    Microraptor (2000)[16]
    Nomingia* (2000)[17]
    Cryptovolans (2002)[18]
    Scansoriopteryx (2002)[19]
    Epidendrosaurus (2002)[20]
    Psittacosaurus? (2002)[21]
    Yixianosaurus (2003)[22]
    Dilong (2004)[23]
    Pedopenna (2005)[24]
    Jinfengopteryx (2005)[25][26]
    Juravenator? (2006)[27]
    Sinocalliopteryx (2007)[28]
    Velociraptor* (2007)[5]
    Similicaudipteryx (2008)[29][30]
    Epidexipteryx (2008)[31]
    Anchiornis (2009)[32]
    Tianyulong? (2009)[33]
    Concavenator* (2010)[34]
    Note, filamentous structures in some ornithischian dinosaurs (Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong) and pterosaurs may or may not be homologous with the feathers and protofeathers of theropods.[33][35]

  62. Tano says:

    No, Juneau, I really did not understand your point.

    I’ll try to make sense of this new stuff.

    “What happened to all of the life forms which had less than optimal adaptation to their environment?”

    Sorry, but this too is highly ambiguous. What do you mean by “optimal” or “less than optimal”? Evolution does not demand optimality. A form needs to be adapted well enough in order to survive in its environment. If it does survive, then it is as “optimal” as it need be. If it is outcompeted by another similar form, then it may shift its habitat to some new area, or new food source, and survive there. Natural selection culls those forms that cannot make it. It is more useful to think of thresholds, rather than optimality.

    “By necessity, there would have to be generations of organisms that were perfectly functional, but lacked the optimal gene to dominate.”

    This, you see, makes no sense whatsoever. If the organisms are perfectly functional, then they survive, period. How do you imagine an organism can be perfectly functional and yet suboptimal? What does this even mean?

    “You’re making the claim that ANY fossil we have represents an intermediate life form.”

    Well, perhaps I worded that in a sloppy way. The species may well have just gone extinct, and thus not be intermediate to anything in the future.

    “Science should have stuck with this and not gotten into the faith and religion business.”

    Huh? Its not science that is getting into the religion business – it is religion that is trying to pretend to have something to say about science.

  63. sam says:

    As for this,

    “And your counterpoint, citing the formal scientific position about what preceded the Big Bang is…. where?”

    Travel back upthread and find the link I supplied to The Biggest Big Question of All for theories of what preceded the Big Bang.

  64. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    It’s already been explained above. It’s basic stuff you can easily find on the web….

    Sure, so let’s take a look at what’s on the web about physicist’s and cosmologist’s statements regarding what preceded the big bang, shall we?

    http://www.tomcoyner.com/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm

    Nevertheless, most cosmologists, including Dr. Guth and Dr. Linde, agree that the universe ultimately must come from somewhere, and that nothing is the leading candidate [emphasis added].

    If we imagine the universe shrinking backward, like a film in reverse, the density of matter and energy rises toward infinity as we approach the moment of origin. […] “Our rulers and our clocks break,” explained Dr. Andrei Linde, a cosmologist at Stanford University. “To ask what is before this moment is a self-contradiction.”

    http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

    It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang? […] Whatever physics preceded the Big Bang…

    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory-weekend-feature.html

    What Came ‘Before’ the Big Bang? Leading Physicist Presents a Radical Theory

    String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we live in was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes … (And how were the two universes created?)

    The folks on here who believe yourselves to be intellectually superior and disdainful…. may want to open up your mind a bit more to reality and facts.

  65. mantis says:

    List of dinosaur genera preserved with evidence of feathers

    Surely they’re all hoaxes. Jesus didn’t ride no feathered dinosaur!

  66. sam says:

    “The folks on here who believe yourselves to be intellectually superior and disdainful”

    Ah, this old bullshit again. You make stupid arguments arising out of ignorance, and when the stupidity and ignorance are pointed out to you, you accuse your opponents looking down their noses at you. You really are hopeless.

  67. john personna says:

    Why do humans, even children, get cancer, Juneau?

    I met a dad who’s 3 year old son was having his prostate and much of his guts removed. He’d be fitted with some bags.

    The nice thing about being a bit agnostic is that you can blame that on the molecules. Something went wrong in our imperfectly evolved bodies. It’s no ones fault. If you think that 3 year old’s body was definitely created, designed by a celestial clockmaker, the world becomes a bit more harsh.

  68. Juneau: says:

    @ sam

    Oh, don’t be an idiot, Juneau. Why don’t you just admit you’re not up to any of this? Twit.

    The only thing I’m not up to, sam, is constantly chasing down everyone of your “proofs” – on every subject you respond to – which is made more complicated because your “proof” consists of someone else’s list of “references.” And then when your points are refuted by independent citation, you seem to always suddenly disappear. You are the one who is not up to the task. Much like mantis, you have no patience for anyone looking beyond what you consider to be obvious. Unfortunately, it only appears to be obvious because you allow a web browser to take the place of analysis and thought. I will always be “up to” anything you could possible throw together during one of your fits of “reason.”

  69. Tano says:

    “Please… molecular geneticist or microbiologist.”

    A microboilogist is someone who studies bacteria, or other single-celled organisms, or viruses.

    “an excuse to not address my point about how punctuated evolution theory was “fostered” by the fatal flaw Haldane pointed out regarding evolutionary theory?”

    I wouldn’t call it a “point”- I would call it a claim. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the scientists who proposed punc-eq were attempting to respond in any way to anything that Haldane wrote. I even gave you the link to the original paper regarding punc-eq. Did you read it? Did you find anything there that mentions Haldane?

    As for the issue that., I presume, you are trying to highlight about Haldane, the supposed “dilemma” that emerges from one of his theoretical works on evolutionary models, – I offer you a link to a discussion of why it is not, nor has ever really been considered to be, any sort of a problem for evolutionary theory.

    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html

  70. Juneau: says:

    @ sam

    You make stupid arguments arising out of ignorance…

    I see, like the “stupid argument ” I made which was pointed out by mantis? About what science thinks came before the big bang? Which I helpfully showed him was not stupid at all – with references (and I could have supplied more links but it would force holding for moderation).

    Your idea of a stupid argument is one where you have been too lazy to put in any thought, and find it much easier and more comfortable for your world view to simply shrug off an opposing idea. Now THAT is true stupidity…

    Later….. fool.

  71. Tano says:

    Juneau,

    The OTB comment section is not going to be quite the right forum to help you understand the basics of evolutionary biology, or physics for that matter.

    I imagine you see yourself as a rational person, and have some sort of a committment to thinking through these issues for yourself. And so I would like to believe that you would consult other sources than the screwy stuff that you have been repeating here.

    There is one particularly good resource out there for people just like you – who come from a certain perspective, but are willing to take other arguments seriously and evaluate them on their merits (I hope I am not just being overly optimistic about you….)

    So check out this site, and use it as a reference to match up with all the arguments that you have in your head now, and find compelling..

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

  72. mantis says:

    Sure, so let’s take a look at what’s on the web about physicist’s and cosmologist’s statements regarding what preceded the big bang, shall we?

    Ok, sure.

    If we imagine the universe shrinking backward, like a film in reverse, the density of matter and energy rises toward infinity as we approach the moment of origin. […]

    Infinite density of matter and energy? Doesn’t sound like nothing to me, irrespective of one science journalist’s predilection for that term.

    String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we live in was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes … (And how were the two universes created?)

    A collision of two universes? Two universes doesn’t sound like nothing to me.

    Science-ignorant religious nutball Google FAIL.

  73. mantis says:

    About what science thinks came before the big bang?

    Science doesn’t “think” anything, dumbass. Science is a method of inquiry, not a person.

  74. mantis says:

    Which I helpfully showed him was not stupid at all – with references

    Actually, you failed to show anything but your own ignorance, yet again.

  75. mantis says:

    And by the way, it’s “punctuated equilibrium,” not “punctuated evolution.” You would know that if you had any real knowledge of the subjects you are attempting to discuss.

    Much like mantis, you have no patience for anyone looking beyond what you consider to be obvious.

    No, I have no patience for people who try to pass of propaganda, ignorance, and religious dogma as genuine intellectual inquiry.

  76. […] shuts down the rest of fundamentalism. Here’s well-respected anthropologist Glenn Beck on that theory of ebolution what people been talking about. Our fellows have good reason to be angry. Should we tell them to […]

  77. Chad says:

    Bart: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?
    Mrs. Krabappel: I’m sorry, that would be playing God.
    Bart: God-schmod, I want my monkey man.