Medical & Biology Students Reject Evolution In Favor Of Creationism

In no way intending to be a copout, the reason is because its complicated. What i mean is, that from the evolutionary perspective there is no “best” what works for one group wont work for another. Even if it could, a tree would never evolve a foot because it would never be useful (well except maybe to kick squirrels for fun). 

One example is a sea squirt. This has a dual life cycle, the first stage it swims around using its functional nervous system consuming its food etc. In the 2nd stage in its life cycle it implants on a rock, and the first thing it does is digest its own nervous system brain and all, simply because it is unnecessary for life.

It is so complicated that there is no single direction for “better”. According to evolution theory, believing in the penultimate superiority of humanity is naive(in both the sense that it is as good as it is going to get, or that it is the best direction life could have gone). I do however believe that we have some superiority just as luck would have it, and if we aren’t careful what is most beneficial for “survival” will involve giving up our gifts of intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, grace, etc.

Evolution is a Scientific Principle, not theory, meaning it has “withstood the test of time” while amassing an overwhelming, preponderance of supporting evidence; theories are still awaiting their time.

You’re just cherry-picking logical fallacies because you can’t stand the fact that people don’t worship your primitive deity. All apologies that you can’t live in the 21st century like the rest of us Hominids are doing.

Mutations of organisms with their associated survival due to natural selection have most certainly been “observed.” For example, bacteria have mutated and been sorted out by natural selection, surviving as anti-biotic resistant, “new” strains;  the Principle of Evolution.

Evolution is the accumulated changes over time; the time for which you are referring is on the order of magnitude of millions of years.  If you would have been around for that long a time, then you would have indeed “seen” the “complete(ly) new organism outside of (from) what (organism) it previously ‘was’…” along with the other organisms also “descended” from the same ancestral form.  Furthermore, it must be made perfectly clear, that the present organism NEVER “was” the distant ancestral organism, but via numerous mutations and natural selections evolved into what it is presently.

at the time of this writing it says your comment was posted 19 hours ago?

Have you read the comments on this board? Bacteria obtaining antibiotic resistance or whatever additional characteristic, whether if it is through picking up free dna, conjugation, or natural selection, the bacteria will still remain a bacteria. It’s genome won’t transform into a genome of anything similiar to the likes of a eukaryotic type. It will forever, and ever, remain a bacteria. It might have genetic variations, but these genetic variations will not code for complete physiological functional differences or structures, this has never been witnessed or recorded. There is no proof. Interspecies variation is common knowledge, it has proof. Natural selection has proof. Mutations have proof. But there is no proof, only speculation that we evolved from something non-human. There is no proof that any animal has permanently developed into what we would consider a genomically “new” animal after the process. It is very much a theory, when it comes to the origin of living organisms. It is not a theory that animals/and humans have genetic variabilities that can bring out hidden traits, because regardless, it stays the as the same animal, for that there is proof.

It could be that atheists aren’t nearly as obsessed with disproving God’s existence as insecure Christians are with proving it. For the record, I would be insecure too in their shoes. When taken literally, the good book has been proven wrong about almost everything, scientifically speaking. Maybe time for a re-write?

We have no living ancestors because they evolved. We share an ancestor with chimpanzees, for example. That ancestor species evolved because of environmental changes and small random mutations. Those mutations that helped the species thrive long enough to have offspring were passed on to their offspring. Yet those mutations eventually changed the species enough to make it a different species.

“Everyone is saying that we’re…so smart that we can predict for 100% certainty where we came from.”

No. No one is saying that. Every theory is uncertain. Although some are more uncertain than others.

“A reasonable assessment of the fossils of Australopithecus africanus and her “older” cousin, Afarensis,
is that they were no more than an extinct subspecies of the ape family.
Modern apes differ anatomically. For example, a gorilla is not
anatomically the same as an orangutan. Why do we assume that ancient
apes are any different? Zoologists do
not consider variation in skeletal structure in modern apes as an
indication that one ape is more highly evolved than another.”

australopithecus afarensis evolved into an
australopithecus africanus, which evolved into an australopithecus
boisei, which evolved into homo-habillis, which evolved into
homo-erectus…
so…brings me too…
“Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give
birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would
eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to
mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum
(tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of
our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum and
shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared
to that of modern humans.
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

As well as this still doesn’t resolve, how the most basic unit of life first starts to grow a head, a brain, reproductive systems ect.? How were we to evolve into anything human like if the reproductive system takes to time evolve?

then they both require faith, because they both aren’t 100% provable, there is always something you have to overlook which requires faith. Making both science and Christianity, a religion. Therefore, why would it be required to learn the orgin of creation via evolutionism which is a theory, to practice a real science that has proof.

“The reconstructed pelvis of the Australopithecine (the genus preceding
Homo) dubbed Lucy, who is about 3.5 million years old, indicates that
she could have delivered a baby the size of a newborn chimpanzee, report
anthropologists Robert Tague and C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent (Ohio) State
University. But giving birth would not have been as easy for Lucy as
some researchers have suggested, said Tague last week at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Washington,
D.C. ”

If you are stuck in this evolutionary stage for so long, this would mean a much less chance for reproduction, less chance for survival of the baby, less chance for survival of the mother, not to mention later in the article it says that if it did have a baby, it would require extensive care, that of a normal baby, after the delivery. This doesn’t sound just a little bit like “come on how can we get this lucky” to survive this evolutionary step as a species?

 Where are you getting these assumptions that religions is trying to fix the facts to fit it’s own agenda? Religion completely agrees with facts. It doesn’t say in the bible gravity is fake, that God holds everyone down with his mind. Its a scientific theory, that went through a scientific process, and is acceptable. There is proof of what goes up comes down. There is no proof intra-genome evolution. Which is the typical evolution origin argument. Regardless of any Lucy and its controversy, there is still nothing explaining how that came to be. When was the step that piece of organic nothing grew a functional head? Thats not possible. I 100% complete definitive science, no skepticism here. Just skeptical about claims that cannot be proven, and we are bashed on our heads by supposed academics until we finally make the belief-leap of if inter-species mutations exist, then we must have an origin from intra-genomic mutations.
There are so many developmental fallacies in this idea of evolution in the idea of nothing to something functional. Yet everyone believes. How would have an organic nothing even fathom the creation of a functional head? What is giving it this idea that this is what it needs to do to survive.

At this point in time both theories seem to have become super religions.  You see propaganda for both of them.  Altering the human pysche on a mass scale is the goal of both.  And to achieve such a goal it will come down to who has the supporters with the most cash.  Scientists aren’t always right but then again neither are religious nutcases.  The beauty of it is that both have potential to sway the masses and potentially steer the course of future.  And the media is the vehicle for it. 

what about when the speciation leads to a species that, while similar, can no longer procreate with the species that spawned it?  Why are you under the impression that you are able to dictate the terms of what is and is not evolution? 

Years ago, scientists were theorizing that birds were the descendants of dinosaurs.  The old guard said that was ridiculous, that while the fossil record showed many similarities there would have to be some fossil showing a dinosaur with feathers for anyone to ever seriously entertain the notion, which would never happen because its a stupid idea.  In fact, if one uses the scientific method, then one would have to find such a fossil for the theory to be tenable, but it’ll never happen, the old guard said, because its a stupid idea.  Then they started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.  

penn and teller go at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRkV1-LMMs

What do you mean by “completely new”?  Several seemingly different species have very, very similar DNA.  What differences are you looking for?  You keep moving the goalposts.

I am aware that species can transform into another species, but its still within the same genome, and 99% of the time its between closely related species.
Moving goalposts.  Anyway, with each successive generation the species moves further and further away from the one that spawned it.  So give that a billion years and yeah, you’re gonna get walking fish.

The leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic was one of those 1% chances you imply in the sentence I quoted.  Our own mitochondria is evidence of that happening; evidence we don’t really need because we’ve seen symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms develop.  

I was about to note the extreme invalidity of this, but Mysophobe beat me to it.

I’m afraid your mistaken. Evolution is a theory, because it is a Hypothesis. Secondly it was formalized in “The theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin. The science of Evolution is based on the principles from this theory. A useful example would be a comparison of Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics. Newtonian physics predicts many things very well, but Quantum Physics predicts them better. Although (in my opinion) highly unlikely, the theory of evolution could be displaced by a new one, by making better predictions. Do not take my word for however, look it up on any university website that teaches it, or ask the scientists themselves what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific principle is.

How so?

Why cant both co-exist? God created us to evolute.

Let’s see…Genesis’ description of a flat earth surrounded by a solid dome decorated with the stars, sun and moon, the woman being created from the mans rib, the mountaintop-high flood and Noah’s ensuing logistical nightmare, “the whole earth being of one language” in 2400 BC, the Phillistines returning to Canaan 800 years too late. In Exodus, Moses birth story is suspiciously similar to that of Sargon, the Jews take 40 years to make a 3 week trip to Canaan and grow from a population of 75 to several million in a few hundred years, and God leads the Jews through the land of the Phillistines hundreds of years before the Pillistines live there. In Leviticus, God falsely proclaims hares and coneys to be ruminants and bats are birds. In Numbers, the Israelite population goes from 70 the 600,000 males in a few generations, god sends quails until they are “two cubits high upon the face of the earth”. There’s more if you want to hear it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re here. You fascinate me.

No need to be “afraid,” but it not I who is mistaken.  Evolution is NOT a hypothesis by any definition.  As to the “semantics” of Principle vs Theory, that is a real issue, one in which I and many other people in Science have been engaged.  Science educational pedagogy rigorously reinforces the idea that practitioners of science use “precise, unambiguous” terms when describing their work.  However, this has clearly not been the case, rather our language has been essentially “gobblety-gook” and confusing with the misconception that if you don’t understand it, you’re just “not smart enough.” It is to this point, that I have dedicated almost a lifetime of endeavor in Science  Education;  to bring the beauty of Science to the People, all gobblety-gook aside.

The current philosophy of Science has at it’s core, the progression of thinking to help describe the Cosmos about us generally flowing along the following “stream:”

                                Observation of Phenomenon
                                                     |
                                             [Hypotheses]
Hypothesizing (reasonable description/explanation of phenomenon), of
which there may be many to be quantitatively validated, out-rightly discounted, or revised for new “testing” of each particular hypothesis.
                                                      |
                                                [Theory]
Eventually resulting in a massively, statistically validated more unified  description which “seems” to best describe/explain the phenomenon.  At this point, we state with strong certainty, a Theory.
                                                      |
                                               [Principle]
While a Theory is accepted as “the most compelling” description of the phenomenon, “testing” of the Theory continues as it must “stand the test of time.”  Time tends to bring other “parts” into the Theory and over time, all those parts are melded into a Scientific Principle, which we used to call “Laws.” 

It is important to realize that the “flow along the stream” of this scientific thought process with associated quantitative refinement and validation, is actually meandering, with rivulets, rather than a “direct path;” it is a dynamic process. As such, Scientific Principles, such as Evolution, have “stood the test of time,”
being subjected to rigorous, on-going study and amassing a
“preponderance of evidence.”

—————————————————————————————————————–
Where do Newtonian Mechanics/Physics and Quantum Mechanics/Physics fit into this flow?

First, each has as it’s objective to describe/explain, the who, what, where, why, when, and how, of. . .

          ” . . .if the state of a dynamic system is known initially and
             something is done to it, how will the state of the system
             change with time in response?. . .”

Secondly, Newtonian Mechanics has continued to wonderfully describe systems on a “macro” scale, while Quantum Mechanics serves equally wonderfully to describe systems on a “sub-micro” scale (actually atomic and subatomic).  Yes, it’s true that Newtonian Mechanics still had some “anomalies” which needed to dealt with.  Quantum Mechanics has helped us to deal with those anomalies and work towards a more Unified Theory in Physics, blending the more classical parts with the more modern parts. 

It is here, where the beauty lies, in the ebb and flow of the stream of scientific thought, ever onward towards a bit more unification of theory and resulting principles;  wherever it may lead.