Sorry for checking in so infrequently real life and especially work calls again and so I have less time.
I do not wish to pound into the middle of some of discussion here between Ena and the others because, well because. However some here have asked questions relating to materials I have read or looked into and I have found some links for them. Please understand that if they draw a criticism, their alternative is not necessarily my alternative and hence I am not advocating an alternative to evolution be taught in schools. Rather I have only proposed that the criticisms, which are universally agreed upon by critics be taught. The critics are not in agreement as to what to replace parts of evolution with, and I do not care to make 10 different cases for the various factions and what they believe.
This article discusses some passed on misconceptions like humans having gills during development, etc. I was surprised to read about the situation regarding the peppered moths and also the primordial amino acid situation. I even spoke of the latter here with no criticism of the circumstances around it, just the inconclusive results.
Nick, you are completely ignoring the factor of the outside catalyst. The fact is that water can and has formed complex dams generating electricity. With the help of man. Without the water there would be no hydroelectric dam, right? So the dam is as much a product of the water as it is of the men who built it.
Likewise organisms are affected by catalysts. Catalysts like light. Catalysts like the weather. Catalysts like predation, natural selection, manipulation by other species.
Perhaps you feel I did in that particular post but I also mentioned the experiment in 1953 regarding creation of amino acids. In this experiment every necessary catalyst was properly provided in optimal form and there were still no simple forms of life created.
As for the dam example, I don't quite get your point. The water might have been used in conjunction with other materials or even used as part of those materials (water for mixing cement etc.) but the intelligence of the men is what made it possible, not some naturally occuring process modified over time.
At best what you suggest is a theory called Intelligent Design. I have not advocated that this theory be taught in schools, however some of the flaws they find with evolution, I agree with and believe they should be discussed.
If you want two conflicting views of our origins, both of which have ample evidence to support them, argued in the class room, then perhaps - given time constraints.
As an example, consider classical physics versus quantum physics. Both are valid theories. Both have deficiencies. I dare you to teach the problems associated with quantum physics to a class of 15 year olds. They simply don't have the background.
Anyway, since there is no other theory to explain our origins as successful as evolution, students get taught it. Criticisms of the theory won't change that.
It's not as if Universities are suddenly going to stop teaching quantum field theory just because it doesn't explain everything.
Hell, I'm on a roll. About the thorny problem of the impossible eye. Turns out it's very simple.
Simplifying greatly for the sake of the argument, there is a molecule, called a nucleotide, that comes in four different types, A, C, G, & T.
This is where the whole argument goes bust already. When you are attempting to prove that something is not irreducibly complex and then prove it by saying, for the sake of argument I am going to take this irreducibly complex problem and convert it to something simple, then you haven't proven anything. He doesn't address the real issue.
Quote:
Simplifying once more (this time by ignoring sex)
Imagine that the gene that was mutated was the gene that made the plastic forming the lens of the eye. This plastic has a very special property: it is almost completely transparent.
Let's assume that my offsprings lens protein is only slightly less transparent than the normal version. He will be able to live his life and have offspring.
Imagine another mutation of the normal lens allele, creating a third allele (Tsuper) that produces a super transparent lens protein.
This doesn't answer the questions posed, again it ignores them and goes around them. I have to simplify twice, assume once, and imagine twice to get a scientific answer. Try again..
Some more from the other posts...
Quote:
So... let's take the Markovian model of evolution which assumes that amino acids mutate independently of each other with probabilities which depend only on the amino acids and on the amount of evolution
You know what trying to ass-u-me does to us right?
If there was a clear scientific proof for this there would not be an assumption. Saying I will assume this model and prove it mathematically is circular reasoning.
Quote:
Smith postulates that this chemistry could have been facilitated by silica-rich minerals resembling zeolites, porous crystals with channels running through them. Most zeolites are hydrophilic--water-loving--and tend to absorb water from their surroundings. But certain synthetic zeolites are organophilic, preferentially absorbing organic materials out of water.
Postulate...basically he thinks it works this way. The article goes on to mention he might get to actually travel there and experiment on the stated postulation someday.
Sorry for checking in so infrequently real life and especially work calls again and so I have less time.
I do not wish to pound into the middle of some of discussion here between Ena and the others because, well because. However some here have asked questions relating to materials I have read or looked into and I have found some links for them. Please understand that if they draw a criticism, their alternative is not necessarily my alternative and hence I am not advocating an alternative to evolution be taught in schools. Rather I have only proposed that the criticisms, which are universally agreed upon by critics be taught. The critics are not in agreement as to what to replace parts of evolution with, and I do not care to make 10 different cases for the various factions and what they believe.
This article discusses some passed on misconceptions like humans having gills during development, etc. I was surprised to read about the situation regarding the peppered moths and also the primordial amino acid situation. I even spoke of the latter here with no criticism of the circumstances around it, just the inconclusive results.
Another PDF, the names do not strike me as religious nuts nor even from religious type universities. The first name mentioned is a nobel nominee.
Nick
Nick I have left this thread but I will step in for a sec simply to say those who buy evolution will not pay attention to questions asked of it. You can work your heart out and the lot of evolutionists will stick to one of several tactics. Either you are a nut or the link you link to was written by a nut. They will say it is not a valid argument to discredit evolution. They will insult you.
I wish you luck but keep in mind you are dealing with very "hook line and sinker evolutionists" Indeed it is they who are closed to any questioning of a theory.
Remember you are not allowed to question Evolution.
If you want two conflicting views of our origins, both of which have ample evidence to support them, argued in the class room, then perhaps - given time constraints.
As an example, consider classical physics versus quantum physics. Both are valid theories. Both have deficiencies. I dare you to teach the problems associated with quantum physics to a class of 15 year olds. They simply don't have the background.
Anyway, since there is no other theory to explain our origins as successful as evolution, students get taught it. Criticisms of the theory won't change that.
It's not as if Universities are suddenly going to stop teaching quantum field theory just because it doesn't explain everything.
I think you are missing the point, and not even reading the thread title. I proposed no secondary model, just critical thinking and teaching of evolutionary criticisms. If we don't have time to think in class, just dogmatically absorb what we are told, then what the heck is the point of education?
This goes back to what I said about electricity. No one has ever seen an electron. But the electron is our best explanation explaining how a television works. Electrons, in effect, are theoretical particles.
Not all theories explain reality however. You can not imply that either tonton. Some theories are accurate and others are not so.
I think you are missing the point, and not even reading the thread title. I proposed no secondary model, just critical thinking and teaching of evolutionary criticisms. If we don't have time to think in class, just dogmatically absorb what we are told, then what the heck is the point of education?
Nick
You're proposing that criticisms of evolutionary science should be mandatatory since the theory isn't absolutely complete, am I correct?
So, for example, to take the amino acid - RNA chains question that the dodgy Creationist websites all love, you would have to say: "It was proved in Smith's famous experiment of 1952 that amino acids can spontaneously form if the atmospheric conditions are extreme enough, but there has not yet been an experiment to conclusively prove how these amino acids form themselves into chains of RNA to make proteins."
Am I right so far?
Would you then say "However, we know that they did because we can see that they did, and the challenge to scientists is still to discover how this might have happened"?
Or would you at this point say, "However, there are other explanations open to us, such as that in the first Chapter of the Bible"?
And if you did that, would you then be obliged to say: "However, since there is no proof that this is exactly how it happened, the Hindu people believe [this], the Yoruba people believe [this] and the Inuit believe [this]"?
If my model of your biology class is not quite how you saw it, I'd be very grateful if you'd tell me exactly what you had in mind.
Likewise, if you were teaching history, when you came to paleolithic Europe and Stonehenge would you then say "It has been suggested that these huge pieces of blue stone were erected using a system of pulleys and supports like [this]. However, we cannot be sure since there is no evidence, and the writer Erich von Daniken believes that they were built by aliens using levitation."
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Are you proposing that all classes should follow this model, or only evolution in biology classes, and if so, why exactly?
What I love about questioning evolution is the fact there are so many avenues to question.
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
Secondly why would an evolutionist believe a creature would adapt to nature? (generation over generation changes) Many evolutionists say the following "A loving God would allow creatures to adapt to nature" First of all a large percentage of evolutionists do not recognize a God but that is beside the point. My question is if let's say a given animal adopts certain traits that were (for sake of argument not designed by a creator) adapted for adaptation to the changing environment what gives evolutionists the idea and assumption that the given animal would not just go extinct as easily or instead of evolving (it is highly more likely the creature would go extinct before it would evolve by some magical means) . I mean are we to believe by random mutations a creature just evolves to (just happen) to adapt new features that better enable it to conform to it's environment?
This is where the card trick is played in front of our very eyes by the evolution camp. Evolutionists will tell you natural selection accounts for this. Survival of the fittest. To articulate this clearly let me give an example:
Take two colored moths. Black and grey. If in London in days gone by the smoke covers the trees with black the grey moths stick out like a sore thumb for birds to eat and thus the black moth population thrives while the grey colored moths are decimated.
*Notice* and I mean (*(*(*NOTICE*)*)*) evolution of any sort did not account for how the two colors came to be in the first place. Granted my example is dealing with a diversity within a given kind the evolutionists would have you to BELIEVE Macro-evolution works this way.....
Are you following the trick I layed out above?
This trick is used in classrooms in High Schools and sadly in Colleges. They gloss and skim over this card trick real fast with other talk of Goulds ideas over IC and other issues.
I ask you... consider what I have revealed above in regard to evolution.
Consider the trick of leaning on natural selection (which by the way is very observable and does indeed occure) to give fuel to the idea of macro-evolution... Again there NEVER was an accounting of the variety in the first place with the moth example. The moths did not adapt new features at all. An Intelligent Designer had the plan worked out from the begining.
You're proposing that criticisms of evolutionary science should be mandatatory since the theory isn't absolutely complete, am I correct?
So, for example, to take the amino acid - RNA chains question that the dodgy Creationist websites all love, you would have to say: "It was proved in Smith's famous experiment of 1952 that amino acids can spontaneously form if the atmospheric conditions are extreme enough, but there has not yet been an experiment to conclusively prove how these amino acids form themselves into chains of RNA to make proteins."
Am I right so far?
Would you then say "However, we know that they did because we can see that they did, and the challenge to scientists is still to discover how this might have happened"?
Or would you at this point say, "However, there are other explanations open to us, such as that in the first Chapter of the Bible?"
And if you did that, would you then be obliged to say: "However, since there is no proof that this is exactly how it happened, the Hindu people believe [this], the Yoruba people believe [this] and the Inuit believe [this]"?
If my model of your biology class is not quite how you saw it, I'd be very grateful if you'd tell me exactly what you had in mind.
I would say neither conclusion because both of them are making leaps.
In the first "would you say" the only say we can "see that they did" is that we are here. I would also add that they may have even formed very short chains from what I recall but again this is just recall the most simplistic theoritical simple cell would require a RNA chain of amino acids at least 250 amino acids long. We have never found a cell so simple but again conceding a hypotherical. Not only would it have to be 250 amino acids long, they would have to be the right sequence to enable the cell to become life. It would be akin to writing a melody using 8 notes along with their duration and pulling them out and putting them back into a hat. (say 32 possibilities down to quarter notes) One or two bad notes and the song sounds like crap. You have to start over because those notes are joined on that chain. There is no intelligence that can rip them off and start from there and continue on the melody.
Likewise you could say, well the chain could just tear there and something worthy could just reattach there. This could be true anywhere because we are just talking about a string of amino acids, it doesn't even have all the other parts of a cell yet. It certainly has no protective membrane.
So we see that making several "assumptions, concessions, etc, we are still pretty much in the crapper.
I wouldn't say crapper in the class but what I stated here is what I would explain and then that is all I would explain.
That is the explanation and criticism, that is enough.
I propose that the theories that are way out in left field, i.e. have not a shred of evidence or basis in scientific understanding, be excluded from discussion in the classroom, except to mention that they don't have a shred of evidence.
You are actually on to something tonton and you may not even realize it. Science as a study of the "natural" can not be the tool or field of study to accurately reflect origins of life.
Likewise, if you were teaching history, when you came to paleolithic Europe and Stonehenge would you then say "It has been suggested that these huge pieces of blue stone were erected using a system of pulleys and supports like [this]. However, we cannot be sure since there is no evidence, and the writer Erich von Daniken believes that they were built by aliens using levitation."
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Are you proposing that all classes should follow this model, or only evolution in biology classes, and if so, why exactly?
The difference between what you propose is that if you criticized the system of pulleys and supports you wouldn't automatically be labeled religiously psychotic. (Er.... at least I hope you wouldn't)
I mean this thread has pretty much gone like this....
Me: I don't believe they used pulleys. he other tools culled from that time suggest a level of sophistication far below ropes and pulleys.
Others: What... so Jesus levitated the rocks into place?!?
Me: No, I just was saying perhaps we should at least be critical of the ropes and pulleys theory.
Others: So your alternatives involve Jesus and levitation?!?
Me: Look I didn't even mention Jesus. I just mentioned they didn't have rope and pulleys don't work to well without rope.
Others: So you're saying they were reading the Bible and praying over the pulleys?!?!
Me: roll eyes
Others: So since you believe they didn't have rope, what is your alternative?
Me: I don't know yet, I just can't say ropes and pulleys because it turns out they didn't have rope.
Others: So you're saying Jesus gave them the rope?!?!
Me: Could you please show me where I mentioned Jesus?
Others: You probably just think they didn't have ropes Stonehenge is associated with pagan rituals and you think pagans are stupid!!
Me: I thought you said that I claimed Jesus gave them rope (even though I didn't mention Jesus) Now you claim I hate them for being Pagans. Why would I say Jesus gave Pagans rope?
Others: See, you said Jesus! You said Jesus gave them rope. Likely to convert them just like you want to convert all the kids in classrooms.
Me: Look can you show me something that says they had some rope?
Others: They must have had ropes and pulleys, I mean look they moved those rocks.
Me: We have no evidence of ropes or pulleys. Perhaps in the future we will discover they used rollers, or better archeology will show us something else.
Others: So you are saying Jesus gave them rollers...
Comments
Originally posted by ena
Let's just stick to the facts---embryonic recapitulation has been debunked. (by evolutionists)
Well if you have facts that support your point, show them.
I do not wish to pound into the middle of some of discussion here between Ena and the others because, well because. However some here have asked questions relating to materials I have read or looked into and I have found some links for them. Please understand that if they draw a criticism, their alternative is not necessarily my alternative and hence I am not advocating an alternative to evolution be taught in schools. Rather I have only proposed that the criticisms, which are universally agreed upon by critics be taught. The critics are not in agreement as to what to replace parts of evolution with, and I do not care to make 10 different cases for the various factions and what they believe.
Some links...
Biochemical evidence
This gentlemen makes several of the points I have mentioned here. He being a professional, he of course makes them better.
Homeology, peppered moths, and amino acids - A PDF
This article discusses some passed on misconceptions like humans having gills during development, etc. I was surprised to read about the situation regarding the peppered moths and also the primordial amino acid situation. I even spoke of the latter here with no criticism of the circumstances around it, just the inconclusive results.
The hundred scientists mentioned
Another PDF, the names do not strike me as religious nuts nor even from religious type universities. The first name mentioned is a nobel nominee.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Nick, you are completely ignoring the factor of the outside catalyst. The fact is that water can and has formed complex dams generating electricity. With the help of man. Without the water there would be no hydroelectric dam, right? So the dam is as much a product of the water as it is of the men who built it.
Likewise organisms are affected by catalysts. Catalysts like light. Catalysts like the weather. Catalysts like predation, natural selection, manipulation by other species.
Perhaps you feel I did in that particular post but I also mentioned the experiment in 1953 regarding creation of amino acids. In this experiment every necessary catalyst was properly provided in optimal form and there were still no simple forms of life created.
As for the dam example, I don't quite get your point. The water might have been used in conjunction with other materials or even used as part of those materials (water for mixing cement etc.) but the intelligence of the men is what made it possible, not some naturally occuring process modified over time.
At best what you suggest is a theory called Intelligent Design. I have not advocated that this theory be taught in schools, however some of the flaws they find with evolution, I agree with and believe they should be discussed.
Nick
If you want two conflicting views of our origins, both of which have ample evidence to support them, argued in the class room, then perhaps - given time constraints.
As an example, consider classical physics versus quantum physics. Both are valid theories. Both have deficiencies. I dare you to teach the problems associated with quantum physics to a class of 15 year olds. They simply don't have the background.
Anyway, since there is no other theory to explain our origins as successful as evolution, students get taught it. Criticisms of the theory won't change that.
It's not as if Universities are suddenly going to stop teaching quantum field theory just because it doesn't explain everything.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Hell, I'm on a roll. About the thorny problem of the impossible eye. Turns out it's very simple.
Simplifying greatly for the sake of the argument, there is a molecule, called a nucleotide, that comes in four different types, A, C, G, & T.
This is where the whole argument goes bust already. When you are attempting to prove that something is not irreducibly complex and then prove it by saying, for the sake of argument I am going to take this irreducibly complex problem and convert it to something simple, then you haven't proven anything. He doesn't address the real issue.
Simplifying once more (this time by ignoring sex)
Imagine that the gene that was mutated was the gene that made the plastic forming the lens of the eye. This plastic has a very special property: it is almost completely transparent.
Let's assume that my offsprings lens protein is only slightly less transparent than the normal version. He will be able to live his life and have offspring.
Imagine another mutation of the normal lens allele, creating a third allele (Tsuper) that produces a super transparent lens protein.
This doesn't answer the questions posed, again it ignores them and goes around them. I have to simplify twice, assume once, and imagine twice to get a scientific answer. Try again..
Some more from the other posts...
So... let's take the Markovian model of evolution which assumes that amino acids mutate independently of each other with probabilities which depend only on the amino acids and on the amount of evolution
You know what trying to ass-u-me does to us right?
If there was a clear scientific proof for this there would not be an assumption. Saying I will assume this model and prove it mathematically is circular reasoning.
Smith postulates that this chemistry could have been facilitated by silica-rich minerals resembling zeolites, porous crystals with channels running through them. Most zeolites are hydrophilic--water-loving--and tend to absorb water from their surroundings. But certain synthetic zeolites are organophilic, preferentially absorbing organic materials out of water.
Postulate...basically he thinks it works this way. The article goes on to mention he might get to actually travel there and experiment on the stated postulation someday.
That is quite a gap to jump is it not?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sorry for checking in so infrequently real life and especially work calls again and so I have less time.
I do not wish to pound into the middle of some of discussion here between Ena and the others because, well because. However some here have asked questions relating to materials I have read or looked into and I have found some links for them. Please understand that if they draw a criticism, their alternative is not necessarily my alternative and hence I am not advocating an alternative to evolution be taught in schools. Rather I have only proposed that the criticisms, which are universally agreed upon by critics be taught. The critics are not in agreement as to what to replace parts of evolution with, and I do not care to make 10 different cases for the various factions and what they believe.
Some links...
Biochemical evidence
This gentlemen makes several of the points I have mentioned here. He being a professional, he of course makes them better.
Homeology, peppered moths, and amino acids - A PDF
This article discusses some passed on misconceptions like humans having gills during development, etc. I was surprised to read about the situation regarding the peppered moths and also the primordial amino acid situation. I even spoke of the latter here with no criticism of the circumstances around it, just the inconclusive results.
The hundred scientists mentioned
Another PDF, the names do not strike me as religious nuts nor even from religious type universities. The first name mentioned is a nobel nominee.
Nick
Nick I have left this thread but I will step in for a sec simply to say those who buy evolution will not pay attention to questions asked of it. You can work your heart out and the lot of evolutionists will stick to one of several tactics. Either you are a nut or the link you link to was written by a nut. They will say it is not a valid argument to discredit evolution. They will insult you.
I wish you luck but keep in mind you are dealing with very "hook line and sinker evolutionists" Indeed it is they who are closed to any questioning of a theory.
Remember you are not allowed to question Evolution.
Fellowship
Originally posted by xenu
I think you are missing the point trumptman.
If you want two conflicting views of our origins, both of which have ample evidence to support them, argued in the class room, then perhaps - given time constraints.
As an example, consider classical physics versus quantum physics. Both are valid theories. Both have deficiencies. I dare you to teach the problems associated with quantum physics to a class of 15 year olds. They simply don't have the background.
Anyway, since there is no other theory to explain our origins as successful as evolution, students get taught it. Criticisms of the theory won't change that.
It's not as if Universities are suddenly going to stop teaching quantum field theory just because it doesn't explain everything.
I think you are missing the point, and not even reading the thread title. I proposed no secondary model, just critical thinking and teaching of evolutionary criticisms. If we don't have time to think in class, just dogmatically absorb what we are told, then what the heck is the point of education?
Nick
Wha...huh? Did someone read the thread title to see what I have proposed yet?
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
This goes back to what I said about electricity. No one has ever seen an electron. But the electron is our best explanation explaining how a television works. Electrons, in effect, are theoretical particles.
Not all theories explain reality however. You can not imply that either tonton. Some theories are accurate and others are not so.
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
I think you are missing the point, and not even reading the thread title. I proposed no secondary model, just critical thinking and teaching of evolutionary criticisms. If we don't have time to think in class, just dogmatically absorb what we are told, then what the heck is the point of education?
Nick
You're proposing that criticisms of evolutionary science should be mandatatory since the theory isn't absolutely complete, am I correct?
So, for example, to take the amino acid - RNA chains question that the dodgy Creationist websites all love, you would have to say: "It was proved in Smith's famous experiment of 1952 that amino acids can spontaneously form if the atmospheric conditions are extreme enough, but there has not yet been an experiment to conclusively prove how these amino acids form themselves into chains of RNA to make proteins."
Am I right so far?
Would you then say "However, we know that they did because we can see that they did, and the challenge to scientists is still to discover how this might have happened"?
Or would you at this point say, "However, there are other explanations open to us, such as that in the first Chapter of the Bible"?
And if you did that, would you then be obliged to say: "However, since there is no proof that this is exactly how it happened, the Hindu people believe [this], the Yoruba people believe [this] and the Inuit believe [this]"?
If my model of your biology class is not quite how you saw it, I'd be very grateful if you'd tell me exactly what you had in mind.
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Are you proposing that all classes should follow this model, or only evolution in biology classes, and if so, why exactly?
Nonexistense of proof is not proof of nonexistense - Carl Sagan
Just a thought...
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
Secondly why would an evolutionist believe a creature would adapt to nature? (generation over generation changes) Many evolutionists say the following "A loving God would allow creatures to adapt to nature" First of all a large percentage of evolutionists do not recognize a God but that is beside the point. My question is if let's say a given animal adopts certain traits that were (for sake of argument not designed by a creator) adapted for adaptation to the changing environment what gives evolutionists the idea and assumption that the given animal would not just go extinct as easily or instead of evolving (it is highly more likely the creature would go extinct before it would evolve by some magical means) . I mean are we to believe by random mutations a creature just evolves to (just happen) to adapt new features that better enable it to conform to it's environment?
This is where the card trick is played in front of our very eyes by the evolution camp. Evolutionists will tell you natural selection accounts for this. Survival of the fittest. To articulate this clearly let me give an example:
Take two colored moths. Black and grey. If in London in days gone by the smoke covers the trees with black the grey moths stick out like a sore thumb for birds to eat and thus the black moth population thrives while the grey colored moths are decimated.
*Notice* and I mean (*(*(*NOTICE*)*)*) evolution of any sort did not account for how the two colors came to be in the first place. Granted my example is dealing with a diversity within a given kind the evolutionists would have you to BELIEVE Macro-evolution works this way.....
Are you following the trick I layed out above?
This trick is used in classrooms in High Schools and sadly in Colleges. They gloss and skim over this card trick real fast with other talk of Goulds ideas over IC and other issues.
I ask you... consider what I have revealed above in regard to evolution.
Consider the trick of leaning on natural selection (which by the way is very observable and does indeed occure) to give fuel to the idea of macro-evolution... Again there NEVER was an accounting of the variety in the first place with the moth example. The moths did not adapt new features at all. An Intelligent Designer had the plan worked out from the begining.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You're proposing that criticisms of evolutionary science should be mandatatory since the theory isn't absolutely complete, am I correct?
So, for example, to take the amino acid - RNA chains question that the dodgy Creationist websites all love, you would have to say: "It was proved in Smith's famous experiment of 1952 that amino acids can spontaneously form if the atmospheric conditions are extreme enough, but there has not yet been an experiment to conclusively prove how these amino acids form themselves into chains of RNA to make proteins."
Am I right so far?
Would you then say "However, we know that they did because we can see that they did, and the challenge to scientists is still to discover how this might have happened"?
Or would you at this point say, "However, there are other explanations open to us, such as that in the first Chapter of the Bible?"
And if you did that, would you then be obliged to say: "However, since there is no proof that this is exactly how it happened, the Hindu people believe [this], the Yoruba people believe [this] and the Inuit believe [this]"?
If my model of your biology class is not quite how you saw it, I'd be very grateful if you'd tell me exactly what you had in mind.
I would say neither conclusion because both of them are making leaps.
In the first "would you say" the only say we can "see that they did" is that we are here. I would also add that they may have even formed very short chains from what I recall but again this is just recall the most simplistic theoritical simple cell would require a RNA chain of amino acids at least 250 amino acids long. We have never found a cell so simple but again conceding a hypotherical. Not only would it have to be 250 amino acids long, they would have to be the right sequence to enable the cell to become life. It would be akin to writing a melody using 8 notes along with their duration and pulling them out and putting them back into a hat. (say 32 possibilities down to quarter notes) One or two bad notes and the song sounds like crap. You have to start over because those notes are joined on that chain. There is no intelligence that can rip them off and start from there and continue on the melody.
Likewise you could say, well the chain could just tear there and something worthy could just reattach there. This could be true anywhere because we are just talking about a string of amino acids, it doesn't even have all the other parts of a cell yet. It certainly has no protective membrane.
So we see that making several "assumptions, concessions, etc, we are still pretty much in the crapper.
I wouldn't say crapper in the class but what I stated here is what I would explain and then that is all I would explain.
That is the explanation and criticism, that is enough.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
There is ample scientific evidence to support -- though not prove --evolutionary theory.
There is no scientific evidence to even suggest that creationism or intelligent design is at all possible.
I disagree. Can you give me one piece of evidence that you find to "support" evolution?
Fellowship
Religion and Science are opposed, but in the sense that the thumb and forefinger are opposed, and between the two you can grasp the world -unknown
Just another thought
I doubt it will happen.
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
I propose that the theories that are way out in left field, i.e. have not a shred of evidence or basis in scientific understanding, be excluded from discussion in the classroom, except to mention that they don't have a shred of evidence.
You are actually on to something tonton and you may not even realize it. Science as a study of the "natural" can not be the tool or field of study to accurately reflect origins of life.
Life is Supernatural.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Likewise, if you were teaching history, when you came to paleolithic Europe and Stonehenge would you then say "It has been suggested that these huge pieces of blue stone were erected using a system of pulleys and supports like [this]. However, we cannot be sure since there is no evidence, and the writer Erich von Daniken believes that they were built by aliens using levitation."
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Are you proposing that all classes should follow this model, or only evolution in biology classes, and if so, why exactly?
The difference between what you propose is that if you criticized the system of pulleys and supports you wouldn't automatically be labeled religiously psychotic. (Er.... at least I hope you wouldn't)
I mean this thread has pretty much gone like this....
Me: I don't believe they used pulleys. he other tools culled from that time suggest a level of sophistication far below ropes and pulleys.
Others: What... so Jesus levitated the rocks into place?!?
Me: No, I just was saying perhaps we should at least be critical of the ropes and pulleys theory.
Others: So your alternatives involve Jesus and levitation?!?
Me: Look I didn't even mention Jesus. I just mentioned they didn't have rope and pulleys don't work to well without rope.
Others: So you're saying they were reading the Bible and praying over the pulleys?!?!
Me: roll eyes
Others: So since you believe they didn't have rope, what is your alternative?
Me: I don't know yet, I just can't say ropes and pulleys because it turns out they didn't have rope.
Others: So you're saying Jesus gave them the rope?!?!
Me: Could you please show me where I mentioned Jesus?
Others: You probably just think they didn't have ropes Stonehenge is associated with pagan rituals and you think pagans are stupid!!
Me: I thought you said that I claimed Jesus gave them rope (even though I didn't mention Jesus) Now you claim I hate them for being Pagans. Why would I say Jesus gave Pagans rope?
Others: See, you said Jesus! You said Jesus gave them rope. Likely to convert them just like you want to convert all the kids in classrooms.
Me: Look can you show me something that says they had some rope?
Others: They must have had ropes and pulleys, I mean look they moved those rocks.
Me: We have no evidence of ropes or pulleys. Perhaps in the future we will discover they used rollers, or better archeology will show us something else.
Others: So you are saying Jesus gave them rollers...
and so on........
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
1) Fossil record.
2) Geographical isolation.
3) Genetic similarity between relates species.
4) Loss of function.
Need more?
1 wrong it shows not one even one so-called missing link or it would be no longer missing tonton... Got that?
2 G I studies only indicate migration and natural selection progression. Not evolution.
3 Same creator
4 This does not have any merit to evolution or creationism
Fellowship
Now can you find me one piece of evidence that supports evolution?
Thanks
Fellowship