Georgia resuscitates the Scopes Monkey T rial

“Buck: You do need to get your facts straight. I do believe your Nebraska man evidence in the Scopes trail claim is just another piece of creationist hooey - not sure where you picked it up. The lies told about that trial are asounding, as are the lies and rumors about Nebraska man, its disproof and its exponents. No evidence on Nebraska Man was presented in the Scopes trial.”

“The fossil record is the most damning evidence AGAINST evolution, as there are billions of fossils on record. None point conclusively to evolution. You think there'd be millions and millions of examples of transitionary species, but there aren't. Which is why they had to scramble and go with punctuated equilibrium, which states evolution did NOT occur slowly over time, but species JUMPED rapidly from one another, too quicly to leave fossils. That's fine if you wanna believe that, but don't call it "fact" when there's nothing to conclusively back it up.


A newly minted species will be either able or unable to compete in its environmental niche. Those that cannot would, according to the process of natural selection, become extinct in a hurry, leaving little or no evidence in the fossil record. Those that did compete well would dominate their niche and leave evidence to whatever extent they were successful before losing way to the next dominant species.”

“Buck:

For you edification on the true story (and thus the creationist lies) about Nebraska Man:

Evolution comments irk scientists”

“Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with.

Phead, think about what you're saying here. Chance is provides the raw material for which natural selection has to work with. Which means the very foundation of evolution is "chance".

Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties.

Again, check out what you're saying. You say atoms and molecues are not arranged randomly, but according to chemcial "properties". Okay, Phaed, who/what made these properties? Did the chemical properties in nature form by chance, randomly? If so, we're back to complete random events again. If not, who/what set these chemical properties in place to have predictable qualities?

I also find it curious how man somehow has "evolved" himself out of evolution. We don't adhere to "natural selection". We keep our sick alive, our diseased alive, and we have mercy and compassion. When we hunt animals, like hunting deer, we don't hunt like the wolves do by using natural selection theories which take the weakest of the herd to make the herd stronger. No, with a bullet we shoot the biggest and strongest of the herd, leaving the weaker to genetically thrive. We have evolved ourselves out of "nature".”

“The link is mislabeled, but the link takes you to the right source.

For a more pointed attack on creationist lies about Nebraska Man see

Textbooks Continue to Use Nebraska Man?
”

“Look, if you guys are just gonna rehash stuff from evolution websites and not think for yourself, then what's the point? Shall I just cut and paste from intelligent design websites to refute what you're cutting and pasting? That's a lot of fun, isn't it? There are forums I visit on the subject if I wanted to do that. You be the best, take care now, buh-bye! :^D”

“Phead, think about what you're saying here. Chance is provides the raw material for which natural selection has to work with. Which means the very foundation of evolution is "chance".

Only in so far as a genetic mutation is chance, and whether that mutation is adaptive or not. If a mutation is harmful, natural selection will take that organism out of the gene pool. Those that survive do so because they have "chanced" into an adaptive mutation.

Again, check out what you're saying. You say atoms and molecues are not arranged randomly, but according to chemcial "properties". Okay, Phaed, who/what made these properties? Did the chemical properties in nature form by chance, randomly? If so, we're back to complete random events again. If not, who/what set these chemical properties in place to have predictable qualities?


I don't presume to know this. I cannot test this with the scientific process and it, therefore, becomes a religious question.

I also find it curious how man somehow has "evolved" himself out of evolution. We don't adhere to "natural selection". We keep our sick alive, our diseased alive, and we have mercy and compassion. When we hunt animals, like hunting deer, we don't hunt like the wolves do by using natural selection theories which take the weakest of the herd to make the herd stronger. No, with a bullet we shoot the biggest and strongest of the herd, leaving the weaker to genetically thrive. We have evolved ourselves out of "nature".

Granted. Science and technology have taken man outside the laws of natural selection that formed us.”

“Buck - are you pulling a Stratdewd?????

You get called on repeating a falsehood and then say a contemptuous "buh-bye!"”

“Buck, we've cited sources to refute arguments that you made, and I posted several passages from mine, since you, apparently, did not read it. The idea is to get past the most commonly disputed portions of the argument to something original (if there is anything left in this discussion that is original).”

“and Bacpac claimed that, ""Everytime I confront a Liberal with facts they disolve..." actually thats been my experience with Strat, Bacpac and now Buck.”

“By the way, here is a scholarly resource on the Scopes trial... find me a single mention of the "Nebraska Man."”

“Most evolution occurs virally (sp?) - addition to your DNA by virus. Think Chickenpox or Herpes. Physicall evolution has slowed due to "cultural" evolution and the evolution of the brain which stopped growing recently”

“If a mutation is harmful, natural selection will take that organism out of the gene pool. Those that survive do so because they have "chanced" into an adaptive mutation.


Whew! Finally, your own words and not some cut and paste.
Phaed, double-duh that harmful mutations are bad. Natural selection is obviously true, as nature selects out the weaker in a species. But it does not result in NEW species.

I don't presume to know this. I cannot test this with the scientific process and it, therefore, becomes a religious question.

Whoa! Phaed? Are you saying origins of matter is a religious question, and not a scientific quest? Well, if it is a "religous" question as you say, then doesn't that supposed a higher intelligent being(s), and thus the basis of intelligent design theory?

Granted. Science and technology have taken man outside the laws of natural selection that formed us."


Does not this strike you as being odd? That man, through natural processes, can evolve himself out of the natural process? What process is at work now for man? These are interesting questions. At least I think so.”

“Buck - since you are still here, do let me know where you stand on the Nebraska Man thing - looking into? Got counter evidence? Stand corrected?”

“Of course natural selection can create new species, over a loooong period of time. Example: is1% vision better than 0%? keep going with it and you have a new species.”

“Whew! Finally, your own words and not some cut and paste.
Phaed, double-duh that harmful mutations are bad. Natural selection is obviously true, as nature selects out the weaker in a species. But it does not result in NEW species

I have no idea how you can logically justify that remark. I've already cited at least on source that shows this to be a misconception. Given time, and the workings of natural selection, how do you believe there is any way that new species could NOT be created?

Whoa! Phaed? Are you saying origins of matter is a religious question, and not a scientific quest? Well, if it is a "religous" question as you say, then doesn't that supposed a higher intelligent being(s), and thus the basis of intelligent design theory?

No. Your question presupposed the creation of an orderly pattern to matter. You asked me who/what created that and I answered that I didn't know. Also, this particular discussion is about the workings of evolution within the confines of what we know to be the nature of matter in the universe. The creation of such is irrelevent to the discussion.

Does not this strike you as being odd? That man, through natural processes, can evolve himself out of the natural process? What process is at work now for man?

Odd? Not in a scientific fashion. Intelligence has shown itself to be the most adaptive of evolutionary happenings. Lucky for us.”

“Pat Robertson supports "intellegent design"......case closed.”

“Phaedrus and pedxing, what I'm saying is the cut and paste refute stuff is ridiculous. I can cut and paste refutes to your refutes, but that bores me. I'd rather discuss your brain and my brain and not some cut and pasted website stuff that rehashes the same 'ole same 'ole. You didn't refute anything as these have long been refuted by each other, hence the value of onging discovery and discussion. Which is why these kinds of claims and rebuttals should be discussed in classrooms as well. There are a number of websites on both sides of the issue when I wanna read rehashed warmed leftovers of each side of the debate. Just because you cut and paste some refutal doesn't mean it's been finally refuted, as there are refutes to refutes. But I'm not gonna cut and paste nor am I gonna slog through long cut and pastes.

And pedxing, fact is that Nebraska Man was used during the Scopes Trial as conclusive evidence of evolution, and it was in fact a pig's tooth. They found out later though. There are many frauds and hoaxes and false alarms with these kinds of things. See how desperate evolutionists are to find the big "missing link"? That carries on through today as well.”

“Pat Robertson is alive???

Buck - no one needs a missing "link"”

“"No evidence on Nebraska Man was presented in the Scopes trial."
pedxing
12:26:11 PM”

“Buck, he provided a link showing that you are lying about the Scopes trial. Perhaps you're lying unintentionally, but it's untrue nonetheless.

As for your sudden aversion to sources and evidence to back up your view point: see my post above about taking the discussion past previously refuted arguments. Come up with something original, and there won't be a website already out there to refute it.”

“I subscribe to Terrence McKenna's theory of why human beings evolved.”

“TT has evolved into MarkO! Right before our very eyes!”

“Terrence McWho?”

“Most evolution occurs virally (sp?) - addition to your DNA by virus. Think Chickenpox or Herpes

This too is a misnomer. A new strain/variation of a virus is not a new species of virus. It's the same species name. This is adaptation, not evolution.”

“Nebraska Man. I have carefully examined the Scopes Trial transcript ("World's Most Famous Court Trial", 1926, National Book Publishing Company) and have found no indication that Nebraska Man was even mentioned, much less cited as the best evidence available. Henry Fairfield Osborn described Nebraska Man in 1922 on the basis of two teeth, and organized the field work that revealed the misclassification in 1927. I have not found any scientific work which continued to utilize Nebraska Man as if it were valid after 1927. In several years of requesting specifics on who might have presented Nebraska Man at the Scopes Trial, no one has been able to respond with actual information. Even the Institute for Creation Research has indicated that Nebraska Man was not introduced as evidence in the Scopes Trial. See also the Fossil Hominids FAQ by Jim Foley.


LINK TO EVIDENCE”

“Terrence McKenna. You can google the name and get his website. Check it out.”

“Viruses have species names?”

“And I'm pretty sure bearmagnet wasn't talking about evolution of viruses, but rather the addition of strand of DNA to humans through viral vector.”

“WAIT! Sorry, in the Scopes Trial I was referring to the hoax of Piltdown Man as false evidence. Nebraska Man was talked about in the media as "proof" during the trial, but not the actual trial. My mistake, there were so many hoaxes and false alarms on missing links that I get them confused.

PILTDOWN MAN was used as false evidence in the Scopes Trial, and not Nebraska Man. My mistake.

Still, to use a hoax as evidence in such an important trial, and "science" bit into it. Hmmm.”

“Buck:

You are so misinformed about the Scopes trial it is laughable. This is one thing that is factually verifiable. If you have any curiousity, or care about facts, you will check it out. Do you have the intellectual courage to own up?

Here is what you say:

"It's also rather ironic that the very case referred to in the title of this thread that allowed evolution to be taught in schools, the Scopes Trial, was fought and won by providing conclusive "proof" of evolution via Nebraska Man."

You are wrong on both your claims.
First, the evolutionists lost the trial. So it was not won with any evidence about evolution, it was lost. Scopes was convicted. The conviction was overturned on a technicality - which prevented any appeal from challenging the law. The law was still on the books in 1960!

Second, no evidence about Nebraska Man was entered into the trial. None, nada, zip.

Additionally, evolutionists disagreed about the nature and interpretation of the fossil fromt he begining and its main advocate as a possible hominid tooth was.

And regards you other claim, it is really inaccurate to say the tooth was fabricated: it was misinterpreted, as fossil remains often are - it was not fabricated as has been the case with some famous scientific hoaxes.”

“BTW: The Piltdown man was referred to in a couple of affidavits and played no significant role in the proceedings. And even if you substitute Piltdown Man for Nebraska Man in your claim, you are wrong on two counts... the evidence was marginal to the defense claims and the defense did not win.”

“"Viruses have species names?"


Uhhhh... yes?

"More than 1,550 virus species belonging to 3 orders, 56 families, 9 subfamilies and 233 genera are recognized in this report."

Virus Taxonomy”

“During the Scopes' trial, Piltdown man was mentioned in a couple of the experts' affidavits, but in no case was considered a central piece of evidence. It was explicitly considered anomalous in one of those affidavits.”

“I didn't know that about viruses. Thanks Buck!”

“BTW, just as long as we're on it: Nebraska man was a mistake, and was corrected by science. Piltdown man was a hoax, and was exposed by science.”

“I am glad at least that we shot down the Nebraska Man at Scopes lie - which has had too wide a circulation.

Maybe we can also acknowledge that the defense lost the trial, and that PiltDown man was marginal to the case.”

“I just wish they would keep the football uniforms off of Nebraska Man. Then Kansas Man would be much happier.”

“Texas Man has horns and can hook em.”

“and since I'm being ignored I would like to point out that no one has refuted my claim that humans are still evolving!

So there! :)”

“Oh Boy....Here we go again with the Evolution arguments. It's like a recurrent rash that keeps coming back.

Creation Story = Faith = NOT taught in public schools.

Evolution = Science = taught in public schools.

You are free to beleive whatever creation story/myth you want....no one is stopping you. There are hundreds to choose from throughout the world. Maybe I subscribe to one of them...maybe I don't. It's a private matter. None are taught in PUBLIC schools.

Great comment about Pat (chicken hawk) Robertson MarkO. Cluck cluck.”

“Bearmagnet. Change that to DEvolving and you have me in your corner.”

“You are wrong on both your claims.
First, the evolutionists lost the trial. So it was not won with any evidence about evolution, it was lost. Scopes was convicted. The conviction was overturned on a technicality - which prevented any appeal from challenging the law.

Hmmm... conviction overturned and prevented an appeal? And, uhh, what was the end result? Thank you. pedxing, due to bad science, those who claimed "evidence" for evolution scored a big victory. Period.

Second, no evidence about Nebraska Man was entered into the trial. None, nada, zip.

And if you read my post above, I meant to say the now-known "hoax" of Piltdown Man was entered as evidence in the Scopes Trial. See how easily the scientific community can be duped?

Nebraska Man was also cited in the media coverage at the time.

Piltdown Man had played a significant role in the case for evolution at the time, pedxing. This "hoax" was scientific prevailing thought of the reputed missing linky poo.”

“Bearmagnet, you're right. I was referring to natural selection. Humans are, indeed, still mutating, but the set of contexts in which natural selection works is much more limited, and ultimately artificial.”

“JO, what does religion have anything to do with this discussion? Actually, Pheadrus is the one who thought religion plays a role in the ultimate origins of matter.”

“Of course natural selection can create new species, over a loooong period of time. Example: is1% vision better than 0%? keep going with it and you have a new species."

No, what you have is the same species with better vision.”

“Buck, any time you want to back up something you say with a bit of evidence would be fine.”

“In that case, we're all the same species, since a horse is just the same species as a humn, but with better horse-like qualities.”

“human, that is.”

“Buck....I said Faith, ie., personal belief. It has NO place by law in public schools.

Don't feel so insecure and threatened. Go on and beleive what you want. Feel free to think outside you box and consider other ideas. Where would we be without it? Look at the Taliban.”