The American Association for the Advancement of Science, whose leaders have a commentary on today’s Opinion pages, isn’t the only national science group calling for a change on the State Board of Education. The online blog by the editors of Scientific American last week declared, “Kansas, Undo the Damage” — calling on primary voters on Tuesday to help to defeat state board members “who have inflicted embarrassing creationist nonsense on your home’s science curriculum standards.” Board conservatives are running proudly on those new science standards, but the problem, as the Scientific American post puts it, is that they “undermine the teaching of empirical science and lend credence to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
143 Comments
At East High School, back in 1977, I played the part of a scientist in the play “Inherit the Wind.”Of course, the play was about the Tennessee “Scopes Monkey Trial.”Ever since then, I have been, alternately, fascinated and bored, then irritated and amused with the Evolution vs Creation debate.It is entirely possible to believe in Creation and to believe that Darwin was on to something.Those on the pro Darwin side of the argument, however, have done little to dispel the fear that Evolutionary theory is just a way to “disprove” the existance of God.Those on the anti Darwin side of the argument often fail to comprehend the fact that God could use Evolution as a tool to complete His design.Both sides of the argument should agree on the fact that the explanation of the succession of living creatures occurs in pretty much the same order, under both Darwin and Genesis.How in the world could the Bible, most books of which began as an oral and not a written tradition, spoken to a mainly illiterate population, possibly explain things like cell structure, DNA and genetics?Christians who are insulted at the idea that we “came from monkeys” should ponder the fact that in Genesis, God created Man from dust, or dirt, or Humus.What is Humus? “Good soil made rich with decayed animal or vegtable matter.”Both sides of this debate should ask themselves how the Bible, intended to teach us all how to live, the first Book of which was written thousands of years ago, could explain life to an illiterate population any more elegantly than that?Even so, the Scopes Monkey Trial was never a sinister event. Instead it was a huge publicity stunt, intended to bring commerce to a small town. The “teacher” involved agreed to be charged, even though he was only a substitute teacher who did not often teach science or often use the textbook in question. I understand that textbook also referred to the “Piltdown Man” and some other historical hoaxes, like Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings. The book also contained some references in it from some people who misused Darwinism to advance racism.The only reason Kansas should be embarrased is that many of our smug leaders don’t wish to debate anything at all concerning Darwin.Rather than running from the issue, educators should encourage debate classes to take up the subject. Science classes should show how the “peer review” methods of science helped to expose the several frauds in evolution, from the “missing link” Piltdown Man to the “Peppered Moth” hoax where they actually had to pin a white moth to the black tree, since that color moth didnt usually perch on tree trunks but on the underside of leaves.As a scientist in China once said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the Government, In America you can criticize the Government but you can’t criticize Darwin.”Those who smugly support only one side in this debate are the only people who should be embarrased.—–
When the Kansas Board of Education becomes the topic of conversation in my on-line, public administration course after a fellow student from Florida raises the topic, you know we have a problem. If people want to believe that dinosaurs are only 5000 years old, then fine. But don’t force your beliefs on me. When I was studying science in school as a child, I remember my teachers telling me that evolution was a theory, and they explainged what theory means; that some parts of it we have evidence for and some parts we don’t. We certianly have a lot more evidence for evolution than we do for creationism. And ultimately, how do we find proof for creationism? How can we prove the existance of God? Many have tried for several thousand years. My point is, we are a laughing stock among the states of our union. My fellow students were, more or less, making fun of Kansas for our Board of Education’s position on this issue.
“If people want to believe that dinosaurs are only 5000 years old”
Dinosaurs had been a stumbling block for sometime. Until their fossils were explained away by it was the Devil’s attempt to fool the human race by planting these false items in the ground. LoL no really that is what was told to us when we were younger. In the sixties and seventies, the fundamental church was teaching that as the explanation for fossils.
When this whole movement to bring I.D. (creationism) in to the class room I pointed out the danger it could bring. I.D is the domino effect, if life was formed by an intelligent force who was the intelligent force?Creationist having that opening will simply say “It was God”. Now as you have pointed out, how do you prove the existence of God? Since a believe in God calls for a leap of faith, some say that is what makes Creationism is easier to believe then Evolution. For to believe in Evolution you have to take on faith that all the evidence is true. While to believe in Creationism all it takes is to believe on faith that God exist. Once you have done that the rest falls into place.
Of course the problem is that in Evolution each piece tends to fall into a logical progression. One based on another then another. While a believe in God depends on a basic believe in a God that for the most part can not be proven one way or another. It depends on a pure faith, one devoid of any real exam able evidence. Other then a book that is admitted to have been written by man. The Creationist points to the very beginning of life that which the Evolutionism admittedly said they can not explain. While the creationist shouts “I have the answer to that question!”.
For once, Paul makes sense. But he does so at the expense of attempting to make all others look like fools. There are many that believe both creationism, sans the 7000 year old nonsense, and evolution can work very well together. As I’ve stated many yimes, the bible was written to be read by people who had no knowledge of science, ergo, it was written simplistically.
What the KBOE has done is show both their ignorance of science, and used their position as a platform to bring religion into the public schools. The second is something that should be brought before the Kansas Supreme Court to be ruled upon as a violation of church and state seperation.
To claim ID is simply another way to teach the history of man is a lie, and lying is against every religion I know of. So the KBOE should come clean. Hopefully, the voters will see through the lie and vote in people with the background to make correct decisions for our students.
Here’s an idea……….let’s just vote the offending members of the State BOE out of office. Of course, this was done after the 1999 change in Science standards but we as citizens let our guard down and let the current majority get elected in subsequent years.
The ID people just don’t get it. They resoundingly LOST Kitzmiller v. Dover earlier this year. ID IS Creationism and teaching ONE religous view violates the establishment clause in the the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. This whole issue is deeper than the alleged “controversies” in science. This is an attack on our Constitution and the American governmetal tradition of staying religously neutral. These fantical Board members have got to GO. The only Board member who should be re-elected is Janet Waugh from the Kansas City area
I’m certainly in favor of keeping religious agendas out of schools, but using terms like “embarrassing creationist nonsense” isn’t going to provoke any kind of meaningful dialogue.
Trying to equate ID with REAL science is “embarrassing creationist nonsense”.
I’m sure the condescension will win them over. Good luck with that.
Don’t re-elect the conservative board members? Not if “GOD” can help it.
You vote against them and you vote against God. Well! Says the State’s Christian newspaper.
This seems to be one issue where republicans and democrats can have mutual agreement. The republicans need to take back their party from the extremist, before it’s too late, well it may be too late already, huh?
JMThanks for all the “yimes” you have complimented me!Sorry, as a frequent typo hacker myself, I could not resist.
Again, anti ID people, you should try to engage the debate —making clear that it is not the intent of Evolution Theory to disprove the existance of God.Also, being raised Catholic, I am not thrilled with the 5000 or 7000 year fundamentalist views of the world either. Even so, Evolution requires a certain amount of faith as well, and the anti- I.D. crowd should not look down on their political opposition with such belittling condescension.Also, the “Seperation of Church and State” phrase is tossed around far to often. That is a quote from Jefferson, who had nothing to do with the Constitution. Granted, some courts have falsly assumed that God had to be driven from the public square, but the pendulum is swinging back toward some reasonable balance on matters of faith in public life.Bringing up the threat of court battles only makes the Chinese scientist sound even more on the money: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the Government, In America you can criticize the Government but you can’t criticize Darwin.”
“Separation of Church and State” may not be verbatim in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution, but the “Establishment” clause IS there. “Separation of Church and State” is what it has implied for these last 200+ years.
Why don’t you nonbelievers read the book; “The Language of God” by the world renowned scientist Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. who headed up the Human Genome project?DirectorNational Human Genome Research InstituteSenior InvestigatorGenome Technology BranchHeadMolecular Genetics SectionB.S. University of Virginia, 1970Ph.D. Yale University, 1974M.D. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1977
Does he say the world was created by God 5000 years ago and that evolution never happened?
I doubt it.
While I understand the complexity of life and you can’t but not believe that a higher entity engineered life.
Nobody is disputing that. What they are in disagreement with from the fundementalist chirstian churches is that evolution is a natural occuring phenomenon in bilogical beings and that the earth is billions of years old. Scientific fact!
“While I understand the complexity of life and you can’t but not believe that a higher entity engineered life.”
Posted by: Joe Williams | July 30, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Is that a form of ID?
RA……….who are YOU to call anyone a non-believer?
This is exactly for type of fundamentalist crap that makes your kind so dangerous.
Apophis, after you read “The Language of God” I will expect an apology.
Francis Collins is one of a long list of modern scientists that are turning away from Darwinian Evolution.
The ’science’ does not support it.
Hank
Any scientist who has given up the scientific method in favor of throwing their hands up and saying “This is just too complex! It MUST have been created!” is probably no longer a credible scientist.
Bur Right Angle, Intellegent Design is a philosophical debate and belief. Not a scientific one.
Science is not trying to explain “why” somebody or something made life, but just observing our own enviroment and explaining what is around us.
Did a god make life? Probably. Is it the Christian god? The Holy Ghost, Jesus, Father or whatever. Is the Bible a scientific journal? No!
If you are explaining “god” to children in a public school system, that’s religion. Public schools don’t teach children about the exisitance of God. That is not their place. You guys want to teach god in public schools.
You guys {evangelicals} are not afraid of your own children. You guys are trying to save the souls of other peoples children, by forcing them to learn religous doctrine in public schools. That is too much entanglement. It’s not right.
Is there anyone that is going to read “The Language of God” by the world renowned scientist Francis S. Collins, M.D. before they post stupid remarks about him or what I believe?
The Language of Godby Francis S. Collins, M.D.
The Language of God makes the case for God and for science. As the leader of the Human Genome Project and one of the world’s leading scientists, Dr. Francis Collins works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life. Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture. He believes that God cares about us, and can intervene in human affairs – on rare occasions, even miraculously. Dr. Collins has personally discovered some of the scientific evidence for the common descent of all living creatures, yet he rejects the materialist, atheistic worldview argued by many prominent Darwinists.
Faith in God, and faith in science, can be harmonious—not separately but together, combined into one worldview. The biological science he has advanced is compatible with such a God. For Dr. Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it. Dr. Collins considers and rejects several positions along the spectrum from atheism to young-earth creationism—including agnosticism and intelligent design. Instead, he proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created mankind through evolutionary processes. He calls this BioLogos — life through the Word.
He has heard every argument against faith, from scientists, and he can refute them. He has also heard the needless rejection of scientific truths by some people of faith, and he can counter that, too. He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes audiences on a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible.
No.
Why not?
Dear RA,
I’ve read it. It’s a very good book, documenting one man’s journey from darkness to light.
Since I’m a ‘young earth creationist’ I believe that his journey is not yet complete!
It’s been a while since I’ve read it, I’l’ try and find my copy and read it again before I post a ’stupid remark’ about you!
Hank
When churches are required to teach evolution then the public schools should teach id. Until then they should stay out of each others turf.
Difficult to believe in this day and age in one of the most educated countries in the world that this idiot debate even exists.
Paul,I am NOT anti-ID. I AM against ID being taught in public schools. I have absolutely no problem with both ID and evolution. What I am agaimst is the so-called 7000 years of this earth. It IS over 4 billion years old. The science is to exact to think anything else. There is no argument against evolution: it is a fact, as well as a theory. After all, gravity is ONLY a theory.
What I do have a problem with is the christian history of science.
They were willing to torture and kill anyone who did not believe the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the earth.
That right there puts a major doubt in my mind about what it is exactly the christian right is trying to teach our children, and doing it in private schools.
You want to teach your children about faith-based intelligent design? Fine, but do so in your church and in your home; not on public schools. Don’t attempt to force a religious faith based belief on the public dole.
People Who believe in creationism should be willing to back up that belief. Don’t watch TV or use the internet, cameras or telephones because quantum mechanics is only a theory. Under no circumstance go to a doctor of medicine; see a faith healer! Don’t worry about earthquakes or volcanos, because plate tectonics can’t possibly exist in a young earth. Oh yeah, if god had meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings.
I see no need to read this book. There is no “controversy” when it comes to the science of evolution. I have no desire to mix science and philosophy.I really don’t think that makes me an atheist.
“Intelligent design” is nothing more than a legal strategy to undermine evolution and force religious teaching in schools. Scientists and supporters of science have made the arguments which Paul is requesting OVER and OVER and OVER.
If people believe that God, Vishnu, and aliens brought life to this planet, that’s fine. But it’s not science. Francis Collins would be the first to agree with that.
It seems some people just don’t want to listen.
“If people believe that God, Vishnu, and aliens brought life to this planet, that’s fine. But it’s not science. Francis Collins would be the first to agree with that.
It seems some people just don’t want to listen.”
Posted by: Rage | July 30, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Rage, What makes you think that Francis Collins would be the first to agree with that? I can tell by that statement that you don’t know.
Dear Jed,
What an incredibly ignorant statement. Just because I don’t believe there is any credible science to support evolution doesn’t mean I don’t believe in science.
I would invite you to name one thing about evolution that you know to be true because it has been proven by science.
Hank
“Rage, What makes you think that Francis Collins would be the first to agree with that?”
Because he knows the difference between science and religion. People like Behe, Dembski etc. want to rend science utterly meaningless by admitting supernatural explanations (a contradiction in terms, since that which is supernatural is by definition beyond explanation).
It’s really a matter of having the sense required to come in from the rain.
The watershed if you will moment for me in the PROOF of evolution came in watching a film in grade school.
Most will remember a filmstrip Called “Hemo the Magnificent”.
Two words for the evolution doubters “sea water”.
I remember that film, cartoon if I remember correct.
Sea water is salty, blood is salty. There’s your ’scientific proof’!
Hank
Oh, by the way:”Dr. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian who has directed the Human Genome Project in the United States, gave an address entitled “Faith and the Human Genome” to the American Scientific Affiliation on August 4, 2002, which was published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 55, Number 3, September 2003 (available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf). Dr. Collins noted:
“We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming . . . Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.”
Dr. Collins eloquently concluded his lecture with the following words:
“I think scientist-believers are the most fortunate. We have the opportunity to explore the natural world at a time in history where mysteries are being revealed almost on a daily basis. We have the opportunity to perceive the unraveling of those mysteries in a special perspective that is an uncovering of God’s grandeur. This is a particularly wonderful form of worship.” ”
http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/CompatEvolutionTheism.html
Clearly what was PROOF for me was enough to get a rise out of Hank.
Yes Hank, the feature was animated. It also had some ucomfortable religious overtones at the end. Those were out of place but harmless.
The fact that blood is salty and that sea water is salty and the relative concentrations of the salt in both is all the proof I need.
Sorry, Rage, I misread your post, I thought you meant that Dr. Collins would be the first to agree with the statement: that God, Vishnu, and aliens brought life to this planet. My mistake, sorry.
Okay. No harm, no foul.
By the way Rage, you did a very good post on what Dr. Collins believes. I did get some name calling by people who didn’t.
Thanks, RA.
Hank,Of course evolution isn’t proven to whatever standards you’re applying at that moment. You don’t want it proven. The point I was making was that none of the other theories I mentioned are proven to those standards either. You can always say something isn’t proven by applying a higher standard, until nothing can be proven. Your religious views can’t be proven by ANY scientific standard, but of course, since you believe them, they must be true.To me, the fact (assumed) that you’re here bitching about evolution is proof enough that it works!
Can we please, please just ABOLISH public education?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
They’re WORKING on it, Ian!
Cerdo, La Otra Carne Blanca!
“undermine the teaching of empirical science and lend credence to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.”
It is embarrassing when a newspaper will print without comment misrepresentations regarding the Kansas science standards. We have been over this many times here and the new standards do not change the way the theory of evolution is taught in our schools.
Nor do they mention ID
They don’t have to mention ID. They only have to get the questioning of evolution in. Then the foot is in the door to say “Ok if not evolution, then what?” And the next foot in the door is “Let us tell you about God”
*******************************”undermine the teaching of empirical science and lend credence to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.”
It is embarrassing when a newspaper will print without comment misrepresentations regarding the Kansas science standards. We have been over this many times here and the new standards do not change the way the theory of evolution is taught in our schools.
Posted by: outlander | July 30, 2006 at 10:05 PM**********************************”2. Defines “Science” as: “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” This definition, together with the balance of its context, does not allow for supernatural or natural preconceptions to drive explanation since the definition requires rigorous empirical testing of explanations. Revisions to the description of “scientific knowledge” in high school Standard 7 also reject the preconception that scientific knowledge is limited to explanations of the “physical world in terms of matter, energy and the forces.” Instead the revision simply states more broadly that scientific knowledge explains the “natural world,” and is most effective when it is open ended and not driven by preconceptions. (Introduction – Nature of Science and Indicator 1, Benchmark 2, Standard 7) ”
http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Draft_2_Changes_added_by_board_as_of_8905.doc
I was recall, removed was any reference to natural explanations, substituting the word “logical.” Notice it mentions explaining the natural world, but explicitly omits any restriction to Earth-bound answers.
And their reasons? To avoid natural or supernatural bias (!). IDIOTS! Of COURSE science has a “natural bias.” If you admit the supernatural, it’s impossible to draw any conclusions. You might as well say “God did it!” and go home!
JR points out the obvious goal of all this, Outlander, but even if it had nothing to do with evolution, it is still indefensible.
Cerdo, La Otra Carne Blanca!
Pig, the Other Blanca Meat?
Yeah. I used it once before. Since Ian always signs off with “Viva La Raza Blanco,” I thought “Pork, the Other White Meat” was an apropos rejoinder!
By the way, if you get tired of this argument, folks, watch John Rennie, editor of Scientific American, argue with Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=carey_luskin_proves_my_point_for_me&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
I thought “Blanco” was white
RA, I believe it depends on the feminine or masculine use of the word, relating the word it’s being used with.
Then again, it’s been 45 years since I took Spanish…
Rage: If you’re like me, this subject has been beat to death. Oh well.
Since when is a theory unassailable? We do not know what occurred. Science has its best guess, based on the limitation of the evidence. But evolutionary theory has some big holes in it. It should not be portrayed as the undeniable truth because it cannot be proven.
I’m not usually not one for just copy/pasting a post from another blog, but in this case I think it is worthy of sharing:
“I do not require a literal interpretation of time set down in the Bible by 19th century clergymen to buttress my belief lest it crumble.”
Here is the fundamentalist bugaboo in Toto folks!!! I have actually had them tell me this:
“If there is even the slightest thing out of kilter in the Bible, then absolutely none of the rest of it can be believed, God has lied to us, and both God and the Bible must be discarded forever.”
In the fundamentalist mind, the Bible has to be perfect in all ways—historically, scientifically, and spiritually. They dismiss the notion that God is a loving God. Oh, to be sure, they’ll give it a little lip service, but they don’t really believe it. Down deep, they know their God is a bloodthirsty psychopath who carries a baseball bat with a rusty rail spike in it. Even the slightest wrong move in this life, and your hind end is a goner. You get impaled by that spike.
However, a perfect Bible that can be relied upon for factual truth in all things provides them with hope that their own actions in this life can somehow placate the monster and save their sorry behinds—and from what I have seen in this Kansas BOE race—some of these right-wing behinds need serious toilet paper and a little Preparation H to boot. If the Bible is not perfect, then there is room to “slip up,” and just one slip can mean disaster—God sends a tornado to hit your house, daddy gets a dreaded disease, the home mortgage gets foreclosed, etc.
In the end, fundamentalism is not about loving God. It is about being scared to death of God. This is one reason I don’t want my children being taught fundamentalism at school, whether it be in a science class or a history class. Jesus indicates very strongly to me that God is not the psychopath that the fundamentalists truly believe him to be. I don’t want my kids coming home from school frightened to death by a warped sense of God. I do not want them to live a life dominated by fear. In this particular regard, fundamentalism is completely antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ—completely antithetical—period.
Do your kids a favor. Do the real Christian faith a favor. Vote for the moderate candidates for Kansas BOE on Tuesday.AmeriChristian | 07.30.06 – 8:46 pm | #
I find these words very profound and hope those of you who live in BOE districts up for election think about the ballot you cast.
Ah, science!
We spend billions of government money building antennas to listen for superior intelligence in the universe. For what reason? If we found out that there was superior life in the universe that sure would show the Christians! It is generally assumed that intelligent life does exist in the universe. We only have to be smart enough to some how communicte with them!
Then, we must at all costs deny that there might be a supernatural influence in evolution. Doesn’t matter that there are so many holes in the theory that it is little more than a fairy tale!
ID is not an invention of fundementalist Christians. It is the invention of credible scientists in an effort to explain the holes in the theory of evolution. A lot of the scientific proponents of ID are even athiests or agnostics at best.
Science supports the creationist explainion for life on earth more than evolution, but for heaven’s sake, it’s better to lie to the children and show them cartoons rather thatn have an intelligent discussion on the failure of evolution to explain life.
So, even though the State School Board is a collection of nuts, it’s better to defame them and lie about the school standards than to actually debate evolution honestly.
Hank
“ID is not an invention of fundamentalist Christians. It is the invention of credible scientists in an effort to explain the holes in the theory of evolution.”
…….and which “credible” scientists are you referring to Hank? You are as deluded as Calvert and his cohorts.
…..and Hank……….what EXACTLY is there to “debate” about in regards to evolution?
The Scientific Method isn’t debatable, buddy.
I think Hank is referring to the handful of malcontents at the Discovery Institute. It’s of course about “renewal of culture,” not science, but the scientific gloss was deemed legally necessary by the inventor of ID, lawyer Phillip Johnson.
“Since when is a theory unassailable?” It’s not. But the evidence is the crux of the biscuit, Outie. The attacks that evolution opponents routinely use, even if (generously) regarded as well-considered, do nothing to disprove the theory itself, which is about as well-confirmed as anything out there.
There is also a BIG difference between addressing the honest questions of students and changing the curriculum to attack ONE theory–and for indisputibly unscientific reasons.
Apophis,
What ’scietific method’ are you reffering to?
Name one that supports evolution more than creation.
Then we’ll debate!
Hank
“What ’scietific method’ are you reffering to?”
Hehe! Hank, if Wiki’s not good enough, I’ll try to come back later today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It’s THE scientific method, Hank. Ask any scientist who doesn’t work for DI!
Sea water!
Very good Rage! Non-responsive to my request for any science that supports evolution more than creation, but very good!
Hank
Cartoon!
Evolutionary theory IS science.
Creationism is NOT.
It’s that simple.
Where is YOUR evidence, Hank?
P.S. From Google Scholar, Hank. Knock yerself out.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Ah Rage,
You make my point exactly! You see my friend I can use science to argue against evolution. Since there is very little real science to support it.
My problem with nitwits on the left is that they cannot defend evolution without attacking religion.
I am not here to defend my faith. I don’t have to. I merely pointed out that ’science’ supports creation more than evolution. I know of no real science that supports evolution, do you?
Hank
Hank?
“Cartoon!”
WTF?
Is this a demand for a cartoon? Are you announcing yourself?
Were you attempting to summon LRB or Paul Rosell?
Dear JR,
You don’t have to act dense! You know what I mean by cartoon. Let me know if you have any more evidence to support evolution other than your grade school animated movie.
You also might try an explain how C14 dating can age a fossil. (J M needs this info too!)
I still love ya though.
Hank
Lol
I’m sorry. That was too easy.
The reader is invited to imagine Hank banging on his monitor and loudly demanding a cartoon!
Evolution tells us that life came from the sea. The sea is salty. Life as we know it requires salt to survive. The relative concentrations of salt in the sea and in hemoglobin are fairly similar. I call this pretty strong evidence for evolution.
Hank- I’n no scientist, but why won’t C14 dating work? I have heard about it all my life , and I can’t imagine all those scientists using it just for something to do.Is it like the lie detector- not legally admisible, but used by law enforcement every day?
Evolution tells us that life came from the sea. The sea is salty. Life as we know it requires salt to survive. The relative concentrations of salt in the sea and in hemoglobin are fairly similar. I call this pretty strong evidence for evolution.
Posted by: J R | July 31, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Some electricity comes from the Electric compamy, lightning is electricity therefor I call this pretty strong evidence that some lightning must come from the Electric compamy. NOT
RA,I would take the time to refute your ridiculous comparison, but anyone with an IQ above freezing can see through your nonsense, so why bother.
RA,
Some electricity from the electric company comes from lightning. That’s why you need a surge protector for computers.
Humans build electric power plants — did this thread switch to cloning?
JR..I have never heard that angle before. I am curious how you came up with that.I personally believe that the sea was originally fresh water, and has become more and more salty with time. Are you comparing the salt content to the sea of today, or the sea of billions of years ago?
Fallacious Arguments: Ad Hominem
Dear gster,
C14 dating can only be used to date something that was once alive. When someting dies the C14 clock starts.
Fossils are living things that have been replaced with minerals. Once the bone, fish or snail’s tissues have become fossilized (ie mineralized) there is no more C14 to measure.
Futhermore, the half life of C14 is 5,700 years. For all practical purposes after 5 half lives it is acknowledged that a radioative isotope is gone. Aproximately 3% remains, but C14 dating works by measureing the ratio of C12 to C14. The amount of C14 in any sample is very small to begin with and after a few half lives (10,000 to 15,000 years) the amount is less than the accuracy of the instrument’s ability to acurately measure.
Of course the whole process (even within its limitations) depends on a few assumptions, which are arguable. The main assumption is that the ratio of C14 to C12 in nature, and therefore in living tissue, has remained constant over the last several thousand years.
Thanks for asking, hope this helps.
Hank
Which,of course, is the reason they have other method of dating that are accurate back to the several billion years before you say they existed.
Thanks for the info, Hank. It this is so error prone , why is it used? This is today’s naive question.
“You make my point exactly! You see my friend I can use science to argue against evolution. Since there is very little real science to support it.
My problem with nitwits on the left is that they cannot defend evolution without attacking religion.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, Hank!
You can nitpick on little details (invariably getting the science wrong), but there is no scientific argument against the theory itself. It would make headlines if there was. That’s why ID proponents insists on redefining science to include believe in a creator. They can’t make a scientific argument against evolution, so they don’t.
“Very little real science to support it”? What dream-world are living in, Hank? There is, in fact, more science to support it than any one human being can possibly read! My link to Google Scholar ALONE shows that there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of academic papers out there based on evolutionary theory (I’m taking into account possible anomolous uses of the word; otherwise, I WOULD say TENS of THOUSANDS!). If you are looking for the ONE BIG SIMPLE PROOF of evolution, well, no, it doesn’t exist. Instead, converging evidence from a multiplicity of natural sciences support evolution. Heck, even computer science provides some conceptual support (ever heard of “genetic algorithms,” or Richard Harbison’s simple 1988 program that, by, selecting from random letters, produced ‘Hamlet’ in three days?).
You say “nitwits on the left cannot defend evolution without attacking religion.” Well, I don’t know who these hypothetical nitwits are, but those who defend evolution usually defend it as science, and don’t wander off into “attacking religion.” To the extent religious beliefs are criticized, it is usually due to the insistence of some that their religious beliefs be treated as proven facts (without proof), usually in contravention of what the facts ARE, and invariably imposed by government FIAT, as opposed to following the careful, long-established, well-known rules of scientific inquiry.
Dear gster,
It’s really pretty accurate out to about 10,000 years. Usually they use Potassium Argon dating after that. Potassium Argon is accurate for non living things also.
Of course as a ‘young earth creation/flood’ fundemental Christian, I have some very interesting explainations for anything that appears to be more than 8,000 years old. The ‘Omphalos Argument’ is my favorite, although it is generally rejected by Cristians and scientist equally.
Hank
Dear Rage,
You write:
“…but those who defend evolution usually defend it as science,…”
Exactly! As science, not with science!
Then you finish with:
“To the extent religious beliefs are criticized, it is usually due to the insistence of some that their religious beliefs be treated as proven facts (without proof), usually in contravention of what the facts ARE, and invariably imposed by government FIAT, as opposed to following the careful, long-established, well-known rules of scientific inquiry.”
Which is almost completely crap! Which again makes my point!
Hank
Anything older than me never existed.I did not think, therefore it did not exist. Existentialism anyone?It’s just an illusion from God.
Here, have a Kierkegaard, on me!
I drink, therefore I am.
I Kant have a Kierkegaard!
Tell me, Dr. Price, What “science” would convince you of the validity of evolution?
It’s a bit out of my element, but you wanna talk about morphologies of phylogenic trees?
In order to believe in evolution it is necessary to, not only, twist science until it makes no sense, but also, suspend common sense.
The very same theory that explains how snails can evolve diferently in adjacent valleys must somehow reconcile the fact that all of the human beings have evolved with the same IQ. Otherwise we go back to the dark ages of eugenics. Is one race superior to others? Did all of the races evolve to be exactly the same in their potential to suceed?
I think that we need to believe selective evolution!
Hank
Tell me Sir Rage, what science do you want to use?
How about biology?
Hank -In re: “The very same theory that explains how snails can evolve diferently in adjacent valleys must somehow reconcile the fact that all of the human beings have evolved with the same IQ. ”
Do you still believe this after having read these posts?? Mine excluded, of course!
OK, how does biology explain the evolution of the human eye? Or the 22 step chemical cascade required to cause a blood clot? Or how a complex single cell could ‘evolve’?
Of course not gster. Snails were created!
8,142 years ago, on day 6!
Hank
On the other hand, DNA studies have shown that the human race appears to be descended from a single human couple that was located in Africa. (Sound familiar)
Hank
Actually Hank,The DNA studies show that modern humans descended from a single woman who lived about 130,000 years ago. They don’t show how many men were involved!
Evolution of the human eye:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215105.htm
Blood clotting:http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-18-t-000006.html
Evolution of single-celled organisms:http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2006/articles_2006_forterre.html
None of these articles or reviews necessarily represents the last word on each subject, especially the hypothesis Zimmer reviews; I’m pretty sure that area still has many unknowns.
BTW, Hank, “unknown” is not “unknowable” or “wrong.” It’s just unknown.
Ever heard of mitchondrial DNA Hank?
Dear Rage,
Your first link merely talks about the origin of “molecular fingerprints”. Very interesting, so there is a light sensitive molecule in a worm that shares a common ancestor with a light sensitive molecule in the eye.
Let’s not even talk about the fantastic leap of faith it take to believe this explains the evolution of the human eye, why don’t we just explain how a ‘light sensitive molecule evolved?
Your second link compares blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish and the sea squirt genomes with the blood coagulation scheme for humans. 42% similar proves what? So what? How does that prove evolution?
I’m not sure what you think your third link proves!
When you have a complex organism that can’t be explained by evolution just admit it. None of your links really explain anything. If you read them they are full of hope and maybes, no proof.
Hank
“Ever heard of mitchondrial DNA Hank?”
Yep, so what? Do you think it was created or did it evolve? If it evolved, how?
Hank
Hank…………I see it is pointless to even attempt to discuss REAL science with you. It is quite clear that your mind is being strangled by the anti-science, religious dogma that is spread by the fundamentalist right. Whatever is typed in this blog you dispute. What would be the point in allowing you to converse now and in the future?
Dear Apopsis,
I feel that you are not smart enough to debate anyone scientifically. I refer you to my previous remarks conerning religion.
What pray tell do you think is the point of your question on mitchondrial DNA? It demanded a yes or no answer, I answered yes. Now what? Accuse me of having faith? Clever ploy.
Hank
Like I said earlier Hank……….you are not worth my time anymore.
Dear Apophis,
Hopefully you are a man of your word and I’ll never be bothered with any more of your innane remarks directed at me!
You don’t add much to the debate anyway.
Hank
“There is little change in the mtDNA from parent to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA which changes by 50% each generation. Since the mutation rate is easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking many species back hundreds of generations.”
Apophis is right. It’s easy to attack from ignorance. You ignored most of the substance of the two articles you mentioned (no surprise). The whole framework of evolutionary biology would not satisfy you, Hank. The fact that you don’t even know (or care about) the extreme significance of mDNA testifies to this fact.
I think I’m done.
Hank doesn’t seem to get it…….THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION IN THE REAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY!
rage………at least I was following where you were going with the common lineage/mDNA concept. The closed minded obviously cannot.
Oh goodie! Hank is playing a “let’s debate evolution game”!
Of course, it is a game without rules, except that no matter what evidence is presented, Hank will authoritatively dismiss it as inadequate, and no matter what research is cited, he will claim that it is interpreted incorrectly.
It is kind of like a tennis match in which Hank serves as the sole arbiter of where the invisible lines of the court are placed, so no matter where his opponent hits the ball, he will always claim it to be out-of-bounds, and no matter where he hits the ball, it will always be in-bounds!
Before anybody else plays Hank’s game (the rules of which are common to the ID/creationist crowd), a few new ground rules should be established.
First, Hank should be required to fully state a concrete, testable definition of evolution. Make him write the definition in his own words, and hold him accountable for explaining nebulous terms or concepts.
Second, require Hank to make some predictions about what we would see in the natural world if his definition of evolution was true. This is how scientists work; they make statements or inferences about the natural world, then generate predicitions based upon their statements, and then they look for evidence. If the evidence supports their statements, they submit it to other scientists for review and confirmation, if the evidence refutes their predictions, they revise their statements and engage in the process all over again.
If Hank cannot think of any evidence that would support/confirm his predictions, he can’t play, for without testable statements and a mechanism for acquiring evidence, you can’t do science.
Third, Hank must agree to accept the consensus of the scientific community. Again, this is how science is played. If the evidence is contained in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is considered to be scientific fact until such time refuting evidence is published in peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, in order for Hank to be declared the winner of his game, he must agree to have his work published in a major peer-reviewed journal. Given the significance of refuting evolution, Science or Nature would seem suitable journals. Afterall, he seems confident that he knows evolution doesn’t occur. Why not make him hit the homerun and win the ball game by overthrowing 150 years of established science and publishing his refution of evolution for all the world to see?
I can see it now….”Wichita blogger wins Noble Prize for revolutionizing biological science!”
Ultimately, if the ID/creationists want to go from scientific wanna-be’s to actual scientists, they are going to have to join in the game of science and play by the established rules of the scientific community. Until they do, they have no more credibility than UFO, “bigfoot”, and ESP “researchers”.
And until side-line blog participants such as Hank actually get up and participate in real science, they are no more a part of science than an arm-chair quarterback who has never played or coached a down of football is a part of the NFL.
Play Ball!
Fallacious Argument Ad Hominem
How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?
IJ: The fact that one does not come up with an alternative theory to Darwinian theory does not serve to invalidate criticism of the theory. I am sure that Darwinists would like to dismiss criticism of problem areas so easily. That is not intellectually honest, in my opinion.
I would think a more upstanding position would be to answer the criticisms or just admit that that there are holes in the theory.—–
That’s twice you’ve posted that now RA.
I think I shall have to call intellectual dishonesty on you. Either that or ask you to make more clear your intent.
You tell us about this book and seem all open minded as to evolution. But not long after you attack a post of mine as to evolution. Which is it?
And as to Hank, you must understand that his particular take on religion is so fringe and extreme (no offense meant Hank. It is simply true that there are not a whole lot of young Earth creationists) It is so arbitrary that quesioning it in any way is sorta like taking a shot at God. Hanks mind is not about to be changed. Certainly I wouldn’t want to try to.
The point of this thread is folks like Hank and perhaps RA changing kids minds.
Hank is entitled to his faith. I THINK he has posted elsewhere that he has no interest in ID or creation being taught in school. As to RA I cannot say.
So the question for you creation folks or evolution doubters is are you willing to keep YOUR faith out of the schools?
Two stories to tell here.
I remember a substitute teacher from my elementary school days. We always dreaded getting this lady. She would close the door when it came time for health or science class. Then she would start telling us about God this and Jesus that. Collectively, we all kinda squirmed. The lady was kinda creepy. And her message felt…..out of place.
Fast forward to junior high. Physical science class. Anatomy. Teacher tells us that women have 14 ribs (if I’m wrong that was almost 30 years ago….sue me) then the teacher asks how many ribs men have. The ENTIRE CLASS and me too answered “13″ (or 1 less than whatever the number for women is) Now by that time I didn’t buy the Adams rib thing on a biblical level. But I assumed the story had some basis in real human anatomy. Of course it doesn’t.
My point with those 2 is that the culture is SATURATED with the Christian religion to a level that mandating it in schools is not only not necessary but potentially destructive.
The bottom line on all this is; are you secure enough in your faith to let others come to it instead of delivering it to them?
No one has posted any of those “holes” here yet Out. You are invited to start.
“Fallacious Argument Ad Hominem”
I guess you don’t know what an ad hominem is, RA. IJ attacked Hank’s method of argument, and justifiably so. To the extent he attacked Hank personally, it was co-extensive and amply earned.
Out, I have yet see any “criticisms of the theory,” apart from the same old empty cheap shots, and the same old piece-meal objections cooked up by the Discovery Institute types (which working scientists can refute far better than I can).
Do you have a SCIENTIFIC criticism of the theory itself, Outlander? It’s not my field, but I would regard descent with modification and natural selection as the key components of “the theory.” Everything else is just confirmation.
If you do, I highly encourage you to write it up, and submit it to a relevant academic journal. The editor will work with you to improve it, if it’s considered worthy of acceptance in the first place.
I believe JR meant “not only UNNECESSARY but potentially destructive” (I caught it, anyway, JR! :-).
“How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?”
STRAW MAN – this poppycock was never stated in the theory of evolution. It is silent on the origins of life.
Keep repeating the same nonsense over and over … someone may believe it.
No theory has to be perfect. Good theories, like evolution, convincingly account of the data observed. The whole it’s got holes in it is an attempt to discredit the theory and amounts to a non-sequitor.
Outlander, just be honest and say it conflicts with your religious viewpoints. Nobody, that I know of, would hold that against you.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument against the person”) or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy
As you know I like to see the arguement kept on the subject matter, I try not to call people names I don’t agree with.
” I try not to call people names I don’t agree with.”
Mee too RA. I try to ALWAYS call people names I agree with.
And to Rage and DD and JR’s comments, I can only add one word.
RAMEN!!!!!
That’s all correct, RA. None of which correctly characterized IJ’s comments.
Rage: You act as if there are not admitted problems with the theory! Off the top of my head there is irreducible complexity, the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of proof that micromutations can cause major evolutionary changes. There are others that are also not adequately explained and/or proven. They are well documented and available to anyone who wants to look at them.
That’s all correct, RA. None of which correctly characterized IJ’s comments.
Posted by: Rage | July 31, 2006 at 08:32 PM
You are right on IJ’s comments. I was late for the one that I was addressing and it was several up from his. Sorry
Darwinism is as much a faith system as religion. It is the holy grail of secularism. Witness JR, normally king of the skeptics. Yet all it took is someone to suggest that blood has about the same saline content as seawater and he is convinced! He believes that common descent must be true. JR was never convinced that easily about anything else.
Bottom line is that you will believe what you want to believe, whether it is supported by evidence or not.
irreducible complexity = “I can’t figure it out. uhhhh God did it!”
Microchanges to macroevolution over the course of 4 BILLION YEARS!
Lack of transitional fossils HuH? There are fossis for the horse species clear back to Eohippus which was not much bigger than a small dog!
irreducible complexity = “I can’t figure it out. uhhhh God did it!”
JR: If you don’t know what it means, you might want to look it up before you comment about it. It will save you from looking silly.
JR: It is a common misconception that the fossil record supports Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin himself admitted that one of the biggest problems with his theory is the lack of transitional fossils. Such as, evidence that would show development of someting like a wing. Like creatures with crude winglike appendages.
“Irreducible complexity.” Ah, yes, Behe’s crap. I’ll return later; my life is calling. . .
Another question would be how those theoretical developmental forms of adaptations such as wing-like appendages be an advantage to survival? Darwin’s theory would mandate that the crude wing or the partial eye or whatever confer upon the organism an advantage to survival. Each micromutation along the path would have to be an advantage to survival.
Evolution tells us that life came from the sea. The sea is salty. Life as we know it requires salt to survive. The relative concentrations of salt in the sea and in hemoglobin are fairly similar. I call this pretty strong evidence for evolution.
Posted by: J R | July 31, 2006 at 11:23 AM
J R, don’t confuse my objection to your logic with my position on the subject.
“Off the top of my head there is irreducible complexity, the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of proof that micromutations can cause major evolutionary changes.”
Aw, come on. You should have picked some other arguments instead of the same, Top 3 “criticisms” of evolution. If I was a creationist, I’d pick the “sciency” sounding ones like polonium halos, in situ trees and bombardier beetles. I’m going to address these very quickly and in nonscientific terms, because I’m short on time and I have a hard time believing a creationist has the kind of scientific background to understand…ahem…more complex arguments.1) Irreducible complexity in a nustshell: A mousetrap is a simple structure that works perfectly. But, take one piece out or take the moustrap apart and it’s useless. As an analogy, how could a “mousetrap” evolve if all of the parts didn’t evolve together (apply this to the eye/any other body part)? They must have all been created at the same time to be able to perform the function it’s meant for, ie catch mice.Nutshell refutation: A mousetrap is useless for catching mice when its taken apart. But the take it apart, and you have a metal pin for cleaning out your ears. You have a cool wooden board for a paperweight. You get the idea. Some of the parts of a complex organ have not evolved for it’s final (current) function, but had other uses before becoming part of the organ in question.
2) Er, I don’t know anything about animals, I’m a botany gal. So I’ll just refer you to TOhttp://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlI do know that the fossils we have found actually support theories evolutionary development. For example, scientists first propose how a creature came about…”if evolution exists, there should be a fossil that has x and y features”. And then, a fossil with x and y features is found. That’s the beauty of the scientific method: you think of an idea, and look for supporting evidence. We have tons of fossils that support preconceived hypotheses of evo-devo. Not my best answer, I would just read the link.3) Are you saying we haven’t seen a species turn into another species? Hurr, wrong. Why is it that plant evolution doesn’t bother creationists? I’ve seen plenty of algae that have evolved into other species of algae. That’s my job. That’s what my entire lab is based on-determining the similarities in the genome between different types of algae using DNA analysis. We get hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to do work based on this “unfounded theory” of evolution. And this speciation occurs in my lifetime…imagine how long it takes for speciation of larger vertebrates and such. Of course no one has seen it because it takes millions and millions of years.
Honestly, if you had a science background and worked in scientific research, especially soemthing closely tied to evo-devo, you would realize how brain-numbing these three oft-repeated, generic, useless “criticisms” are.But WHY am I trying to refute creationists? I thought I gave this up. I blame the lack of sleep.Seriously, I have no problem with your religious views. I have a problem with your people wanting it taught to my kids. I have a problem with those people LYING about it being all about some wierd anti-science religion. I even resent that people like Connie Morris say it’s Christian to deny evolution, because there are PLENTY of Christians who have no problem with it, myself included!
Ok, ok. I’m done. DONE! :)
Oahu…Wow.. you mean you have seen in your lifetime algae evolve into rose bushes…. or wheat evolve into Giant Redwoods?Seriously… give us a GOOD example that we can Google….
Hi Tara, good to see you again. We miss you here and hope you will post more often.
Sam, are you a creationist? I’d say I was surprised if you were.
KFG..Yes.. I believe the Creation account. I also have no problem with ID, but I do have reservations about it being taught in public classroom. I have done vast reading on both sides of the subject.I can also reconcile my beliefs in the Bible with evolution and science. When people post stuff on the subject, I am interested in trying to determine if it’s good stuff or just more crap!
“Oahu…Wow.. you mean you have seen in your lifetime algae evolve into rose bushes…. or wheat evolve into Giant Redwoods?Seriously… give us a GOOD example that we can Google…. ”
How about asking a serious question, Sam?
Gee, I haven’t seen philodendrons evolve into puppy dogs, either, in my lifetime.
Note: I’m not claiming that philodendrons evolved into puppy dogs. It’s satire.
Rage – maybe there should be some genetic mutations introducing rose genomes to puppy dogs – it would help with that wet dog smell.
It WAS a serious question Rage… she claimed change in species.. she should be able to post examples.
Sam, the way you asked the question was ridiculous and unworthy of response.
Examples of speciation are numerous in the literature. Since it typically takes many generations for this to occur, we only see it “within our lifetimes” in, say, bacteria.
You claim to have done “vast reading on both sides of the subject.” How could you not know this?
Rage.. thanks for the judgement!And even though your response is pretty much Ad Hominem, I will still reply…
I responded to her post in the manner that she posted… that we are too simple to understand anything complex. I know what she is saying and I definately agree with the fact that algae evolve into other species of algae. I am still waiting on the example of algae evolving into mammals… through whatever steps.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Rage..Thanks for the link… I read all this stuff several years ago, but my mind doesn’t retain as it used to! I do think that the “Transitions” pages that Oahu posted is more down my alley of interest.
Dear Tara,
You continue to make my point! Like most so-called-educated people worshiping at the alter of evolution you assume that creationists are simple people. Nothing could be further from the truth! You also seem to base quite a bit of your argument on the assumption that creationists can’t understand science. There is in fact a long list of respectable scientists that used to be agnostic or atheistic evolutionists that are now young earth creationists. You see, my dear, the more open your mind and the greater your intelligence the more open you are to the fact that life in this world isn’t some Godless accident.
I don’t have time to respond to all three of your condescendingly simple refutations of outlander’s examples of holes in the theory of evolution. However, I will speak to your ‘mousetrap’ example. Trying to debunk it by pointing out the separate parts can have other uses is ridiculous. I realize that the mousetrap example is simple, but it is simple to explain irreducible complexity to evolutionists. I see it isn’t simple enough!
You see my dear, evolution implies that something advances, improves. A piece of wood that used to be a paper weight and now finds itself the base of a mouse trap is not an example of evolution, it is an example of construction. If you have a complex process such as the chemical cascade required coagulating blood, for your example to make sense you need to find another similar use for each of the 22 different processes for your explanation to be valid. Then, you still would not have explained how this proves evolution! You have merely found another way God has used a complex chemical reaction in his creation of life.
You can’t imagine how excited that I am to learn my tax dollars are being used to allow you to play with algae. However, by torturing these little green creations to turn them into another algae doesn’t do anything to advance the theory of evolution. They didn’t ‘evolve’ my dear, they changed.
Hank
“You see my dear, evolution implies that something advances, improves.”
Wrong again, Hank. A trait that might be preserved as fabulously adaptive now could cause a species to go extinct in 100 years. Extremephile bacteria live in water so hot that it kills nearly everthing else. What we consider ‘comfortable’–say 70 degrees–kills them.
Adaptation is just that–surviving in the current condition. The KT event that killed off the mighty dinosaurs allowed small mammals to survive. Maybe it was all part of God’s plan (that’s not for me to judge).
I’ve heard that the blood clotting factors were previously used in digestion, but I’m not playing your little game. Look it up yourself.
Also, sometimes less complexity is more adaptive.