Sentences with phrase «debates about evolution»

In Europe, you don't find big debates about evolution and climate change: It's considered a fact!

The rarity of the species makes it difficult to study, but these results could lead to the finding of echolocation across more species within the family and may help to solve ongoing debates about the evolution of echolocation.

When compared to other religious groups, Evangelicals have often been more wary of science as evidenced in debates about evolution, stem cell research, and climate change.

Old debates about evolution often turned on the question of whether a million monkeys could accidentally type Hamlet in a given amount of time.

There are two fundamentally different battles raging in the current debates about evolution.

But I'm sure the conversation here will take a quick turn into yet another debate about evolution / creation, or Bible bashing * deadhorse *

Steve: There's the conflict that's discussed, but we don't actually see any arguments on either side, and one of the things that doesn't get discussed enough is [that] there is a debate about evolution.

Amid the ongoing debate about evolution and creationism, losing that seal of approval on evolution - related books won't help.

There's no debate about evolution AT ALL.

It's like saying the debate about evolution is over — it is re general scientific knowledge.

Not exact matches

If CNN streamed a REAL evolution debate between 2 scientists about a certain fossil and its classification, nobody would tune in because they wouldn't understand half the things they are referring to.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

I also appreciate your recommendations about what and how to read as I explore the evolution / creation debate further.

I would reemphasize the last part of the quote in my previous post: «There's been a heated debate about which of these modes of evolution [gradual vs. punctuated] is most common, and this debate has been largely misquoted by laypeople.»

There's been a heated debate about which of these modes of evolution is most common, and this debate has been largely misquoted by laypeople.»

The work he was describing in the seminar was, as the Institute's on - line notice said, an attempt to «cut through both sides of the increasingly polarised debate about how the universe was created, with atheistic Darwinians declaring the death of God, whilst anti-Darwinian creationists denounce evolution as fraud.»

A while back Cardinal Schonborn's op - ed in The New York Times about evolution and design caused that newspaper's editors to raise the spectre of past debates between science and religion (7/7/05, p. A27 and 7/9/07, p. A1).

Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

There is no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurs... it is a fact.

There is NO serious debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution is real, just differing opinions on how it works.

To get a further sense of the American debate on evolution, this year we surveyed deans at theological seminaries about their schools» approach to the topic.

Due to the shear number of planets, of course one has to have the perfect conditions to support life, which (over billions of years of EVOLUTION) has perfected all of those systems to the point where we can debate about where it all came from.

I have a feeling that the evolution debate might be our generation's Galilean controversy, which is why I am wary of making sweeping pronouncements about God being on one side or the other.

The nineteenth century saw heated debates, in response to Darwin's theory of evolution and the beginnings of historical criticism of the Bible, about whether the scripture was verbally inerrant.

Oh ok not sure what is stupid about talking about artificial selection in an evolution debate, but ill leave you to it, with retorts like «oh sweetie» your going to win this thing.

More can be learnt about the Vatican observatory at its website, Papal Concerns Over a long period now, the Pope has continued to keep abreast of the issues surrounding the evolution debate.

What is fascinating about this evolution — and especially most of the academic analysis (and in some cases advocacy) of it has been the degree to which it has ignored wider debates about presidential versus parliamentary forms of government.

I hope that this period for reflection should allow mature debate about how we get these reforms right and that it should be possible for me to speak out and say what I think should happen — evolution not revolution — and in that way I think the Government can get itself off the hook that it's on at the moment.

«There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution,» he said.

As it happened, in 1998 — not long after you had started to formulate your theory of feather evolution — Chinese paleontologists discovered dinosaurs covered in fuzz, and there was quite a debate about what this stuff was.

The new study «adds fuel to an active debate» about the role of accessory genes, says Alan McNally, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham in England — whether or not the collections of genetic add - ons that bacteria maintain are shaped by natural selection, the process that fuels evolution.

«Our primary aim,» they write, «is to put questions about human evolution into a testable, quantitative framework and to offer an objective means to sort out apparently unsolvable debates about hominin phylogeny.»

Among geoscientists, there is still considerable debate about what drives this evolution.

When geneticists offer contrary ideas about how speciation occurs, they're debating the nuts and bolts of how evolution works, not arguing over whether it happens.

In the cases, just this last couple of elections, where stem cell politics, for example, has been played out in the electoral process, stem cell research is [has] done better than the winning candidates for offices; and I think, apart from that, I think that we do have a serious problem in general education of the sciences and that accounts for the reluctance of a large segment of the population to accept the principles of evolution and think that there is still a debate about it, which there isn't — and that's a problem we need to solve, — but I still think there is an incredible constituency for science in this country.

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

Schwartz's conclusion — that today's reality may be tomorrow's discarded truth, and that ideas which run counter to received wisdom should not be dismissed out of hand — is particularly welcome, and a refreshing sentiment from a participant in the current debates about human evolution.

There is an ongoing debate about when sulfur - oxidizing bacteria arose and how that fits into the earth's evolution of life, Czaja adds.

The account of the players and theories in the field of human evolution does highlight how much of the debate involves mere name games, with lumpers and splitters arguing ad nauseam about the same few specimens widely scattered through space and time.

You won't hear many heated debates on television about the fine tuning of the cosmological constant or the evolution of the opposable thumb, but the media is rife with vociferous controversies about the side effects of drugs against heart disease, the apparent proliferation of bisphenol A in the environment [6] or the rise of «designer» narcotics that provide «legal highs» [7].

From stem cell research to global warming, human cloning, evolution, and beyond, the science debates are not exactly about science, but come down to a dispute between liberals and conservatives about the right way to think about the future.

New research published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution contributes to a long - running debate about why archaic hominins had gigantic brow...

And while the origins of modern human behavior have been widely debated, there has been much less discussion about the evolution of modern human anatomy.

They're gathered to hash out the truth about knotty topics such as evolution and climate change, and as the debate jumps around, so too does the music — from swinging New Orleans jazz to creepy deep - space psychedelia to lively two - beat gospel.

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

I remember reading something Steven Jay Gould wrote about this topic once, re: debating evolution with those that deny the existence of evolution.

For example, would a debate about teaching evolution help the public to understand the science of evolution more clearly?

When I was «debating» evolution vs. creationism in DebunkCreation with creationists, every few weeks we would have a creationist come by with only a first name claiming to be a scientist but would refuse to even mention what his speciality was — and it soon became quite clear that the «scientist» knew very little about the scientific method or any area of science he chose to discuss, and as such was clearly not a scientist.

I'll dig through the archives too — I've read quite a bit about how science and psuedo - science are «framed» along with doubt and skepticism regarding the Evolution / Creation debates — that's a whole «nuther monster with many of the same qualities as the climate debate.