Ron Paul: I don't accept the theory of evolution

[tylerdolphin]

$1,716.77. That's the bill we pay every second to fund a war on drugs that is absolutely failing.

Thats the kind of stuff thats crazy to me. The same people that cry about the budget and government spending gone wild are the ones who are staunchly for spending $50B+ fighting a "War on Drugs" when it accomplishes nothing. I know who to talk to if i want crack. I know who to talk to if I need meth. I know a billion people to talk to if i need ganja. Its still there. if you want it, you can get it. No shortage in supply. I just dont see the point of fighting it.

[R&R Express]

Thats the kind of stuff thats crazy to me. The same people that cry about the budget and government spending gone wild are the ones who are staunchly for spending $50B+ fighting a "War on Drugs" when it accomplishes nothing. I know who to talk to if i want crack. I know who to talk to if I need meth. I know a billion people to talk to if i need ganja. Its still there. if you want it, you can get it. No shortage in supply. I just dont see the point of fighting it.

Pretty much. Now go look at the countries where drugs are legal, and what do you see? NO drug problem. The irony. Those countries would rather spend money on helping people battling addictions, and other things like clinics that users can go to shoot up heroin at with clean needles to help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS through use of dirty needles. Here's the kicker though, it WORKS.

Seriously, what gives the government the right to tell people what they can or can't put in their bodies? I'm not even really going to get into Marijuana. It's a sham that it's illegal. Marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol and hemp can be used for damn near everything. It's all a sham.

[JDOE]

I agree our war on drugs is an immense failure. Legalizing and taxing drugs would go a long way towards shoring up the economy. So would legalization and medical support of prostitution. That's the craziest thing I don't understand. It's legal to have sex, it's legal to sell a service, but it's illegal to sell sex. The money that could be saved fighting these two vices and the revenue that can be gained taxing and regulating them would go a long way in turning around our current financial (and moral, believe it or not) crisis.

No matter what your stance on drugs and prostitution, you must realize no government can effectively control morality. It's a personal choice how people decide to live their lives and spend their money. And don't get me started on how our previous and current administrations won't allow Americans to gamble online for money. It's okay to play the lottery or gamble in a brick and mortar casino, but I can't risk my own money in the comfort of my own home? Ludicrous.

But back to the original topic, if Ron Paul wants to pander to the religious fringe in America (and new/old creationists are a minority fringe) to get their dependable sheep votes, then so be it, but he is turning off a huge block of liberals and intellectuals, both religious and non-religious, that will place their votes elsewhere. The theory of evolution, besides the core of which is essentially unassailable, is in a way the litmus test for whether or not a person supports science and reason in general. To say one does not believe in it is to tacitly admit he or she doesn't understand basic science and biology. It is difficult to support anyone so abysmally ignorant of modern thought and naturally leaves many wondering what else that candidate doesn't understand or is confused by because of their religion or ignorance.

There should be some basic requirements to run for the highest office in the land, and basic understanding of science should be a front-runner. There really isn't much in the way of qualifications needed to run for the presidency, short of age and origin of birth. Everybody else has to have minimal qualifications to get much less important jobs in our society, and yet we leave the most important job to jackals with money and power. It's a sick joke.

[NY8123]

What if evolution was manipulated or changed by an outside source? Then the theory of pure evolution would be flawed as well. Humans influence evolution every day, the planet changes based on what we do, cities grow, crops are planted, genetics are changed to increase outputs etc...that is not pure evolution but architecture by a higher design for if that architecture had not occurred the outcome would have been drastically different.


Now apply that to evolution, what if there is a race (being) beyond our understanding as human, if that race engineered genetics and changes in the human race for whatever reason they deemed necessary then both the "theory of evolution" and the "design by higher architecture" theories hold true.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." - Socrates

[X-Pacolypse]

I don't care if he worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his son, Santa Claus. He's the only one that can fix the damn country.

[ChrisHanson]

If you doubt the theory of evolution, then you must necessarily doubt the scientific method itself.

There is no other scientific theory with more evidence backing it, and none discrediting it, than the theory of evolution.

Ummm...LOL!! I'm not sure where you came up with this post, but don't quit your day job.

[Locke]

Ummm...LOL!! I'm not sure where you came up with this post, but don't quit your day job.

Science? Every single branch and discipline of the entire field? Seriously man...?

[ChrisHanson]

Sigh...

Variations (the real part of evolution) is not the same thing as one animal or plant becoming something entirely new. There is no evidence to prove evolution.

Example, bacteria mutant or "evolve"...right? So, some may think this is "evolution", right? Well, they're wrong. When a bacteria mutates they don't change into a fly. They are still bacteria. When a moth's wings change color due to their environment (microevolution)they are still moths. There is not ONE shred of evidence that proves evolution. Many years of research of countless generations of animals and plants has deemed that variations occur...but never evolution.

Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level." "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells." "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution." "Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete." "The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations." "It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determining how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA." "The rules... of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other." "We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level--from DNA to protein--it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling." "Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome."

[tylerdolphin]

Sigh...

You have no idea what youre talking about. NOBODY believes that new species evolve in a matter of a few years. Thats utterly retarded and a straw man argument of the highest order. Now if you care to see how species evolve over many millions of years, consult the fossil record.

[Locke]

Sigh...

Variations (the real part of evolution) is not the same thing as one animal or plant becoming something entirely new. There is no evidence to prove evolution.

Example, bacteria mutant or "evolve"...right? So, some may think this is "evolution", right? Well, they're wrong. When a bacteria mutates they don't change into a fly. They are still bacteria. When a moth's wings change color due to their environment (microevolution)they are still moths. There is not ONE shred of evidence that proves evolution. Many years of research of countless generations of animals and plants has deemed that variations occur...but never evolution.

Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology: "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level." "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells." "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution." "Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete." "The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations." "It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determining how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA." "The rules... of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other." "We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level--from DNA to protein--it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling." "Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome."

So a scientist acknowledging that a theory is incomplete makes the entire field incorrect? If that's your basis of comparison, then we know absolutely nothing about the world. Everything we know is a theory and incomplete. Even something universally accepted, such as gravity, is still a theory and incomplete. If that's your basis for criticism, then you're simply looking for reason not to believe it. The paragraph you quoted is simply a scientist discussing some of the issues they are still trying to hash out.

Rafiki is correct. Despite the fact that there is still a lot we don't know, what we have is mountains of evidence supporting what we do know, and extremely little contradicting it. The fact that the theory is incomplete simply means we have more research to do. It means we have more fossils/and or genetic data to find to fill in those missing areas of knowledge. It doesn't make it incorrect.

Your second paragraph just highlights your lack of understanding of what evolution is. I won't address that...