A Leauki's Writings
What's the cost of being honest?
Published on May 15, 2009 By Leauki In Biology

In a reply to an article about fake evolution linked to above...


I think the "question" should not be "Why is evolution so important to some people?" because that is easily answered. ("It's science.")

The question should be "Why is fake evolution so important to some people?" whith "fake evolution" being whatever lie Creationists can tell about what evolution is.

Is it really so difficult for people "critical" of evolution at least to write an article about the subject that does not mispresent evolution? (And I am referring here to the multitude of articles written by Creationist "scientists" on the Web.)

Being "critical" of evolution because of the big bang or because one doesn't believe that "one species turns into another" is about as useful as being critical of gravity because of the colour blue or the fact that invisible pink unicorns don't, apparently, exist.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on May 16, 2009

When faced with the choice between being honest and running away...


on May 16, 2009

Nice try, Lula.  But you fail.

Unless, if by proving your point, you mean that I've confirmed you are incapable of understanding my point, then you've succeeded.

on May 16, 2009

Lula is correct in the sense that the burden of proof always rests with a theory's proponents.

Yes, but that was never questioned by anybody.

People holding Lula's position are forever answering questions that were never asked & citing the answers as evidence.  Part of the reason that debating them is a pointless endeavor.

on May 16, 2009


Evolution is an overused term, it is used to describe an entire scientific field, the theories within that field, and the facts within that field...

As a scientific field: Evolution is a scientific field that deals with how species change. It does NOT deal with the following:

1. big bang

2. creation of galaxies

3. creation of planets

4. age of the earth

5. creation of life (it does not, in fact, claim that "life evolved from a rock")


Darwin postulated a "theory of evolution" that spawned an entire scientific field... we do not "beleive" in "darwin's theory" because we are not religious, his theory has been the foundation of modern field of evolution but is not taken verbatim... what is the field of evolution?

At the core of evolution is the OBSERVATION (which is as factual as the observation of the existance of gravity) that:

1. observation: creatures inherit their parent's traits: later discovered to be caused by DNA

2. observation: sometimes minor alterations are made: DNA can be copies incorrectly, if you do not beleive in that then you do not beleive in CANCER. (or in observable mutations in DNA) cancer exists, mutations exists. (which creationists sometimes claim, when they say that evolution only allows deletion and not creation, therefore it only allows micro and not macro evolution, terms they invented and sound incredibly stupid to anyone who knows what cancer is)

3. Logical statement (Math: statistics): traits (and DNA) more suited for survival or reproduction in a certain environment are much more likely to propegate (reproduce and survive)

All these observations come together in the following conclusions

Conclusion: Species are most likely to change to fit their current environment, barring that they are likely to die out. We call this process "evolution"... It is POSSIBLE but rare for an unsuited species or trait to survive, and realistically only happens in the "short term". (since eventually their shortcomings will catch up with them).


The conclusion is the ONLY possible conclusion based on those factual OBSERVATIONS, this leads to actual THEORIES. theories such as "these creatures evolved from these common ancestors" and and "humans evolved from a common ancestor as the great apes", and so on. While those theories assume the existance of evolution (a fact), they are actually focusing on the individual history of a species, which are theoretical and hard to prove, but are backed up by evidence such as the remains of ancient humans, their dna, the dna similarities with apes, and so on.

The field of evolution can include eugenics, genetic engineering, observable evolution of all individual species, etc. It is a growing field with new information, but the new information does not. Invalidate the core observation that there is a process of evolution (just like new information in physics does not invalidate the existance of gravity... we might change the explanation as to why or how, but we can observe it is there).


on May 16, 2009

A perfect example of a creature that is surviving DESPITE having unsuitable traits are pandas.

Pandas are on the cusp of extinction because they are such failures, their traits make it hard for them to survive, and so far they are, with human assistance, but they are declining.

1. Pandas have a carnivore digestive track retooled to eat ONLY bamboo. meaning they get less than 1% efficiency of digestion.

2. Bamboo all flowers at once every decade and then dies out (in an area of a small country), it takes a year for new bamboo to grow, all pandas in that region die when that happens.

3. Bamboo is low in energy

4. Pandas always give birth to twins

5. Pandas always give birth prematurely due to lack of food (made worse by giving birth to twins)

6. due to lack of nutrients pandas ALWAYS abandon one of the two babies because they cannot produce enough milk to feed both.

7. the premature panda babies are so underdeveloped they cannot even piss or shit, the parent has to sqeeze it out of the with her tongue, carefully, or they will die.

8. etc.


While some say "ha, there is proof evolution does not work" they would be wrong. Evolution does not dictate improvement, evolution is not a sentient force but an observation. the pandas have beaten the odds, but that is a rare thing to do, just like evolution predicts, furthermore, there are no "bad genes" or "good genes" and there is no notion of "improvement", only of change to fit conditions... sometimes the change goes back and forth with a trait being disadventageous at one point and disappearing, later becomes advantageous and comes back.

Evolution (the concept) and the various theories of specific evolution (species X came from ancestor Y) are meant solely to further our understanding and explain HOW species changes (based on the factual observation that they do change, one repeatable in a laboratory), it is not some god replacement that is consciously directing us to improve as caricaturized by creationists.

on May 27, 2009


I just want to let you know that regarding your blog, Judaism before and after Jesus, I cannot get pass the Peoples Party #109 post. Very wierd indeed. When I open that blog, I get a notice at the top of my page that it requires an microsoft add-on and it locks up.

Could you check out #109 and see if that's causing the problem? Thanks. 

on May 28, 2009

I just want to let you know that regarding your blog, Judaism before and after Jesus, I cannot get pass the Peoples Party #109 post.

JU has a bug that occasionally screws up the formatting of a page. I sometimes can get by by using Internet Explorer if the page doesn't work in Firefox.

At some point a JU official comes by, notices it, and fixes it. I was looking for the "problems" thread in the forum but couldn't find it any more. We'll have to wait...

on May 28, 2009

Thank you....wait is the watchword.  In the meantime, I can't post comments as page 8 ends with reply 109 which seems to have some kind of an add on. I use Explorer and everything else with JU seems to be working fine. I'll keep checking in though.

on May 28, 2009

Try the next page.

on May 29, 2009

I've tried every which way to get pass ThePeoplesParty post #109 which is on page 5 right? From the opening page on JU I  see there are 118 comments and perhaps when it goes to the next page, I'll be able to get past #109.

There is something in #109 which requires me to run an add-on, microsoft office XP from microsoft Corp. It says if I trust the website and the addon and want to allow it to click on it...but when I checked it out , the warnings said it could potentially shut down my computer....

So...next, I think I'll report it to JU.

In the meantime there are 9 comments that I haven't been able to read.


on Jun 10, 2009

interesting thing from my biology text:

After a great deal of refinement, a hypothesis can lead to a theory. A theory is an explanation of why something happens. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation explains why objects tend to fall toward the Earth (as well as explaining the interactions between the Earth and the other planets, etc). However, theories can still be further refined or even replaced. Einstein's theory of general relativity was able to better explain certain astronomical observations related to gravity, and therefore it replaced Newton's theory of gravitation (although Newton's theory still holds true under most everyday conditions). Similarly, the geocentric theory (that the Earth is the center of the universe) was replaced by the heliocentric theory (that the Earth revolves around the sun) based on further observations and testing of predictions. Note that a scientific theory is not the same as the popular definition of a theory—namely, a "guess" or "speculation." Instead, a theory is an explanation that can hold up against repeated experimentation. It may not be perfect, but it is the best explanation possible based on available evidence.

on Jun 10, 2009

Just curious, talt - when was that textbook published?

on Jun 11, 2009


on Jun 11, 2009

Thanks.  I feel better that at least some texts remain honest.

on Jun 11, 2009

Thanks. I feel better that at least some texts remain honest.

I'll DITTO that!

4 Pages1 2 3 4