Maybe he should try to become a teacher all over again in my brother’s former college and see first hand the problems existing…lol

I wonder…

On November 02, 2005, a new anti-evolution blog was begun by a retired physiologist named John A. Davidson:

Prescribed Evolution
http://prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

It is possibly the funniest blog ever concieved… unintentionally.

You see, Mr. Davidson does not understand how blogs work. To him, creating a blog means posting exactly one post and then carrying on forevermore in that single comment thread. Mr. Davidson managed to respond to himself with more “posts” in that thread for days before other commenters showed up… many of whom he promptly deleted. All told, after months of operation, the blog managed to reach 881 comments before Mr. Davidson decided that this comment thread was “too cluttered.”

At this point, you’d think that any sane person might then, at the very least, create a new post to continue the comment madness in. But Mr. Davidson was no sane person. Instead, he created an entirely new blog consisting, again, of a single post:

New Prescribed Evolution
http://newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

It is now up to 639 gloriously insane comments.

Sadly, the trend cannot continue, as some spoilsport has already seen fit to nab newnewprescribedevolution for themselves.

That you think it would be is simply mindbloggingly stunning in its sheer denseness. Evolution is a biological process, not a force.

“2) the very definition of evolution is ‘evolving’ all the time, and is rather a mish-mash of whatever someone wants it to be.”

The definition of evolution is generally pretty stable. It’s been pretty stable since the last major movement: the unification of genetics and population dynamics that’s called neo-Darwinism. Virtually every change to the discipline has been to make it more accurate. So?

“4) if life did not ‘evolve’ how did it get here?”

We don’t know exactly how life began.

“if it did ‘evolve’ then evolution IS a force,”

No. That makes no sense. Processes are something that happen given things like forces but it makes no sense to describe them AS forces. The Krebs cycle is not a force, it’s a biological process.

“and should be measured mathematically,”

it is, though there is no “one formula” for it as you seem to think there should be.

“and it should work on other inorganic things”

All evidence suggests that whatever processes began life, they were both particular to the environment of the early earth, and also of course required that there not be copius amounts of life all around ready to devour anything new that happens to crop up.

“3) so now we’re just talking about ‘biological’ evolution….but if you can’t measure evolution…then all you have is CHANCE…so chance is evolution.”

Nope.

“4) as far as how new species ‘evolve’ well we’re really not sure….we’re ‘open to other possibilities’”

There are many known ways for species to evolve: the debates to which you refer are mostly over additional methods which are controversial.

“Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.” – Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986″

Decent enough.

6″) so evolution ‘created’ ‘evolved’ all the species, but we’re really not sure how….we have theories though!!”

Actually, we’re pretty darn certain that we have most of the general details nailed down. It’s the details that people argue about, but those are far less exciting.

” but they CANNNOT include God….heaven forbid….”

Well, more specifically, they cannot include any untestable claims about magic. They have to be solid testible explanations.

“I can see why you evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists. And I can see why REAL scientists (mathematicians and physicists) have so little to do with your ‘theory’ ie religion.”

Again, are you really so ignorant of biology as to think that it doesn’t involve math or that there aren’t mathematicians working on biological problems? Heck, there are whole FIELDS and subspecialities that are basically applied math to things like genetic algorymths and so forth.

“funny you should say that….guess you’re not up on science these days:”

Do you even bother to read your own citations? This is a paper about modeling star systems: it isn’t some “one equation” of star formation. You can model evolution too, and people do it, often.

“yeah, the mathematics of chance….which is all ‘evolution’ really is.”

In other words, no, you haven’t read a biology journal.

seriously, how stupid are you? don’t you know the difference between measuring evolution itself…ie the force of evolution (if it exists), compared to the mathematics for random genetic mutations? I mean seriously…pathetic.

‘“you know you really make me sad….you believe in something that doesn’t even exist.”’

so now you’re telling me evolution exists….where before it was a ‘process’ …..not very honest of you….Isn’t there some kind of commandment against bearing false witness?

‘rabidly anti-evolution creationists, he makes the error of cocksurely mistaking his own notions of what he presumes about evolutionary biology, for the reality itself. He never once bothers to stop for a moment and go check his fantasies against the reality, by for example cracking open a biology textbook or reading science journals to learn what they’re really about.’

now you’re delusional, I’m the one who has the quotes, and the references from the evolutionists themselves….while you have your own ‘definition’….really pathetic…shows a deeply disturbed individual

’spoiled, arrogant, ignorant brat that I would have been able to muster.’

oh yes, you evolutionists are so much more ‘evolved’ than the rest of us HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jackazz!!

wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.”
-Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.

Dear Mr. Lewis is correct, you darwiniacs are wacko as hell….I’m outa here!!

just remember all your efforts (lies) are in vain….HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH

Plunge responded: “Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? You’ll find that it’s filled with math.”

Tom responded: “yeah, the mathematics of chance….which is all ‘evolution’ really is.”

The astute reader will note two things:

First, that Tom has just admitted that he was aware that his claim of “NO MATH” in evolutionary biology was a falsehood — he admits that there *is* math in evolutionary biology, and yet he claimed that there wasn’t any. Not very honest of him, was it? Isn’t there some kind of commandment against bearing false witness?

Second, that Tom really hasn’t bothered to crack any biology textbooks or journals, because if he had he wouldn’t have been able to say anything as transparently false (and goofy) as declaring that the math therein is just “the mathematics of chance”. What’s especially ironic about Tom exposing his ignorance like this is his following childish taunt: “you know you really make me sad….you believe in something that doesn’t even exist.”

The irony here is that Tom, not just in this one instance but countless times throughout this thread, has confidently (even obnoxiously) made a great many declarations about things that he got only from his own imagination. Like all too may rabidly anti-evolution creationists, he makes the error of cocksurely mistaking his own notions of what he *presumes* about evolutionary biology, for the reality itself. He never once bothers to stop for a moment and go check his fantasies against the reality, by for example cracking open a biology textbook or reading science journals to learn what they’re really about.

Even when faced with a patient explainer like Plunge, who takes the time to explain things to Tom and let him know when his notions about science are way off base and how, Tom can’t deal with the disconnect between his beliefs and reality like an ordinary person, he instead can only 1) insult, 2) spew multiple other misguided attacks on science as red herrings and diversions, or 3) bray like a jackass (e.g. “HAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH”).

Now *that’s* sad. Clearly, the education system has grossly failed Tom, and so have his parents for not instilling in him the maturity he so lacks.

Plunge, you’ve done a great job on this thread, and your knowledge of this topic is both accurate and wide, unlike, um, someone else on this thread. You’ve also got a good knack for explaining complex topics quickly, and far more patience with a spoiled, arrogant, ignorant brat that I would have been able to muster. Your talents are wasted on Tom though (obviously), but there are other venues where you might be able to make a difference. Please email me at plunge.20.ichneumon@spamgourmet.com with your contact info, I’d like to discuss it with you. (And yes, that’s a working temporary email address, no need to tweak it before using it.)

lets review:

1) evolution is not a ‘force’ like the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity….the physicists (real scientists) don’t include ‘evolution’ in their fundamental forces.

2) the very definition of evolution is ‘evolving’ all the time, and is rather a mish-mash of whatever someone wants it to be.

4) if life did not ‘evolve’ how did it get here? if it did ‘evolve’ then evolution IS a force, and should be measured mathematically, and it should work on other inorganic things, since it ‘evolved’ life from inorganic carbon.

3) so now we’re just talking about ‘biological’ evolution….but if you can’t measure evolution…then all you have is CHANCE…so chance is evolution.
4) as far as how new species ‘evolve’ well we’re really not sure….we’re ‘open to other possibilities’

5) lets use mr. Futuyma’s definition:

Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.” – Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

6) so evolution ‘created’ ‘evolved’ all the species, but we’re really not sure how….we have theories though!! but they CANNNOT include God….heaven forbid….

I can see why you evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists. And I can see why REAL scientists (mathematicians and physicists) have so little to do with your ‘theory’ ie religion.

‘That doesn’t even make any sense. That’s like asking “where is the mathematical formula for star formation’

funny you should say that….guess you’re not up on science these days:

http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume3/issue22/story1.php

‘Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? You’ll find that it’s filled with math.’

yeah, the mathematics of chance….which is all ‘evolution’ really is.

you know you really make me sad….you believe in something that doesn’t even exist.

“since this evolution is all-pervasive,”

Can yo not read? He defines evolution broadly, and THEN talks about biological evolution: which is what we are talking about.

“plain and simple: where is the mathematical formula for new species?”

That doesn’t even make any sense. That’s like asking “where is the mathematical formula for star formation.” You CAN model speciation entirely in math, but like any natural process, there is no one single example.

“here’s a real simple equation for ya:
NO MATH = NO SCIENCE.”

Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? You’ll find that it’s filled with math.

You know, in the end, people like you just make me sad. You are woefully confused and ignorant of what you are talking about, and yet you aren’t even interested in learning or seriously reading anything. I could build a computer program that could make more convincing arguments than you (mostly, I’d just have to make it go hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha after saying some random nonsensical thing)