AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms? - Page 2

post #41 of 525
5/3/03 at 2:46pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by The General
The problem with evolution in schools is that is MOST cases, and in textbooks, it is NOT taught as a theory, it is taught as FACT.. they will occasionally call it a theory, but through out most scientific books they teach it as fact, and they use their basis for fact. here is something to consider:

Scientists tell how old certain layers are, by what they find in the layers, yet when they find an item, they age it by the layer.. too much circular logic. Plus, scientists will also tell you, that a species cannot reproduce and have another species, but if that is the case, then evolution would not work either.. too many wholes. if they wanna teach it that is fine, teach it as THEORY, with any other theories that are out there.

You really need to learn the difference between the definition theory used in the common vernacular and the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It's a major difference. Learn it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #42 of 525
5/3/03 at 2:55pm
There is a passage in the Bible used by http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm Archbishop Ussher of Ireland in the 17th century. From this he calculated that the Earth, Universe and Creation (and therefore all life) is about 6000 years young. This figure has been adopted by the more fundamental Christians, specially in the US.

The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.

6000 years!?!?!?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #43 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:13pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Oh, here's a relevant cartoon...guess who most resembles Danae!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #44 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
There is a passage in the Bible used by http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm Archbishop Ussher of Ireland in the 17th century. From this he calculated that the Earth, Universe and Creation (and therefore all life) is about 6000 years young. This figure has been adopted by the more fundamental Christians, specially in the US.

The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.

This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)

Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.

Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)

Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)

Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.

Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.

I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.

And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)

Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.

Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)

Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)

Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.

Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.

I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.

And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.

Nick

HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR CREATIONISTS
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #46 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR CREATIONISTS

Good, I'm sure that will convince many creationists they are wrong.

Now would you care to talk science?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:55pm
evolutionist have never claimed humans are the highest (or most developed creature), that is a claim stemming from biblical passages anyway...

humans are as evolved as any other creature -- there has been the same amount of time for them to evolve in their (changing) niche as any other species.

as for the paleobiology you are discussing -- sure the origin of our species is contentious, but there are many many more other species that have more definitive fossil records...

i will now take leave of this discussion because it probably will be closed in 5 4 3 2 1...
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 525
5/3/03 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.

Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)

Galileo tried that....the approach of science and reason didn't work out too great for him...he was executed by the Church.

Quote:
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)

Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.

Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.

I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.

And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.

I agree that evolution has large areas of imprecise knowledge, and yawning gaps....the lab was the Earth, and humans weren't around back then to observe and measure. It's not precise, but its the best model we got so far.... science is always a continuous process.

Whats the alternative to the "evolution" sciences? Creationism? That isn't a science...its a matter of faith. What EVIDENCE is there to suggest that the Universe and the Earth are 6000 years old, and humans were created as described in Genesis? Let's see it!

Re. the origin of humans...how about "intervention"...that is, the deliberate messing about of human development by 3rd parties with technology (Aliens!!! woooooooeeeeeiiiiiooooo). There's may be more evidence for an extraterrestrially wacky explanation than a biblically wacky one.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #49 of 525
5/3/03 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Many times they will tell you stuff like "Over millions of years, nature figured out what did work and what didnt and chose to keep what did",

If it works, it lives and gets to reproduce. If it doesn't, it dies.

Quote:
However others, like myself believe that they are large enough that it will eventually cause us to seek a new explination and throw evolution out.

Newtonian physics is wrong, but it still gets used.

Quote:
It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve.

It's not as if the results would surprise God, or that (assuming God exists) God didn't Set Us Up The Universe in the first place.

Quote:
First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development.

Humans are complex lifeforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are the destination of evolution.

Quote:
There's may be more evidence for an extraterrestrially wacky explanation than a biblically wacky one.

But where did these aliens come from then?
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #50 of 525
5/3/03 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo

or that (assuming God exists) God didn't Set Us Up The Universe in the first place.

You Have No Time. Make your Peace.

All your Faiths are Belong to Us
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #51 of 525
5/3/03 at 6:00pm
when i was first taught about the origin of the earth and man and all, i was in a catholic school, so they taught me about genesis. later, in like 7th grade, science teacher mentioned the big bang theory, she emphasized that it was a theory; i remember that was taboo, because, as i said, it was a catholic school and anything that could be construed against catholic dogma was taboo. she also told us a bit about evolutionary theory, and again emphasized that it was theoretical; though it was obvious in her telling that she favored more towards evolution than creation. i think that way is pretty good way of handling it; to tell the students about several theories, but to emphasize that none of them is definite.

when i got to hs bio class, evolution was regarded more strongly. teacher didnt, or atleast to my recollection didn't, mention creation or the possibility of other theories. although i later came to believe more in evolution, i think it would be better if kids are taught it and the fact that its a theory be accentuated.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 525
5/3/03 at 7:11pm
Damn, lately I find myself writing responses that I can't print, new career moves, fewer lazy student days, I write something good and I need to keep it in case of a slump.

Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.

So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.

Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.

You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.

And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.

This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #53 of 525
5/3/03 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Galileo tried that.....he was executed by the Church.





Stop the presses!!!! Recall the history books!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 525
5/3/03 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by The General
many people [presumably including The General] think most scientists are fruitloops

Don't touch that computer again General, you wouldn't want to use anything that is based on applied scientific theory.
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #55 of 525
5/3/03 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.

Really?

Quote:
My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an.

Could you please direct me to the part of that linked document where they love the idea that humans evolved from some ape-like creature, related to both present-day humans and present-day apes, because I'm not quite certain that evolution of the stars or of the Heavens is about those things.

Of course, given that there is a variety of several currents in Islam (as there is in Chrstianity, and other religions), the extent to which they accomodate various scientific theories is indeed, varied. I've discussed with some sheikhs and imams having no problem with the specific theory of evolution (as discussed today in scientific circles) and some will even point out the theory's echoing of ancient scholars like Abu al-Hassan Ali al-Masudi; others who be open to it but not without adding various conditions: like the addition of intelligent triggering to initiate the process itself (e.g.: a rejection of the idea of it having occured on its own), like variations of the intelligent design theme also heard of elsewhere, or like the assertion of man evolving separately from other species, e. g.: no evolving of Homo Sapiens from earlier Homo Erectus or any other lowly primate; and of course there are others who will tell you that the Quran is all the science you need and that all what passes for science in the unbeleivers' world is just heathen rubbish, and Allah (be praised) creating Adam (PBUH), the first prophet, is how man occured on Earth and khalas.
Quite a variety of views, similar to that found within other religions one can think of.
One assumes that teaching of evolutionary sciences is more than objected to among those people of the less than accomodating varieties.

Now, if you have it from reputable authorities, describing in no ambiguous terms the Islamic love for the idea of a biological evolutionary process including the evolution of man from other animal species occuring on its own without any necessary apparent intelligent intervention, it'd be most interesting; when saying reputable authorities I'm thinking widely recognised sources like say the Al-Azhar University, or even some Theological Assembly in Qom (Shi'ites should get their fair share, 'tis what I always say); a second opinion of some Wahhabi source from Saudi or a Deobandi source form India or Pakistan would also be acceptable, for while not mainstream pre-se, such currents have seen their influence grow in the last decades.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #56 of 525
5/3/03 at 8:07pm
There has been some talk on these threads of the many Christians who don't see evolutionary theory as a contradiction to their faith. For the record, count me as one. The Bible can be read to accomodate evolution. God works in wondrous ways.
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #57 of 525
5/3/03 at 8:18pm
The problem is that we have scientists who insist on being treated as though they have the answers to problems that they, in fact, do not have.

"We'll this evolved here-and-there, and then the lizard changed to a bird, and whale to this and that....."

....this is known as a THEORY, and theories have to be given over to critical thinking, if we are thinking at all here.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 525
5/3/03 at 8:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Damn, lately I find myself writing responses that I can't print, new career moves, fewer lazy student days, I write something good and I need to keep it in case of a slump.

Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.

So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.

Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.

You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.

And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.

This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.

I know the "established thinking" with regard to evolution. I know the theory better than most. I just won't jump the logic gaps that others will.

The number of coincidences that make up our current universe for example are to numerous to be plausibly ignored. As a result cosmologists are pondering the multiverse theory. I'll quote a nice article from that creationist rag, Scientific American.

Multiverse

There is speculation that not only there other universes that don't have the huge number of attributes that just happen to be so friendly to life like ours happen to be.

There is further speculation that not only are there other universes with different attributes but that they run parallel to ours and even split apart based off of decisions and attributes what appear to be coincidences aren't necessarily, etc.

It isn't something easily put into a forum post and the real point is that I won't believe a wrong theory in the absense of a better theory that is more accurate.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 525
5/3/03 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

Stop the presses!!!! Recall the history books!!!!!

Ok Ok....the Vatican did apologize about that one...in 1996, some 300 years afterwards....but better late than never I suppose....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #60 of 525
5/3/03 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ok Ok....the Vatican did apologize about that one...in 1996, some 300 years afterwards....but better late than never I suppose....



.....it's just that he died under house arrest---he wasn't executed
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 525
5/3/03 at 10:08pm
"We are stardust, we are golden
We are billion-year-old carbon
And we got to get ourselves
Back to the Garden"

\
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 525
5/3/03 at 11:13pm
Um, no. I think he's laughing at the bit were the Catholic Church executed Galileo. (They didn't. He wasn't.)

Galileo died a very old man (especially for that time) under house arrest after he was "persuaded" to recant his work.

Funnily enough, Galileo gets all the Martyr of Science treatment when Kepler did all the grunt work of the math about orbital trajectories.

So anyway....

Screed

Did you know that Galileo died on the very day that Sir Isaac Newton was born? Kewl trivial trivia.

Damn, ena beat me to it. Ah well...
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #63 of 525
5/3/03 at 11:54pm
Quote:
If it works, it lives and gets to reproduce. If it doesn't, it dies.

That's pretty much it, although Darwin is pretty clear that anything that helps an organism reproduce will also result in its characteristics being pssed on.

It always baffles me (and Darwin is pretty clear about this, too) that people see and reap the benefits of the things Darwin describes (pedigreed dogs, cows bred for their size, etc) and yet don't think that the theory holds water. Although the specifics of it have been fine-tuned over the years since 1858, it's still the most viable of any other theories. And it's certainly better than saying pixies did it.

Quote:
Humans are complex lifeforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are the destination of evolution.

Actually, Darwin pretty explicitly tries to distance himself from ANY claims about evolution and teleology. It was LeMarck who did that, and it didn't work out very well. All Darwin really says is that these small mutations over long periods of time (and he's probably wrong about the time-scale) can explain variety. Now, he *is* pretty flakey at times, and if you read a bunch of Romantic poetry about nature (especially Wordsworth) and then turn around and read Darwin, it becomes clear that he's got some odd ideas about "nature." For instance, throughout Origin he consistently says things that amount to "nature has the best interests of the species at heart" and "nature will take care of things." It's not really all that much of a problem for his theory, but it does indicate his biases. And he is, in the end, very much a creature of the Victorian period, which means that he's got tremendous faith in the inherent goodness of progress. This doesn't mean that he sees humanity as the top/end/acme of all this. Just that progress is good. And one of the neat things about his theory is that, because he doesn't propose an "end" to it all, it's little more than a description of a never-ending progress.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 525
5/4/03 at 12:07am
I think that if the theory evolution is to be taught as an explanation to our existence, it must also be shown that there are many major holes in it. Evolution does occur, but you have to be realistic about the places where it does. It occurs in species with enormous populations, and rapid life cycles. By enormous I mean quadrillions of members. This pretty much puts you into the realm of insects and bacteria. When you start talking about more advanced species you do run into the problem of increased mutation rates leading to extinction. Also you have to deal with the problem of minimum complexity of life. That is another really sticky point for any evolutionary theory. Its tough to rely on a theory for education that struggles to account for life, and the which also does not seem to follow the data for evolution.

As far as Christians embracing science. I believe that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I believe that the universe started with a big bang. Bolth of those beliefs are very well founded in scientific discovery. These discoveries don't conflict at all with the Bible. I personally think that some of the Christians that believe the world is only 10,000 years old need to maybe re-think their position a bit in light of experiments such as COBE and the work done on relativity. Its interesting to note that Einstein's theory of general relativity is one of the most verified theories in all of science. I have heard that it has been verified even more than Newton's three laws.

Just my thoughts
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
post #65 of 525
5/4/03 at 12:19am
Quote:
Originally posted by sCreeD
[B]Um, no. I think he's laughing at the bit were the Catholic Church executed Galileo. (They didn't. He wasn't.)

Galileo died a very old man (especially for that time) under house arrest after he was "persuaded" to recant his work.

Apologies, my error. Where did I get that from???...probably mixing it up with Giordano Bruno. And he wasn't executed for astronomical "heresies" oh well...
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #66 of 525
5/4/03 at 12:55am
Quote:
he was executed by the Church.

...and his middle finger can be seen in all its shriveled glory on display at the Museo di Storia della Scienza telling the Church to f**k off for all of eternity.



I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #67 of 525
5/4/03 at 5:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's pretty much it, although Darwin is pretty clear that anything that helps an organism reproduce will also result in its characteristics being pssed on.

It always baffles me (and Darwin is pretty clear about this, too) that people see and reap the benefits of the things Darwin describes (pedigreed dogs, cows bred for their size, etc) and yet don't think that the theory holds water. Although the specifics of it have been fine-tuned over the years since 1858, it's still the most viable of any other theories. And it's certainly better than saying pixies did it.



Actually, Darwin pretty explicitly tries to distance himself from ANY claims about evolution and teleology. It was LeMarck who did that, and it didn't work out very well. All Darwin really says is that these small mutations over long periods of time (and he's probably wrong about the time-scale) can explain variety. Now, he *is* pretty flakey at times, and if you read a bunch of Romantic poetry about nature (especially Wordsworth) and then turn around and read Darwin, it becomes clear that he's got some odd ideas about "nature." For instance, throughout Origin he consistently says things that amount to "nature has the best interests of the species at heart" and "nature will take care of things." It's not really all that much of a problem for his theory, but it does indicate his biases. And he is, in the end, very much a creature of the Victorian period, which means that he's got tremendous faith in the inherent goodness of progress. This doesn't mean that he sees humanity as the top/end/acme of all this. Just that progress is good. And one of the neat things about his theory is that, because he doesn't propose an "end" to it all, it's little more than a description of a never-ending progress.

Cheers
Scott

You think people don't understand the difference between manipulation of a trait and the entire creation of a new trait?

If you are a bacteria with a light sensitive spot. How does it suddenly become something closer to an eye? All the pieces of an eye must be present for it to work propertly. Likewise before DNA was well known about we could just jump the gap here with regard to how it turned out. Now we know that it wouldn't be a mutation in just one spot of the DNA chain. Heck just the color of eyes has several genes attached to it. You have whole chains of DNA that would need to "mutate" in just the right fashion.

People think simplistically and think, oh one small change and hey, I'm an X-man. But in reality DNA does not work like that. The biggest challenges to evolution are going to be from biochemistry, not religion.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 525
5/4/03 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If you are a bacteria with a light sensitive spot. How does it suddenly become something closer to an eye? All the pieces of an eye must be present for it to work properly.

You claim in another post to know the theory "better than most", yet your understanding of scientific method and the theory of evolution is severely flawed.

I doubt you would pass a grade school test on the subject, based on the lies you are repeating in this thread.

Have you ever even read a book on the subject? If you had, rather than sourcing your arguments from crackpot religious fundamentalists, you would have realised that every single one of your arguments has been definitively refuted time and time again.

If you're truly interested in doing anything other than preaching to the choir, then you may want to do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

edit: I want to draw attention to one piece in particular as a particularly lucid intro and overview of evolution and surrounding controversies--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

And as to your specific question about eyes (which is such an old saw, I'm sure you must be trolling--or badly misinformed about your own level of knowledge):
Quote:
Organs of great complexity can arise by slow degrees. A suitable sequence of events has been found, and there are numerous sea creatures alive today whose eyes are stages in that sequence.

It has been calculated that a complete fish eye could have evolved in less than 350,000 years, with almost no mutations. Something that easy should have happened many times, and in fact, taxonomists think that eyes have evolved more than 40 times.

from: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #69 of 525
5/4/03 at 7:22am
Quote:
If you're truly interested in doing anything other than preaching to the choir, then you may want to do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

I would also recommend that anyone who's interested in this actually read all of the Origin of Species. It's a nice read.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #70 of 525
5/4/03 at 8:07am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You claim in another post to know the theory "better than most", yet your understanding of scientific method and the theory of evolution is severely flawed.

I doubt you would pass a grade school test on the subject, based on the lies you are repeating in this thread.

Have you ever even read a book on the subject? If you had, rather than sourcing your arguments from crackpot religious fundamentalists, you would have realised that every single one of your arguments has been definitively refuted time and time again.

If you're truly interested in doing anything other than preaching to the choir, then you may want to do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

edit: I want to draw attention to one piece in particular as a particularly lucid intro and overview of evolution and surrounding controversies--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

And as to your specific question about eyes (which is such an old saw, I'm sure you must be trolling--or badly misinformed about your own level of knowledge):


from: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

You aren't being serious are you? You must know that on a biochemical level that finding things that happen to show a sequence regarding possible eye formation and then somehow proclaiming them to all be connected is the height of stupidity.

Quote:
Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."

I suppose that I could say human females are likely to evolve pouches in their fronts like kangaroos. I mean they already keep the child there protectively during the previous 10 months. The child fits there and the mothers hips are designed to take the weight. Other mammals already have pouches, etc.

Yet if I suggested this in seriousness it would be laughable because there is much more to a woman having a pouch then just a hole in the front of her.

The leaps you make here, based off of the most basic external observations are astounding. You are willing to jump from different species in different classes and do so because why? Because it is convenient? It might help with your belief, but keep your religion to yourself. I was not asking for a fossil record because eyes are obviously soft tissue that don't survive.

I am saying that on a biochemical level it isn't just manipulation. It is profoundly more complex than the silly little explanation you posit there.

As for your "computer model" about eye generation.

Quote:
In his recent book, River Out of Eden (Basic Books, 1995), Richard Dawkins points out how Nilsson and Pelger set up a computer model of evolving eyes to determine if a smooth gradient of change exists from a pigmented eye spot to the camera eye with a lens and cornea, and how long it would take such a transformation to occur. They employed pessimistic figures for the amounts of change possible per generation -- giving their model only 50% "heritability" (many human traits are over 50% inheritable), and chose pessimistic values for the coefficient of variation (how much variation there typically is in a population). And they determined that Darwinian evolution could produce a good camera eye in less than a half a million years! That's a mere "blink of the eye" in geologic time!

You don't understand the leap of logic here? The prejudiced pre-belief that brings about the intended results?

The computer program is "given" all the parts to make a good eye from the onset. You don't call that a little bit of a prejudice of belief? The computer model just had to adjust the parts and pass on the best adjustments to the next generation. This again is manipulation of existing traits with a computer and no external factors.

They also conveniently gloss over how those generaltions of animals with all the "imperfect" eyes manage to get by for half a million years when they can't see. Again a little leap in logic I do not care to make. The computer program pre-supposes that they would not be killed off completely by another organism.

Again when you take this to the biochemical level. When you think that the photo sensative spot is made of a cell that processes chemical reactions on dozens of different ways, the level of complexity sky rockets. When you consider how each one of these proteins had to "evolve" without chemical interference it becomes even more complex. When you consider that they need receptors and a means of evoking change at the other end of the chain of their reaction, it becomes even more complex. Evolution does not explain this level of complexity.

See it isn't that the lense just happens to have the wrong curvature for that generation. What happens to the complex cascade of chemical factors beyond that lense that have to work perfectly to process the chemical changes that occur in sensing that light.

Evolution works well on a large level, saying if you put to big dogs together you are likely to get a bigger dog. Yet if I asked if you if you put a big dog and a big human together what would you get, you would scoff. The reason? Well their DNA won't combine. Chemistry is a zero sum game. Evolution cannot explain things on the cellular level and even with a basic understanding of DNA we can see that the two would not combine. Even if we pounded them against each other 100 million times over 100 million years.

That is the point, chemical reactions do not have such logical leaps. We are all made up of millions of chemical reactions. Your eyes right now do not just have a lens and retina, etc. They have do not even just have rods and cones. They have millions of chemical reactions occuring just to read this text. They must be the right chemicals, have the right receptors, etc. This adds profound level of complexity to your hey the eye can manage to focus in half a million years if I give it a few basic, nonchemical parts argument.

Now I would also challange you and anyone else to find a single post in this thread where I have mentioned religion. You cannot get past setting up the strawman of religion. I am not advocating, nor even arguing a religious answer to any of these questions. Evolution breaks down badly on the cellular level. To say one animal survived better than another because its blood clots better is as elementary as saying the earth is flat. To understand the dozens of chemical reactions that must occur and explain them is much harder. It is also something evolution does not explain. I have said that this fact should be taught in school. I have not claimed a young earth, Noah's Ark or any other such nonsense, nor that they should be taught in school. Leave your prejudice at the door and address what I type, otherwise you are arguing with yourself as a form of mental masterbation.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 525
5/4/03 at 8:41am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Trumpet, there wouldn't be an entire generation of animals with eyes that don't work because those organisms that have the poorly developed eye WILL NOT SURVIVE. Only the favorable mutation would. Think about it. Now, let me tell you that I don't believe that the current iteration of evolutionary theory is going to be the last. We still need to gather more information and refine it. However, your arguments against it are pretty much copied word for word from a site with an agenda such as biblephysics.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #72 of 525
5/4/03 at 9:08am
Quote:
The number of coincidences that make up our current universe for example are to numerous to be plausibly ignored. As a result cosmologists are pondering the multiverse theory. I'll quote a nice article from that creationist rag, Scientific American.

There is speculation that not only there other universes that don't have the huge number of attributes that just happen to be so friendly to life like ours happen to be.

There is further speculation that not only are there other universes with different attributes but that they run parallel to ours and even split apart based off of decisions and attributes what appear to be coincidences aren't necessarily, etc.

actually, when you think about it there's nothing special at all about our fitting so well into our universe.

the universe comes first, and has a set of very specific parameters. life evolves within said universe. the life that does well in this universe can't help but be tailored to match the eviornment that it exists in. if it didn't it would die, or something that was a better match would come along and wipe it out.

the only way i'd be impressed with the universe matching us perfectly would be if we came first, and found a universe that fit us perfectly. it only makes sense that we fit the universe we came from.

kind of like looking for a habitable planet somewhere else. of course the Earth is a perfect match, that's where we're from. now finding another planet like it will be impressive, but i am not at all surprised that we match up well with the planet of our origins.

that said, my final thought on the general subject is this. why can't biblical passage and scientific theory match eachother just fine in this case. the bible has many passages that aren't literal. when it's said that God created the Earth in seven days, and goes over each step, how are we to know that each day isn't millions or billions of our years. it's a day to God. that could be anything to us. and the weird part is, if you look over the order in which God creates the Earth, it is approximately the order in which we think things came along according to evolution, starting with the forming of the planet.

for those with a good knowledge of science, read through the section in Genesis, only with the mindset that the "days" mentioned within could be any number of years. see if it doesn't match up a bit better then.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 525
5/4/03 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Evolution breaks down badly on the cellular level. To say one animal survived better than another because its blood clots better is as elementary as saying the earth is flat. To understand the dozens of chemical reactions that must occur and explain them is much harder. It is also something evolution does not explain. I have said that this fact should be taught in school.

I was taught that evolution can't or doesn't yet explain everything. Who isn't taught that?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #74 of 525
5/4/03 at 9:35am
Quote:
that said, my final thought on the general subject is this. why can't biblical passage and scientific theory match eachother just fine in this case. the bible has many passages that aren't literal. when it's said that God created the Earth in seven days, and goes over each step, how are we to know that each day isn't millions or billions of our years. it's a day to God. that could be anything to us. and the weird part is, if you look over the order in which God creates the Earth, it is approximately the order in which we think things came along according to evolution, starting with the forming of the planet.


Alcimedes you hit the nail right on the head. That's exactly what I think happened. Instead of 7 literal days, it was 7 ages. I think people are a too literal on that fact. We use day with a great amount of flexibility. For example "back in the day of the dinosaur" or "in the days of the Romans". We all know that by day we mean era. Also Genesis was written in Hebrew, where the hebrew word for day does have a lot of different meanings.

As far as earth being "designed" for us, you have to look at how incredbily special our solar system is. There are so many parameters that are tuned to have life on earth that it makes it unlikely there is life anywhere else in the universe.
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
post #75 of 525
5/4/03 at 10:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Trumpet, there wouldn't be an entire generation of animals with eyes that don't work because those organisms that have the poorly developed eye WILL NOT SURVIVE. Only the favorable mutation would. Think about it. Now, let me tell you that I don't believe that the current iteration of evolutionary theory is going to be the last. We still need to gather more information and refine it. However, your arguments against it are pretty much copied word for word from a site with an agenda such as biblephysics.

Under the computer program he was proposing it is likely that multiple favorable and unfavorable traits would occur with regard to the eyes. They let the computer pick the eye that was more capable of focusing and it "survived" and passed on its better eyesight.

Using this model it took half a million years to get an eye that focus properly. In the meantime had a lot of eyes that just couldn't see and so yes that is was my contention they shouldn't have survived. But because it was a computer model, they did survive because they had 1% less terrible vision than the other progeny. That is the bias I was addressing.

They are starting with a predetermined destination and seeing how long it would take nature to get there. This fallacy is committed often in evolutionary theory and is simply dismissed with, well it must be the destination because that is what survived. Real life is not this simplistic. Humans have a range of vision even in modern day. Some are near or farsighted, etc. We have determined what 20/20 vision is by using a norm. They are taking a norm and working backward with it. While the reverse is true. They take the norm and have the computer model determine which off-spring are closest to it and they survive. In nature though this just isn't so. Likewise in the early stages there are no norms, there isn't even functionality. Those animals wouldn't survive because they couldn't see by any true measure. Again we aren't even close to the true complexity. What types of proteins would be transmitted by cones that have adapted to unfocused or semi-focused light for 100 generations. When you change the focus, you change the proteins activated, you change the receptors that are necessary to process those proteins, you change the type of cells and proteins in the optic nerve carrying those signals. It goes on and on. It is too simplistic to just say, it does because it does. It is akin to religion only instead of God they trust Nature.

I don't trust the deity of Nature.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 525
5/4/03 at 10:30am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually, when you think about it there's nothing special at all about our fitting so well into our universe.

the universe comes first, and has a set of very specific parameters. life evolves within said universe. the life that does well in this universe can't help but be tailored to match the eviornment that it exists in. if it didn't it would die, or something that was a better match would come along and wipe it out.

the only way i'd be impressed with the universe matching us perfectly would be if we came first, and found a universe that fit us perfectly. it only makes sense that we fit the universe we came from.

kind of like looking for a habitable planet somewhere else. of course the Earth is a perfect match, that's where we're from. now finding another planet like it will be impressive, but i am not at all surprised that we match up well with the planet of our origins.

that said, my final thought on the general subject is this. why can't biblical passage and scientific theory match eachother just fine in this case. the bible has many passages that aren't literal. when it's said that God created the Earth in seven days, and goes over each step, how are we to know that each day isn't millions or billions of our years. it's a day to God. that could be anything to us. and the weird part is, if you look over the order in which God creates the Earth, it is approximately the order in which we think things came along according to evolution, starting with the forming of the planet.

for those with a good knowledge of science, read through the section in Genesis, only with the mindset that the "days" mentioned within could be any number of years. see if it doesn't match up a bit better then.

That is a bit too assuming. The thing that is nice about science is that it can test these assumptions. They can find out small characteristics that have huge overwhelming consequences. They can input what if gravity were .00005% stronger or what if the charge of a proton were .00003% more.

When they attempting even the most slight adjustments the universe literally cannot function as it does. It is so prevelent that this is why the multiverse theory has been put forth. Scientists in good conscience cannot say, well it just happened this when literally every variable turned out just right. The multiverse says that there are numerous other universes where the results did not turn out like here. Most of these universes would not be usable, habitable, or even measurable since they do not follow our physical and natural laws. They are thus undetectable and by sciences own admission must be accepted pretty much on faith.

I posted a link that you quoted in your reply a search on multiverse will turn up more material.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #77 of 525
5/4/03 at 10:35am
The thing I'm really curious about : how do creationists deal with other creation myths?

I've seen quite a few pseudo-scientific arguments brought forward by creationists to shatter the trust in the theory of evolution, but how do they try to refute Buddhist or Hindu (insert any other religion) creation myths?

For some reason a pisssing match between different schools of creationism seems to promise tremendous entertainment value...
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 525
5/4/03 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
When they attempting even the most slight adjustments the universe literally cannot function as it does.

the problem with discussing this fact with people who dont do science all the time is that there is a recognised understanding that if something cannot exist it will not be observed, ie a universe whose gravity varies by 1/r^2.1 is unstable, in fact the only universe where a force that pulls inward the way gravity does has to have this force vary by 1/r^2 to be stable. now this is where people throw in: 'what is the coincidence of that -- there must be a god...' but if it wasnt that way we wouldnt exist and we wouldnt observe it so big deal if it is that way, it has to be for us to even see it let alone quantitate it and put it on paper -- it suggests nothing of a deity at all, but the mere fact that if a large carnivorous creature consumed you parents before they reproduced, then you wouldnt even be arguing this point.
but i fail to see the relationship of this with evolution.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 525
5/4/03 at 11:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by amyklai
The thing I'm really curious about : how do creationists deal with other creation myths?

I've seen quite a few pseudo-scientific arguments brought forward by creationists to shatter the trust in the theory of evolution, but how do they try to refute Buddhist or Hindu (insert any other religion) creation myths?

For some reason a pisssing match between different schools of creationism seems to promise tremendous entertainment value...

If your curious why don't you ask them in a thread in which that is the topic.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 525
5/4/03 at 11:33am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
the problem with discussing this fact with people who dont do science all the time is that there is a recognised understanding that if something cannot exist it will not be observed, ie a universe whose gravity varies by 1/r^2.1 is unstable, in fact the only universe where a force that pulls inward the way gravity does has to have this force vary by 1/r^2 to be stable. now this is where people throw in: 'what is the coincidence of that -- there must be a god...' but if it wasnt that way we wouldnt exist and we wouldnt observe it so big deal if it is that way, it has to be for us to even see it let alone quantitate it and put it on paper -- it suggests nothing of a deity at all, but the mere fact that if a large carnivorous creature consumed you parents before they reproduced, then you wouldnt even be arguing this point.
but i fail to see the relationship of this with evolution.

It is because it is... sounds more like zen then science to me.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?