Bueller?

>>96
>merits

yeah, no

Merrits include not having to think for yourself. . .

Also isn't darwinism marxist. . . and that makes it evil right?

>>100
Darwinism's so Marxist, the Soviet Union supported an alternative biological theory called Lysenkoism and put everyone who disagreed with it in reeducation!

>>126
what is Lysenkoism

>>127
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
?

>>128

The actual theory predates darwinism as an evolutionary theory, and simply states that you adapt within your lifetime and pass on those adaptations to your youngin.

I know all this as I'm the one who started this troll thread.

Ben Stein did NOT say I.D. was a good idea. What he said was that the scientific and academic communities deliberately blacklist and smear anyone whose research suggests to them that a "designer" can not yet be completely eliminated as a possibility.

His little movie was a look at an ugly side of academic/scientific "integrity" and his point remains valid.

Meh, never really been a fan of macro evolution. Primarily because no one has been able to give me an example of an increase in the amount of genetic code that can't be classified as Downs.

Micro evolution, that being mere adaptation without species change, I can dig. Common cold is a good example. Humans are another good example. Adaptation, but without the increased amount of genetic code.

>>352
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
How do you explain this?

>>353

Bacteria and other microorganisms replicate a much higher rate than human beings do, therefore the scale for micro-evolution is far more rapid than macro-evolution. This type of anomaly is far more common given continual streaking of evolved strains of microorganisms that are capable of enduring such harsh conditions.

>>355
at*

>Meh, never really been a fan of macro evolution. Primarily because no one has been able to give me an example of an increase in the amount of genetic code that can't be classified as Downs.

By this definition, the appearance of nylon-eating bacteria is an example of macro-evolution. The amount of genetic information in the bacteria increased through a mutation.

Samefag from >>352

>>355
That's... interesting, actually. Never knew about that. Definitely some sort of mutation. But the article also says that scientists are trying to induce another evolution?

I dunno, man, that just screams "Bad idea" to me. Trash-eating bacteria is great and all, but only if it can be controlled. The last thing we want is Hedorah the Smog Monster runnin' around.

Pic related. Guess who?

>>364
Oh shit. We've got the technology to make Hedorah, but not Godzilla. WE'RE ALL FUCKED

>>96

Okay, so Lysenkoism is a deterministic view that tries to base its beliefs on science?

As for ID, I wouldn't say that just because trees, for example, look well-organized they must have a creator.
I believe that the Creator of the universe cannot be met, defined, analyzed or studied through science. Therefore, science will keep on searching and progressing, because -simply- the Creator cannot be found through such procedures.