rickyp wrote:fate

So, he's wrong? There's a demonstration somewhere of one species changing to another species?

Yes. Although the fossil record is pretty clear, molecular DNA analysis has provided the clearest, road map for evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

A man of science like Carson, should know this and understand this .... His ability to deny it convincingly demonstrates the dangerous divide between reality and Dr. Carson's reality. he is not fundamentally sound of mind. His reactions to his "media scrutiny" is beginning to demonstrate this...

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.
Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

By the way the most interesting part of the use of molecular DNA analysis in evolutionary biology has been the discovery that homo sapiens existed at the same time as three other species of hominids. And interbred with the Neanderthals. Apparently those of us who descended from hominids who were part of the original exodus from Africa all carry a certain DNA component that is due to this interspecies fertilization. You'll be interested to know that Bill Clinton's DNA is 5% Neanderthal. He claims Hillary was not surprised to learn this. I'm sure you aren't either Fate. . we learn more everyday about the paths of our evolution from this science. Even if Ben Carson doesn't. Learn that is...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... veals.html

rickyp wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/neanderthal_and_denisovan_genetics_human_ancestors_interbred_with_extinct.html

just in case you'd like to learn a little more about the amazing evidence of human evolution Fate.

“Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it.

“And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.”

freeman3 wrote:Carson is a kook and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. Supporting black candidates for a time makes some Republicans feel good about themselves and their party's inclusiveness.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Carson is a kook and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. Supporting black candidates for a time makes some Republicans feel good about themselves and their party's inclusiveness.

That's a bigoted statement.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Carson is a kook and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. Supporting black candidates for a time makes some Republicans feel good about themselves and their party's inclusiveness.

That's a bigoted statement.

The day after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in 1968, Ben Carson’s black classmates unleashed their anger and grief on white students who were a minority at Detroit’s Southwestern High.
Mr. Carson, then a junior with a key to a biology lab where he worked part time, told The Wall Street Journal last month that he protected a few white students from the attacks by hiding them there.
It is a dramatic account of courage and kindness, and it couldn’t be confirmed in interviews with a half-dozen of Mr. Carson’s classmates and his high school physics teacher. The students all remembered the riot. None recalled hearing about white students hiding in the biology lab, and Mr. Carson couldn’t remember any names of those he sheltered.
“It may have happened, but I didn’t see it myself or hear about it,” said Gregory Vartanian, a white classmate of Mr. Carson’s who served in the ROTC with Mr. Carson and is now a retired U.S. Marshal.

In his 1990 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” Mr. Carson writes of a Yale psychology professor who told Mr. Carson, then a junior, and the other students in the class—identified by Mr. Carson as Perceptions 301—that their final exam papers had “inadvertently burned,” requiring all 150 students to retake it. The new exam, Mr. Carson recalled in the book, was much tougher. All the students but Mr. Carson walked out.
“The professor came toward me. With her was a photographer for the Yale Daily News who paused and snapped my picture,” Mr. Carson wrote. “ ‘A hoax,’ the teacher said. ‘We wanted to see who was the most honest student in the class.’ ” Mr. Carson wrote that the professor handed him a $10 bill.
No photo identifying Mr. Carson as a student ever ran, according to the Yale Daily News archives, and no stories from that era mention a class called Perceptions 301. Yale Librarian Claryn Spies said Friday there was no psychology course by that name or class number during any of Mr. Carson’s years at Yale.

With all due respect, this is not proof of one species evolving into another. Similarity in DNA does not mean we evolved from apes. That is presumption--a leap of logic.

Again, you may believe it. It doesn't mean it is true

freeman3 wrote:Herman Cain last time, Dr. Carson this time. It's not bigotry to call out Republicans for their support of clearly unqualified African-American candidates for president. While Cain and Dr.Carson laugh all the way to the bank. Republicans, please find a qualified African-American Republican to support for president. I know that's hard because your policies are so bad for the African-American community, but supporting any African-American for president who will support conservatism is not the answer.

rickyp wrote:fate

With all due respect, this is not proof of one species evolving into another. Similarity in DNA does not mean we evolved from apes. That is presumption--a leap of logic.

Again, you may believe it. It doesn't mean it is true

we didn't evolve from apes. The DNA shows that we have a common ancestor.
And I didn't post this as anything like a proof. I don't have to. Evolutionary biology is an accepted fact . That you and Carson don't "believe" means you don;t accept a fact.

In Carson's case a fact upon which his branch of science is founded...
For someone running for President, the ability to suspend acceptance of facts and deal in his beliefs (like his insistence that Joseph built the pyramids as granaries) is evidence that he is unfit.
As his other fabrications unwind his kookiness becomes clearer.

Although his house decorations should be enough of a warning...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gall ... are_btn_tw

A "fact" that cannot be proven . . . interesting.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[25][26]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[27] pseudoscience,[28][29] or junk science.[30][31] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[32] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[33] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[34]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[35][36][37][38] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[39][40]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[41]

rickyp wrote:fate

A "fact" that cannot be proven . . . interesting.

Can't be proven to you or Ben Carson... or other religious fundamentalists in the US or the Muslim world. But to everyone with a decent education in science.... yeah. Well, apparently everyone but Ben Carson.

He was the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 until his retirement in 2013. Among his achievements as a surgeon were separation of conjoined twins and a technique for controlling brain seizures.