Texas’ longtime science curriculum adviser, Christine Comer, was ousted by Texas Board of Education officials last month for forwarding an e-mail about a talk by a professor who debunks “intelligent design†and creationism. The board members accused Comer of not being “neutral†in the evolution debate.
Why should she be?
As the New York Times argued, “Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas’ own education standards require the teaching of evolution.â€
Those standards are up for review next year, and intelligent design proponents on the board are expected to fight to insert ID views into the curriculum, another likely reason Comer was forced out.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
-
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
- American_Way on Open thread 7/4
- American_Way on Open thread 7/4
- American_Way on Pro-con: Is ‘cash for clunkers’ a good idea?
- Barnie on Open thread 7/4
- American_Way on Open thread 7/4
- Chas on Unluckiest guy in Minnesota
- outlander on Open thread 7/4
- Regular on Unluckiest guy in Minnesota
- BlueJay on Open thread 7/4
- Jed on Palin stepping down
389 Comments
Gee, much as I’d like to make fun of Texas (they also gave us W.), then I remember Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, ZZ Top and the Butthole Surfers.
Instead, I wish thinking folks in the lone star state my sincere sympathies. We’ve been there, done that.
Insert ahead: Nathan’s obligatory complaint about the thread! ;-)
LOL Neel!
In before Nathan’s “You can’t prove evolution happened” post.
Rather than a drawn out battle, I will just post this:
Science starts with a question and then works to find an answer.
ID/Religion starts with an answer and then works backwards to find support for it.
Which is why the two will never be on common ground.
P.S. I heart Texas :)
Also, I just did a lesson on Caminalcules. If you’re bored, google it and work through the lesson, it’s a great way to learn about systematics and evolution!
At some point today, MPS will also add a lengthy tome, totally off thread, trashing USD 259, Science Teachers and the education system in general.
Be prepared for the ramblings!
On this thread…………. I guess Texas and it’s creationist leanings will have to be put in their place with a “Kitzmiller v. Dover” court case! Nothing like wasting the taxpayers money!
All hail the FSM!
Sorry, still too early in the morning………..insert “its” for it’s”!. Time for more coffee!
Intelligent design is a fairy tale. Much like talking snakes, a flat world and a woman being made from my rib.
O, come on people, the world is only sixty years old. I’m not really sixty two; I’m really only 23. The FSM made the world out of meatballs, then overcooked them. He made dolphins the rulers of the world, but forgot to give them vocal cords. Shoot, he forgot to make me rich as well. I’m seriously thinking of changing dieties. Maybe the walking taco mini-dog, or WTMD for short w/salsa.
And Texas used to be such a nice place. I spent my childhood there. I wonder if all of our Kansas religous extremists miagrated to Texas?
If your faith is threatened by science, you have very little faith.
This reminds me of Tom Delay, making all the new voting districts in order for his side to win. I think Texas republicans have egos as big as their state.
I do believe that in the higher levels of education a comparison should be offered. If nothing more then to get a real discussion started and make the students think and develop deductive reasoning. But not as a mandatory course and taught with out a lean one way or the other. But this is just a symptom of a plague I am seeing more and more of. Once again the thought “if you believe in nothing you will believe in anything”. Another way of saying it would be to take nothing as a fact then there is no knowledge to be had.
BTW, I will be the first to admit that some that claim to be of the same faith as I am have done things to warrant ridicule. This is one of them by the attempt to “open up” the common believes to those that are not believers. BUT when you make such broad and inclusive statements about Christians you also slander people like me. To “damn” those who wish to force their believes on you is one thing. To damn my entire religion is unwarranted. Nathan is entitled to have whatever personal believes he chooses, he is An American and free to state his believes as he see fit. He may bring ridicule upon himself for being over baring with his statements. But it is his own personal faults not his religion, he makes himself fair game to be a target if he argues that point too strongly. You too are entitle to your believes or not to believe as the case may be. But in no sense of fairness or justice is his faith a target.
They should be getting some new board members next election, but then again it’s texas!
Boeing to Remain Industry Leader through Evolution.
AeroTechNews4U.comChicago, IL
Boeing Aircraft Company prepares for the future through a commitment to evolutionary thinking. Led by its newly appointed Vice President of Business Operations, Joe Howard, Boeing will begin work on a new aircraft using untrained, uneducated labor that will be paid a fraction of of the pay degreed engineers receive. “We realized that labor costs were going to put pressure on our profits in the long term.” Joe said Wednesday. “We also realized that we were not making full use of science in production methodology. So, for this new pilot program, we will only use employees who have no skills, no intellectual thinking capacity and who require almost no compensation”.
Although more specifics will be presented in next month’s Aircraft Power conference in Everett, WA Howard opined that untrained, uneducated workers can be employed with a mouse, keyboard and computer monitor just like any other trained engineer. “They will be instructed to push all the keys on the keyboard and move and click the mouse in a random motion. Eventually, the best design will survive and become a world class airplane.” The board of Directors where delighted albeit initially incredulous about the promise that payroll costs can be dramatically reduced simply through utilizing the science of evolution. “After the company fully transitions away from to using high priced college degreed engineers, random forces will do the work which will boost profits” Howard predicted.
Howard realized this cost cutting epiphany while watching a recent NOVA broadcast which depicted colorful artistic cartoons of complex life forms that were in the process of evolving from a singular simple organism after millions of years, random mutations and environmental influences. The application to building aircraft was “as plain as day”, he said.
Forgoing the opportunity to make this new approach into a competitive business advantage, Howard assumed that the evolutionary process was common knowledge and therefore non-proprietary. Howard pointed out that no Board member even asked him to provide an example or proof of the concept from nature. “It’s accepted by everybody; I just took what has all ready been accepted by the scientific community and applied to industry”.
While the Board initially opposed Howard’s plan because of the idea that Boeing has been successful at making planes using engineers and designers for decades, it ultimately succumbed. According to an insider, one Board member confessed that he feared they would be labeled “a bunch of flat earthers” if this program was not approved. Thus, the Board eventually approved Howard’s proposal for the new program out of desperation to reduce costs and an irrepressible faith in evolution.
Howard will not stop at simply instructing the new workers to be completely random. He has also set up a clever way to radically change the air temperature, humidity and other environmental factors in the building where the workers will be tapping and clicking away. He also has some ideas about shaking the building and blasting in random noises and a range of smells to make sure that the workers perform truly random actions at all times.
The mechanism for measuring randomness is unclear, but if any logical or intellectual pattern is recognized, the worker will be reprimanded.
“Beginning in the next millennium and beyond, we will be ahead of the competition”. A confident Howard proclaimed.
According to Karen Hoeff, an analyst from Bear Stearns, it is unclear what impact this decision will have on the share price of Boeing in the future. “For now the stock is holding steady due to the company’s impressive backlog of scheduled deliveries for the next 5 years.” She says.
Thanks to the Texans who will now replace the erstwhile Kansas Board of Education as the stupidest people on the planet.
Lucky Texans, they get to watch the sideshow for a few years, just like we did when fact and science were abandoned in favor of faith and ideology.
They will watch while the right-wingers play politics with settled science, ignore long-held scientific data, and crusade for a cause that will eventually lose.
It was like watching a circus freak show here in Kansas, and we are fortunate that it has been spanked down. Connie Morris is back to doing whatever she did before power went to her head, and the rest of us are back to living our lives in the real world.
Thankfully, our freak show is closed and Charles Darwin is again resting peacefully in his grave.
Have fun, Texas.
I’m so glad that Darwin’s theory has be vindicated by “long-held scientific data”.
Fortunately, we can show everyone this data and no one can deny Darwin’s theory was correct.
However, it is concerning that philosophers are doing the dirty work of defending evolution. Why not show them science? You can’t argue with that.
“Ms. Comer forwarded to a local online community an e-mail message from a pro-evolution group announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest, a professor of PHILOSOPHY [emphasis added] at Southeastern Louisiana University”
rfl, not so far from the truth, I believe Stonecipher is credited with saying he could get waitresses to do the production work. Mgmt. has no respect for the skills of the blue collar worker.Hopefully, boeing learned a lesson from outsourcing to so many countries and having development of the 787 delayed. I believe that was a first postponement for development in the co.’s history.
Isn’t it nice to have another state become the laughingstock of the nation, maybe people will forget about ks. in time.
Who cares?
The blogladytes don’t want to hear anything from Christians anyway.
The Hemmingway existential prayer for evolutionists.
” Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.”
I hope that someday the public schools in Kansas will come to their senses and begin teaching the Satan’s magnet concept in science class as a reasonable alternative to gravity. It has been written that in order to spite God, Satan created a gigantic magnet and that is the reason that objects fall to earth. Since it has never been disproven that Satan resides near the earth’s core with a huge magnet laughing as the hapless denizens of earth are tortured by their inability to float and leap from tall buildings without injury, it would be only fair if our children were exposed to alternative ideas instead of being forced to become slaves to the scientific community’s gravity agenda.
Thanks to the Texans who will now replace the erstwhile Kansas Board of Education as the stupidest people on the planet. - Monkeyhawk
Hmmmm… That doesn’t seem like a intelligent remark. Inflammatory maybe.
However, it is a fine example of closed-minded faith in evolution. Supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory will not even support teaching public school students of the many flaws in the theory. They would rather have students indoctrinated, than to allow them to think for themselves. One wonders why they would fear students deciding themselves whether a flawed theory is worthy of such closed-minded faith.
“outlander” –
There are hundreds of faith-based legends and myths about creation. The problem is they are not science.
Believe for all you want about the naked lady and the snake, or the giant turtle holding the world on his back, or Mother Earth and Father Sky… it’s just not *science.*
And, despite your unfounded assertion, science *does* teach the many gaps and flaws of accepting evolutionary theory; that’s what science is *for.* That’s why scientists continue to research. That’s why your attack on Darwin is flawed; you refuse to acknowlege biology has advanced since Darwin’s and Wallace’s work a hundred fifty years ago.
So go ahead and believe that women are made from ribs and men are sculpted in mud. Live your fantasies about storks bringing babies or water turning into wine. But until you can come up with a scientific explanation — or even a theory that suggests explanation — it ain’t science.
Go ahead and teach a comparative religion course in high schools and cover Genesis and the Druids and the Souix Indians’ creation stories. But don’t call it science.
You mean the legend about the stork that climbs down your chimney on the sixth day to deliver your baby and free chicken wings isn’t true? I suppose next you will tell me that Jesus and Zeus don’t really bring you flowers and perform a singing telegram on your 40th birthday either.
That gigantic magnet would explain the North and South Poles!
rfl,
The majority of intelligent design flaks are trained philosophers, as well as marketing folks–not scientists.
Intelligent Design is just a warmed-over version of the Design Argument that was debunked by David Hume in the “Dialogues Concerning Natual Religion”–Michael Behe’s claims regarding ‘irreducible complexity’ notwithstanding.
Outlander thank you for defending the right of ID believers to have that belief without apology. I don’t want it taught in our schools but until someone is able to show me definite proof of evolution I will continue to have my personal beliefs about the beginning of life and thank those who will allow me to have that belief.
CF,
Question: Was David Hume a scientist or a philosopher?
Why then do you appeal to a philosopher on matters of science?
What role SHOULD philosophers have in defining what is science and what is faith?
I say none. Do you disagree?
Isn’t it nice to have another state become the laughingstock of the nation, maybe people will forget about ks. in time.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 06, 2007 at 09:02 AM
——–
That sounds just like the WEBlog editors! They may not understand evolutionary theory, but they sure are sure concerned about getting teased by their liberal friends. Can’t have that.
But “laughingstock of the nation”? Secular liberals, with their noses in the air, think that they are the arbiters what is the prescribed belief of the nation. But what does the “nation” really believe about evolution? Take a look.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Good things for evolution supporters that most Americans have enough class not to laugh at minority beliefs.
Great poll Outlander. It seems we have a vocal ‘minority’ here today. Sure give value to the ’squeaky wheel gets the grease’ argument doesn’t it.
rfl,
I cite David Hume because the Design Argument is a argument, and because Intelligent Design is theology or philosophy (take your pick)–NOT science.
I’ll say it again: Intelligent Design has literally NOTHING to do with science. Period. It does nothing more than raise philosophical / theological objections to ‘naturalism’ or ‘Darwinism,’ and it markets itself brilliantly, if quite disingenuously. It is, however, completely bankrupt as a scientific research program. Which is not to say that, for something so intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest, it has not been enormously influential.
To answer your other question, scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny; hence the need for philosophers of science. Same thing for philosophical appendages to other scientific fields: philosophy of biology, philosophy of mind / neuroscience. Or, for that matter, to other fields such as the philosophy of law, philosophy of religion, or, within philosophy, to metaethics.
Kant famously said that he found it necessary to limit reason in order to make room for faith. I think it is ABSOLUTELY the business of philosophers to determine the putative limits of knowledge, and the boundaries between the object domains that belong to different disciplines.
outlander,
So, when it comes to scientific matters, ‘what the nation believes’ trumps the expertise of scientists?
Superficially plausible, but dishonest populist arguments are to be more highly valued on scientific matters than the judgments of experts? I see.
ksgrm and outlander,You are free to believe whatever you wish. Faith does not require evidence. Science does. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the various tenets of evolution. That should have no impact on your faith — sorry that you let it do that.
outlander as a populist - now that is a knee slapper.
“scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny”-CF2K
Because science is a knowledge based on what can be proven, observed and many times repeated.No higher order scrutiny is needed because there is no debate in what can be observed.
“I think it is ABSOLUTELY the business of philosophers to determine the putative limits of knowledge”-CF2K
From this statement alone, considering the topic of this thread, you have gone so far as to claim that evolution can not be adequately defended without the assistance of philosophy.
However, it should be clear to you that philosophy is relative and is therefore not science.
Neither is ID.
Be careful when you claim that something is defended by science if you have to call on the assistance of philosophers to help you make your case.
In order to maintain the integrity of science, a distinction between science and philosphy needs to be in adhered to.
rfl,
Excellent job completely misinterpreting my post!
“You have gone so far as to claim that evolution can not be adequately defended without the assistance of philosophy.”
Totally false; I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said that because Intelligent Design isn’t science but rather is philosophy, that a philosophical response is appropriate.
Evolutionary theory, Darwinian or otherwise, is perfectly able to respond to scientific objections based on scientific grounds. Intelligent Design isn’t scientific; it’s objections are philosophical or theological. Therefore meriting a philosophical response.
I in in no way undermined the distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophers don’t do science: they do the philosophy of science. These are comlpetely separate activities; never did I claim otherwise.
“So, when it comes to scientific matters, ‘what the nation believes’ trumps the expertise of scientists?”
Well, in a generic sense, what a nation believes surely could trump science. Science certainly doesn’t have all the answers. But I don’t think that I argued that point, CF. I was responding to a couple of haughty, condescending remarks from the minority view.
Steven is no way can my post be interpreted to mean that I am defensive about my faith in ID. No statement made today has impacted my fatih.
That should have no impact on your faith — sorry that you let it do that.
Posted by: Steven Davis | December 06, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I simply said allow me to have by beliefs without the constant barbs that evolutionists feel is necessary in order to defend their faith.
Contrary to what CF tried to say evolution is a faith based belief because it can’t be reproduced much as ID.
We can each be content in our belief and get along fantastically.
CF,
Well, you are the equivocal one aren’t you.
I’ll repost what you said:
“To answer your other question, scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny; hence the need for philosophers of science”.
Do you not remember typing “hence the need for philosophers of science”?
What the heck is philosophers if science if they are not philosophers?
But please, enough with the attempt to understand your belief in evolution and why it is science (minus philosophy of course), do us all a favor and list the scientific evidence that “overwhelmingly supports” evolution. That should put this thread and all future threads on this topic to rest.
I digress until such attempt is made by such a capable individual as yourself.
“You are free to believe whatever you wish.”————-Damn right Steven.
I hereby extend the same worthless consideration to you.
rfl - Dr. Forrest is indeed a philosopher . . . one whose specialty is the philosophy of science.
From wikipedia: “With scientist Paul R. Gross she co-authored Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press 2004), which examines the goals and strategies of the intelligent design movement and its attempts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology. They analyze the absence of a scientific intelligent design hypothesis, ID’s religious foundations, and the political ambitions of intelligent design proponents. They examine the movement’s Wedge strategy which has advanced and is succeeding through public relations rather than through scientific research. They also highlight intelligent design creationism’s relationship to public education and to the separation of church and state.”
Forrest is recognized as an expert on the ID movement and was a witness for the (winning) plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover case in PA.
Now, of course the head of Texas education, dentist & avowed creationist Don McElroy, wouldn’t want the state’s director of science education to actually, you know . . . support science.
Forrest’s presentations deal with the history of creationism in our country. She doesn’t pretend to be a scientist; she’s just pointing out the antics of those who are working to destroy science.
So, rfl, science still relies on scientists and data and evidence to defend itself . . . but Forrest provides valuable insight to the onslaught of creationists and their political machinations.
Gee, much as I’d like to make fun of Texas (they also gave us W.), then I remember Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, ZZ Top and the Butthole Surfers.–Don’t forget Kinky Freidman, singer, author, cigar smoker, cowboy-hat wearin’ candidate for governor
Ksgrm — If you are waiting on absolute proof of Evolution, then you will have a long wait.. IF Evolution could be proven, it would no longer be a “theory” — It would be a “fact”.
And I am happy to see that you dont want ID taught in the schools.
And rfl asks for the evidence supporting evolution . . .
Here ya go!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Or . . . you can do a bit of Googling yourself. Beware, though, that the journal articles are highly specialized and unless you have a strong background in the relevant field, you may find yourself in over your head.
But of course, anyone who *seriously* questions evolution - like Connie Morris, Kathy Martin, et.al. - already has those qualifications, right?
You know, throwing darts at evolution believers, and making ridiculous use of revisioned prayers, as one blogger has done, shows how ignorant they are.
I was raised Catholic, and was taught the world was 4 billion years old, man had a history spanning millions of years, and had no problem believing it.
I will say this about the bible: there were three wise men in th story of Budda, who was born prior to Jesus. Figure that one out.
Thanks nunyer,
I’ll read up on the link and maybe I will find the evidence I am seeking. I’ll check it out during the next few days.
Perhaps, with your familiarity with the link, you could point me in the area that lists some evidence with the whole natural selection thing. Its pretty easy to understand that such a concept requires the existence of transistional forms. They should be in the fossil record.If “inferential” evidence is used to prove evolution in this link, I will take that as well, but I will be skeptical in order to be sure about its scientific authenticity.
Thanks again! I take anything scientific. Most people prefer to philosophize, I need some facts before I am going to believe something.
Chas - there’s a difference between how the word “theory” is used in everyday language and how the word “theory” is used in science. And the IDcreationists are masters at using what you just stated to promote more confusion!
Lots of other words take on different meanings according to context. For instance . . . the word “light” can mean illumination, or it could mean that an object isn’t heavy. Only by knowing the situation can you figure out what the word is representing.
Same with the word “theory.” In everyday use, it’s a wild-a$$ guess. In science, though, a theory is an explanation of what happens in nature that’s based on evidence from different fields. You can use it to make predictions, and thus test the theory even further.
When someone states that “evolution is ‘just a theory’ ” it’s usually a dead giveaway that the person doesn’t have a grasp of how science is done.
I know that nunyer, why do you think I used it?? LOL
Chas you must have miss interpreted what I was saying.
There is no scientific proof for either theory. I choose to put my faith in ID. I don’t question the time frame. One day to an Omnipotent God could be 10,000 of our days. He isn’t limited by our understanding.
My point is that I choose for myself what I believe and don’t feel I have to denigrate your faith in evolution to legitimize my belief in ID.
Stumper I guess if I was a Buddist that would mean something to me. Not sure what your point was.
Nunyer that was good double speak but give me the factual scientific definition of theory. That is the problem with the english language. We humans give words meaning. A word is just a combination of letters until defined by someone.
Always want to have my facts right.
rfl - oh no, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t want you to *believe* evolution!
Maybe I’m being too picky . . . but facts and beliefs aren’t the same thing.
Facts are widely agreed-upon observations. Beliefs don’t have to be based in fact. I *believe* that pepperoni pizza is best, but you may *believe* otherwise.
Facts and theories (and critical thinking and experimental design) are what our kids need to learn in science class.
Our beliefs can be taught in home and church, and guide us through life.
“Stumper I guess if I was a Buddist that would mean something to me. Not sure what your point was.”
Ksgrm, my point is there are certain parts of the bible that may be taken as not gospel, like the fact of the three wise men being used in both the bible and the story of Budda. There is also the great flood, being as the same story was used decades prior to the biblical account. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world’s cultures past and present have stories of a “great flood” that devastated earlier civilization.
Does this mean the biblical account is wrong, or does it mean there was a great flood prior to the biblical account, like at different times in different countries? Too many questions left unanswered, except for faith. That is hardly a scientific measuring stick, now is it?
Whether one believes in God or Gods, is a personal thing having nothing to do with the bible. If your beliefs are strictly composed on what the bible says, in my opinion, you got a problem with your religious beliefs. The bible, to me, is a reference to living a moral life. And I find nothing wrong with that, nor do I believe I am condemned to hell for believing that.
Arguments for I.D. are nothing but sophistry, and are rightfully addressed by a philosopher.
ksgrm, this one time, I’ll do your homework for you . . .
From Wikipedia:”The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.”
From the AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science) at http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”
But Nunyer are we teaching them in error when we teach fact as fiction or vice versa.
Until something is able to be reproduced then it isn’t factual and must be presented as theory much as gravity was.
And no I don’t want ID in our class rooms. I do however want truth there. When I present to my children in my home or a church setting my belief in ID I don’t want them to think I have trying to discredit their science teacher.
Here come members of the Church of Darwin holding evolution services in public schools, zoos and museums forcing everyone to join their choir. Evolution is the orthodoxy in public and much private education and to not believe means low grades or no tenure. Show me one evolution preacher who can provide evidence man came from whales and bacteria, yet they require students believe it! How did man and woman evolve side by side and all the other creatures which reproduce sexually when asexual reproduction makes so much more sense? Alert observers using observational and experimental science find bacteria produce bacteria and dogs produce dogs. Evolutionists preach millions and billions of years but never examine the faulty assumptions which scientifically undermine these beliefs. How do evolutionists explain the 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body - mutation and random chance? What a great faith they must have! Let’s not tarnish the word science with the required beliefs and tremendous faith required to believe the stories in evolution.
ksgrm, you said “But Nunyer are we teaching them in error when we teach fact as fiction or vice versa.”
Please elaborate. What exactly is being taught as *fact* that really isn’t?
I understand that you don’t want your kids to think you’re trying to discredit their science teacher. OTOH, I wonder if you’re more worried that maybe you don’t know as much about science as their teacher, and that any explanation you give will just highlight that point.
“..facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Stumper this isn’t true of evolution anymore than it is of ID.
Gravity on the other hand is now a ‘law’ because it can be proven by repeated observations. The two are not alike.
No matter how closely we have watched and recorded them facts do not support evolution. They may point to the fact that it might be factional.
Again it goes back to faith. Where do you put yours? Where do I put mine?
Stumper you are indeed accurate in noting similarities between books of different religions. Is my faith what it is because of the bible. I don’t think so. As with you I use it as a guide for a principled life. The New Testament to me is a different book altogether and my faith is there.
No arguments from me. Put your faith where you will just allow me to have the same freedom.
Back to the topic. On it’s face this firing seems overboard and the board should have to explain itself to the people of Texas.
Well Nunyer if a science teacher presents evolution as fact and not a theory that can’t be proven and therefore is not a scientific law that would be teaching them fiction would it not?
STL, shorter:
“I don’t understand it, therefore nobody else does.” Or, “We don’t know everything yet, so God did it!”
I’m really, really glad that my God isn’t limited to the gaps in our understanding of the world. Don’t you wish yours was, STL?
Ksgrm — How did i misinterpret you?? You SAID you dont want ID taught in schools… I said I was happy about that… See??
“And no I don’t want ID in our class rooms. I do however want truth there.”
And the truth?? Well, the TRUTH is that ID is NOT science — as has been shown numerous times today, as well as numerous times in the past… So, the TRUTH is there… It might not be what you WANT to call TRUTH, but that does not make it UNtruth!!
Ksgrm, from what you just posted to Nunyer, it is way too obvious that you are not clear as to what scientific method and scientific theory is really all about… Either that, or you just want an argument… Which is it??
Nunyer this isn’t about ‘whose God is bigger’ is it?
I thought we were have an intellectual discussion about the scientific definition of ‘theory’ and ‘law’. This thread always goes off on personal attacks about this time and I choose not to participate in those attacks.
Well Chas when you can’t use reason - use personal attack. See my last post to Nunyer - I don’t want to play anymore.
ksgrm, we might be at cross-channels here . . .
To help me, please tell me what you think: What are the differences between facts, theories, and laws? In the scientific context, that is.
I did not use a personal attack!! If you want to talk scientific theory, and scientific method, then lets do it… If not, lets do that too!!
ksgrm, my God-of-the-gaps comment was directed at STL, not you. I thought I’d made that obvious - guess not!
Evolution is factCreationism is religious myth
The Dover trial already ended the debate. Clearly some people in Texas needed to watch Nova a couple weeks ago.
“The Dover trial already ended the debate.”
Chuckle… you wish, Doug.
Outlander, once you state your support for “Intelligent Design” then two more things MUST be stated — Namely, The source of the “Intelligence,” and the “Designer” — At that point any resemblance to scientific method is null and void!
Scientific method, as represented by the theory of evolution, and ID are not on the same page!
The debate is ended between reasonable people. Evolution is fact. That it is not yet entirely fleshed out fact does not diminish it.
There’s nothing new in Nova’s Judgment Day except that it was paid for by billionaire evolutionist Paul Allen. The myriad problems with the program are thoroughly covered by a JPL scientist who writes: Judgment Day: Will it Be the New Inherit the Wind? 11/14/2007 at http://creationsafaris.com/crev200712.htm
Only open minded readers are encouraged to check it out!
Outlander, you had the guys from the Discovery Institute debunked and they even admitted that creationism was as scientific as astrology and phrenology. When asked to produce scientific evidence for creationism they admitted they had none.
So where’s the debate? The scientists produced loads of scientific evidence and the creationists couldn’t provide any rebuttal.
A debate is two sided, the creationists have yet to debate the issue.
STL — What exactly do Paul Allen’s finances have to do with anything related to this topic??
I am just curious??
“Outlander, once you state your support for “Intelligent Design” then two more things MUST be stated”
Why?
“The debate is ended between reasonable people. Evolution is fact. That it is not yet entirely fleshed out fact does not diminish it.”
JR: I will take your minority opinion into consideration.
STL, someone’s mind would have to be so open that their brains fall out to fall for the rubbish on that poorly designed website.
“rfl - oh no, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t want you to *believe* evolution!”
Lets be serious. Either we got here by happenstance and natural random gene mutations or there was some kind of miracle by a Creator that gave this earth and the universe the form that it exhibits today.
If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze, I will *believe* that as fact (not philosophy).
Whether or not we believe in a creator or not has a HUGE impact on what choices we make during this life.
If science conclusively elminates the need for a Creator, then we all need to know about it. We should not take it lightly and we should not send a philosopher to do a scientists work.
Thanks
Doug — the only evidence for faith, is, well, faith –
So the creationist argument is, “Paul Allen has money, therefore evolution is false.”
And creationists want to be taken seriously?
Theories are nice until they are proven wrong.
For example, the earth doesn’t not actually rotate around the sun.
Both the sun and the earth rotate around a common gravimetric center point.
The earth being smaller in mass will have a larger elliptical orbit and the sun being larger in mass will have a smaller elliptical orbit.
rfl — Are you implying that there can be no moral standards, or no “common good” without belief in a Creator??
Outlander, dont just ask WHY… Think about what I said first, ok?
The theory of gravity is not ENTIRELY fleshed out.
I myself buy it.
Oh and outlander?
MOST people once thought the Earth was flat.
MOST people like beliefs that give them comfort.
Comfort and company in a belief is not the pursuit of truth. It is the embrace of dogma.
I did think about it Chas. Why?
Kansas, I think you have finally passed that strange point of no return… Of course the Earth moves around the Sun… And the Solar system circles some other point of center in the galaxy, and the galaxy circles some other center point elsewhere in the vastness of space.. But you are not going to get away with such a statement that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun!! That just wont fly, not even with the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
“the earth doesn’t not actually rotate around the…”
should read as
“the earth doesn’t actually rotate around the…”
can leave out the “not”
my day for double negatives I suppose…
JR: Poor analogy. You can demonstrate gravity. It is repeatable.
Outlander — You argue for Intelligent Design… Who/What is the Intelligence?? And who/what is the Designer?? That is what I am asking YOU to define!! As soon as you state those two things, you have deleted it from the realm of scientific method, and scientific observation!
rfl — Are you implying that there can be no moral standards, or no “common good” without belief in a Creator??-Chas
Are we going to philosophise now?
If right and wrongs (moral standards) change from year to year, century to century, based on the whims of man, then there is no such thing as right and wrong.
If there is a creator, external to man, then there is a right and wrong which can not be changed regardless of man’s chronologicaly fluxuating wishes.
So yes, that is what I believe Chas.
But Chas, gravity is like evolution, they are just theories. And since Paul Allen has a lot of money and believes in gravity and evolution they are clearly false. Not to mention Newton’s Apple, like Nova are both shows on PBS therefore gravity, like evolution, is a lie.
You see, it’s easily understood.
I doubt that the earth exactly revolves around the sun, or any of those other points. The earth moves as our understanding and perspective allows.
Sorry Chas, “thems the fact.”
Otherwise, it doesn’t meet the laws of physics in accordance to known laws of gravity.
Kansas — break down your analogy even further… IF what you say is true, and I seriously doubt that it is, based on too many thihgs to list here… But IF it is true… THEN, the moon does not actually revolve around the earth… and to take it even further, the electrons dont actually revolve around the nucleus of the atom!!
Just how far are you wanting to take your “statiionary universe” argument??
Chas: The source does not have to be identified to observe evidence of design.
Wow, creationists are even going as far as suggesting the theory of gravity is a lie. Man, it just doesn’t get any dumber than this.
rfl — hang on… AT one point in time, not too many years ago… It was considered perfectly RIGHT to execute people for being convicted of being pick pockets… or horse thieves…
TODAY, we clearly see that was not RIGHT, but in fact, WRONG!!
SOME moral standards have indeed changed over time… And not just those two mentioned above… in fact, MANY others!!
So, do those changes negate a Divine Creator?? or do they just mean we have overcome our abusive forms of justice/government??
Another one — Not too many years ago, nobody imagined that a nation could function without a Monarchy…. THEN, we fought a war to throw off a monarchy, and now we consider the concept of democratic republics to be a thing desirous to have all over the world…
Was GOD wrong in the past?? Is GOD right now?? And yes, government, and the people governed, are moral standards…
Chas: The source does not have to be identified to observe evidence of design.
Posted by: outlander | December 06, 2007 at 12:34 PM
========================Then, WHY do you demand a source to observe evidence of evolution??
Checkmate!!
Man, it just doesn’t get any dumber than this.
Posted by: Doug | December 06, 2007 at 12:35 PM
======================Boy howdy, I do hear that Doug!!It’s getting harder and harder to be a part of reality these days!!
Hi Tara.
Do creationists see no evidence of design in their religion by the hands of man? Or does that just apply to universes being designed by gods?
outlander
I can indeed demonstrate evolution on a small scale. REAL observation of evolution would require many generations of observation.
I don’t plan to jump off a building a thousand times in order to try and prove that maybe once I would not fall.
Time for lunch break… Hopefully I will get back later!!
rfl, you said “If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze, I will *believe* that as fact (not philosophy).”
This is most definitely not how evolution happened; anyone who described it in those words to you is was lying to you.
Have you tried learning about how evolution really works, as opposed to the caricature you described?
“please tell me what you think: What are the differences between facts, theories, and laws?”
Facts are those items that can be proven over and over. A thought is just a thought until it becomes a fact. I think it is sleeting outside. I walked upstairs and sure enough it was coming down. Now it is a fact that it is sleeting outside.
Theories are just theories until I can take proven facts and reproduce the same results over and over again. Water freezes at 32 degrees F. Every time I put a dish of water out on the porch when the outside temp is below 32 degrees, when the temperature of the water reaches 32 the water freezes everytime. It freezes even if I put out boiling water instead of luke warm water. This is assuming that the attributes of the water aren’t altered in any way. When this action causes the same results everytime I do this experiment then it becomes a scientific fact or law.
Doug do you need a refresher on the ‘Law’ of gravity.
Doug, if the Creationists would take the time to read the myriad of creation myths from around the world, say compiled by someone like Joseph Campbell, perhaps they would see what we are trying to say… But, I havent found many willing to do so… yet…
I didn’t make it up Chas, orbits are based on “Barycenters,” which is a common point of gravitational forces where orbiting bodies meet.
The moon has its own “barycenter” with the Earth and both are pulled towards the sun’s stronger gravitational barycenter in which both the moon’s and earth’s orbits are affected.
Click on my name here and get linked to a really great Christian website that supports teaching evolution.Some good sermons here!
Then, WHY do you demand a source to observe evidence of evolution??
What????
I thought science operated on proof. Can’t provide it, right?
Kansas, that is soooooo interestink.
Well, it’s been fun… Off to lunch break now… Later all!!
I’m quite familiar with gravity, I’m not the one who is suggesting that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. I can’t even believe this needs to be discussed but I don’t converse with people as ignorant as creationists in my daily life.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/Is%20God%20a%20Delusion.doc
This one sounds interesting enough.
Tracy — I’ve been involved in that project for nearly 3 years now… EXCELLENT web site!! Thanks for posting that!!
Boy howdy, I do hear that Doug!!It’s getting harder and harder to be a part of reality these days!!
Posted by: Chas. | December 06, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Chas one assumption you always make is that you are always right. I’m not trying to tell you I am right - I merely told you what I believe. Would you like me to give you some reading suggestions to support my point?
Thought not. According to you, you have read many of the same books I have. I just interpreted them differently.
Isn’t diversity great?
Tracy, you might note that Butler University either is or was a university of the Christian Church - Disciples of Christ…
God represents the unknown.Until we know everything, (s)he will exist.
There is no such thing as free lunch.
Where did the singularity come from?
What about the laws of physics?
Ksgrm, as I have told you countless times before, believe whatever you want!! That is certainly your choice… And I also said earlier, I was happy to see that you dont want ID taught in the schools… I dont see where you think I am attacking you… You always claim that you are under attack!!
“If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze,”-rfl
“Have you tried learning about how evolution really works, as opposed to the caricature you described?”-nunyer
nunyer,
Will you tell me how it works or will you kindly suggest I read a website?
I will read the website when I have more time. However, for today’s discussion can you correct my apparent misguided summary of evolution in your own words?
Or is it too complicated?
Tracy, how can you have laws of physics, if you are off believing that the earth doesnt revolve around the sun?? :: shaking head ::
Chas….Noted.It’s Theistic evo for me!God’s plan IS evolution.Try to stop it, just try!I dare ya!Go ahead,
knock this fossil off my shoulder!
Doug when you condescend to the masses around you with the attitude you have it doesn’t make you right only arrogant.
Until you can prove scientifically that evolution indeed happened your argument is baseless.
As Outlanders USAToday poll show the majority of US citizens don’t agree with you.
Tracy has a good point because I can actually see how evolution and ID can co-exist. I am confortable in my position and don’t have to make fun of others beliefs.
I have many questions that science hasn’t answered. Still waiting for the origin of life to be explained.
Scientific facts aren’t determined by a popular vote like American Idol ksgrm. It’s sad that that had to be pointed out to you. An example of many facts supporting the fact of evolution were presented in the Nova show about the Dover trial. They were explained so even simpletons could understand. I don’t know how I can dumb them down any further for you.
rfl,
Smugness is the luxury enjoyed by those who comprehend. Your posts thus far don’t qualify you for any such privilege.
The object domain of scientists consists of objects in nature.
The object domain of philosophers of science is scientists, as they go about doing science–which is to say, as they go about observing, measuring, hypothesizing, experimenting, and critiquing, all with regard to nature.
Philosophers of science ask descriptive and normative questions scientists may not ask, like ‘what counts as a fact?’ Given your ignorance about the disputed status of ‘facts’ within science (one doesn’t ‘believe’ facts, rfl; one them), you’re getting ahead of yourself by demanding them with regard to evolution.
It is quite unclear what you are accusing me of, although you know that, in some vague way, you disagree with me, and want to act as if what I’ve said is controversial.
What I have said about Intelligent Design may be controversial, but only to someone who isn’t a scientist. You appear to want to engage me a debate about the “factual” “evidence” for “evolution.” I freely admit that I’m not qualified to have that sort of a discussion; I’m not a scientist. I suspect you aren’t, either, given your apparently unreconstructed idea of what does and does not consist of a ‘fact’ within a scientific context.
If you ARE a scientist, rfl, or if you have some special background that qualifies you to render informed judgments about the scientific facts that support the theory of evolution, I’d like to hear about it.
As it stands, you appear to have an unreconstructed notion of what counts as ‘empirical’ as your bright evidentiary line, and that’s about it. Not much of a basis for asserting what you’re asserting.
Hmmm. TypeKey wouldn’t let me use brackets to emphasize the word ‘knows’, as in “one doesn’t ‘believe’ fact, rfl, one *knows* them.”
And even weirder, TypeKey wouldn’t even let me be myself in the above post.
Fer cryin’ out loud, the earth doesn’t rotate about the sun? Ye gads, Kansas, try again.
The average (mean) distance from the earth to the sun is 1.49 x 10^11 m.
The mass of the earth is 5.98 x 10^24 kg and the mass of the sun is 1.99 x 10^30 kg.
The mean radius of the earth is 6.37 x 10^6 m.
The mean radius of the sun is 6.96 x 10^8 m.
The distance from (the center of the sun) to (the center of mass of the sun-earth system) is found by taking
(mass of the earth)*(earth-sun distance)/(sum of the earth’s & sun’s masses)
This distance is 4.48 x 10^5 m, less than 0.1% of the sun’s radius.
So the center of mass of the sun-earth system is located well within the sun itself, and the earth is indeed orbiting the sun.
****************************ksgrm, thank you for your thoughtful response. I hope to get back online later!
Can someone who believes ID is science tell me what provable/disprovable predictions it makes?
The problem with teaching kids “alternatives” to discuss is that anyone who takes the side that ID is bunk will be accused of denegrating religion.
Sorry - translating to English:
The sun is so much more massive than the Earth that the center of mass of the two objects is buried waaaay inside the sun.
If the sun & the earth were on a teeter-totter, the ‘balance point’ would be just about right underneath the center of the sun.
Still, it moves!
Job opening:
Evolutionist - Grade 10
Tasks:
Take one pool of primordial ooze and in 4 billion years develop tens of thousands of different species along with suitable environment for subsequent survivability on a planet yet to be specified. Must make “evolving” species over the time specified as instant Laboratory models are not desired nor intended to be the purpose of the project. Extra bonus for “evolving” intelligent beings which can be your replacement so you can be qualified for Evolutionist 11 grade.
Must provide own energy sources and elements.
Apply at the front desks. Resumes not typed will not be accepted.
How many times does this ‘what is taught in schools’ debate have to surface before people start chanting:
“This has all happened before. This will all happen again.”
The cause of this ‘problem’ is simple to identify. The monopolistic school system deciding what is taught to all the children. We need a system where parents choose the schools. Empowering the individual, not some bureaucrats insolated for the consequences of bad decisions.
This is why I really hate it when WEBlog gets going on ID and Darwin. Things get real crazy. Like Kansas trying to prove the Earth doesn;t revolve around the sun!
Those who think the Earth was created in 6 days and is only 6k years old will blather on and on and on and on.
Those of us who believe in science will blather on and on and on and on and nothing will be resolved!
silly hopeless crap
HEY BOY….Can I still believe in science and God?
Tracy:
I do!
Me too!!
“It is quite unclear what you are accusing me of”-CF2K
I am quite clear in that I insist that tenets claiming scientific hegemony be defended based on the principles of science, NOT philosophy/science.
Based on your assertions, you provide room for philosophy when refering the the widely held claim that evolution and all of its tenets are scientifically proven.
That is where I have expressed my dissagreement.
To obtain knowledge, one conceptualizes a hypothesis that is consistent with scientific logic. That hypothesis must be testible and observed in order to bridge the gap into the realm of indisputable truth.
If that gap is or can not be made through the effort or the scientist, then the gap is bridged by philosophers. The point where the philosopher comes into the play is the point in time where debate can begin.
If evolution where fully defended by the science, than there would be no need for the philosopher. Period!
That evolutionist quoted in the thread introduction above is a philosopher. I rest my case.Therefore, Evolution is suject to debate because it is not proven from a purely scientific standpoint. It can not claim hegenomy in the classroom.
Until that happens, the philosophers that you believe in and who attempt to “prove” evolution will be met with incredulity because of their own world view bias that rejects creationism/ID.
If you disagree, look in all the pro-evolution posts above. How many defend evolution without disparaging creation/ID? Hence, where then is the basis for their belief? If science is behind evolution, cite the evidence. IF not, no need to criticize creation. Hence no need for a philosopher.
Correction:
If so, no need to criticize creation. Hence no need for a philosopher.
Tracy has a good point because I can actually see how evolution and ID can co-exist. I am confortable in my position and don’t have to make fun of others beliefs.Posted by: ksgrm | December 06, 2007 at 12:54 PM
So right, ksgrm! I have no problem believing that evolution is the tool of God. How God makes it all work is beyond me, but I have faith that God makes it happen.
“Once again the thought ‘if you believe in nothing you will believe in anything’.”
But this isn’t possible! If you believe in NOTHING, you are a Nihilist. But that would mean one bellieves in something, .i.e., nothing. Ergo, one cannot believe in “nothing.”
rfl,”If evolution where fully defended by the science, than there would be no need for the philosopher. Period!”
The scientists that I know are much to busy doing the research they became scientists to do to spend time trying to explain the basics to religious yokels who refused to learn them in school. Philosophers will explain anything to anyone, so they got the job!
Kansas,There is no “law of gravity”. There is Newton’s law of gravitation, which is completely different from the theory of gravity.
“In scientific usage gravitation and gravity are distinct. “Gravitation” is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while “gravity” specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton’s, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other. Another (discredited) example is Le Sage’s theory of gravitation, in which massive objects are effectively pushed towards each other.”
What this means is gravity is still a theory, because the mechanics of it are still not fully understood. But gravity still works, regardless.
The moon revolves around the earth, via gravity. The earth revolves around the sun via gravity, the sun revolves around the milky way, via gravity. If they didn’t, we would not be here. It is centrifugal force that is slowly pulling the moon away from the earth, and has been for millions of years. Basic physics 101.
There is also no “Laws of physics.” That is a misnomer, because physics is still not fully understood. Look at quantum mechanics; that is part of the phisics equation. If there ever is a tested theory of everything, then laws can be generated, but not now, when it’s still inits infancy.
For those poor souls who think I’m uniformed and perhaps nuts. Maybe you include the scientists at NASA nuts as well.
“What’s a Barycenter?
You’ve no doubt heard that Earth revolves around the sun. Well, actually, that’s not quite true!”
cont’d at:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/barycntr.shtml
Kansas, did you bother to read nunyer’s reply to you? Because of the massive difference in, uhm, mass, the Earth does in fact orbit around the sun.
Still, actually I think you do have a good point in there, although its application to this issue is not what, I suspect, you would think that it is. Namely, that science teaching should not consist of certainties, but how information is used to make predictions about the natural world.
As for the “poll” information about evolution, here is the unfortunate reality. Evolution is not taught adequately in most public schools in the country because it is so controversial. Even though creationist and ID frauds have lost in court cases, too many teachers and school districts make the understandable decision to avoid the uproar if evolution was given its due as one of the unifying concepts of biological science. Now, that being said, there is also the reality that people don’t remember a lot of what they were taught in school, particularly secondary school (how many of you think you could do as well on the algebra or history tests you took in high school after studying for them?). Then there is the obvious, a majority opinion on a point of reality does not necessarily correspond to the actual reality in question.
Finally, there is a canard here that is being recycled by a number of folks here, particularly rfl, ksgrm, and outlander. This is the idea that historical sciences can not be tested or produce replicable results. This is false. Historical events leave marks upon the physical world that can be examined and re-examined. For example:
1) A meteor impact crater leaves evidence of ejecta around it. If ejecta is found around a suspected crater site, then other expeditions should also find such ejecta around the suspected site. This is replication.
2) I sited an article in another thread about retroviral DNA in the DNA of humans, apes, and Old World Monkeys. The hypothesis is that this is inherited evidence of infection in a common ancestor. If this is the case, then an examination of the DNA of any old world monkey, non-human great ape or human, collected from anywhere in the world, should have that DNA. This is a prediction, and it is replicable, even though it is a test of an infection that is believed to have happened millions of years ago.
There are all sorts of historical sciences that depend on replication. In fact, it is the popular subject of television series like CSI, and we hear news reports about historical sciences all the time, such as people being convicted or exonerated of crimes that happened years ago because of DNA evidence left at the scene. Paternity testing is also a historical science. One does not have to witness the sexual act that resulted in conception to confirm a hypothesis about ‘who is the father’. Evolution (the idea of common descent) not only makes testable predictions, it makes predictions that can be tested in a number of ways. By definition, such tests of predictions are replicable.
Actually I did read Nunyer’s response.
It is partially correct with an understanding of elementary physics, it is not how orbiting celestial bodies orbit though.
They orbit as described and it is because these orbits that planets have “wobble” with orbits that make synchronous orbit an unsatisfactory explanation when it comes to explaining trajectory via relative position.
There is more to science than meets the eye.
The deeper one gets into Science, the more we understand that we don’t have the knowledge of it that we thought we did.
Speaking with more targeted focus I’m saying that we barely have a grasp of the fundamentals and our understanding of why the fundamentals happen may be flawed or based on incomplete science.
That’s why I laugh when someone says that a certain science is an absolute certainty. If they only knew. :)—–
What exactly IS industrial hygiene anyway?
Anyone know?
Is that where you tell steel workers to wash their hands?
I cannot believe that Kansas is going to hang on to this absurdity that the Earth does not orbit the Sun!! That is total poppycock!!
And what’s more, anybody with brains KNOWS its poppycock!!
“Kansas,” you blithering idiot –
No one except wing-nut strawmen has ever said “a certian science is an absolute certainty.”
Science — every science — is about asking questions and challenging discoveries.
It’s religion that claims “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Besides, Kansas, you ignored what I said earlier… If the Earth doesnt orbit the Sun, then the Moon doesnt orbit the Earth, and the electrons dont orbit the nucleus of the Atom… Hey, its YOUR idea… nobody else’s!!
Agnostic predictions of expected results are one thing but not evolution. When a meteor hits and ejecta is found around the site this will always have the composition of the original meteor. No change in composition.
The second theory is also totally different. If animals were able to catch communicable diseases from humans say for argument sake, The Plague, we would then be able to isolate that infection in the DNA centuries later. It wouldn’t change in composition.
The assumption in evolution is that form and matter change in structure and DNA makeup to make an entirely differentl piece of living material over time. This has never been replicated.
You launched a good argument but failed to bring in the brass ring. This is probably why so many people still have faith in ID. The magnigicant creatures we are would have to be the handiwork of a very intelligent designer IMOHO.
Electrons don’t really orbit and they don’t “move” in the same way planets do Chas. Perhaps Ben will explain this to you as it is a basic understanding of chemical property physics.
Heisenberg, the physicist, explained this several decades ago Chas. I suppose you missed that lecture in your ’science’ class.
Did you even bother to read the NASA link Chas that explained Barycenters and why a geocentric orbit is not really accurate because of gravitational forces?
“The assumption in evolution is that form and matter change in structure and DNA makeup to make an entirely differentl piece of living material over time. This has never been replicated.”
(Ksgrm)
===========================Unless I am totally mistaken, that “asumption” is NOT a part of the over all evolution picture, thus, it has no bearing on the evolution theory question.
Kansas, since the orbit of planets is an observable phenomenon, you are still quite full of it… Sorry!!
Kansas, why must you pretend to be an expert in nearly every subject posted on this Blog?? We all know you arent!! But WHY do you make the attempt??
Chas, instead of writing more foolish folly, why not read the link?
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/barycntr.shtml
Chas I know this is elementary for some people. I have to ‘assume’ that you aren’t a monkey. Therefore if you are evolved from a lesser species then you must have evolved from something. What assumption are you having trouble with.
Kansas I understand exactly what you said. Right on.
Sorry, Kansas, you have simply misinterpreted what that link is saying..
Ksgrm… Your faulty assumption is that evolution assumes that you evolved from a monkey.. And it makes no such claim!! And the DNA evidence proves that point!!
Kansas, the earth orbits on its own axis, as well as orbiting the Sun… The Moon orbits the Earth… The whole Solar System orbits around some point in the Galaxy… What is there about those extremely fundamental concepts that you are missing??
Chas the monkey part was simply an example, the one most commonly used by evolutionists in their diagrams. If you were full blown when that goo stuff was hit with the electrical charge then you didn’t evolve. If your structure and DNA has changed since that time then my assumption is right.
You appear to be striking out all the way around today.
Explain how the DNA proves your point.
Ksgrm, your other faulty assumption is that evolution claims that humans evolved from Monkeys… Not true again… We have DNA that bears close resemblance to chimpanzees… But, alas, chimpanzees are NOT monkeys… Try again, please.
Chas,
Kansas is nit-picking (aka trolling) about the center of gravity issue causing stars, planets, etc to wobble.
I have been watching this thread all day and would have to concur with nunyer ans Chas………..The troll-boy (Kansas) is just plain full of crap.
He started out this whole planetary orbit stuff with a blaring error: Rotation is the motion around a celestial boby’s axis; REVOLUTION is the orbit of one object around another. That’s pretty simple stuff even without going into the “barycenter” line. Face it troll-boy…..reading something on a website does NOT make you an expert in a field.
Thats all too obvious, Cosmos… And Apophis, I agree with you 100%
I am still trying to figure out how Kansas thinks he is an expert on nearly every subject posted on the Blog, when almost everybody knows differently… LOL
Okay Chas, I get it.
You call me out for being a know it all and yet you didn’t even read the information at the link properly, but yet “YOU KNOW IT ALL” to say that I am wrong.
You are telling everyone that NASA and I are wrong.
So who is the KNOW IT ALL now Chas?
You just hate being proved wrong and by God you won’t admit being wrong will you Chas?
You haven’t yet, but please do keep making a fool of yourself, please.
It’s quite entertaining.
reading something on a website does NOT make you an expert in a field.
Posted by: Apophis
And you state that from personal experience, Apophis?
OK OK change my earlier remarks from “orbit” to revolve… and Kansas is still full of it! LOL
reading something on a website does NOT make you an expert in a field.
Posted by: Apophis | December 06, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Actually, Middle School Science Teacher, I’ve read quite a bit on this subject and have four college level physics courses under my belt.
I linked to the Website, because it is a NASA Website and it easily understood by those not into geeky facts and formulas.
No, Kansas… I didnt say NASA is wrong… just YOU… You misinterpreted the link… and, sorry, but I did read it… And it is talking about center of gravity… The object called Earth spins(rotates) on its own axis… That is what the NASA page is talking about… Earth revolves around the Sun… Everybbody knows that, but maybe the Flat Earth people… and a select number of others…
One more thing Chas, read up on how electrons interact, they don’t revolve or orbit either. That theory went out with the 19th century.
That’s OK Kansas… I will let you believe you are the total expert on nearly everything… I wouldnt want you to melt down, and find out that you really arent! Have an nice evening… I am not playing the troll game any more on this subject…
Chas I will change my statement to ‘humans are thought by scientists and evolutionists to be evolved from__________. You fill in the blank.
“The assumption in evolution is that form and matter change in structure and DNA makeup to make an entirely different piece of living material over time. This has never been replicated.”
I stand by my original ‘assumption’ but you don’t have to agree. You do however need to stop telling me my assumption is wrong unless you have some scientific proof you haven’t brought out yet. Now is the time.
Chas, I’m not trolling, I’m having a discussion. You’re the one who accused me of making up stuff.
When I show and prove to you that I’m not making it up, you then call me a “know it all.”
Then when that doesn’t work, you join your fellow Libs in calling me a “troll.”
I tried very hard to make a reasonable discussion with you Chas and you reacted immaturely and poorly.
Getting Chas to stay on topic and conduct a respectable discussion is like trying to eat jello with a toothpick.
WHOA!
This is classic troll behavior on the part of the troll–say something that is technically true but that runs counter to what everybody in the world knows to be true in the general sense.
Then the bona-fide posts try to correct the troll, and he just sits back and reposts his smart-ass nit-picking.
From “The Definitive Guide to Trolling”:
An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Trolls delight in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, “searching for the truth”, flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.
Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it.
When trolls are completely ignored they sometimes step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed.
*****
Kansas belongs to the Classic Troll type:
The Deceptive or “Classic” Troll. More sophisticated but often easily identified and exposed, the Classic Troll gratifies his ego by pretending to be someone or something he or she is not. Classics make up elaborate stories about themselves, sometimes weaving some amounts of truth into their lies. As a web of lies is difficult to build with consistency, however, Classics are often “outed” by other forumites. When this happens, Classic Trolls have a bag of tricks to which they turn:
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 1: If the heat gets too much for you, claim it was all “a joke.” In this way you can excuse any and all deceit by claiming people just weren’t smart enough to “get” the humor of it.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 2: Create another account, and log on pretending to be someone else, in order to show support for the Troll in Question (TiQ). These puppet accounts sometimes claim to be disinterested third parties. At other times they pretend to be “friends” of the TiQ.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 3: When your lies paint you into a corner, claim that your little brother, or some unnamed friend, has commandeered your account and made you look foolish. This technique can also be applied in claiming that the puppet account(s) you created may not, in fact, be disinterested third parties or friends, but that they are your relatives (”little brother” is most common) only trying to help support you.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 4: When nothing else works, claim that now, finally, you’re telling the truth about all the lies you told before. Make up a fresh set of lies, and throw yourself on the mercy of the forumites.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 5: When all else fails, claim to be leaving forever. Trolls who claim they are leaving never do, of course; you can bet that anyone who proclaims, “I’m never coming back here,” will most certainly at least check back for responses, and probably will not be able to resist posting again.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 6: Have a tantrum. When all their other tricks are exhausted, Classic Trolls will become angry and start shouting. Often they revert to Vulgar Trolls when this happens.
– Classic Troll Tactic Number 7: The insincere apology. Similar to Tactic 4, this involves pretending to repent for one’s trolling and is accompanied often by great melodrama. Insincere troll apologists hope that they’ll be forgiven if only they act disgusted enough with their own behavior.
*****
Kansas has exhibited practically every single one of those criteria.
Does the fact that I teach “middle school” make me less knowledgeable that someone who teaches high school? That may be your opinion, but it isn’t the opinion of my high school peers.
Here’s an idea troll-boy, know what the hell you’re talking about before you start babbling.
BTW, of course the earth orbits the sun. But as it does so, the sun (which is not fixed in space) moves slightly in response.
If one is an Classic Troll like Kansas, one could argue that this means that the sun also orbits the earth, even though no one in their right mind would think of it like that.
Thank you for ignoring THE TROLL.
The Management
Kansas,I saw the discovery channel show on orbits, center of gravity, etc. There was something in it you forgot to mention: Were the sun not there, the earth would not be here. Were the earth not here, the sun still would be there.While the orbits of both the sun and the earth revolve around a center of gravity, you will find that center still within the sun, hence the micro-movements making planet finding possible.
Ergo, since the center still resides in the sun, the earth, while revolving around a center of gravity, finds that center to reside in the sun, therefore, it revolves around the sun. The rest is wordplay.
For exactly the same reason, the moon still revolves around the earth, because the center of gravity still resides in the earth.
When the center of gravity no longer reside in either the sun, or the earth, both the moon, and the earth will stop revolving around their respective centers, and wonder off for places unknown. Your basic sling-shot effect. Wave as you swing past uranus.
I can show you Capn where you meet everyone of those definition of a troll.
You have made statements towards me in this forum and every other forum that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
You are a nic switcher and according to writerdog a nic stealer.
How about just shutting your big hole Capn and blogging like most adults do on this blog.
You want to be the center of attention, so you stop your feet, run away to another forum, harass people, call them names, make up stuff, stalk people and yes even try to justify your existence by posting “troll” description of which fit you perfectly.
Just blog, loser.
No one is forcing you to make these comments about me, you are doing this on your own for harassment purposes only.
They serve no other purpose than to be a harassing, hypocritical troll.
That’s true Stumper, but I didn’t know you were going to throw out a tangential argument how what I said wouldn’t work without a sun.
If I had known we were going to be talking about a system with out a sun, then I would have adjusted my writings to not include a “solar” system.
Okay, I’m out of this thread. It appears the Libs are out to once again, make mass ad hominem remarks towards me instead of intelligently discussing the issues at hand.
Dog piling in blogs is a definite Lib attribute.
Boo hoo. I’ll get you a tissue.
OK Ksgrm… Try this — I am assuming you are human, and not some robot… YOU are a distinctly new piece of living material that your mother or father… And yet, your DNA shares a similar, yet not exact, replication of your parents.. Thus, YOU, and I, are in fact, evidence of the evolution you just cant seem to see… So, all you really need to do is look in the mirror for your “proof”
. . . but, adjusting your writing to not include a solar system would make this whole exercise moot: we wouldn’t be here in the first place:-)
rfl,
You clearly did not understand the point I was arguing or the larger claims I was making about the relation of the philosophy of science to science. Instead, you offered this:
“To obtain knowledge, one conceptualizes a hypothesis that is consistent with scientific logic. That hypothesis must be testible and observed in order to bridge the gap into the realm of indisputable truth.”
From your standpoint, however, there’s just one thing wrong with this understanding of scientific method, particularly with the notion of ‘testability’: it arises from the work of a philosopher, namely Karl Popper.
Here is his notion of ‘falsifiability,’ without which the criterion of ‘testability’ doesn’t mean very much at all:
“1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers - for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html
And what is most interesting, of course, is that Intelligent Design absolutely is not falsifiable. That is, proponents of ID simply refuse to stipulate conditions under which ID could ever be false. However, a theory that can’t, in principle, be proven false also is one that can’t be proven true.
Oh, and evolution? It is absolutely falsifiable–and therefore, verifiable.
“It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn’t, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]”
And just because I can’t resist, here’s a response to what I, perhaps uncharitably, see as your obtuseness about the relation of philosophy and science:
“Most scientists are not philosophically inclined and will make use of whatever is a help in their work, but not in the way Feyerabend thought. Reflective scientists know that it’s all how you ask the question that counts. Most physicists would not immediately think that atomic theory could be false, either. They are answering the question “is it likely to be dropped later on?” not the philosophical “could it in theory be dropped?” which is a different issue. Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, “evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn’t science” are like the janitor who says that teachers don’t keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren’t teachers.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
Once again, the religious thread attracts the liberals of tbe blog like bees to honey!
They all want to believe. They want to participate. They need to find God.
But the koolaid just keeps them from finding God.
Accept to post and whine.
But the WEBLOG is smart - you want numbers: POST ANOTHER GOD THREAD.
The liberals cannot resist!
Dog piling in blogs is a definite Lib attribute.
Posted by: Kansas | December 06, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Score:Kansas: 100Liberal flaming trolls: 0
Man created God.
Some of the weaker among men need God as a child needs a blankie.
“The assumption in evolution is that form and matter change in structure and DNA makeup to make an entirely different piece of living material over time. This has never been replicated.”
I’m sorry, what? I can’t figure out if you’re saying that the form and matter of an INDIVIDUAL changes in structure and DNA make up over time (which it does not, and which is definitely not part of evolutionary theory)
or you’re saying that DNA makeup and structural changes have never been demonstrated. This is WRONG. A single base deletion can cause a frameshift mutation, resulting in a whole different reading of the DNA. Chromosomes can split or fuse, at least in plants. A change in the nucleotide sequence can cause the secondary structure of DNA to change, like causing hairpin loops and whatnot.
I have a birth mark on my tummy that neither of my parents have. That’s a structural change, isn’t it?
We, as a population, are taller than we were hundreds of years ago. That’s evolution, it happens at the population scale, not at the level of an individual.
Thanks Tara… That just backs up what I basically said upthread.. But I think you said it better than i did… Anyway, thanks!!
Tara and Charles mankind is the same even if they are 6′ tall or 4’short. They look different but are still the same species, homo sapiens. Now when that ’species’ changes to another species then that would be evolution.
Tara what you describe is the result of eating better or some other conditional change. This doesn’t mean that the species is changing.
Just as dogs grow thicker hair in the winter to protect them against the cold, humans adapt to different surroundings. This is still a homo sapien adapting to his environment. Don’t know how to say that in any simpler terms.
Hope you understand it this time.
Well that would be Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. Those beings able to adapt to their environment have an increased chance of reproductive success passing their adaptive traits to future offspring.
I don’t see where the disagreement is.
On the other hand creationists say there is no adaptation which has been scientifically disproven.
We should stop having this ridiculous debate and just discuss what this is really about. Evolution is a scientific fact. Period. Intelligent Design, Creationism, or whatever other name you what to attach to it, is a religious idea. Period. ID has no business in a science curriculum and no business in a science classroom. There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution, from molecular biology to the organismal level to ecological to historical, you name it. There is not one piece of SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting any kind of ID/creationist claim - NONE - and until there is, ID does not belong in the science classroom. End of discussion.
What this is really about is an effort by the religious right to force their agenda of introducing religious education into public school curricula, and the ID/evolution “issue” is the tip of the wedge. This is a well-known and admitted component of their strategy.
If ID or creation myths (and until the ID camp can produce some - ANY - testable, quantifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, SCIENTIFIC evidence in support of their claims, that is what they are: myths) are to be taught at all in public schools, then they can be taught in social studies, humanities, or comparative religion studies curricula, where they can be given equal time with origins myths (or stories, if you prefer) from other cultures and religions.
We are naive to keep having these arguments about the relative merits of science vs. creationism and to keep debating the minutae of each and every detail of evolutionary theory with people who either can’t or won’t learn the difference between the scientific meaning and the vernacular meaning of the word “theory.” Ultimately, the burden is on the ID folks to present some kind of evidence that is in keeping with the rigors of scientific inquiry; until then, keep your religious stories out of the science classroom. It would be nice, though, if it were really even about that; if only it could be an honest debate between two competing intellectual models instead of a power grab by a religious contingent that seems to have lost the meaning in their own message long ago.
Oh yeah TC? If evolution is true then why are creationists still dragging their knuckles on the ground?
You got me there, Doug. I’ll have to re-evaluate my entire position. Well played, sir!
My wife actually asks the same question about me - she definitely could have married further up the evolutionary ladder! :)
ksgrm: Your treatise on facts vs. theories needs some work, especially if you are going to take such a pejorative tone. Take some time to learn the difference between the vernacular (common) usage of the word “theory,” which is what you describe in your water example, and the scientific meaning of the word “theory,” which is closer to what you actually defined in your example.
outlander: You say you thought science operated on proof, which, by its absence, demonstrates the correctness of your point. Science does NOT “operate” on proof; science “operates” on evidence. There is a difference. Science never actually PROVES anything, and a good scientist will avoid using the word “proof” or any version of it. We collect data, and the data either supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t. If it does, we say that we have good evidence or that the data suggests, or is statistically significant, or etc., etc. All scientific “facts” are supported by by evidence to varying degrees, but none - even gravity - is supported 100%. If you don’t believe me, look it up. If you drop a rock (say, on Earth), the chances are it will fall to the ground. There is a small chance that it won’t, but that chance (statistically speaking) is so infinitesimally small that it is essentially zero.
This is part of the problem with this debate (and forgive me for sounding like a real a-hole): but people with extremely low science literacy pick up a few stock arguments and run to the discussion boards without understanding - or, in the case of my pet peeve, the (probably intentional) misuse of the word “theory” - even trying to understand certain key scientific concepts, and then folks wonder why scientists, who spend years studying and training, get upset when people want to teach kids to “think critically” in science class! When the ID camp can correctly use the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the the word “theory” AND produce ONE piece of scientific evidence, then we can START to have a serious discussion.
ksgrm: Your treatise on facts vs. theories needs some work, especially if you are going to take such a pejorative tone. Take some time to learn the difference between the vernacular (common) usage of the word “theory,” which is what you describe in your water example, and the scientific meaning of the word “theory,” which is closer to what you actually defined in your example.
outlander: You say you thought science operated on proof, which, by its absence, demonstrates the correctness of your point. Science does NOT “operate” on proof; science “operates” on evidence. There is a difference. Science never actually PROVES anything, and a good scientist will avoid using the word “proof” or any version of it. We collect data, and the data either supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t. If it does, we say that we have good evidence or that the data suggests, or is statistically significant, or etc., etc. All scientific “facts” are supported by by evidence to varying degrees, but none - even gravity - is supported 100%. If you don’t believe me, look it up. If you drop a rock (say, on Earth), the chances are it will fall to the ground. There is a small chance that it won’t, but that chance (statistically speaking) is so infinitesimally small that it is essentially zero.
This is part of the problem with this debate (and forgive me for sounding like a real a-hole): but people with extremely low science literacy pick up a few stock arguments and run to the discussion boards without understanding - or, in the case of my pet peeve, the (probably intentional) misuse of the word “theory” - even trying to understand certain key scientific concepts, and then folks wonder why scientists, who spend years studying and training, get upset when people want to teach kids to “think critically” in science class! When the ID camp can correctly use the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the the word “theory” AND produce ONE piece of scientific evidence, then we can START to have a serious discussion.
“Tara and Charles mankind is the same even if they are 6′ tall or 4’short. They look different but are still the same species, homo sapiens. Now when that ’species’ changes to another species then that would be evolution.”
No name poster–We DO have evidence for speciation.
Take a look at the Silversword Alliance.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n17_v139/ai_10725112
Also, Ksgram, your example of water freezing every time you put it in the freezer: Strictly speaking, this is not proof. This is evidence supporting that water will freeze every time it goes into the freezer. You have not proven that it will freeze every single time. I can tell by this post that you have very little grasp of scientific vocabulary.
See, when observing nature we can’t “prove” anything, only have pretty darn strong evidence for things.
Take my silversword alliance article upthread (sorry for all the plant references, but I study plant systematics and evolution). We have not directly observed tarweeds evolving into silverswords because they came here millions of years back and we weren’t alive then, but we DO have ways of hypothesizing and creating testable experiments in the field of evolution.
“Tara what you describe is the result of eating better or some other conditional change. This doesn’t mean that the species is changing.
Just as dogs grow thicker hair in the winter to protect them against the cold, humans adapt to different surroundings. This is still a homo sapien adapting to his environment. Don’t know how to say that in any simpler terms.
Hope you understand it this time.”
No, no, no, no, no. What you are describing in a dog is called plasticity, which is a form of adaptation but not one that is significant in evolutionary theory. The dog’s DNA doesn’t change in the winter (although certain genes are probably activated) in order to make it grow a coat.
Us being significantly taller, as a population, is not due to simple plasticity, though it may have played a part. Our heights, for the MOST part, are genetically determined. Poor or excellent nutrition will affect it to some degree, but for the most part it is attributed to your parents’ height.
We are taller as a population because our genes are coded to allow for us to be taller than in past generations. THAT is evolution, plain and simple. A change in gene frequencies in a population over time.
“Okay, I’m out of this thread. It appears the Libs are out to once again, make mass ad hominem remarks towards me instead of intelligently discussing the issues at hand.
“Dog piling in blogs is a definite Lib attribute.”
Clasic troll behavior. Accuse the other side of ad hominem remarks in a post full of ad hominem remarks.
Re: Kansas
DNFTT
“Score:Kansas: 100Liberal flaming trolls: 0″
Blatant flame bait.
Re: Comment tater
DNFTT
“Once again, the religious thread attracts the liberals of tbe blog like bees to honey!
“They all want to believe. They want to participate. They need to find God.
“But the koolaid just keeps them from finding God.
“Accept to post and whine.
“But the WEBLOG is smart - you want numbers: POST ANOTHER GOD THREAD.
“The liberals cannot resist!”
More flame baiting.
Re: Pat Herron
DNFTT
“Agnostic predictions of expected results are one thing but not evolution. When a meteor hits and ejecta is found around the site this will always have the composition of the original meteor. No change in composition.”
You missed the point, ksgrm. Here is something you said in an earlier post:
ksgrm quoting stumper: ” ‘..facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.’ ”
“Stumper this isn’t true of evolution anymore than it is of ID.
“Gravity on the other hand is now a ‘law’ because it can be proven by repeated observations. The two are not alike.”
I interpreted this, and I am almost certain correctly, as a claim against evolution because it his a historical science. Since you are talking about something that happened in the past, the argument goes, it can not be replicated and therefore it is not ’science’. The meteor example (BTW, your example regarding composition was too simplistic, but that’s a different discussion) is an example of something that happened ‘in the past’ but left physical evidence that can be gathered and analyzed, and that gathering and analysis can be replicated. I then went on to give several other examples of how historical events can be investigated scientifically. You, in replying to me, completely ignored this point. Your clam that “gravity” and “evolution” are completely different because one can be observed and the other one cannot, is invalid. Period.
“The second theory is also totally different. If animals were able to catch communicable diseases from humans say for argument sake, The Plague, we would then be able to isolate that infection in the DNA centuries later. It wouldn’t change in composition.”
I have a name for this sort of behavior. Have you ever seen Saturday Night Live and the late Gilda Radner’s character Rosanne Rosanna Danna? She would go on and on about something and say “It’s always something.” Sometimes, when confronted with something that contradicts a stongly held world view, a person will try to come up with something, anything, to contradict it. That’s what I am seeing here.
“The second theory is also totally different.”
Based on what you wrote following this, I am not sure you even understood it.
“If animals were able to catch communicable diseases from humans say for argument sake, The Plague, we would then be able to isolate that infection in the DNA centuries later.”
The Plague is, as I recall, caused by a bacterium. We are talking about retroviruses. Retroviruses hijack the DNA of their host organism to make copies of themselves. As a result, they may leave pieces of their DNA in the DNA of their host organism. This can occur anywhere along an organism’s DNA. When a viral infection leaves a copy of its DNA in its host’s DNA before that organism reproduces, then that DNA is passed on to his/her descendents. Furthermore, that DNA is passed on in the same location on the genome. Therefore, when you see evidence of the same DNA in the same location in a population of humans, the assumption is that these people are all descended from an ancestor who had that infection. The rules do not change when you see the same thing in a human and a chimpanzee, and finding the same retroviral DNA in humans and chimps and baboons is what one would expect if they shared a common ancestor. Prediction, test, confirmation.
“It wouldn’t change in composition.”
If you had two seperate infections of two different organism’s, it would. But if you had one infection of one ancestor, you would find the same DNA in the same location in even varied descendents. You are simply, factually, wrong.
“The assumption in evolution is that form and matter change in structure and DNA makeup to make an entirely differentl piece of living material over time. This has never been replicated.”
DNA is the same molecule no matter the organism. It’s the sequences in that same molecule result in morphological differences (like body shape, limbs, etc.). Here, you repeat the very same argument that has been discredited. Evidence of shared ancestry can be found and analyzed, and the finding and analysis of that evidence is replicable.
“You launched a good argument but failed to bring in the brass ring. This is probably why so many people still have faith in ID.”
No, people have faith in ID because it matches their religious viewpoints. The Wedge Document reveals ID for what it is, a deliberate attempt to come up with a scientific sounding explanation for a predetermined conclusion. It is no coincidence that the majority of ID and creationist activism comes from fundamentalist christians, muslims, and ultra-orthodox jews (that is, people with a conservative viewpoint of an Abrahamic faith tradition). By definition, if people start with a predetermined conclusion, they will typically not give that conclusion up no matter what conflicting evidence is presented. That is human nature, and all people do it in some area of their lives, but when they do, it should not be confused with reasonable skepticism.
“The magnigicant creatures we are would have to be the handiwork of a very intelligent designer IMOHO.”
I think the very way that sentence is phrased makes my point. In order to be “the magnificient creatures that we are” we “have to be the handiwork of a very intelligent designer IMOHO”. That’s a pre-determined conclusion, and one that will be defended if it is assumed that one conclusion has a more edifying implication about human beings than the other.
For my part, I agree that we are magnificient creatures (as part of a marvelous diversity of maginificient creatures) but my agreement is not predicated by assumptions about “how we got here”.
The Times op-ed noted:
“Professor Forrest testified as an expert witness in a 2005 Dover, Pa., case that found intelligent design supernatural and theological and definitely not part of a scientific education.”
So did Judge Jones belief that biologists’ own use of intelligent design was supernatural? Consider the tools used to understand biological processes: ultracentrifuges, light microscopes, electron microscopes, liquid chromatographs, gas chromatographs, mass spectrometers, scintillation counters, electrophoretic apparati, CT-scanners, computers from PCs to supercomputers.
The scientists and engineers who have given us these marvelous instruments are highly intelligent, and they are designers. The proposition that it takes highly intellligently designed instruments to understand biology, but there is no intelligent design inherent to the thing being studied is curious.
Every molecular biologist views macromolecules to be machines. You have to learn to think like a nano-scale engineer to do productive research. When macromolecules are modified, that’s engineering. When human genes are incorporated into bacteria and yeast to produce lifesaving drugs, that’s called genetic engineering. But there is no engineering underlying the original things being modified? That’s a curious proposition.
An emerging field in technology is biomimicry. Fascinating products are being developed, such as a Mercedes-Benz whose shape and frame is based on the boxfish. It doesn’t look like it should be very aerodynamic, but it is. The use of hexagonal-cells for the frame may one day replace traditional construction.
The study of butterflies’ scales refraction and reflection has generated research in full-color screens for portable digital devices. One benefit is bright images in full sunlight. Another is extremely low power consumption.
Essentially, scientists and engineers must be highly intelligent to design these really cool products in mimicry of nature. But these things in do not represent intelligent design.
Interestingly, the people who deny the existence of intelligent design in the natural world aren’t the people who are designing the instruments that allow investigations in life processes, and they’re not designing the nature-inspired new technology. These endeavors are too hard for them.
If they are certain that life emerged from inert chemicals why haven’t they been able to demonstrate it? After all the theory is well over a century old, and if abiogenesis didn’t involve intelligence, how hard can the problem be to experimentally replicate “dumb” processes?
If they are certain that single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, which then evolved into differentiated-tissue macroorganisms, why haven’t they been able to take a unicellular organism, and progressively mutate it into a multi-tissue primitive invertebrate?
Ah, the certainty of what occurred isn’t matched by knowledge of how to do it. Without the latter, we’re witnessing story-telling, not science.
Interestingly, a biology bachelor’s degree isn’t worth much, except as a springboard to a medical, dental or veterinary education. The main market is schoolteaching.
In stark contrast, physics, chemistry, computer science and engineering bachelor’s degrees are quite valuable, with starting salaries typically in the $40,000-$50,000 range, and in some cases (e.g. petroleum engineering, geophysics) double that. To achieve a given grade average, it takes much more difficult study than it does in biology. Cultivated talent and hard work pay dividends.
Our young people have been dumbed down by too many counterproductive influences, the Hollytainment culture and our schools’ math and science disinterest prominent among them. The educators don’t care if we have to import scientists and engineers. They like their cars, electronics, credit cards, air-trips to distant places, and medical care, but they’re detached from the question, “How do we have these things?”
It’s a lot easier to transmit the concept of evolution than to transmit the concepts of quadratic equations, much less logarithmic and exponential expressions. Evolution-lesson transmission doesn’t require any hard work, on either students or teachers’ part. Mathematics-lesson transmission requires a lot of hard work.
With a solid math foundation, lesson-transmission in physics and chemistry becomes possible–these subjects of note also require very hard work to attain proficiency. Then with these in place, you have a foundation for engineering studies, or you can study biology’s highly challenging modern subsets, such as molecular engineering, bioinformatics, biophysics, neurobiology, quantum biology, et al.
ksagnostic - You are on to something, which I missed last night: ksgrm’s comment about infections being “preserved” in DNA - while he completely misunderstands the mechanism - actually is true and is good evidence in SUPPORT of evolution. The human genome project has demonstrated that there are vast regions of the human genome that are comprised of viral DNA leftover from ancient infections. ksgrm, in trying to “prove” evolution wrong, has actually provided more evidence in support of evolution and against ID thanks to his (her?) own scientific ignorance. Beautiful! Also, pathogens jump species all the time - it’s called zoonosis. In fact, most human pathogens came from domesticated animals (bird flu, anyone?).
Tara: Great posts! And where are all the ID folks today? This always seems to happen: as soon as their arguments are exposed, they always disappear!
“We, as a population, are taller than we were hundreds of years ago. That’s evolution, it happens at the population scale, not at the level of an individual.”
Really Tara. That is so much baloney. I thought that you were a better scientist than that. How did you reach that conclusion? Did you rule out variables, like better nutrition.
Evolution does occur in populations outlander. I’m supposing you never heard of genetic drift. I’m also supposing you don’t read up on a subject before commenting on it.
To say that people being taller today than they were a couple hundred years ago because of evolution or genetic drift is ridiculous. We have better nutrition, we have better medical care. We can give growth hormone to small kids, etc… That is what is responsible for increases in height.
outlander, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you are correct about the height argument. Is that supposed to be an indictment of evolution across the board? Just because people in one population are taller because of nutrition (in reality, it is a multi-factorial phenomenon) doesn’t disprove evolution - not by the longest shot.
TC: Well, duh.
CF2K,
We would not be having this discussion except for what I perceived to be a oxymoronic strategy in repudiating creationism by pro-evolutionist philosophers.
You claim that because ID is a philosophical, that a philosphical response is warranted. This is true but why fight philosophy with philosophy when you can eliminate it with science?
Perhaps, we can save our eyes the pain of reading all these mental gymnastics and read some facts that un-deniably support evolution.
For example you claim:”Oh, and evolution? It is absolutely falsifiable–and therefore, verifiable.”-CF2K
For starters
If you do nothing else in your response, I would like for you to back up this claim of yours that I found conspicuously absent in your last post. How can evolution be falsified? What evidence (or lack thereof) would successfully falsify the idea that all present day life originated from a singular simplisitic organism and was not a product of supernatural special creation?
Furthermore,Would you agree or disagree that those who believe in evolution start from the premise that since it is the only theory (and I do not use the term disparagingly) that seeks to address the question regarding the origins of life devoid of a supernatural entity that it is automatically the most correct? Does that make Evolution true?
Let me reduce it to this: from my discussions with evolutionists, they all seem to believe:
Theory A is theology, Theory B is not, therefore Theory A is wrong and Theory B is right without any conclusive evidence to prove Theory B.
Again I ask, can evolution stand on its own merit as science without the need to show that ID is not science? If so, dispense with all the philosophy and provide conclusive discoveries, evidence, so forth and lets be done with it.
The fact that so much critique of ID is done from a philosophical standpoint and not from a scientific one undermines the “evolution is fact” defense altogether.
This leads credence to the effort to provide a balanced approach in the high school science classroom since neither appear to be completely defensible by science.
Thanks,I’ll be reading the link you provided.
“TC: Well, duh.”
Sorry. My mistake. I guess I should have expected this level of dialogue. Jeez.
Sorry for the flippancy TC. I apologize. “Well, duh” is an impolite way of saying that I agree with you.
“rfl” –
I’ll type slowly so you can keep up.
“Does that make evolution true?” No. It makes evolution science.
Believe, promote, evangelize your ID theories all you want. But it isn’t science. Therefore it doesn’t belong in science class.
All sorts of scientific theories and discoveries have been proven wrong or misunderstood or refined and changed in the course of scientific investigation. Every scientific discover, theory, observation, and conclusion is subject to rexamination, peer review, questioning.
rfl - Like many of your fellow ID supporters, you either misunderstand or are purposefully misusing the scientific meaning of the word “falsifiable.” It does not mean “able to be proved wrong.” Rather, it means, “testable.” The point is not that science is looking for the ID camp to find a piece of evidence, or body of evidence, that falsifies - or disproves - evolution, the point is that the burden is on the ID camp to provide ANY testable, reproducible evidence of creationism or supernatural intervention in the origin of life or the process of development and adaptation of organisms and species over time. Falsifiable means that the the evidence provided has the POTENTIAL to be demonstrated wrong - not that it IS wrong, but just that there is SOME experimental, quantifiable or measurable way to TEST whether it has scientific merit or not. So far, no ID or creationist claim has met that criteria.
All ID’ers need to do is find a human fossil that dates back billions of yrs. ago, and they’d have one hell of an argument!
My last post speaks directly to your argument that “so much critique of ID is done from a philosophical standpoint and not from a scientific one.” The concepts of reproducibility (the experiment, result, measurement, etc., has to be able to be reproduced by a different researcher using the same techniques, under the same conditions, etc.) and falsifiability (see previous post)ARE scientific. One could make the argument that they are philosophical, but that does not somehow distinguish them from being operationally scientific.
As a biologist with years of experience in R&D in industry, a thorough understanding of both sides of the controversy and having taught “alternative theories “ as guest lecturer in a local high school” science curriculum, let me offer the following advice:1) Evolution is ‘sold” as fact. The only fact is that it is a lie, a myth and wishful thinking masquerading as science. Its past is crammed with a shameful array of fraud, lies, hoaxes and deceptions.2) In two cases, the US Supreme Court has declared that evolution, a prominent component under the broader umbrella of “secular humanism” is a non theistic religion in accord with the First Amendment. Evolution, therefore is as much a religion as creation.3) What needs to be taught in the science classroom is science. Not filtered, censored hand picked, selected portions to support a biased belief, but all science in order to fulfill the mandate that our public schools should adhere to for providing students a learning experience. Such is being violated when evidence is suppressed. Presenting all scientific evidence allows students to base conclusions and decisions on the weight of the evidence, not the one sided propagandized views that support a specific hypothesis.4) Creationism has as much, if not more, sound, valid, scientific evidence to support its belief as evolution. Much of evolution is based on biased guesswork and a large measure of speculation, slanted toward their view.
5) The demonstrable indication that evolution is weak and unraveling is in the concentrated and continuous effort to relegate anything in opposition as “religious” in order that it not be allowed into the classroom and to effectively censor it by so labeling.
6) If there was confidence in evolution as a substantiated, valid, supportable theory, evolutionists should not fear that other evidence would denigrate or weaken their theory, opposing evidence should be welcomed as a means of convincing the masses of its validity. Instead, every effort is made to censor and withhold such information. This has a resultant of denying our youth of an opportunity for independent thinking that should be part of a true learning experience.
All ID’ers need to do is find a human fossil that dates back billions of yrs. ago, and they’d have one hell of an argument!
Or a 6,000-year-old dinosaur.
Wiiilllmmmmaa!
Ronald, your point #4 is, I’m sorry to say, insane. If you are indeed a biologist, how can you utter such a ridiculous statement? What exactly is the sound, valid, scientific for creationism? Please! Present the data - and it must be SCIENTIFIC data, i.e., quantifiable, measurable, etc. I have to see this.
Point #6 is also absurd. If there were competing EVIDENCE, it would have its day. Let’s see it! Note: The book of Genesis (or any subsequent biblical texts) do NOT constitute scientific evidence.
I am eagerly awaiting the presentation of the overwhelming sound, valid, SCIENTIFIC evidence in support of creationism.
Creation “science” is no more than an exercise in trying to make nature fit a fairy tale.
Creation “science” will not be taught.
Well spoken Ronald. The evos don’t realize that they have turned their cause into a religion. A religion is something you pursue fanatically and they certainly do this. All I want is fact presented as fact and fiction presented as fiction.
“All ID’ers need to do is find a human fossil that dates back billions of yrs. ago, and they’d have one hell of an argument!
Posted by: The Phantom | December 07, 2007 at 01:58
Phantom all the evos need to do is find that missing link fossil and the argument will be settled. How many years has the search been on? Until the link is found we are both trying to defend a negative. I believe in ID and you believe in evolution both with the same amount of concrete evidence. Hence faith comes into play.
“2) In two cases, the US Supreme Court has declared that evolution, a prominent component under the broader umbrella of “secular humanism” is a non theistic religion in accord with the First Amendment. Evolution, therefore is as much a religion as creation.”Can one get a tax exempt status, if they start The First Church of Evolution? How would you go about getting to be an ordained minister?
Unbelievable. “R&D biologist” and “guest lecturer in a local high school” science curriculum” = substitute teacher.
Also, where is this “missing link?” There is no missing link. As soon as a new transitional form is found, the ID folks claim that there are now TWO missing links.
You can bet that if Scientist discovered a dinosaur fossil that had in its belly a Homo Sapien (both carbon dating to the same time), science would re-evaluate. Until then they will proceed with the best evidence available to base their theories.
If Jesus came back and said that evolution is correct, the IDers would probably throw him in Gitmo.
That was pretty rude of me.
“you either misunderstand or are purposefully misusing the scientific meaning of the word “falsifiable.” It does not mean “able to be proved wrong. Rather, it means, “testable.”
-TC
Later on in the same post by TC …..
“Falsifiable means that the the evidence provided has the POTENTIAL to be demonstrated wrong”
=================================
I don’t understand how you expect people to debate with you if you can even state unequivocally what it is you think “falsifiable” means.
Correction:
can s/b can’t
“Does that make evolution true?” No. It makes evolution science.
Believe, promote, evangelize your ID theories all you want. But it isn’t science.-Monkey
Thanks for your assurances MonkeyHawk, but I require factual evidence before I label something as scientifically authentic.
If you have any of that, please provide. You could then add substance to the void which you have contributed so far.
Those two statements are not contradictory. One speaks to PROOF, the other speaks to SUPPORTING evidence. :)
“Thanks for your assurances MonkeyHawk, but I require factual evidence before I label something as scientifically authentic.”
So what do you require before you label something as Creationally authentic?
To prove or disprove the existence of God or a Higher Power, is not something science seeks to do.Those arguments are within the realm of other disciplines. So when you try to label Evolution as a Religion, you’re being disingenious.
“Thanks for your assurances MonkeyHawk, but I require factual evidence before I label something as scientifically authentic.
If you have any of that, please provide. You could then add substance to the void which you have contributed so far.”
Uhm.. . how about tens of thousands of detailed, peer-reviewed articles? Most of which would be beyond your–and my–comprehension.
While you blow smoke, scientists will continue to work. And by the way, Phantom is correct:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/texas-the-next.html#comment-92717792
Also, wouldn’t be nice if the anti-evolution crowd actually bothered to attack evolution, rather than the tiresome straw-men we persistently see? Oh well.
Phantom, you are absolutely right. Science is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of god - it is not even a scientific question. You are right to point that out. IDers take note that we are all here defending science from an assault from religion. You don’t see scientists trying to teach molecular into Sunday School, or force evolution to be taught in private religious school curricula. Keep your religious teachings in church or in religion courses and let science be taught in the science classroom.
Still waiting for that sound, valid scientific evidence of creationism, by the way, Mr. Cote.
“rfl” –
The phrase “scientifically authentic” isn’t science, either.
Creationism and biology are two separate and distinct disciplines.
Creationism is theology and philosphy and mythology. There’s nothing wrong with theology or philosophy or mythology per se, but they’re not science.
Say, for example, my English teacher assigns me to analyze a work by Shakespeare. If I were to carbon date the book, analyze the acidity of the paper, provide a chemical break-down of the ink, it’d be a pretty solid scientific analysis. But it wouldn’t be *literature* and it’s not what the English teacher assigned me to do.
Creation myths of every culture are fascinating and tell us a lot about the human condition. But their study does not belong in biology class.
“Uhm.. . how about tens of thousands of detailed, peer-reviewed articles? Most of which would be beyond your–and my–comprehension”
Rage,Perhaps then this whole discussion is pointless. If the evidentiary proof of evolution is too highfalutin for anybody on this blog to express in their own words then we are all at a loss.
Do you trust the conclusions of a scientist simply because of his/her credentials? Don’t you want to know the basis for those conclusions?
TC, good point about zoonosis. There is a plausible theory that Native Americans may have been decimated by pathogens carried by pigs introduced by the Conquistadors.
“Also, wouldn’t be nice if the anti-evolution crowd actually bothered to attack evolution,”-Rage
Huh? Were you born just this afternoon?
“the point is that the burden is on the ID camp”-TC
Wrong. Evolution claims sole scientific superiority over creation. Therein lies the burden of proof. If either of the two could be “falsified” “tested” or anything scientific to show it true, it would be the one that claimed to based on science and not on supernatural intervention.
Do you trust the conclusions of a scientist simply because of his/her credentials? Don’t you want to know the basis for those conclusions?
Posted by: rfl | December 07, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Sure! That’s why I read sites like talkorigins.org and realclimate.org, and occasionally dare to dive into the primary literature. Scientific American magazine (among others) often has article by the scientists themselves, describing the issues in a way the general public can understand.
Question some, or all of it? Go for it. But do your homework. I keep seeing the same idiotic, inaccurate nonsense being dispensed by the anti-evolution crowd: things any properly educated person KNOWS are wrong. I see pointless ad-hom against atheists like Richard Dawkins (along with dishonest misrepresentations of the man’s views). I see continual misrepresentation of Stephen Jay Gould, in a lame attempt of portraying him as a reluctant friend of ID.
In Ohio, ID supporters produced a bibliography of 44 scientific papers, which substantially misrepresented the scientists’ own views. The scientists didn’t like it!
If you don’t like the theory, again: (1) Do your homework and, (2) Be honest. It won’t be easy, because the weight of scientific evidence is against you.
But it SHOULDN’T be easy.
(no proofreading, as usual, sorry).
Monkeyhawk,”Creation myths of every culture are fascinating and tell us a lot about the human condition. But their study does not belong in biology class.”
maybe, maybe not. I might point out that the creation myth outlined By J.R.R. Tolkein in “The Silmarillion” appears to be a striking expression of much later Superstring Theory.
Wrong. Evolution claims sole scientific superiority over creation. Therein lies the burden of proof. If either of the two could be “falsified” “tested” or anything scientific to show it true, it would be the one that claimed to based on science and not on supernatural intervention.
That is absurd! That is like this scenario: “We have you on video robbing the bank, you have ink on your hands from the explosive pack, we found marked bills, also with dye on them, in a car registered to you, matching the description of the getaway vehicle that YOU were driving when you were caught four blocks away from the bank with the gun still in your hand.” And your response is, “Yeah, but PROVE it!”
Outlander,Do you or do you not agree that height has a genetic component?
My parents are 5′2″ and 4″10″. I am 4″10. Do you think with better nutrition I could have been 5″11″ (Heeeee, then I could model).
Better nutrition, again, does not change your genes. It affects the plastic part of the height trait.
If we are taller as a population than we were thousands of years ago, this is due to a genetic component (as well as factors affecting plasticity, like good nutrition and health care).
“Thanks for your assurances MonkeyHawk, but I require factual evidence before I label something as scientifically authentic.”
Didn’t anyone look at my Silversword Link :(
I thought it was fascinating, but that’s the danger of specializing in such a narrow field. Whatever you think is awesome makes everyone else yawn, hee!!
Tara I think you are missing my point. Look at children and their growth rates. It is ahead of the rate in my childhood. The age of physically maturing is also much lower. This has been explained by physicians and other scientists as changes brought about because of better nutrition and the use of hormones and other additives in our food. You’re not arguing with me, you are arguing with peer reviewed scientists. Genetics obviously play a role in it but when we see children who are outgrowing their parents early in age we have to look at other factors.
What Controls Growth?
Why does one child grow more rapidly than another? Why does one child end up taller than another? Three principal factors regulate a child’s growth:
Genetics
Nutrition and general health
Hormones
When a child is not growing at a normal rate, one or more of these three factors are probably responsible.
Tara for your info. Note: Evolution or adaptation isn’t mentioned.
TC the evidence you have is obviously overriding. You can visually see the ink on his hands and the film taken at the bank is proof positive.
The evidence points to only one conclusion - he robbed the bank. But - no one has a link even close to this concrete about evolution.
ksgram,The change from your generation to the current one is a mere blink on the evolutionary timescale. When there is such a change in growth rates among children today than 75 years ago, that cannot be attributed to genetic drift alone, but to other causes.
What I’m talking about on a scale of thousands and thousands of years, not a few generations. That IS due to genetic drift and probably natural selection.
And as for my link, did you visit the same one that I posted? About the silversword alliance evolving from a single species of California tarweeds? And the genetic data and hybrid production that supports this?
If you saw the variety of silverswords here in Hawaii, you would be just as awed as I am.
In fact, the whole entire state is an awesome place to study evolution in general, since everything here that wasn’t brought in by man evolved from a tiny number of species from other places that managed to make it over here. And many of these are not found anywhere else in the world (endemic). Read about evidence of adaptive radiation sometime, it will open your eyes to all of the evidence for evolution that’s out there.
Let’s correct the bank robbery analogy. Somebody robbed a Kansas bank during the Great Depression. Witnesses gave descriptions of the robber at the time: about 6′, thin, wiry frame, thin face, hooked nose. He was about 20 years old. He had a gap between his upper central incisors. Footprints taken showed a size 13 foot, very large then and now.
Decades later, forensic artists carefully studied the descriptions and drew suspect portraits.
Then 70 years later, a young person, who looked a lot like the artists’ face was found. He was 6′1″” had a hooked nose, thin face and had size 13 feet. Therefore, the robber’s grandson was identified. Wrong It’s not that he couldn’t have been the robber’s grandson, but the evidence doesn’t make him the only possible perpetrator.
In logic take P =>Q: If P is true, then Q must be true. But if Q is true, can it be logically inferred that P is true? No, Q can be true for many reasons, one of which is the existence of P.
We repeatedly see references connecting evolutionary theory to the theory of gravity. That’s a nonsequitur. It’s also really stupid. The cohesion of galaxies violates the established laws of gravity. So a “fix” is the hypothesis of “dark matter”. The acceleration of universal expansion creates an opposite violation of gravity. So the hypothesis of “dark energy” is a “fix”. At least physicists are honest enough to say, “Maybe we need a fundamental new theory. We don’t have one. We’re open to new proposals, which we will hard test; until we get one that passes the tests, we’ll just use the fudge factors.”
The problem with neo-Darwinism is it’s riddled with fudge factors. Fudge factors prevent falsifiability. Take the original gradualism theory–billions of years allowed anything imaginable to happen. Fundamental to the theory of unintelligently-designed evolution was having billions of years to allow random mutations, and selection of “the fittest”. Fossil finds refuted this, e.g. the Cambrian Explosion. So this led to a “fix” called punctuated equilibrium. But no molecular-mutation mechanisms have been found to explain this, and without them, punctuated equilibrium is a fairy tale.
For decades the human appendix was pontificated to be evidence of a useless, on-its-way-to-disappearance vestigial organ. Strong evidence of evolution. Now, with the discovery of functionality, the evolutionists proclaim, “Ah, a perfect demonstration of natural selection, it exists because it promotes survival.”
Evolutionists claimed that organisms carried non-functional “junk DNA”. Even though bacterial experiments showed that bacterial antibiotic-resistance and other genes were eliminated if they were not being used because useless DNA required energy investments that were not repaid. Now, as “junk DNA” found to have functions, the evolutionists claim, “Yes, more evidence for our theory.”
This is called “nonfalsifiable science” which is not science at all. It’s more akin to Hinduism, it absorbs anything by modifying doctrine in an ad hoc manner.
If middle-school and 9th grade students were taught about this fundamental issue of fudge-factor manufacturing in evolutionary theory, that’d be reasonable. But they aren’t. They’re being indoctrinated in”God doesn’t play a role in this earth. It’s blatant Communism. Who filed the Dover suit? The ACLU, which has always been a Communist organization. A few years ago ACLU purged staff who didn’t adhere to the party line, decent democrats who tried to think rationally and individually. Not allowed in this “freedom-promoting” organization.
It’s okay if you want to allow Communists to infiltrate our schools. You get bullying–terrorism of bright young minds, leading them to fear, dysphoria and sometimes violence to stop the torment–policemen in schools, tasers, our sex-educated and contraception and abortion services provided pubescent girls being turned into young whores. What a wonderful evolution we are seeing.
Not.
TC, as an ex evolutionist, I insanely did what I recommend you do, that is to seek the truth by examining opposing views or you can choose to remain ignorant (and an evolutionist). It makes no more sense to ask me to prove creation in a blog than to ask you the same for substantiating evolution. Why don’t you comment on my item #3? The Supreme Court has declared evolution as a religion, so sue them. The ACLU will take the case. Since it has been established that evolution is religion why isn’t it taught in philosophy or comparative religion classes just as you evols insist for ID and creation??Ksgrm, Surprise of surprises, the purpose for the two Supreme Court cases was to get tax exempt status and it was granted because they qualified as a religion!! This formed the First Church of Evolution! I don’t qualify as a minister but you seem to have the proper credentials. Give it a shot, it’s tax exempt.Phantom, I like your moniker it fits your beliefs. I was not a substitute, but as mentioned, guest lecturer for two years for each and every biology class. This seems to be of some significance to you, I guess an attempt to belittle me? When will the next and only transitional fossil be found? There should be millions of them by now, but there’s nada. You also need to find out what the limitations are to carbon dating as it can’t date everything and when it dates live snails at 1600 years, you might suspect that it is flawed.TC, there are hundreds of fossilized human footprints in and alongside dino prints. Is there a message there that you can’t comprehend?Rage, tens of thousands of lies attested to by tens of thousands of peer liars does not a truth make.
Monkeyhawk, seems that the religion of evolution, by your definition also is not science and also belongs in philosophy and especially mythology!Enjoyed the blogs, Merry CHRISTmas to all.
In 2005-2006, 30.7% of Kansas public high schools offered Advanced Placement courses. This was 46th in the nation.
In 2006-2007, 25.6% of Kansas Public high schools offered AP courses. This was 48th in America.
The state went from 104 to 94 public high schools offering AP course.
This was after the replacement of anti-evolution state BOE members by pro-evolution BOE members, under whose governance Kansas public high school AP participation was expanding.
“We don’t need no pro-college-prep creationists here. Ahh, we’ve regained control. Time to flush that college-prep crap. We need to get our ropes around the cowple.”
At the same time, Texas added 2 more AP schools to achieve 78% of public high schools teaching AP courses.
Among the top five Texas universities graduation rates, we find the following (six-year rates):
Rice 91%Texas A&M 76%Trinity U 76%U Texas-Austin 74%Baylor U 69%
Median 76%
For Kansas we find:
Washburn U 63%U Kansas 59%Kansas State U 59%Baker U 57%Pittsburg State 47%
Median 59%
You can’t make this stuff up. The universities have provided these data to U.S. News and World Report.
Let’s look at freshman median ACT scores.
Texas:
Rice 32Trinity 29UTA 27TAMU 26Baylor 26
Median: 27
Kansas:KU 24KSU 23Baker 23Washburn 22Pittsburg St 22
Median 23
A 26-27 means borderline university-course readiness. For example in math, a 26 qualifies for business or life sciences calculus, but not calculus for math, p science or engineering majors (28). A 22-24 means substantial high school remediation is needed. For example, it means a student must take college algebra, even though he or she has gotten a B-B+ average in Algebra I AND Algebra II in high school. College algebra is just double-paced (15 weeks) high school algebra II. The subject matter is contained in high school tests.
Congrats Kansas high schools for fallin flat on the job. Why is low performance the rubric in this state?
I went looking for simple explanations of evolution. Before I even started I knew the more simple the explanation the greater the attacks would be. It’s easier to form attacks to the very simple as it wouldn’t ever include enough. Someone would attack what was left out and if it hadn’t been left out the explanation would have been more complicated. In order to include all the evidence needed to fend off attacks you negate the original intent of the simple explanation
Anyway, I found this MySpace discussion which is interesting. One contributor, Dan, a 27 year old male from Franklin Square, New York, said:
“One problem with explaining the complexity of evolution is that it is on a span of time the human mind is not equiped to think about. It is difficult to conceptualize 3.5 billion years. When explaining (or trying to) evolution, don’t start with humans. People take it personally and it’s over too long of a time frame. Explain antibiotic resistant infections first….
You get a scrape on your knee as you slide into second base. You get an infection and need it treated with antibiotics. You have 1 strain of bacteria, however they have a few variable genes. Let’s say there is a 50/50 split between Gene X. If gene X helps the bacteria evade the antibiotics, those that have it will survive. You will steadily go from a 50/50 to all surviving bacteria having GeneX.
This is evolution, it is the change in frequency of a single gene over successive generations. It is that simple and basic. If you can get them to accept that, then move into the crazy ass breedings we’ve been doing with dogs.
All dogs are decendents from wolves. Man has domesticated and bred the hell out of these animals to the point where a Chiwawa and a Great Dane dont’ even look like they would be anywhere close, but are only a few thousand years separated from a common ancestor.
Don’t even get into mutations and recombinations at first, that comes later.”
The conversation is interesting and several of the comments make good attempts at simple explanations. If you’re interested in the entire discussion find it here:
http://forums.myspace.com/t/1343536.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread&PageIndex=1&SortOrder=0
“The evidence points to only one conclusion - he robbed the bank. But - no one has a link even close to this concrete about evolution.”
This is what the defendent always says: “You got nothin’ on me!” How much evidence do you need? There are literally thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed, primary-research scientific papers published in every conceivable field demonstrating the validity of evolution. To expand my silly little story, there would be enough evidence to air CSI on every cable channel every day all day for years! But that will never be enough for the ID camp.
The point is that, even if there were only ONE piece of evidence for evolution, that would still be more scientific evidence than there is for ID/creationism. However, there are MOUNTAINS of evidence, which overlap and support one another from various different disciplines. The creationists cannot produce ANY evidence, yet they still demand that the burden of “proof” be placed on science.
MPS’s “correction” of my little bank robbery analogy is a good example of how this debate typically goes: science does the work and presents the evidence, then the ID camp tries to pass judgment on the science (”it’s too complex, there are no transitional forms”) without presenting one piece of supporting evidence of their own.
And to Mr. Cote, you’re right, name-calling and belittling are not appropriate - my apologies. I would point out, though, that Carbon dating does have certain limitations, but that these can easily be obviated through the use of other radioisotope dating. If the decay is too short or too long, it is a simple matter to find a different isotope. And, as for item #3, just because the Supreme Court calls science a religion, doesn’t mean I’m philosophically bound to abide by their definition. The Supreme Court also once said that black people only had 3/5s the value of a white person. The Supreme Court is not immutable.
Tara,
You want to learn some real nature? Get a body board (a Boogie Board is fine, but get a real leash), and some Viper fins, and go to Makaha. It doesn’t get the full force of Aleution swells, like the North Shore but it get’s a nice clean offshore-wind wraparound wave. Beautiful hollow tubes. Make sure you remove all valuables from your car, and leave the windows open. The locals are really friendly if you are.
If you want to do stand-up, go to Waikiki this summer, take lessons on a soft longboard. Then if you get real serious, you can probably do Ala Mo by late summer.
Get a shortie wetsuit and pack some cut up ahi, and bread under your suit, and snorkel in Hanauma Bay. It’s now illegal to feed the fish, so maybe I shouldn’t say this, but if you’re discreet, you’ll be blown away by a riot of butterfly fish, tangs, triggerfish and parrotfish mobbing you. You may get some leg nips by some little wrasses and porcupine fish, but you’ll be fine. If a morey comes out, don’t freak. They’re quite gentle.
“They’re being indoctrinated in”God doesn’t play a role in this earth. It’s blatant Communism. Who filed the Dover suit? The ACLU, which has always been a Communist organization. A few years ago ACLU purged staff who didn’t adhere to the party line, decent democrats who tried to think rationally and individually. Not allowed in this “freedom-promoting” organization.
It’s okay if you want to allow Communists to infiltrate our schools. ”
Okay, that did it: MPS has shamed me into admitting the awful truth! I’ve been involved in the ACLU in some capacity over the past 20 years. I confess! In nearly every meeting, we focused on how best to destroy capitalism. While we generally agreed it would collapse due to its inner rottenness, we differed on the best methods for crushing the bourgeouis.
Indocrinating the youth with a hatred for all things supernatural, of course, was high on the agenda. You can’t possibly run a state-controlled economy without insistence that studies of nature exclude the supernatural. The connection is obvious.
It really hurt us when the Soviet Union collapsed: we NEEDED that $3 trillion a year stipend from the Kremlin. Fortunately, Al-Quada, Hamas and the Homosexual Agenda stepped in to fill the gap.
How many of you know that Anthony Romero, the Executive Director of the ACLU, is a HOMOSEXUAL? It’s true! And you may have heard for years rumors about aliens landing, and infiltrating our government.
Totally unconnected? HAH! HAH! So little you know!
As it turns, we’ve been working for years with the gays and the aliens, to destroy this nation’s soil. Take any major city with a large underground homosexual population: Des Moines, Iowa–perfect example! You can’t grow anything on the soil.
Our “plants” in the government have convinced people it’s due to poor farming techniques. It’s not. We’re building landing strips–for gay Martians.
This insightful gentleman’s speech sums up the awful truth, in terms just as coherent as MPS’s post above:
http://www.ntzrplk.com/audio/johnallan/kurosawa/audio/bonus/dead_milkmen_-_stuart.mp3
MPS! A Hawaii lover, I love it!
I have boogie boarded at Makaha (my ex’s parents owned an apartment there), and the locals definitely were friendly! I still wouldn’t surf there because I wouldn’t risk pissing them off by dropping in…lol
I started surfing on a 12 foot board in Waikiki three years ago, and I have since graduated to Ala Moana. I still don’t like surfing as much as I do boogie boarding, though. Too much paddling and I’m lazy.
I have always itched to collect algae from Hanauma Bay, but it is protected. And no! I would NEVER feed the fish and neither should you, shame on you :)
And yellow tangs are my favorite fish–actually surgeonfish in general, but yellow tangs are especially cute. I plan on cutting open their bellies to examine their diets next semester…it’s for the greater good, lol! They’re in huge demand for the aquarium trade, so I hope to somehow contribute to aquaculture efforts, since overfishing them damages coral reefs.
Ok, I’m rambling, I got too excited. If you ever visit my island, drop me a line and I’ll show you around! That goes for anyone here!
As predicted earlier up thread, MPS has now graced with one of his usual, though slightly pyschotic, rambling diatribes.
All this person does is TRASH Kansas and the education system here. Why not move on to another state if you loathe this one so much? You’ll never affect any of the changes you propose by rambling on the WEBlog.
Communists? Communists? Real communism went the way of the dinosaur quite some time ago! MPS is trying desperately to call forth the ghost of an old enemy in order to find someone he thinks he can win an argument against.
Not so fast, Jed, don’t be so quick to discount the danger posed by Whigs, Decemberists, and Free Soilists!
On the other hand, “TC” –
The “Know Nothings” are making a comeback!
I wish that were true, Monkey, but they have always been in the majority, and always will be…
Education is learning what you didn’t even know you didn’t know.– Daniel J. Boorstin
TC, Apology accepted. As to how much evidence you need, the same can be said for Creation. Thousands of papers have been written to support creation but left unread by evols because truth remains stranger than the fiction of evolution. To state that there is no evidence for creation is a nice way to sweep the facts under the lumpy rug and if your statement was true why is there still such a controversy raging, internationally?On item #3 just because evolutionists call all opposing data “religion”, that doesn’t hold water either.On carbon dating, Here is some more data about the validity and accuracy of radio carbon dating:1) freshly killed seal-1300 years, 2) basalt from Mt Etna (122BC)-250,000 yrs, 3) Basalt from Mt Kilauea (1959)-8.5 million yrs, 4) lava from Hawaiian volcano (1801)-1.6 million yrs 5) lava from volcano in Auckland, NZ (1800)-500,000 yrs 5) rock from Mt. St. Helens (1986)- 350,000 yrs.Let’s look at rock samples from the moon. The following, according to my previous employer, NASA, measured rocks using the uranium/thorium/lead method compared to the potassium/argon method. On specimen 12070 the difference (in billions of years) was 3.37 BY, on 12032 it was 3.62 BY, on 12013 it was 5.3 BY and on 14053 it was 22.7 BY. Good and reliable system, eh? Using just the uranium/thorium/lead method, 12070 showed a low of 3.63 and high of 4.5= 7 BY margin of error, 12032 also 7 BY error, 12013 had 6 BY error and 14053 had 22.7 BY. Is that enough evidence to disprove the validity of dating??How did these blogs get into surfing?I enjoy intelligent discourse, Merry CHRISTmas to all of you.
Ron Cote……….
You are a creationist NUT!
You will never get it; evolution is SCIENCE, creationism is NOT.
The sooner you grasp this reality, the better you and your kind will be.
Leave religion out of science.
Ronald Cote, tangents happen sometimes. Sorry for the derail.
You are posting a lot of intruiguing information, but you can cite it that would be even better. I generally take everything with a grain of salt, unless I can read the papers myself and especially examine the methods section.
If someone questioned any of my evidence for my claims, I would actually find the PDFs of the published paper(s) on Academic Search Premier, upload it to my own site and link it, or email it to anyone who asks.
Communism isn’t dead. I don’t know that the same can be said for some people’s brains.
Let’s take, oh shoot, how about school vouchers. We don’t need to ask for, or expect the state proletariat workers and aparichiks to champion vouchers. But if their goal is to promote the interests of children—if that is their mission—they should be saying, “Vouchers? They’re fine. They’ll give parents and children new choices (not one new choice, but many). Successful and unsuccessful models will arise, and we’ll expand the former and weed out the latter. (Natural selection in social enterprise.) We may appear to be losing the game at the outset, but we’re smart and willing to work hard. We’ll study and copycat the winning models, and our public schools will draw kids who want to be here.”
But instead, we see a Communist response: “Open competition and free choice cannot be tolerated, not for the masses. If ‘rich’ people [which includes middle class families] buy private education in many choice forms, we can’t control that, but our job is to provide proper indoctrination to the vast majority.”
There really is no other way to understand the opposition to vouchers, unless the issue is greed, i.e. maximizing head-count revenues, which is at play, but not the major impetus.
I’m not an expert in public education, except as a recipient, and a little teaching at the university level. But John Taylor Gatto is. He worked for 31 years as a public teacher in New York. He was passionate for children’s healthy growth. He continuously battled what he thought was unintentional poor management. For example, he wanted a classic novel for his class. The district warehouse was short, and said it would have to order books at $12 each, and this would take several weeks. He found a Barnes & Noble imprint going for $1 and immediately purchasable. Taking his finding to the principal, he was turned down. So he bought the books on his own.
He developed a student speech (public speaking) program, to develop students’ oral communications skills. When he tried to promote it at other schools, essentially to set up interscholastic competitions, teachers told him, “We can’t do that here, our principals won’t allow it.” He found out that the principals’ obstruction had no legal basis.
He made students write multipage essays, and he carefully graded them. He identified kids who weren’t really into literature, so he set up voluntary community service internships for them, and they turned from disaffected classroom disruptors into thoughtful, kind kids, and eventually successful adults.
Gatto eventually was voted New York City Teacher of the Year three years in a row, and New York State Teacher of the Year. Then he quit. He retired, officially, but really did so in frustration.
He did great things as an individual for children, but the system refused to adopt any of his innovations, innovations that engaged children, inspired them to want to come to class, and learn the great thoughts of great writers.
Gatto had a nagging feeling that there was something about the system he didn’t really understand, that what it was advertising to the public and its teachers was not what it’s actual mission was. In all successful enterprises outside of public K-12 education, improvements are sought, wonderful innovations that will help the enterprises and their people thrive are, after appropriate examination, comment and debate, adopted. Gatto was mystified why this didn’t happen in his system, the largest public school district in America, a system that was oddly home to many crappy schools, but at the same time ran two—only two— nationally-revered public high schools, the Ivy League, MIT, Stanford feeding Stuyvesant and Bronx High School of Science, the latter having more Nobel Laureates than any other public high school or private college prep school on the face of the planet.
Gatto, having much free time, decided to study the history of public education. He had access to the Columbia Teachers College archives, one of the richest troves on public education in the world. He communicated with scholars. He discovered that Germany (Prussia at the time) invented industrial-economy compulsory public education in the 1820’s. The main tier was designed to turn the children of rural-exodus peasants into reliable, obedient low-cost factory, mill and mine workers. Horace Mann, a Massachusetts politician, went to Germany, and successfully promoted the concept in that state, and it rapidly spread in most of the nation, except for the deep South, which took five decades to get on board. Internationally, all industrialized nations also implemented the model.
Gatto found specifications of what public education was supposed to accomplish. Ellwood Cubberly, founding dean of Stanford’s School of Education laid out the format of public schools’ emulating industrial corporations. The school superintendent was the counterpart to the industrial CEO. The board of education was the countepart to the industrial board of directors. Principals were factory managers. Teachers were factory workers. Students were material to be processed for useful functions, as defined by power-lusting capitalists—who didn’t put their own kids into the maws of the machine.
Cubberly said, ““We should give up the exceedingly democratic idea that all are equal and that our society is devoid of classes. The employee tends to remain an employee; the wage earner tends to remain a wage earner…One bright child may easily be worth more to the National Life than thousands of those of low mentality.”[sic]
Cubberly, a servant of the “robber baron” miscreants, hated “little people”. He was one of a handful of chief hired architects of public education.
The public education scheme was based on under-educating kids, making them fear authority, and accept “their place” (low) in society. A small channel was created to allow a small minority of kids to rise to administrative and professional roles in a hierarchical economy.
Teachers “got it” that they were analogous to blue-collar factory workers. That’s why they unionized.
Gatto finally “got it”. All the seemingly inexplicable, stupid obstructions he had encountered were actually essential components of the design to stupidify most students, to make them useful in somebody else’s vision of a well-run modern society.
Unfortunately, we’re talking about an industrial-economy vision which is obsolete. Limiting children’s knowledge acquisition is backwards today.
Compulsory education laws are a residue of 1800’s thinking. They’re a powerful residue, because most people comply, but they’re a toxic, child-injuring residue. They really represent a modern version of medieval feudalism.
In so-called “primitive” tribes, smart people who had much experience were made leaders. But they didn’t enact laws on their own. They operated within a framework of tribal consensus. This was real democracy.
Let’s say you’ve got a teacher. The great majority of his or her students think this teacher is no good. They communicate with their parents. Do parents and their children possess the consensus power to have this crappy teacher removed? No. The school is an anti-democratic system. This teacher, absent some vile criminal behavior, is retained. This person, working in an anti-child system, is empowered to grade children, in the manner originally invented for factory products manufacturing. The result is a lot of kids, some of them the smartest kids, ignoring the teacher, talking loud enough to distract other students, sniggering. So kids who want to pay attention can’t.
In the PSAT and Advanced Placement courses and tests, girls outnumber boys 56% to 44%. Boys are stupid, statistically speaking. Boys overwhelmingly outnumber girls in learning disability and learning-challenged diagnoses. Minority boys have the highest rates of diagnoses. What do we know about girls? They’re more tractable and obedient than boys, statistically speaking. They’re not smarter than boys.
Maybe the problem is schools aren’t maximizing boys’ strong suits. For example, Apophis has a geology degree. Only three of several dozen Kansas universities and colleges offer geology degrees. Why? Because it isn’t a modern mainstream science. It’s a 19th century natural history discipline. Geophysics and geochemistry are modern sciences, but these aren’t what Apophis’s degree is in.
If you examine KSU’s geology degree course requirements, you find a year of 12th grade algebra-trig-based physics, and one year of freshman chemistry required. One semester of calculus, Calculus I. There’s really no such thing as one semester of calculus, because the subject of calculus is designed to be learned as a three-semester continuum. It takes a year and a half to understand the subject. Pick up any calculus textbook. Calc I ends one-third the way through the textbook.
FHSU requires college algebra and high school physics for students not intending to pursue a graduate degree in geology. Those intending to study geology at the graduate level are encouraged to take one semester of calculus and one semester of calculus-basd physics. (As for calculus I, the calculus-based physics I ends at the first one-third of the textbook.)
KU requires two semesters of calculus. Two-thirds the way through the textbook. Two of the three calculus-based physics courses is required for the B.S. The B.A. major however only requires one semester of calculus and high school physics.
But the geophysics majors have to take three semesters of calculus, a semester of differential equations, and a semester of linear algebra: 5 semesters of university math, just like the engineering students. They also have to complete the full three-semester sequence in calculus-based physics. That’s a serious science degree.
Apophis is basically saying, “I have a science degree.” But outside of geology—and he doesn’t teach a geology course—he’s got a wowser “full portfolio” of 12th grade and freshman university science. Sorry Apophis, I’m not impressed. As a molecular biology major, earning my degree required two semesters of watered-down calculus and physics for life-science students. But there was a peculiar drive in me, “That’s not what I want. Science isn’t memorizing ditzle factoids and formulas and regurgitating them for Mickey Mouse A’s. I’m taking two years of math for physical science, math and engineering majors, and physics for p.s. and engineering majors. I want to struggle. I want to learn as much math and science as I can”
But it’s not his fault, it’s the system that has long said, “You only need have to have a little more science education than you teach.” Which only someone who wanted public school students to NOT LEARN SCIENCE would have concocted.
Finally retired Paramount Pictures CEO Sherry Lansing (also board member of Teach for America and the University of California) is trying to lead a campaign to put real-expert retirees into classrooms. For example mathematicians who deeply understand the subject. Scientists who have done research, and have used applied mathematics. It’s been tough sledding. The Unified Teachers of Los Angeles is only allowing after-school tutoring—the same harebrained guaranteed-failure idea Apophis proposed to me– and in-class assisting, not lead-teaching. “We’re failing, why don’t you join us in roles we dictate, and help us diffuse the blame?”
I’m sorry but I’m not into failure-scheme participation.
I knew MPS couldn’t resist typing another lengthy tome taking a swipe at the education system in general and me in particular. In your last paragraph, you make mention of “real-expert retirees”. Now that I have had extensive exchanges with you, there is NO WAY I would ever stand for the arrogant likes of you anywhere near my classroom. I would also do whatever I could to you and your warped ideas out of ANY classroom in the WIchita Public Schools.
You may be a “retiree”, but you are no expert. A reputable “molecular biology major” who doesn’t support evolution? You have zero credibility. I even mentioned you and your views to Dr. Ken Miller when we sat down and drank a beer together last spring. Needless to say, he wasn’t real suportive of your views. You may hold an advanced degree, but your views are outside of the mainstream of science. Have you ever thought about going to work for the Discovery Institute?
You definately need to see your neurologist and/or neurosurgeon. I think there are some issues you need to deal with rather sooner than latter.
MPS, you summed it up well in your last outpouring: “I’m not an expert in public education, except as a recipient, and a little teaching at the university level.”
Thanks for admitting it. Why don’t you actually *become* an expert in it before commenting on it at such length?
(Granted, you’re not trying to persuade us that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, like another psuedo-expert in this thread!)
Honestly, you could make a difference in the world of education. I guess not many have the courage or energy to do so, though.
*****************Apophis - KM’s a good one to have a beer with!
Ronald,
I have seen these dating arguments before. A close look at the specific papers typically demonstrates significant methodological problems with the research. Here is one example with the famous “Mount St. Helens” example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
There is a similar methodological problem with the Hawaiian volcano example you cite as well, and I’m sure I could find the same kind of analyses for the other examples. If a researcher uses a well-established technique like radioisotope dating and comes up with a date that is so far afield from what thousands of other scientists have used for years, Ocham’s razor alone suggests that the problem is most likely with the researcher and not the technique. If it is with the technique, then it is likely a known limitation of the technique:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html
Also, if there really was a serious problem with radioisotope dating, it wouldn’t be limited to sporadic inconsistencies: a seal here, some lava there - a moon rock? Respectfully, as a scientist, you should know better. One data point does not make a data set.
The links I’ve posted here are to one commonly used website, but if you don’t like that one, look around, you’ll find the same thing.
As a follow up, Ronald, I say there is no evidence for creationism because no one has ever produced any. I have asked several times just on this thread for someone to point me to ONE piece of scientific evidence - SCIENTIFIC evidence, not the Bible; it has to be some kind of testable evidence - and I haven’t gotten one response. Not one link, one scientific paper, one scholarly article, anything citing a single piece of testable, scientific evidence for creationism. The best the ID camp can muster is to dredge up some inconsistent and easily refuted arguments against things like radioisotope dating and the bacterial flagellum (which I’m surprised hasn’t been dragged out here). These arguments are not evidence, they are simply arguments - poor ones - against the existing evidence. Where are these thousands of papers? And they must be primary research papers that have EVIDENCE for a creationism origin. Post the citations, or post a link to a good bibliography. Do you really think that there is some vast cabal of evolutionary scientists who have managed to mount a conspiracy to hide scientific evidence that demonstrates a supernatural being? First of all, that would be THE biggest scientific discovery OF ALL TIME! This all comes back to one of my earlier posts - the point of this “issue” from the ID side is not to introduce debate or stimulate an authentic or honest intellectual discussion. Creationism is not science, and for that reason it doesn’t belong in the science classroom. This whole thing is really about the ID camp trying to introduce a religious message into public school curricula, and the evolution/ID “issue” is the tip of the wedge - the creationists have admitted as much, see the Discovery Institute wedge strategy documents for proof.
This whole thing is really about the ID camp trying to introduce a religious message into public school curricula, and the evolution/ID “issue” is the tip of the wedge - the creationists have admitted as much, see the Discovery Institute wedge strategy documents for proof.Posted by: TC | December 09, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Yeah, that pretty much nails it.
Some people with more assets than brains see the ideas of “evolution” and “faith” as mutually exclusive.
All of the attempts to discredit evolution, and I do mean ALL of them, every single one, revolve around their fear.
That is a good point, Pedant. I would add (and perhaps I’m too cynical) that it would be nice if it were only a matter of it being a faith vs evolution. By my lights, it’s more a matter of too many people being committed to trying their best to bending everyone else to their see the world through the same moral prism that they do, live by the same narrow moral code that they do, hew to the same religious code that they do, etc. This is one of the most universal features of human “nature” (for lack of a better word) and is manifested in a variety of ways, from the abusive, controlling husband to the tyrannical dictactor (or the power-mad president, as the case may be) to all kinds of rule-bound religions. The other side of this equation, all too often, is the participant who trades freedom of intellect or will for some kind of security. The strangest thing to me is that so many in the ID/creationist camp are determined to categorize “evolutionism” as a religion. Look up “religion” in any dictionary; the definition invariably refers to the belief in the supernatural. Then look up science; the definition will refer to the systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation. It boggles the mind how one confuses the two, unless it is on purpose…. Hmm. IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Several of our bloggers are attempting to publish online books here (You know who you are). You need to learn economy of expression; if you actually want people to read it, limit it to no more than 10-12 column inches. You may also include links to RELEVANT information. You’ll save countless readers blogging injuries to their scrolling fingers and might actually get your point across!
“The strangest thing to me is that so many in the ID/creationist camp are determined to categorize “evolutionism” as a religion. Look up “religion” in any dictionary; the definition invariably refers to the belief in the supernatural”-TC==============================TCIf you make some equivalent transformations between opposing players in the two camps you can see how that claim is made.
Here’s how it works.
Evolutionist: Big Bang + Billions of yearsCreationist: God
Evolutionist: Primordial OozeCreationist: Adam and Eve
Evolutionist: Natural SelectionCreationist: God supplied desire to procreate and survive
So if all the powers of God are delivered to a natural force, evolution can then perform the same miracles as God has been attributed as doing.
But it all hinges on evidence. Can we prove that natural forces designed this whole universe?
The problem is, even the evolutionists (on this blog at least) who make claims that they say are based on evidence, don’t even know the evidence. But that does not stop them from believing.This statement by Rage on sums it all up:
When asked for the “mountains of evidence” proving evolution:
“Uhm.. . how about tens of thousands of detailed, peer-reviewed articles? Most of which would be beyond your–and my–comprehension”-Rage
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/texas-the-next.html#comment-92724004
Apophis, seems like this Creationist nut rattled your chain, sorry bout dat. Evolution is not science and science is not religion. Science is science and evidence resulting from scientific investigation is what should be of paramount significance. Coming from you, it is no wonder that you miss the point altogether and must resort to the old ruse of name calling and denial which only makes your ignorance all the more transparent.Tara, Thanks for the ( I think) compliment. They are scarce. I have been studying both sides for over 6 years and the volumes of information is overwhelming. I cannot pretend to be able to convince anyone in a blog about the many and varied conclusive information that exists, solid concrete convincing and scientifically sound that supports creation The only way is to open mindedly go through the literature and make your own case.Pedant, you miss the point. Because neither case can be “proven” both require a large measure of faith. When there are gaps in a theory, faith must be inserted. The whole thing about ID is not to bring religion into the classroom but to bring new introspectives in the search for truth so as to share new conceptual discoveries. It is to “level the playing field” This is no different than the near daily news articles about some new trivia that “suggests” evolution.TC, the Supreme Court in two cases has decreed that secular humanism to include evolution is a non-theistic religion in consonance with the First Amendment. And no matter how many examples are cited of gross errors with the RC dating the results are swept under the rug or, as in your case blame it on the researcher. The biggest discovery of all time would be a fossil record showing all of the transitional forms leading up to even one single evolved species. Doing so would put me in your camp.
“Evolution is not science”
Then you don’t know what science is. Here’s a simple case. Primates, with the exception of humans, have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs. If humans and the other primates are related then why the slight difference? Well it turns out that one of the pairs is fused together in humans and without this fusion humans, like primates, would have 24 pairs of chromosomes.
All species have a gene which codes for vitamin C production. The only species that don’t have that are primates which have that gene fused so it can’t operate. Humans, like other primates share that genetic oddity.
Evolutionary theory stated, before the discovery of DNA, that humans and the other primates were related. This was proven through scientific study of the genetic code. That’s why evolution is science and I’ve given you two examples. No faith necessary. The only faith is used in denying the scientific reality of evolution.
What most ID proponents and creationists will not want to answer is this question:
Why do they have to go the public relations and public policy route?
The answer is obvious. No scientific journal would publish any paper on this subject. I.D. is laughable. I.D. is far beyond cold fusion.
There are no “discoveries” of any sort that provoked the Discovery Institute or I.C.R. or any of the other polical/pseudo-scientific organizations that have sprung up over the last several decades.
That professor from Louisiana must be censored because she is revealing too much about the origins of the I.D. movement. Comer is just another pawn.
This is a POLITICAL movement, folks. You will waste your breath trying to do scientific arguments with these idiots.
They are perfectly happy to tell science that the scientific method is wrong if it cannot conclude that the Bible is absolutely verbatim correct.
Don’t kid yourself about being able to argue logically with these folks.
Notice that I.D. pretends to not have a position on exactly who the creator is, but he is most likely a single entity, human-looking, male, Caucasian with long beard and hair, and occasionally has anger issues.
He is definitely not little green men or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How odd that I.D. can claim to be “neutral” (as I guess the Texas school board can be “neutral” on evolution/creation) and still be so darn narrow on who the creator is.
As the Louisiana professor has found out, these people will persist in any way possible to push Bible into the schools. It does not matter how many times they lose in the courts. It does not matter that the scientific community has already and continues to wholesale reject them. They will get in if it is the last thing they do.
Logic/laws/science be damned.
“The biggest discovery of all time would be a fossil record showing all of the transitional forms leading up to even one single evolved species. Doing so would put me in your camp.”
I wish I could post powerpoints on this site. I came across a lesson plan that explains why this is unrealistic.
I’ll just state that since fossilization is such a rarity (most dead things decompose or are eaten) AND since forms that are best suited for the environment are most likely to be fossilized (because they exist longer than other less well-adapted forms and in greater number due to greater fitness, obviously), it is highly unlikely that we would find every single transitional form in a fossil record. The “rare” species that lived only a few hundred years and died out is unlikely to be found in the fossil record due to mere probability. A good fossil record would have 10,000 year gaps, a mere blink on the evolutionary time scale.
Also, Ronald Cote, you gloss over the existence of papers detailing the methods, but this is a key component in science. If your experiment cannot be replicated by other scientists, than it holds no water.
For example, if I was making a phylogenetic tree and due to a contaminate sequence my tree placed Conifers in the same lineage as Snails, I could not go out and trimphantly scream about how pine cones look like snails and I JUST KNEW IT THEY’RE RELATED!! Other scientists would extract the DNA of the same type of tree and snail and make a tree themselves using my methods. When they can’t replicate my results, they would laugh in my face.
“The problem is, even the evolutionists (on this blog at least) who make claims that they say are based on evidence, don’t even know the evidence. But that does not stop them from believing.”
HEAD. BANG. WALL.
Do you even read my posts? I know the evidence. Besides Harry Potter and His Dark Materials, just about the only reading I do is peer-reviewed journal articles in my field, which is–you guessed it–EVOLUTIONARY botany
Tara,
Sorry, except for this last one, I have not been reading your posts.
Are any of the peer reviewed journal articles you mention available online? Which one(s) do you feel depict the greatest evidence of common descent/ macroevolution?
Out of the many various evolutionary tenets (abiogenesis, natural selection, common descent etc). Which one is the most documented by scientists as proven?
‘So the creationist argument is, “Paul Allen has money, therefore evolution is false.”
And creationists want to be taken seriously?’
Please keep in mind that it is perfectly reasonable, in Creationist’s minds, that there are massive conspiracies on global scales to keep Jesus out of the schools. Evolution, in their minds, is but one of those massive conspiracies, not unlike what you see in the Omen movies.
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for hundreds of thousands of self-centered, egotistical, self-serving scientists/professors/etc … to, despite their nature, conspire in some grand way to keep Creationism out of scientific journals.
The CIA/NSA cannot keep tens of thousands of employees loyal. The Bush administration cannot keep its top-level political appointments in strict party discipline. But the NSF sure knows how to keep hundreds of thousands of scientists world wide in lock step about keeping Creationism out.
Isn’t that facinating, just how powerful the scientific Illuminati are?
I communicated with Ken Miller and he said, ” Mark, evolution is central to biology.” I was polite, but if I was ascerbic, I could have retorted , “Actually, evolution is central to biology-teaching jobs, a miniscule percentage of bio-science grants for research, and some other money-making opportunities. For example, Miller’s own cell biology research is independent of the theory of evolution.
But, it’s hard for him to acknowledge this because he’s making a fat chunk of change—possibly more than his Brown University salary—from sales of evo-dogma pitching “Prentice Hall Biology ” (K.E. Miller, J.S. Levine).
This book, of note, comes in two versions, the “Student” and “Teacher’s” editions. The latter contains things hidden from students, whose purpose is to make the book “affordable” to schools (teacher’s editions are given away at textbook-purchase-decision time), but in fact this helps teachers convey an air of personal authority in the subject by denying students direct access to the information teachers receive. This is a central component of the scheme to make students teacher-dependent, instead of cultivating independent learning.
The three theories of life history on the planet are:
1. Spontaneous generation of life starting with small molecules that through trial-and-error became capable of assembling large molecules, which became capable of interacting in cooperative processes that led to their efficient replication, and ultimately to entities that we would describe as living. The earliest organisms evolved into multicellular, and eventually differentiated multicellular organisms, that could be generated from single cells (e.g. embryos, first stage).
1a. This involved no intelligence as a driving force. (Pure version of natural selection)1b. This involved intelligence as a driving force .
2. Life was created in high diversity by a supernatural agent, according to “kinds” and humans were a special soul-possessing, capable-of-communicating-with-God entity. This involved intelligence.
Two out of three possibilities here involve intelligence.
Now, we have large percentages of Americans, including majorities and supermajorities in some states, that don’t want their children to be propagandized by 1a.
Legally, if Intelligent Design is precluded, public school authorities don’t have to teach 1a, or even 1b. They can legally exclude evolution. Why? A. Because quantum mechanics is central to chemistry AND physics, but public schools don’t teach it. B. There are a lot of central tenets of algebra and geometry that schools don’t teach. C. Most practical-application modern biology, from agricultural to medical, does not require resort to evolutionary theory. So you can teach a lot of important biology without raising the issue of evolution, or ID.
Suppose that a community of people, state, county or district, decides that evolution will be part of the curriculum. Okay, democracy rules. But suppose that some people have a religious disagreement. Can you force their children to be indoctrinated? No, that’s a violation of the religion clause of the First Amendment. So they can be excused from the evolution lectures, and given exemptions from the test questions covering the subject matter.
MPS,
I appreciate the well-thoughtout insight you provide here. Your opponents rarely respond to your points–they just like to blast you with ad hominems, which I expect will happen here very soon. I’m guessing they don’t have answers to rebut your points, so they just throw grenades at you, hoping you’ll go away.
I hope you don’t.
So, MPS……………just WHEN did you communicate with Dr. Miller? It’s not that I don’t believe you, but it’s hard to fathom that you just picked up the telephone and got him on the line. If you really did, more power to you. I’d be interested in the rest of the conversation you two allegedly had.
I think it is very unfair of you to question Dr. Miller’s ethics pertaining to his work on the Prentice Hall published textbook. To infer that he might compromise his scientific principles to make a buck is an uncalled for “low blow”. I will be sure to forward your comments on this blog pertaining to him.
All of your rhetoric aside, science is NOT decided by a majority or even a “super-majority” vote. The courts, however, HAVE decided the ID IS creationism and therefore in violation of the “establishment clause”. This is the reality of the situation. It is YOUR opinion that the inclusion of evolution into science curriculum is “propaganda”. It’s too bad the vast majority of credible scientists, like Dr. Miller, disagree with your opinion.
Ronald, again - respectfully (I don’t want to turn this into a series of personal attacks) - you can’t point to the “many and varied conclusive information that exists, solid concrete convincing and scientifically sound that supports creation” in the literature because it doesn’t exist. Also, I didn’t ask you to do that, I just asked you to point me to ONE piece of convincing scientific evidence. You listed some radioisotope studies, but none of those constitute evidence of creationism. Not only that, but you listed a handful of examples -there are literally thousands of radioisotope papers published every year; a few examples of faulty or inconsistent readings are far from an indictment of a well-established technique. Moreover, as I have stated in this thread at least once, science does not seek to “prove” anything. Science is not even interested in “proving” evolution - it is the ID camp that is obsessed with “proof,” not the scientists. A good scientist will avoid using the word “proof” like the plague (Tara - your thoughts?); the evidence either supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t. What’s more, a good scientist will be happy with (well, “happy” might not be the best word, but they should be respectful of) either result. The fact is that the evidence DOES support evolution, and, no, I don’t know ALL the evidence - that would be preposterous, but, like Tara, I do know a lot of it, and as a scientist, I know enough of it, and I know enough about the methodology and practice of science to understand that it does not require the same kind of faith that religion does. If I drop a ball from a height, I do have faith that it will fall to the ground, but that is a faith borne of experience, experiment, and an understanding of the laws of physics. The religious faith that you are conflating between belief in a supernatural being, or an afterlife or Jesus having died for our sins is completely different. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have that faith, or that that faith is somehow wrong or misguided (I’m Catholic!), I’m just saying that it is NOT the same as the faith that is arrived at based on an understanding of scientific principles, systematic observation, experimentation, study, etc. Religious faith has its place, and it is NOT in the science classroom.
rfl: Sorry to bogart Tara’s response, but pretty much ALL of the peer-reviewed scientific journals are available online, certainly all of the best are.
As for your question about which one(s) are best, that question is pretty broad - it depends on the field. You would have to be more specific. Type in some keywords in the search engines on the two sites I’ve linked to here (warning: it’s addictive!) Check out the first link below, you can find lots of papers for free. The second link is good, too, but it’s mostly biomedical. If you want research papers on macroevolution, go to HighWire first:
HighWire:http://highwire.stanford.edu/
PubMed:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
I want to talk about home education. This includes homeschooling and unschooling. This is the emerging wave in education of children and adolescents. It represents rejection of obsolete Industrial Age depersonalized institutionalization of child-management, and replacement by non-institutionalizedl human-centered learning.
This year, a home-educated student co-won the
the Intel Sciences and Engineering Fair,and a $100,000 scholarship to the college or university of his choice. Two co-winners were public-school students, age 17 and 18. The home-educated student, Phillip Streich, was the youngest, age 16. His proved project was “Nanotubes are thermodynamically soluble.”
Another home-educated student, Evan O’Dorney, age 13, won the Scripps Spelling Bee, and a $35,000 cash award. But he also achieved a perfect score on the American Mathematics Competition 10 (grade)–not as a tenth grader, but an eighth grader, and received an honorable mention in the USA Mathematics Olympiad, and was invited to attend the USAMO summer camp, which means, if he sticks with math, he’ll represent the United States in the International Mathematics Olympiad in a few years.
Kansas’s only USAMO summer-camp qualifier was a conventional-school (private) 10th-grade student who was intensively instructed at home, who said to his parent-teacher, “This isn’t what my teachers are teaching me.”
The 3rd, 6th and 8th placing National Spelling Bee winners were home-educated.
The National Geographic Geography Bee winner, Catlin Snerny, was home schooled.
In Science Olympiad, Middle School Division, we see Excel homeschoolers (Wash.) #14, Tri-State homschoolers (Del.) #35, Albuquerque homeschoolers #37.
Kansas: California Trails JH #32, All Saints (Catholic) #45
Given that home education has an estimated less than 4% of the nation’s students, it’s doing a phenomenal job.
Statewide, at the high school level two Wichita schools scored highest in the Kansas Science Olympiad: Kapaun and Collegiate. Oops, looks like somebody has decided that Wichita public high schools have to be second-rate in science to private schools.
Scripps Spelling Bee and the National Geographic Geography Bee.
I see you are still avoiding the issue MPS.
This is getting all too serious so This poem id dedicated to all you died in the wool evoluters:TADPOLES
I once lived in an egg massFloating in some slimeBut then I evolutedBecause it was my timeI then became a tadpoleAt last I became freeBut soon became impatientIt really was not meI wanted something greaterRubbed my tail against a logIt disappeared completelyThen I became a frogI wandered from my puddleAnd feeling loose and freeI ventured onto landAnd climbed into a treeAnd after several aeonsEvoluting without failI then became a monkeyAnd grew another tailBy evoluting furtherI could do what I plannedI descended from the branchesAnd walked upon the landThat tail no longer usefulI decided on one dayBy evoluting furtherThat structure passed awayIt took a while I must admitBelieve it if you canOne summer morn I did awakeAnd found myself a manFor all you tadpoles out thereJust think what you can beIf you will leave your puddleAnd climb the family treeFor now I am a HomoAs plain as you can seeAnd when I told this storyI earned my Ph.D!
Ron Cote
The Colorado shooter was home schooled.
The Omaha shooter wasn’t - and your point is?
Evolution is so obvious and so proven.
I have trouble taking someone who rejects it seriously. It’s like they’re from a different time or planet.
I wonder if Ron Cote is the retired Professor of Biology from Maine?
I don’t think anything should make you feel any better about about the way you are “kansas”. Trying to get another thread shut down?
Do it on your own. Ya aint worth it.
Was that necessary J R?
Does it make you feel good when you write things like that?
If it does, then you are a sick person.
My question was about Ron Cote. I read about him in other blogs. He has a PhD in Biology and if it is the same one, he is certainly qualified to talk about evolution in great detail.
ah troll-boy………….where is your proof that this “ron cote” has a PhD in Biology?
Whether he is or isn’t “qualified to talk about evolution in great detail,” he hasn’t provided any evidence to support his claims. His poem was nice but evidence would be much more convincing.
I don’t have any proof, that’s why I asked the question if he was Professor Cote from Maine.
It was a straight forward question. His name popped up on a search for evolution, so I was curious.
I’d suggest that if you are interested in a PhD who is credible in Biology, read up on Dr. Ken Miller’s work.
How typical that a certain poster would bring in his pointless, increadibly long attacks on public schools.All of this industrial era public school has failed jaron makes me sick. Especially when defending private schools that operate with the same curriculums, the same certified teachers, ect.
Sure, if you have a parent who is an expert in many fields, and has the time and energy to sit and homeschool and tutor you all day you have a good chance of going far. One on one tutoring will do that. I congratulate the parents who feel that they can do that, although from first hand experience, the students I have known that are homeschooled tend to have serious social issues. That’s just speaking from experience.
My parents…. they would have made aweful teachers, and they would be the first to admit that. They would also be the first to admit that they don’t have the knowledge base to educate my siblings and I in advanced subjects.
There are plenty of chances for public schools to improve, but they are far from failing. Remember, the other countries that say they have better test scores than us don’t test the lower scoring students after a certain point.
Suggestions for improving public schools are gladly welcomed. Suggesting that we destroy them… that’s just silly.
“A good scientist will avoid using the word “proof” like the plague (Tara - your thoughts?)”
The only time I ever used the term “proof” was in my undergraduate(I majored in Philosophy and took a great deal of math). It doesn’t really apply in science.
RFL, let me know what kind of critters you’re interested in and I’ll find you a good peer-reviewed article. I’m probably biased, but if you look at some papers on adaptive radiation (like Silverswords), it would open your eyes. Only a handful of things made it to the islands, and in their brand new world of untapped ecological niches, they evolved into some pretty amazing things.
I will dig a bit tonight and post something tomorrow if I remember.
they evolved into some pretty amazing things.
I will dig a bit tonight and post something tomorrow if I remember.
Posted by: Tara | December 10, 2007 at 08:46 PM
Evolved or adapted?
What species? And are there any species that didn’t adapt/evolve?
I’m glad you asked me that, Kansas!
Where do you draw the line between “adapted” and “evolved”? I remember having a similar hashing out with Nathan over this…apparently things don’t evolve into different “kinds” of things. But he never could tell me what a kind was, it was just kind of “I knowz it when I seez it”
But keep in mind the islands are only a couple million years old, so if you’re expecting me to give you an example of a fish evolving into a pig, I can’t really help you out there.
And yes, there are some things here that exist in similar climates. For example, many of the seaweeds here are the same as those in the other Polynesian islands. Things that were brought in by man like mammals are more recent, and so they are pretty much the same since nearly no time has passed.
Trait adaptation I suppose.
Plants are known for adapting very easily by trait. This is part of the evolutionary theory as I recall.
I don’t see many conclusive samples in animals though.
Perhaps the structure of plants lends its self to adaptation.
Polar Bears are supposable Grizzly Bears by some means of adaptation, but I haven’t really read up on that.
The bears didn’t exactly change species though, they just adapted environmentally. :)
Should have put in acclimatized on polar bears.
Adaptative Radiation I’ve always had a problem with when it comes to mammals in general.
The evidence is sparse and serendipity at best.
MPS - Sorry, I’m not sure I caught the segue there: what is it that you are arguing for, that everyone should be homeschooled? Or that everyone should be sent to a private school? Pretending for the moment that either of those are even remotely feasible, what does that have to do with evolution vs. creation?
Rapid acceleration in human evolution described 10 Dec 2007 22:18:29 GMT
Source: Reuters
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10432286.htm
Interesting article TC.
What do you have to say about the DNA of the Neanderthal being 6.5 to 7.0 percent different than Homo sapiens and a Chimp (Pan Trogladytes) is only 5 percent different?
It’s fascinating to me how some people regard one of the primary tools of scientific research–peer review–as something inherently unreliable and untrustworthy. Yes, scientists are human beings, and subject to all the familiar human failings, including vanity, corruption, and groupthink. Duh. Insert Thomas Kuhn here. That doesn’t somehow make peer-review an invalid method for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Two questions:
1) Do you have a suggestion for ANOTHER way of ensuring the integrity and validity of scientific research?
2) How can you, on one hand, lambast peer-reviewed science as inherently suspect, yet uncritically regard a unreviewed, unscientific, non-theory such as ID as unquestionable truth?
I happened to mentioned there are tens of thousands are peer-reviewed papers out there relevant to evolutionary theory. No one disputes this. That’s a lot of ideas, and lot of arguments of excructiatingly minute details.
Amazingly, there’s also lot of agreement, mainly about the things that have been proven beyond reasonable debate. That’s how science works.
Intelligent design has exactly 1 (one), accepted by the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a journalwith an openly creationist editor. Nonethless, it IS a peer-reviewed paper.
But if one examines the content, one finds–(no) surprise!–there is STILL no scientific theory of intelligent design to be found–no facts, no mechanisms, not even a stated hypothesis, no anything. In fact, the paper BARELY mentions intelligent design. Instead, it is the usual collection of pop-shots at evolutionary theory (and one, which, incidently–and predictably–fell flat with Meyer’s peers).
And even if the paper somehow disproved the whole of current theory, it’s just a matter of basic common sense (or formal logic, if one prefers), that disproving one proposition does not, by some magical process of intellectual osmosis, prove a different, undemonstrated proposition.
The BURDEN is squarely on the ID people to make a SCIENTIFIC case for it. Predictably, they haven’t, as it’s impossible to make a scientific case for it–at least not without making science into not-science in the process. Instead, they introduce the supernatural (which, by definition, cannot be naturally explained) into their explanations–in fact, that’s beginning, and the end of their reasoning.
One might as well write “God did it!” on the chalkboard, and go home.
This of course, is why Michael Behe was forced to admit that, scientifically, ID was equivalent to astrology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
And, by the way, if you think I’m lying about Meyer’s paper, don’t take my word for it: see for yourself:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
P.S. Shortly after I arrived in Tucson, I made a joke about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one had any idea what I was talking about. Nice to live in a community where this kind of nonsense is a non-issue.
Kansas - I hadn’t heard that; I would like to see the paper. Do you have a link? Off hand, I would interpret to mean that we are more closely related to chimpanzees than to Neanderthals based solely on DNA content. However, there are two important points to consider here - and to me, this is why I get frustrated with ID/creationists(please don’t get the wrong idea, I’m not taking a personal shot at you here) with low scientific literacy who make judgements about evolution without really understanding the science: 1) Just because two organisms have very similar DNA content doesn’t necessarily make them closely related. Now, that may sound like an absurd statement, so let me qualify: genetically speaking, there is really no difference between a human and a mouse; we both have essentially the same complement of genes (or DNA, however you want to put it. The difference is more in the timing; if you turn on certain genes on and off in a particular order, you get a mouse. If you do it in a different order, you get a person. I realize, of course, that that is a GROSS oversimplification (obviously you can’t start with a mouse sperm and egg and end up with a human) but it is an important mechanism. We are learning more and more about processes of differential gene expression and regulation of gene expression and so on. So, that may be one possible explanation for the genetic difference between humans and chimps and neandertals. 2) The other thing I would point out is that preliminary data (I say preliminary just because so far the data set is limited, I think, to one person, or maybe just a few) from The Human Genome Project suggests that humans and chimpanzees are not quite as closely related as we previously thought. We are still pretty similar, but to be honest I can’t remember the numbers and I don’t want to report the wrong values.
That is another critical distinction between science and ID/creationism: in science, when new data comes along, if the methodology is good, experimental design is sound, results compelling, etc., we can re-evaluate. We have said for years that humans and chimps are 99.8% alike (or whatever the number is). If the new data demonstrates that humans and chimps are 95% alike, and the new data is reproducible, testable, falsifiable, meets scientific standards, etc., etc., the old story, which has been demonstrated to be incorrect, can be replaced with the more accurate account. What is the mechanism for doing that in creationism (i.e., religion)? There is none - any story is as good as any other. If a change is made or a decision, it is completely arbitrary - like at the Council of Nicea, or by Martin Luther or Vatican II. Again, that’s not an indictment of religion, it’s just another illustration that religion is not science and science is not religion, despite people’s attempts(from this thread to the Supreme Court, apparently) to conflate the two.
“Adaptative Radiation I’ve always had a problem with when it comes to mammals in general.”
Since it is 10:30 here and my bedtime, I just happened to check the WEblog for this post. I do not, and will not have evidence for adaptive radiation in Hawaii for mammals, I am sorry. Mammals really had no way of coming here except with the help of man, since it’s way the heck out in the ocean 3,000 miles away from California.
I can provide papers on adaptive radiation in Hawaii for birds, plants and insects, since these were the only things that managed to make it over here in the baby stages
But if that’s not good enough for you and only mammals will suffice, I’m going to have to plead both laziness and busy-ness. I’m not really interested in mammals, except as pets and food. And at the moment, I’m not interested in evolution aside from adaptive radiation in Hawaii (but that might change when I have more time). Perhaps someone else can take over?
However, if you are interested in the evolution of Hawaiian endemic species of birds, plants and insects, I would be glad to point you in the right direction. I just don’t want to bother if it’s not the kind of stuff you are looking for.
Let me know either way, Kansas (and others)!
TC, I know I’m opening up a can of worms here, but differential gene expression is a reason that I’m hesitant of molecular (rather than morphological) phylogeny! If you are comparing molecular evidence, you are really only looking at the similarities of genes/portions of genes and not the individual species. You are not looking at the functions of the genes, just the core nucleotide sequences. When you use molecular data, you are looking at the parsimony of different genes/segments/genomes of all samples, not the overall quality (the WHOLE PICTURE) of the organism. I’m of the camp that genes are best (and perhaps “more completely “) expressed by the overall phenotype of the organism in question. I don’t really trust the data-churning barcoding that is becoming more popular.
Yeah, AAAAGTCGCTAGCT in gene A of species 1 is close to AAGAGTGCCTAGCT of gene A in species 2, but all you are comparing is gene A.
I think systematics and taxonomy is best studied with a combination of morphological features (key!), ecological and habitat differences AND molecular data.
+++++++++++++++++++
OH NOES! Two scientists are arguing. This means that evolution is a lie :)
Tara - I think I’m tracking what you’re saying, but it’s 3 a.m. here and it’s WAY past my bedtime. Plus, I’m a microbiologist by training (my Master’s thesis was in halophilic soil bacteria and archaea) and now I’m a medical student, so I’m not sure I’m even smart enough to parse your post. I’ll look at it in the morning (ok, later THIS morning) and see if I can make sense of it. My wife is a research scientist, she can probably teach me. :) Without giving out too much personal info, how did you stumble on this thread anyway? Are you from Wichita? Be glad you are in Hawaii now - there is an ice storm stretching basically from Dallas to Des Moines. Enjoy the surf and sand! I’ll be scraping half an inch of ice off my car tomorrow (if I decide to go anywhere….)
MPS, thanks for admitting you’re *not* an expert in education; still not sure why you bothered to bring out the homeschool anecdotes, though. The only research done on homeschooling effectiveness was done by a researcher who was getting paid to do so by the homeschooling legal defense association. The study relied on self-reported scores and had a variety of other flaws; nonetheless, it still tried to trumpet the efficacy of homeschooling over any other educational method.
MPS, if you’re really an MD, why do you rely on anecdotal claims instead of hard, reliable data?
As to your purported conversation with Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University . . . he probably receives dozens of crackpot emails per day. It would make sense that he’d have a canned, polite response for such cases, especially ones who accuse him of a strictly financial incentive.
Amazing how the Discovery Institute has millions and millions for PR & lawyers, but doesn’t spend a dime on research.
Wonder why MPS doesn’t snipe at the DI for its priorities?
However, if you are interested in the evolution of Hawaiian endemic species of birds, plants and insects, I would be glad to point you in the right direction. I just don’t want to bother if it’s not the kind of stuff you are looking for.
Let me know either way, Kansas (and others)!
Posted by: Tara | December 11, 2007 at 02:35 AM
I would like to hear about the birds.
As an aside, when I lived in Germany, there were great flocks of Grey Parrots that evidently were released somehow. Anyway, they managed to adapt and do quite well in the cold German climate. I don’t know the story behind them, but have seen them in trees as a flock.
reposting as typekey “blanked” me out again.
However, if you are interested in the evolution of Hawaiian endemic species of birds, plants and insects, I would be glad to point you in the right direction. I just don’t want to bother if it’s not the kind of stuff you are looking for.
Let me know either way, Kansas (and others)!
Posted by: Tara | December 11, 2007 at 02:35 AM
I would like to hear about the birds.
As an aside, when I lived in Germany, there were great flocks of Grey Parrots that evidently were released somehow. Anyway, they managed to adapt and do quite well in the cold German climate. I don’t know the story behind them, but have seen them in trees as a flock.
Speaking of Parrots, there’s an excellent movie about the Parrots in San Francisco, now wild.
Sounds similar to your Germany story, Kansas.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424565/
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill
“The BURDEN is squarely on the ID people to make a SCIENTIFIC case for it. Predictably, they haven’t”-Rage
Rage,
You believe in evolution as a default until someone proves to you that the world was designed and created. Proving creation can not and will not ever happen. You know this.
However, evolution (common descent) theoretically can be proven or falsified because it claims to operate under the direction of unbiased research, observation, and logic.
So which is it? Is evolution de facto true? Or is evolution accepted because creationism is not a viable scientific alternative?
You can clamor for evidence on creation all you want. But, failure to receive such evidence does not mean that common descent is the way it all happened.
I’ll be reading these two essays from both sides to be better versed for future discussions.
http://www.talkorigins.org
critque:
http://www.trueorgins.org
What caused evolution?
What caused matter?
Prove it.
I wish more of you had appreciated my poem. I am surprised that evols seem to lack a sense of humor considering that their theory is such a joke! I also will not get into a harangue over my PhD is better than yours. We should appreciate this website in allowing us free and unlimited discourse. Getting back to the heavier stuff, here are some points for evols to ponder:The eye- in order to provide sight, the eye, the optic nerve and the portion of the brain that controls sight all must work in unison. Which one evolved first? If one evolved before the other there still would not have been sight. How would a sightless animal survive for thousands or millions of years while eyes were evolving?
The eye- Darwin said “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”DNA- It has been said that a chimp’s DNA is 98% similar to a human. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA information in each cell. A 2% difference is equal to a 60 million base pair difference from a chimp. That is a big delta.Fossils- dead plants and animals disappear quickly when left to nature’s forces. We should find very few fossils because of nature’s efficiency at disposal of dead things and yet there have been millions found. Fossilization happens from rapid burial, freezing or chemical preservation and could not have occurred by slow burial over long periods of time.Fossils- Fossils had to be formed rapidly especially for those having soft bodies. There are fossils of jellyfish, an ichthyosaur giving birth, a fish with a fish in its mouth and many fossils of soft bodied insects. These required rapid burial.Fossils- Many millions of fossils have been found and more than 250,000 species have been identified. If all life evolved, thousands of species in intermediate stages of evolution (transitional stages) should also have been found. These missing links are still missing.Evolution of reptiles to mammals- In addition to changes in the hearing system, the evolution of mammals from reptiles had to also include a new system of reproduction, development of mammary glands, conversion from a cold blooded to a warm blooded system,temperature regulation, hair and a new way of breathing since reptiles have no diaphragm.Aging- Evolutionists age rocks by the fossils contained, called index fossils. Fossils are aged by the rocks in which they are found. In other words, fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils. This is called circular reasoning and is not scientifically valid rationale.Geologic column- This is the evolutionist’s bible for arranging and identifying rock layers. It physically does not exist anywhere on earth, only in textbooks!Chemistry- A series of tests were made to determine man’s closest relationships using chemical analysis of various body fluids. Man’s closest relationship in blood chemistry was the chimpanzee, in milk-the jackass, in cholesterol-the garter snake, in tear enzyme-the chicken, and in blood antigen A-the butterbean. This has confused evolutionists!
Embryonic development- It was , the gill slits develop into the thymus and parathymus glands and the middle ear canals. The tail becomes the coccyx.Grand Canyon- Evolutionists claim that the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years. The Colorado River enters the canyon at an elevation of 2800 feet. The rim of the canyon is at an elevation of 6000 feet To do so, the river would have had to run uphill.Salt in the ocean- the ocean is presently 3.6% salt which comes from erosion of the earth. If the earth was millions of years old, the ocean should be many times saltier.Niagara Falls- The falls are eroding at a rate of 4.7 feet per year. If the earth was millions of years old, the falls should have eroded all the way back to Lake Erie by now.This is but a partial list of problems with evolution. Want more?
“Proving creation can not and will not ever happen. You know this.”
Then why try to dress it up and sell it as science, i.e. creationism, or its vaguer cousin, intelligent design?
Ronald, 10,000th verse, same as the first.
You raise endless questions about specific claims, implying the that whole of the theory is an artifice. But that’s all you got. In search of Bigfoot–COULD IT BE?
Morever, even *I*, a computer geek, could refute some of things you’re saying (e.g. the OLD eye argument). These are “old saws” of the creationist literature, long since dispensed with.
And quite frankly, not worth my time.
Think you got a knockout blow to the theory? I look forward to see it published, then, in a peer-reviewed journal. You can post the information here.
I won’t hold my breath.
Rage,
I think Ronald was asking for debate on the following:
“Man’s closest relationship in blood chemistry was the chimpanzee, in milk-the jackass, in cholesterol-the garter snake, in tear enzyme-the chicken, and in blood antigen A-the butterbean. This has confused evolutionists!Embryonic development- It was , the gill slits develop into the thymus and parathymus glands and the middle ear canals. The tail becomes the coccyx.”
If you can’t give or you are not qualified/educated enough to give a debate, what’s the point in commenting on saying the theory is an “artifice” if you cannot defend just a portion of it.
You know, the “whole is equal to the sum of it’s parts axiom.”
If the parts of the theory are not adding up, then one has to question the validity of the whole.
I’ve seen the microscopy of gills in the human embryo so-called development in the womb to other body parts.
When I asked in class way back then if the pre-natal “gills” had been tested to see if they could permit exchange of proper gases to breathe, the answer was no.
Then the question comes up, “Are they really gills or just gill-like.”
To avoid such issues is not really responsible in an argument where one is trying to prove a theory or even falsifying it under testing conditions.
test
Kansas,To begin with, Ronald produces these claims without attribution, as if handed down by God.
The underlying logic sinks him anyway. Take the “closest relationship” argument above. Assume it’s all true. That’s difficult: is our blood chemistry really closer to chimpanees than, say, Cro-magnon man?
Oh–he means living, modern creatures? So what does that prove? Common ancestry, maybe? What else? I guess it refutes the long-held evolutionist view that all of human physiology came from–what?? It’s like he’s refuting some “evolutionist” claim that exists only in the fevered minds of creationists.
And I’ve already wasted too much time on this crap. My mistake.
Not really rage.
Modern day evolutionists often point to residual limbs and organs in living organism such as the legs in whales.
I’ve always asked where is the residual hip to go with that residual leg in whales and no one can answer me.
If one brings up a scientific proposition and claims it as fact, I would expect them to show me using science that it is true.
If they can’t, then it becomes another untested theory.
Rage
Do us all a favor and do NOT feed the troll!
Kansas/Republican/Republikhan/JM/blank space claims expertise in everything. He/she/it is the embodiment of the the religious reichwing. He wouldn’t know the difference between a real theory or the fairy tale that is creationism if it hit him in the face.
This “ron cote” is just another ID hack who can’t seem to find ANY evidence to support ID so he goes after evolutionary theory throwing around all kinds of non-sequitars.
I too would like to see some peer reviewed literature that supports the ID movement. I know I won’t see in because there is none.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Apophis, but I prefer ksagnostic’s approach: Kansas can be completely full of it, but if he’s on relatively good behavior, that should be regarded as such. I weigh his statements with the exact degree of merit they earn.
It’s not like he’s going anywhere soon.
Actually, I’m arguing Evolutionary theory, not ID.
I’m asking for those with the knowledge or expertise on what has been brought up (gills, legs in whales) to provide explanations why the stated positions have not be challenged through scientific testing.
No one has yet to give me an answer.
“If the parts of the theory are not adding up, then one has to question the validity of the whole.”
I find this statement really interesting. This is not really the point (I would make two arguments here, one, that there will never be enough “proof” for a creationist, even though scientists are not interested in “proof,” and two, even if there are “inconsistencies” in evolutionary details, there is still more evidence for evolution as a general framework than there is for ID.But, let’s stipulate, for argument’s sake, to your argument. What is the counter-argument to evolution? I have to assume that we are talking about the Judeo-Christian creation story, just based on probability. Look at Genesis: there are two different creation stories that don’t even match. If the Bible is the unerring, faultless word of God, how can there be two DIFFERENT versions of ONE creation? Talk about the parts not adding up to the whole!
Also, Kansas, can you explain/clarify this statement a bit?
“I’m asking for those with the knowledge or expertise on what has been brought up (gills, legs in whales) to provide explanations why the stated positions have not be challenged through scientific testing.”
I don’t understand what it is you’re asking. Thanks
Alrighty, sorry for the delay. There are a number of papers on the evolution of Hawaiian honeycreepers (though less than I would have thought). These are a wide range of birds that evolved from a single ancestral seed-eating finch. Now, these birds have evolved into nectar feeders, insect eaters AND seed eaters. Is that enough of a “trait change” for you, a change from herbivory to omnivory?
Here’s a paper on the general phylogeny of the whole group, including ones that have gone extinct:
James, Helen F. “The osteology and phylogeny of the Hawaiian finch radiation (Fringillidae: Drepanidini), including extinct taxa.” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society; Jun2004, Vol. 141 Issue 2, p207-255, 49p.
Their data suggests that the group in question is monophyeletic.
TC, I used to live in Wichita. I’ll actually be back to visit in a week. Looking forward to the ice, haha
I can download the PDF since it costs money to look at this article, but I would need a place to host it. Any suggestions?
Alternatively, you can check out the wikipedia article on hawaiian honeycreepers ;)
Also, I was digging around and found a site I’d never seen, it’s pretty cool. I didn’t know about our carnivorous caterpillars, that’s pretty amazing.
http://www.hawaii-forest.com/natural-history/evolution.asp
nunyer, you might gain some knowledge by studying. The Discovery Institute was formed to perform public policy research, analysis and advisement. For example, its largest-funded single research project has been a study of transportation problems and solutions for the Seattle MSA.
In the Dover case, DI was alerted to the proposal to incorporate Intelligent Design into Dover biology curriculum before the school board voted on it, and DI strongly urged the board to not do this, as its legal analysis determined that this would be challenged and the ID-curriculum would be invalidated by the courts. DI further issued public statements to the press stating its opposition the curriculum change both before and after it was approved and implemented.
This being said, DI has however pointed out that Judge Jones’ ruling was legally unsound in that it went far afield the legal matter at hand–was the new curriculum violative of the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court? which DI deemed to be the case–but went on to condemn ID as having no scientific basis, no support in the scientific community, no peer-reviewed publications, and relying on a supernatural intelligence belief. Judge Jones’ conclusions were all false. More importantly Judge Jones violated a longstanding principle enumerated by the Supreme Court that rulings should dispose of cases according by paring down the facts to those required for proper adjudication. For example, Judge Jones was a former Pennsylvania Liquor Board Chair, not a legal scholar. He found that ID could be traced to St. Thomas Aquinas and resultingly cast it as a Christian invention, when in fact ID vs. evolution was argued by Plato, Socrates and other great pre-Christian minds, of pantheist, deist and agnostic beliefs. This fact was provided in briefs, which Judge Jones was apparently unwilling to read.
Judge Jones expressed an intent to debunk ID per se—not just its teaching in schools—which went far afield of his authority as a judge and demonstrated his ignorance of the issue.
(BTW, for all you “Judgment Day” fans, that was a melange of fact and dramatized fiction. The courtroom scenes were as manufactured as those in “Inherit the Wind,” the roles played by paid actors. They were coached to display emotive characteristics by directors who were not at trial, and unable, as well as uninterested in creating an accurate reconstruction. The plaintiff’s counsel’s slamming a stack of journals in front of Michael Behe, which ostensibly discombobulated Behe, did nothing of the kind in reality. Behe later reviewed the journals, and established that no articles addressing, much less discrediting Behe’s scientific views on irreduceable complexity, so this was a circus publicity stunt.
DI fellows were asked by the show’s producers to interview, and agreed, on the condition that DI would independently audiotape all interviews. DI knew that editing could present statements out of context, and it just insisted on having its own independent evidence to critique any inappropriate cutting and splicing. PBS refused this stipulation. The only reasonable conclusion is that it did intend to cut and splice, and if DI protested without a complete tape, it would boil down to nonprobative he-said/she-said disputation. Billionaire Paul Allen, the major fundor and instigator of Judgment Day wasn’t looking for objective reconstruction, he openly said he wanted “to tell a story”. Perhaps JD should have aired in Masterpiece Theater’s timeslot, rather than Nova.)
The press jumped on Judge Jones’ opinion, poring over it in great interest, and giving it favorable review. What the press failed to do was to examine the “Judge’s opinion” concurrently with ACLU briefs. The judge, alas, simply reprinted whole sections of ACLU briefs, without quotation marks or attribution as though they were his own expressions. How do we know this? Because his typed opinion included exact typos contained in the ACLU briefs. So, we have a lazy press.
The judge could have issued a summary finding for plaintiffs, and quickly disposed of the case. Unfortunately he chose to grandstand and convene a protracted circus. His ejection of the ID-containing part of the Dover curriculum will stand. His attempt to for once and for all destroy ID as a movement was just silly. His overreaching opinion has no binding authority outside Central Pennsylvania.
“[B]ut went on to condemn ID as having no scientific basis, no support in the scientific community, no peer-reviewed publications, and relying on a supernatural intelligence belief. Judge Jones’ conclusions were all false.”
How are these conclusions false? They are exactly true, unless you consider an extreme minority of scientists who believe in ID to constitute “support in the scientific community.” And where are these peer-reviewed publications? I ask this genuinely; I have been asking for someone - anyone - to provide scientific evidence, or link to scientific evidence, throughout this thread and have not gotten a single response, except for some vague mentions of radioisotope inconsistencies and a few other similar replies. I truly wish someone would post a link to this “sound,” “peer-reviewed” scientific literature that has been the subject of so much talk through the course of this thread. And when I say scientific, I mean scientific - that means experimental (or, failing that, observational), REPRODUCIBLE, data collected by primary research or study, not just the usual ID critiques of existing research data. Criticizing the fossil record because it does not satisfactorily meet your criteria, or arguing for “irreducible complexity” because something seems so complicated to you that it can’t possibly have developed without a god does NOT constitute evidence. It’s one thing for the ID camp to sit around and criticize the existing research and claim that it doesn’t meet their criteria for “proof” of evolution - even though they have absolutely no “proof” whatsoever of a creator or an intelligent designer. It is another matter entirely to produce some kind of actually scientific evidence in support of an ID position. So far, the ID supporters have not produced any evidence to support their claims. The ID movement wants to be taken seriously as an “alternative” to the existing explanatory framework (i.e., evolution) - or so they claim - but they can’t produce any actual science to back it up. By the way, if ID is not a “Christian invention,” then I’m sure the DI would be fine with giving equal time to all creation myths, including Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, and, presumably, Wiccan and Pagan. That doesn’t leave much time for any other science….
………………again, MPS dodges the question.
When, where, how did you have your “conversation” with Dr. Ken Miller. Many of us wnat more details to support this claim you have made.
Thanks for the suggestion to study, MPS. I did. Specifically, the Kitzmiller v Dover transcripts.
Could you please show where the trial re-enactments in NOVA’s “Judgment Day” are not consistent with those transcripts? Surely if the NOVA documentary was so flawed it won’t take you any time at all to do so . . . and here’s a link to the trial transcripts, in case you’ve never read them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
**********************MPS, it’s just too bad you prefer to Gish Gallop instead of addressing questions put to you. You know what I mean - instead of engaging in true dialogue, you scurry on to your next diatribe. You have yet to admit that you’re not an expert in education, you have yet to admit that your homeschooling stories were just that - anecdotes unencumbered by hard data or research.
You’ve got a decent brain, man. You could make a difference in the world. Why do you choose instead to vent your spleen here?
I’ll keep you in my prayers, MPS.
Evolutionist pattern theory to accomodate contradicting observations.
For example,
The similarities between humans and apes are labled as indicative of evolution. However, the differences between humans and apes are also attributed to evolution as well. Case in point is this article about the bone structure of pregnant humans.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316599,00.html
How do the similarities between humans and apes point to a common descent relationship while the differences are attributed to evolution as well?
The theory is molded to accomodate anything and everthing, it is not even falsifiable. No matter what, if your faith in evolution is strong, even contradictions will fit your model perfectly.
“Now, these birds have evolved into nectar feeders, insect eaters AND seed eaters. Is that enough of a “trait change” for you, a change from herbivory to omnivory?” posted by tara
======Without knowing the observation data of birds from a thousand years ago, it’s hard to say.
Scientists were surprised when they found that chimps ate meat. That’s because there had been little observation of them before the middle of the 20th century.
Hummingbirds are taken to sucking sugar water from plastic feeding devices.
I don’t think that indicates anything other than a method of convenience which involves sensing out a type of nectar that differs greatly from those found in plants.
People are also surprised that dogs like plants/vegetables and actually require it to maintain a balanced diet.
Domesticated dogs can no longer wrench the guts out of animals to get their plant/vegetable supplements, so humans provide it for them.
Hogs are another example of flesh eaters that surprise people.
I read something on vultures that is surprising, I’ll have to find it before I speak. It indicates their choice of flesh as well and it’s not always dead.
rfl, with all due respect, you are still missing the point. Evolution is the framework for understanding how these changes occur and for explaining the similarities and differences that are observed. It is falsifiable both in the sense that if someone else were to develop a better explanation for the observed differences - in this case, for the differences in vertebral structure - an explanation that fits the data better, matches the observations, measurements, etc., better, then this particular explanation could be set aside and replaced with another; it is also falsifiable in general, evolution as a whole could be set aside and replaced with a better explanation, only no one has offered a better explanation that fits the data. I’m sorry, but “God did it” is not a better explanation. Criticism of the existing framework without offering a substitute mechanism, while failing to produce any experimental or scientific evidence does not constitute an explanation. There are certainly many valid points to be made about some of the limitations of evolutionary theory, but those are exceedling minor in the face of the vast, overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution. If you can demonstrate - DEMONSTRATE, with evidence - another mechanism that better fits the facts, by all means, let’s here it. Until then, it’s not science.
Oops, let’s HEAR it.Dur.
rfl,Let me ask you, what evidence would it take for you to accept the fact of evolution? Would there be anything that would convince you?
Let me ask you, what evidence would it take for you to accept the fact of evolution? Would there be anything that would convince you?
Posted by: Jed | December 13, 2007 at 07:54 PM
For me, it would be come up with the missing links in all the species claimed to have changed by evolution.
So far, evolutionists cannot.
And the evidence for God is?
And the evidence for God is?
Posted by: pagan | December 13, 2007 at 10:23 PM
You cannot use scientific method, logic or evidence on a deity. All of those are man-made.
Yet another ridiculous argument.
If “god” can’t be proved, then god does not exist.
If “god” can’t be proved, then god does not exist.
Posted by: pagan | December 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Well, I won’t waste any more time on you, but you can’t prove or disprove the existence of God anymore than you can prove or disprove ontological arguments what is reality in the perspective of a non-human approach.
In other words, you would need a human to evaluate the process which of course is not allowed, because the purpose of the study of reality study would to prove its existence without interfering with its process.
It’s the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle unleashed -
“In quantum physics, the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic, but instead is characterized by a probability distribution, and the larger the associated standard deviation is, the more “uncertain” we might say that characteristic is for the system.”
“For me, it would be come up with the missing links in all the species claimed to have changed by evolution.”
Welp. You’ll never believe in evolution, then.
Most things that die decay. Fossilization is a rarity, and so we will never find all of the missing links.
We’ll find cousins of missing links, and links that we hypothesize to be out there, I imagine. That giant, amazingly well preserved dinosaur in North Dakota dug up recently will probably answer a lot of questions.
Interestingly enough, a vast majority of biologists are not atheists, but agnostics. Kansas is correct, you cannot disprove God.
I’m not belligerent Tara, just a terminal and incurable skeptic. :D
I like for proofs to be solid not undone in any fashion.
So do I.
Tara I can understand what you are saying about evolution. The original topic here was that evolution and ID were both based on faith.
Now I don’t want anyone teaching ID as science because it isn’t. I can’t imagine giving up my belief in an omnipotent God that created this world I live on. I can only imagine that you share that same determination for your faith in evolution.
Good for you. Many good things will come from your research and the others that are out their looking at fossil records and plants as you are doing.
We’ll just agree to disagree about evolution and ID and go on. I have a sis in law that teaches high school earth science. SHe is a strong Christian and explained many things to me that helped in my thought process on this.
Lucky you getting to be in Hawaii. I have only been their once but loved it. My favorite spot was on the northshore of Oahu where the woodcarvers hang out.
“For me, it would be come up with the missing links in all the species claimed to have changed by evolution.
So far, evolutionists cannot.”
When science finds “missing link” “B” between fossils “A” and “C,” the creationists just say, “Well, now there are TWO missing links!”Kansas, there will never be enough “missing links” found to convince you if that is your sole criterion for satisfying the validity of evolution; the fossil record just isn’t that complete - it’s not a file cabinet. You have to look at ALL the evidence from the myriad of scientific fields, taken as a whole. Honestly, you will NEVER believe in evolution, and that’s fine - no one is asking you to. You are welcome to believe that god created the Earth in six days six thousand years ago if you want; no scientist will ever fault you for wanting to or for believing in that. You can believe that a can of Cheez-whiz created the world in six minutes if you want (I’m not mocking you, I’m just trying to illustrate a point); most scientists will think you are off your rocker, but they will be more than happy to leave you be and believe your beliefs. The problem is that the ID/Creationists want to impose their RELIGIOUS views on science, even to the point of calling science a religion, then squawking about their tax dollars going to support “religious” indoctrination in the public schools. The fact is, science is NOT religion. Science is the systematic study of natural phenomena using observation, measurement, and experimentation, and it has sets of rules and guidelines governing it - chief among them reproducibility and predictive value. ID/creationism has neither of these latter two. If you want to believe in a creator, in an intelligent designer that started the universe/the earth/life, that’s great, no one is trying to stop you - in fact, when was the last time you saw legions of scientists storming church meetings or filing lawsuits with Catholic Dioceses demanding that “equal time” be given to a scientific explanation of Good Friday or the Ten Commandments? If you are secure in your faith, then live your faith. Teach your kids your faith in its proper context. If you don’t like the public school science curriculum, send your kids to religious school, or do what parents have done for generations: take your kids to Sunday School. No one is saying that science and faith are incompatible. No one is demanding that you give up God and turn to evolution. Millions of scientists are very religious, millions are not. Either way, the vast majority of them keep the two separate, and for good reason.
Hmm “kansas” is out of luck here.
He SAYS his wife ditched him and took the kid.
My take is he has no kids let alone an ex wife.
SO his limited vision will die with him.
Kans,”In quantum physics, the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic, but instead is characterized by a probability distribution, and the larger the associated standard deviation is, the more “uncertain” we might say that characteristic is for the system.”
You better watch yourself- if you take that statement clear to it’s end, you’re saying that there is only a probability of the existence of a god, and you’ll have a howling mob of evangelicals after your hide. Of course it may take them a while to figure that out.
“Tara I can understand what you are saying about evolution. The original topic here was that evolution and ID were both based on faith.”Posted by: ksgrm | December 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM
No, that was NOT the original topic of thread. It is only creationists like you who tried to claim that evolution is based on faith. That straw man doesn’t work.
Evolution is SCIENCE, ID is CREATIONISM. Let’s be correct here.
rfl,Let me ask you, what evidence would it take for you to accept the fact of evolution? Would there be anything that would convince you?-Jed==========================Jed,
I remembered asking a smiliar question to you, that is “Jed, what evidence caused you to be convinced that evolution was fact?
Your response was something like: “I’ve always been interested in paleontology, natural sciences etc.”
This response led me to believe that you have always believed in evolution and simply trusted that there was sufficient evidence backing it up. You believe the conclusions of one group of scientists and trust that they were not made based on any presupposition. However, everyone has a presupposition about the existance of God. It’s impossible to be completely impartial on explaining the origins of life without evidence.
So therefore, here is the only defense of evolution:
Since creationism is clearly not science, the only available scientific hypothesis that requires not the supernatural must be accepted. Therefore, evolution must be science.
I do not agree to that. There MUST be evidence that is exclusively explained only by evolution in order for it to be fact.
If you believe in evolution and claim evidence as your basis, but you can not supply conclusive evidence, you belief is faith NOT science.
Here’s how TC explains it:
“It [evolution] is falsifiable both in the sense that if someone else were to develop a better explanation for the observed differences…it is also falsifiable in general, evolution as a whole could be set aside and replaced with a better explanation,”
“I’m sorry, but “God did it” is not a better explanation”
-TC===============================
I too am sorry, TC. Just because you don’t accept the “GOD did it” expanation, does not make your theory correct.
You feel like there is enough evidence to vindicate your theory as science, which means you use evolution and science interchangeably. Well keep on believing your theory then. I find that there is more science in disproving evolution than there is to prove it. But I have a different presupposition than you so until that changes (or unequivocal evidence is found) we remain at an impasse.
“Just because you don’t accept the “GOD did it” expanation, does not make your theory correct.”
You are 100% right, rfl, whether or not I accept the “GOD did it” explanation has absolutely no bearing on the correctness of evolutionary theory. I’m glad we can agree on that, because the converse to that argument would be, “Just because you believe that God DID do it doesn’t make YOUR theory correct.”Your response exactly echoes my previous post: for creationists, there will NEVER be enough evidence. In point of fact, you are correct in saying that unequivocal evidence has not yet been found. However, taken together, there is a PREPONDERENCE of evidence (sorry for the all caps - I wish we had italics or something; all caps seems so much like yelling) in support of evolution. (Again, science is not interested in “proving” evolution - it’s the creationists who are obsessed with “proof.” See earlier posts - I won’t bore everyone with this again) You choose not to believe that - that’s fine! No problem. I totally and completely support your right to believe that. It may sound trite, but that is what is so fantastic about America. There are plenty of countries all over the world where we couldn’t even have this debate. What I don’t support is when ID/Creationists try to force their non-scientific explanations into science curricula, then, failing that, try to paint science as a religion. I’m Catholic(ish) :) The Catholic Church has many beautiful traditons, rituals and sacraments. It has many comforting stories and rich moral lessons and so forth. (It also has serious, serious problems, but that’s another thread altogether!). But the one thing that it is NOT is science - not by the longest shot. If you don’t want to believe in evolution, that’s ok - but if you want an “alternative” to be taught in SCIENCE class, you’d better come to the table with a SCIENTIFIC alternative. Until then, ID needs to be taught in Sunday School.
TC,It is strange to me that we can not agree that evolution should not be included as science since you yourself acknowledged correctly above that “unequivocal evidence [for evolution] has not yet been found”.
So with that in mind, why insist that something that posseses no unequivocal evidence be labeled as science? You are asking kids to accept something as scientific fact that is not really scientific fact. So in essence, you are being less than honest.
That is an egregious error in my book.
I believe that supernatural creation is the best explanation for the origins of life and the formation of the universe. My belief is not science and I would be in error to claim otherwise.
Evolution claims the opposite. It applies the rational that all events can be explained by natural forces. Good idea. However this theory can not really explain the origin of life using natural forces that anybody has ever seen or discovered evidence of ever occuring. Therefore, while it is a nice theory and deserves to be thoroughly researched, there are simply too many holes requiring a preponderance of FAITH for it to be purported as science.
It’s almost like evolution is your God in the same sense that God is my God.
I have read 29 evidences. It is extremely weak if not an insult to the word “evidences”. Of the first 10 I have read, they are soundly refuted in:http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
P.S.,
I don’t care about what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I care about the truth. The truth has the greatest influence on what morals I belief are important and unchangeable. The truth, and the degree to which I feel that I have correctly grasped it, has the greatest impact on how I will live my life.
rfl,Problem is, by those standards there is no unequivocal evidence for anything; a few religious freaks are utterly convinced that the earth is flat and the space shuttle flies in circles above the disk:http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php
If truth is what you’re truly interested in, you need to open your eyes to the world around you. The evidence for the system of life is in your back yard.The truly amazing part is that because evolution is a part of nature, it has no effect whatsoever (despite what your preacher may tell you) on the supernatural. It’s not a matter of believing one or the other since neither conflicts. The people who say that it must be either God or Darwin don’t understand either.
rfl,
As I have said a dozen or more times before, the problem is that you don’t have a good understanding of what science is. If you did, you would understand what I meant. You clearly don’t understand what constitutes scientific fact, and because of that, you paint ME as dishonest. I’m sorry if you don’t have the requisite scientific training to understand what constitutes science - but don’t call me dishonest just because you don’t get it. You are free to believe whatever you want. I encourage you to; but if you want to believe in a supernatural explanation for things, keep it out of science class. The issue here is that I understand religious faith, but you clearly don’t understand science (I truly don’t mean to be insulting, but it is clear from your responses that you don’t), and because you don’t understand science, you equate the “gaps” in evolutionary data to a religious “leap of faith” and it is just not the same - plain and simple, I’m sorry. And until you understand the difference between rational science and religious faith, we really can’t have a serious discussion. All I ask - and all most scientists ask - is that you keep your supernatural explanations out of the science classroom. If the ID and creationist folks can’t do that, then we’ll keep fighting them. It’s not personal.
Actually TC, rfl doesn’t have to believe you.
The only person that has submitted their peer review papers and PhD on this Blog is Dr. Ben Huie.
This is an opinion blog. This is an opinion thread. People put opinions here.
TC,Yes, I know. Because I accept evolution for what it is, you think I just don’t get it.
You really don’t get that evolutionism is a faith. The fossil record does not provide any evidence for common descent. You just don’t get that do you?
I have never claimed that religous faith be used in place of science in the secular science classroom. You have dreamed it up in your head that that is what I am insisting. I am asking that the material that claims the authority of science, actually be proven. Simple as that. Evolution does not pass the test.
Now, can we move on and address the evidence that you feel forces anyone who accepts science to accept evolution?
I have read 29 evidences. It’s remarkable that the author uses the formation of frost on a windshield and the shape of a snowflake as evidence of order taken out of nature through random process. Come on! The order ocurrs because of the atomic lattice structure that has always existed. It is not something that is gradually coming into place under the guidance of an evolutionary force. It’s ridiculous the length to which evolutionists will go to show evidence. Do you want to provide another example that can be shown to prove nothing?
I know you would prefer to keep everyone an ostrich by labeling anyone as scientifically illiterate who dares question the mysterious evidence of evolution. That way you will not actually be obligated to defend it. Its common in every thread on this topic to use this cowardly tactic.
Wow. My wife warned me against getting involved with this discussion board. Lesson learned.
TC,Your wife is right in trying to protect you. It is traumatizing to realize utter failure in defending your faith.
Nice try. Just because you don’t understand basic scientific concepts doesn’t mean I have failed at anything; it just means that you don’t understand the difference between faith and knowledge.
Also, You need to read the evidences more carefully; the frost and snowflake examples are NOT given as evidence of evolution. While you folks are re-reading things, take note that I never said anyone HAD to believe anything I said, quite the contrary, and I never said - or even implied - that anyone should be forced to believe in evolution.
One last thing, I’m sure sorry if I offended you in some way. I tried to be civil, so I don’t know what I did to deserve being called “dishonest” and “cowardly.” I suspect it is related to your magical ability to know things that you couldn’t possibly know, like that I “would prefer to keep everyone an ostrich,” (which I absolutely don’t - and that you would know if you actually read my posts). It’s been fun. It would be more fun if you had at least a rudimentary understanding of science, but you are certainly not required to. If you don’t want to learn, though, just keep your unscientific ideas out of the science classroom until YOU have some “proof.” It’ll be a while.
“If you don’t want to learn, though, just keep your unscientific ideas out of the science classroom until YOU have some “proof.” It’ll be a while.”-TC
The same goes for you sir. When evolution is proven, it belongs in the science classroom.
Again, please tell me where I stated that science should be taught with a creationist viewpoint?
You are indeed a coward when you can not step up and back up your claims that evolution is proven science. Instead you run away and claim that I do not have rudimentary scientific knowledge (which I do BTW).
When you claim that something is fact, and then admit that there is not unequivocal proof, you are being dishonest.
You have the opportunity here to prove otherwise. But that is up to you. If you choose not to, you are clearly demonstrating how faith-like your belief system is.
TC,You are right about the snowflake example in evidences NOT being a picture of evolution. The other does not make that claim. Yet with that established, why is this example and the other example (the mushroom cloud from an atomic blast) the only two examples given to demonstrate how order can come out of nature? If it is not a product of evolution, why even include it in a discusion about evolution? Unless of course, there are no better examples.
Spelling correction:”other” s/b “author”
Answers to previous blogs:To jed, one example of a plant or animal changing from something to something else would convince me. Over these millions of years something right now visible and identifiable should be in some stage of transition. Just one!
To Pagan, for the evidence of God, just look out the window! And if it can’t be proved, in your mind it doesn’t exist? How many things do you accept without proof? Evolution certainly can’t be proven.To Kansas, Your incurable skepticism must keep you up at night. The road to hell is purportedly paved with skepticism. What don’t you skepticize?To ksgrm, denying ID is a great cop out as is the rest of the evols knack for denial as if it makes the truth vanish.To Jed, just produce the proof and we will all be convinced and followers.To TC, you state the problem as not understanding basic scientific concepts. As a scientist and biologist, I wish you would set me straight with your insight. I could become a better scientist as a result. Please share your wisdom.To TC, all the way through your ramblings you seem to come across as judge and jury as to what constitutes science and what does not. Where did you derive the wisdom to determine what is or isn’t scientific apart from your obvious bias? If you had but an inkling of what science was
about, you would realize that all evidence should be closely scrutinized to determine validity with determinations based on the weight of all data. But you want it screened to reflect only that supporting your views. Get real!
Correction to my December 20, 2007 at 08:05 AM : post.
There are indeed more than two examples given in http://www.talkorigins.com depicting order from nature. And yes none of them are purported by the author to come about through the process of evolution. However, the intent of this website is the vindication of evolution based on evidence. The lack of relevant examples on this specific topic has been noted.
Here are a couple of tidbits for evols to deny:Richard Dawkins, Oxford “…there are certain things about the fossil record that any evolutionist should expect to be true. We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved! If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks the whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyedNOVA TV Special, God, Darwin And The Dinosaurs, “…dinosaur footprints, side by side with humans. Finding them would counter evidence that humans evolved long after the dinosaurs became extinct and back up…[the] claim that all species, including man, were created at one time.”
But evidence of humans co-existing with dinosaurs does exist with a multitude of human fossil footprints having been found in abundance in many areas of the world. Some examples are:A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, TexasA recently discovered series of 15 human footprints on the Upper Taylor Platform (UTP) in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, TexasA human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, TexasThe Morris Track was found by John Morris in the bed of the Paluxy River, downstream from the Taylor Trail at the Dougherty Site. While some of the detail eroded over a period of months, when it was first discovered, it was described as virtually perfectA human footprint from Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, TexasMany documented fossil prints have been unearthed with some of the best being destroyed be evols. They know no bounds when it comes to denial and outright rejection of evidence. To call evols scientists is shameful and an insult to what was an honorable profession.
Just because you post it here Cote doesn’t make it a fact.
This sounds like just another “denier” piece of garbage spin.
VERIFICATION of humans walking with dinosaurs?
That would be Earth shaking news.
This is the first I have ever heard of it. So you’ll forgive me if I doubt it utterly.
Got a link? I bet you don’t.
oh, there is a link……..to a creationist site.
this is lust another red herring!
“just”
“A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas”
I went down to Glen Rose, TX to the Dinosaur Valley State Park to examine this myself. The only human footprints were of tourists. The supposed fossilized print was of a dinosaur which was prevalent in the river bed. What the creationists claim is that humans used to have a toe sticking out of the back of their heel and three toes in front. That’s not a human footprint.
What is there to deny? Certainly not the fact that creationists are liars.
Sorry about that Ronald Cote,
I went on a tour of that area when I lived in Texas and the footprints are definitely not human.
The depressions are natural erosions. In fact, our teacher at the time took as to a local stream and showed us similar looking footprints in a newly formed stream from a flood. In those “prints” there was a heel and a front part of a foot. Looked convincing, but the formation was provided by a rock for the heel and the front part was when the water rushing around the rock made divots.
I forgot the specific term for the geological erosion, but it does have a name.
Don’t believe me? Experiment with it yourself - water hose and dirt are required for your backyard experiment.
Well Kansas….we actually agree on something.
It must be the Christmas season.
Kansas, your conclusions are astounding. Of the dozens of human footprints found along side dino prints, they can all be explained as depressions from natural erosions?. Is that also the explanation for how the dino prints were formed?Does your explanation also explain:1) The three prints of moccasined prints found on the Little Cheyenne River In South Dakota?2) Giant tracks found in Great White Sands, New Mexico in 1931?3) the 13 imprints found in the San Andreas Mountains?4) The sandal print crushing a trilobite?5) the huge footprints found in 1882 in Carson City, Nevada?6) the imprint of a leather shoe in Fisher Canyon, Nevada?7) the human footprint found near the Gediz River in Turkey ?There are many more examples which I am sure you can also explain with the formation of a rock forming the heel with water rushing to make divots.As soon as spring arrives, I will be out there with my hose, dirt and rock making footprints.
Your statements are so ludicrous as to aptly demonstrate the desperation of your beliefs and the pains you go through to justify the poverty of your myth. I pity you and your fellow evols for the desperation you must feel in having to continuously bolster your faith with trivia and lies in order to maintain your faith in a falsehood.
Ronald Cote, I’ve seen them with my own eyes. They look like two different shapes and not like footprints. I have no idea where they got the foot impressions from in the photos, but they weren’t from the places I personally witnessed.
Wasn’t even close.
I don’t know about those other place, I mentioned I Texas only.
But nice try - do you tap dance as well?
Actually Ronald Cote, I’m not an evolution. I do study science though and I am a Christian.
One must be skeptical to be a scientist. To swallow something whole without even witnessing and event or seeing it in person is not first hand knowledge.
That, within itself is a dangerous path on evidence that cannot be repeated - You know - scientific method.
Hey Ron?
Got a link?
Second call.
Extraordinary claims require at least some substantiation.
Humans a dinosaurs living side by side?
Only on “The Flintstones”.
Say hi to Betty and Barney for me.
Loon.
Ah,evols, whenever evidence and data are provided, the standard response is denial and the frustration from inability to defend is name calling , perfected to an art form by evols over the millions of years.Kansas, is everything you believe based on personal observation and witness? That’s not reality.JR, Clever response! Here’s the link that you will deny anyway http://www.subversive element.com/FossilizedHumanFootprints-ns4.html Say Hi to Charley for me! Calling me a loon must make you feel superior, as it is the mark of the ignorant which in your case must be blissful!
Uh Yeah.
Your link is no good. Tried clicking it. No dice.
This does not surprise me.
Go read old Ally oop comics.
Humans and dinosaurs at the same time. Ludicrous.
JR, Duh Yeah that’s odd, I have 6 pages from that link. Is your computer still run on a treadle? If not try plugging it in.It does not surprise me that you couldn’t find it. Go read more science fiction especially where germs turn into humans. Ludicrous!Kansas, I don’t tap dance. Can you teach me or give me a link and I’ll ask JR to find it.
Post a clickable link. I’m not gonna type all that in just to see your half baked “proof” that dinosaurs walked with man.
Evolution is taught in schools because science is taught in schools. Creationism and intelligent design are components of faith. Teach them away!
In a church.
We will not be teaching them in school again. Live with it. You will sleep better.
Ramen JR!
JR, You wanted a link, I gave you one. Now you say you are too lazy to complete it. Then having refused to find the site, you claim it as half baked proof. Boy, are your true colors transparent!Evolution should be taught in schools because it remains for now a contemporary controversy. Creationism and ID are antitheses and as such should be presented in the same classroom. As a Creationist, I have taught other theories in high school biology. It provides a challenge to them. We should be willing to expose students to all sides, where evols shudder to do so for fear of exposing their myth to scrutiny. Why are you scared stiff to present it in school?? By the way, I have no problem with sleep, but would bet that you do. Another brilliant point, from you! You seem desperate in that each blog seems to get dumber. And how about my prediction that you would deny the link that you requested. Am I perceptive or what?
Didya notice something there Ron?
It’s pretty MUCH just me and you “here” on this thread for about oh 4 days now.
Dumbing down my posts? More like winding down. I’m just carrying you another couple rounds you haven’t earned so you can make yourself an even BIGGER fool.
Look around. SINCE you made your “dinosaur and man footprints found together” post, well it’s got pretty lonely for you hasn’t it?
Hey I started OUT kind enough. You made an extraordinary claim and I invited you to give evidence.
Now the claim you make? That dinosaurs walked alongside man? Well that sort of news if even REMOTELY credible would shake the world. YOU make me go looking for it with a link you want me to type in? Weak.
Extraordinary claims require at least MARGINAL proof.
Oh and your worry as to students being exposed to alternatives?
Let me share a little story with you.
First, let me introduce myself. I’m 40ish. Very little exposure to church.
Junior high science 19late70’s Teacher asks “How many ribs does a woman have?” The class AND me answers in unison “14!” (That may not be correct now. But me and the class were correct then whatever number we said.) So then the teacher asks “And how many ribs does a man have?”
“13!” I and the class answer.
(Again, my memory may have failed on the number.)
SEE? The whole class and even me were using our religious biased answer to a basic anatomy question. The Adam’s rib bit? Yeah. Now I don’t have any PROOF of that. But I did spend the time to type it. That lends me a little validity I think. I’ve no record here for outright lies.
So ya see? I don’t have any fear at all that your take on “science” aint getting a fair hearing. I personally know better.
If anything, religious dogma is TOO persuasive in American culture. A class of 25 kids gets a basic anatomy question wrong because of it.
Now if you have PROOF that you want to lay out that dinosaurs and humans walked together? What are you shy? Fine post your proof here and I will get the story on every format on the planet. But first ya gotta convince me.
And unless you have that or better or can otherwise amuse me, it’s time for me to be merciful and let ya hit the canvas.
JR, I enjoy these exchanges, just wish you had more to offer. You ask for a link and refuse to access it apparently afraid it will blow you further out of the water! There are 139 positive instances of human prints found in or near dino prints. Did you think they would be found on evol websites? That would be tantamount to shooting an evol in the footprint and shattering his sacred myth!Well even after giving a dozen or so examples, you don’t want to discuss footprints so let us examine demographics. I will eagerly await your studied, academic and scientific rebuttal. I do not expect an intelligent response from you but maybe someone will gain from it.Evolutionists generally believe that modern humans existed about 500,000 years ago but estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000 years.
In July of 1999, it was estimated that the world’s population of humans had reached six billion. The population in year 2004 has been estimated at 6.3 billion.Demographers have been able to develop mathematical formulas to explain many things. In terms of population, they have taken into account a variety of factors to arrive at an average world annual population growth rate. Factors include average life spans, number of child bearing years, average number of children per couple, mortality rates and other pertinent factors including actual annual population growth experienced over the past centuries. The statistical formula that was developed using all of these factors was .455% as an average annual population rate of growth.Using this proven and reliable statistic, and based on the claim of man appearing 500,000 years ago and also assuming the existence of only one man and one woman, the world population in 2004 would be the number 2.155 followed by 985 zeros. This is an incomprehensible number and obviously not true. One can conclude from this that man could not have appeared 500,000 years ago.Under a second scenario, using a conservative assumption that man appeared on earth 100,000 years ago and that the annual growth rate was only .1%, rather than the accepted .455%. Assuming also that there were only two humans, one man and one woman, the population in 2004 would be 5.38 followed by 41 zeroes. This still remains a figure hugely larger than what the world has actually experienced.Under a third scenario using 25,000 years since modern man appeared, and using an ultra conservative annual growth rate of only .1%, and again basing the figures on only one man and one woman, the total is 1.44 followed by 9 zeroes. This results in a number that is 24 times greater than our actual population and obviously grossly incorrect.
A fourth scenario is to consider the biblical account of Noah’s Ark and a worldwide flood occurring 4,500 years ago, with eight survivors. Using the acknowledged accurate figure of .455% as the correct world annual population growth rate, the number computes to 6,300,000,000 as the population in 2004! This is exactly correct!!What we can conclude from these mathematical exercises is that modern man could not have appeared on planet earth 500,000, 100,000 or even 25,000 years ago and still produce the current population figures of today. In attempting to be extremely conservative by reducing the figures for annual growth rates and number of years for man to have been on earth still does not compute to current population.The only scenario that corresponds to the world’s actual population is that which relates to eight people, 4,500 years ago using the correct .455% figure!Your account of 13 or14 ribs is mind numbing.
Cote……don’t you get it?
You are considered a crackpot on this blog. Take your creationist garbage somewhere else.
Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
J R, here’s the link bozo was trying to foist off: http://www.subversiveelement.com/MKHome.html
This place is about mind control and the governments trying to do the same. This is way far out wing-nut cracker crap. If that’s all the ID crowd has to offer, then their trip to the edge of the world should go quite swimmingly.
Ronald Cote, I’m a Christian who happens to be educated with quite a few college level science and engineering courses under my belt. B.S. and M.S.
What you are trying to do is to know and predict the mind of God.
I’m sorry, but that is not possible, nor will it ever be.
I still have my views on creation and how evolution fits inside of that concept.
I can’t prove it, nor do I need to it. My faith carries me through.
However, I do depend on science to explain what is in front of me and what is around me.
I don’t use science to predict what is beyond me that cannot be known.
That’s where you and I differ.
“Evolutionists generally believe that modern humans existed about 500,000 years ago but estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000 years.”
Posted by RC
Wrong: evolutionists and archaeologists now think man has been around for over 1 million years. Not modern man, of course, but his ancestors (hey, might have been that little monkey you look a bit like).
“Demographers have been able to develop mathematical formulas to explain many things. In terms of population, they have taken into account a variety of factors to arrive at an average world annual population growth rate. Factors include average life spans, number of child bearing years, average number of children per couple, mortality rates and other pertinent factors including actual annual population growth experienced over the past centuries. The statistical formula that was developed using all of these factors was .455% as an average annual population rate of growth.”
What it fails to take into account is how violent the earth itself is. There are many geological records indicating ice ages, which, many think, wiped out all but about 1000 humans. Said humans being from an African tribe, traceable today via DNA.
O, except for part four: If the flood wiped out all life but that on the Ark, where did that life come from, and how many people were killed? Could be your millions? How long did they inhabit the earth?
Plus: Life itself was very difficult for early man: Natural disaster (fires, floods, earthquakes, radical temp changes due to volcanic activity, etc.), disease, tribal war over territory. Trying to stay alive was higher on the list than writing, agriculture or city building. Early man was a nomad.
Sorry, dude. I think God made man with the intelligence to figure out mans’ past, and it really has nothing to do with ID. Beside, what the hell difference does it make if mans’ 500, 5000 or 5,000,000 years old? Do you really think God gives a crap? Now that’s arrogance.
Should I ring the last bell on ol’ Ron or have him stumble around some more?
Your “scientific” models you cite there Ron? Did they include all the things J M Walker mentions AND little population reducers like several hundred wars, plagues, mass exterminations, mass starvations, etcetera?
Dinosaurs and man side by side is fiction.
Rant away on more interesting things like the golden spiral or the prevalence of the number 5.THOSE at least are….interesting.
I think someone once posted about an ohmsian argument or some such. You could go that way. The gist was the world was created as if it had existed for a long time. Trees with age rings in the garden of eden and the like.
But dinosaurs and man walking together is where you want me to go.
Sorry. None of my ancestors were there. I won’t imagine it either.
The measurement of how well I am able to upset evols is in direct proportion to: 1)the names I am called, 2)the wish for me to go away, 3) the number of denials,4) the insults, 5) questioning my credentials, 6) absence of any substantive scientific rebuttals, 7) vitriol, 8) obviation of ignorance in responses etc., etc.On these bases, my blogs have met with unqualified success beyond my wildest dreams. Thanks evols!Note to Kansas, I don’t know where you interpreted that I’m predicting the mind of God, Heaven forbid. It is refreshing to be joined by a Christian. Maybe our differences are miniscule.
Hey Ron?
I don’t care what you BELIEVE.
My kid believes in Santa Clause. That’s harmless. So are you.
But.
I don’t want someone like you anywhere near the education system.
And that is precisely where you and creation “science” will remain….FAR away from the education system.
Hey JR. I do care what you believe and moreso, I care what your kids believe with the fervent hope that they don’t inherit their father’s myopia. Reread my blog of 12/29 as it seems that you have met the citeria for all 8 points. So thanks again, I know your bell has been rung and your frustration is apparent.Nothing that you have said causes me to stumble as you have contributed nothing of substance. Keep evolving, though and you’ll get there!
Yeah well you come on back and wave it in my face when ya get the kids being taught that dinosaurs and humans lived side by side and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old there Ron. We got away from that business starting almost a century ago in the schools. We’ll not be going back to it. Sorry.