Yep. Jumped in on the fifth or sixth page. But with the exception of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, all of those fossils were somewhere on the tree of evolution, if not on the trunk, then on branches, leading to modern man.
Not one of those claims disproves a thing, but this is my favorite quote:
"Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like."
First of all, a missing-link would be "ape-like". Duh. Second of all, the phrase "on the line from apes to humans" already assumes lines of evolution exist.
How many of those fossils, according to your references, have been called "ape-like" or "like Homo-sapiens"? Does this somehow exclude them form the evolutionary lineage? That's just plain stupid. Are you looking for the exact being in the precise centre of ape and human development? Isn't that a little nit-picky? Maybe there was a sudden transition too fast to have left enough of a record to have been discovered by now. In fact, to me, this seems likely. Each evolutionary step would be sudden. Man would "suddenly" develop opposable thumbs. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
This is the last post for me tonight and this time I am serious. I don't buy that any of the fossils found on the list you mention are evidence of transition from one kind to another. The data is only as valid as those who dig up the finds and then on top is only speculation as to a morphing process. I do not believe we have any morphing from one kind to another.
I'll prove evolution!!! When I watch a popular sporting event I am an ape. When I wake in the morning I am Homo Erectus. Before tha first cup of joe I am Neanderthal. And finally a full fledged Homo Sapien human after that first cup of coffee.
btw fellows get to bed it is 4:45 EST, I work the graveyard, what's your excuse, I swear your like that kid who has to squeeze in that last minute of tv before Mom forces him to go to be
Birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, all developed from common ancestors that were entirely or only partly bird, fish, reptile or mammal.
Shouldn't there be any examples of animals in transition today?
There are. Platypuses lay eggs. Kiwis have no wings. Armadillos have scales. Octopuses have three hearts.
Platypuses kick ass. They have a duck bill, lay eggs, and have poison spikes behind their claws. They are the coolest animals on the planet. Oh, and as you said, one of the most important evolutionary links.
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
And once again fellowship is being dishonest.
But then, fellowship doesn't even understand what evolution is supposed to explain, so I guess that counts him out as a reasonable critic.
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
Actually, your problem is that we see through your religious agenda.
Critical thought already exists. Just read the books of Gould or Dawkins, as an example.
Your problem is that you don't understand the education system.
In high school we are taught Newtonian physics. Why? Because it is a fine mode of "macroscopic" events. Later, at University, you are taught relativity and quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean Newtonian physics is wrong. Even though it doesn't explain "reality" at the quantum level.
In high school we are taught about matrices and vectors. At university we are taught tensors and spinors, and so forth. That doesn't make matrices and vector worthless.
Evolution is taught because it explains our origins, and explains it well.
Is it perfect? No. Is that point hidden? No. Does it matter? No. It's the current theory that explains the observed empirical evidence. You could call the theory "grandma's spectacular orange cake", and it is still evolution.
What I love about questioning evolution is the fact there are so many avenues to question.
Yep, it's called science, and it's a good thing, although you seem to believe otherwise.
Quote:
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
It was the original ancestor. Would you like its name, address and post code?
Quote:
Secondly why would an evolutionist believe a creature would adapt to nature? (generation over generation changes).
Because there is evidence to support this? Try reading abook on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist with fake PhD's.
There are birds in South America that sit above pedestrian crossings and drop nuts for cars to crush. When the walk sign comes on, the birds hop to the nuts and eat the contents.
Are you suggesting that cars and crossings were always there?
That the birds didn't adopt to nature?
Quote:
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.
Then why bring it up? That right, you have a religious agenda.
Quote:
My question is if let's say a given animal adopts certain traits that were (for sake of argument not designed by a creator)
Such as the birds mentioned above, or the domestic dog or cat.
Quote:
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) .
Wrong assumption. They do assume extintions. Lots of them. The fossils show lots of them.
Quote:
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?
Nope, unless you have no idea because you have never read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
Quote:
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.
Wrong again. No card trick. Just your ignorance. See, you really should have read those books on evolution that weren't written by creationists. Then you wouldn't be so ignorant.
Quote:
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.
Wow, then there would be lots of black moths, and no grey moth eating birds because their food source is gone.
You know what fellowship? This is a testable hypothesis. A first for you, I believe.
Let us know the answer, will you? That's a good chap.
Quote:
*Notice* and I mean (*(*(*NOTICE*)*)*) evolution of any sort did not account for how the two colors came to be in the first place.
Um, they evolved? Perhaps female balck moths love grey, and produce grey moths after mating? Guess what? This testable. Be a good chap and let us know the results of your experiments.
Quote:
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?
No, but your ignorance is shining through.
Quote:
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.
Still no trick being observed, just your ignorance.
I suggest you read some books on evolution that weren't
written by creationists. If you didd, you would find your questions answered.
The only problem is, you don't want them answered, hence your continuing ignorance.
Quote:
I ask you... consider what I have revealed above in regard to evolution.
You have revealed your ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty.
Duely noted, sir.
Quote:
Consider the trick of leaning on natural selection (which by the way is very observable and does indeed occure)
Nope, no trick, just your ignorance.
Quote:
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.
Read a lot do you?
Perhaps grey moths are warmer that white moths in England?
Quote:
The moths did not adapt new features at all.
An Intelligent Designer had the plan worked out from the begining.
Fellowship
Nope, no such thing had to happen at all.
Why are some flowers bright yellow? Or some birds bright red?
May I suggest you borrow every natural history dvd produced by richard attenbourgh. Since the written word seems to cause you grief, perhaps these flickering images will be of some benefit.
By the way, do your London black and grey moths exist, or are you being dishonest by putting forward a false argument?
I'm tired of all these people that say "Evolution is wrong therefore Intelligent Design is right." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Those are not the only two options. They may be the only two options these people's feeble minds can come up with, but just because we lack the the necessary knowledge and/or imagination to come up with other options does not mean they do not exist.
The dog is not brown therefore it must be bright orange.
The sky is not yellow therefore it must be blue.
Fellowship is not a Zoroastrian therefore he must be Buddhist.
Bah. Debate evolution all you want but when you conclude that because evolution is wrong intelligent design is right, it is quite obvious we knew you had an agenda all along.
YOU HAVE COMMITTED THE CARDINAL SIN OF SCIENCE, FELLOWSHIP:
You started with what you believe to be true and manipulated the world around you (quite poorly I might add) to fit that view. You don't approach the situation with an open mind. You are a joke. Period.
Actually, your problem is that we see through your religious agenda.
Critical thought already exists. Just read the books of Gould or Dawkins, as an example.
Your problem is that you don't understand the education system.
In high school we are taught Newtonian physics. Why? Because it is a fine mode of "macroscopic" events. Later, at University, you are taught relativity and quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean Newtonian physics is wrong. Even though it doesn't explain "reality" at the quantum level.
In high school we are taught about matrices and vectors. At university we are taught tensors and spinors, and so forth. That doesn't make matrices and vector worthless.
Evolution is taught because it explains our origins, and explains it well.
Is it perfect? No. Is that point hidden? No. Does it matter? No. It's the current theory that explains the observed empirical evidence. You could call the theory "grandma's spectacular orange cake", and it is still evolution.
Let us know when you come up with a better model.
This is the most ignorant post I have read yet.
Xenu, please show some reasoning if you wish to convince.
You see through my religious agenda? Perhaps you a paranoid facist. I suppose you and Joseph McCarthy would get along well. Criticism=you are the enemy and believe as them. Yes you certainly show your tolerance for crititical thinking.
Gould and Dawkins do contribute information and I have not said it should not be shown or taught. I have just added that when their explanations use assumptions, imaginings, and simplifications where none exist, we ought to be willing to consider the explanations of others who are not taking squar peges and smashing them through round holes.
Likewise this is the second thread in as many days where a layperson tells an educator they don't understand the educational system.
Newtonian physics is taught in high school through the use of experiments. The students can see the margin of error there and when they ask about it, you can mention relativity and quantum mechanics give us a more true representation of the world.
What experiment do they do with evolution that shows the margin of error? Likewise when they do see the margin of error, what would we say to explain it. Where is the more sophisticated explanation?
You do nothing here but prove my point. Present evolution with no experiment, no discussion and no questioning however I guess that suits a McCarthyite just fine.
to discuss trumptman's irreducibly complex questions i take the following quote:
"But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed."
Aside from the leap at the end, I think the author of this piece is missing the important revelation that proteins are related to eachother. While it is true that cillia do not function when they lack one of their components, it is also true that many of the proteins within the cillia are incredibly structurally similar (the author had previously used the guise of saying that different amino acid strands have different structures which is often true on a highly precise level, but more often than not slightly different amino acid strands produce remarkably similar structures). The author also fails to mention pili which are related to cillia, in that they have basically the same strutural components, but do not functionally move. In addition, the author doesnt mention that many celliated cells have other means of movement. So my point is as follows, in mathematical terms, a set of sets is reducible to the basis set, a basis set is irreducible. In this case a cell is a set of sets, cillia is one projection of a (part of a) basis set. The author is discussing the evolution of a piece of the thing that is evolving, which is not what evolution deals with.
Perhaps that is too complex. Basically, the irreducible claims only work for parts of the thing that is evolving, and while i completely agree that looking at just the cilia it is nearly impossible to understand how they evolved, if you take the broader look at the organism in which the cillia function, you see a redundancy of function, which to me obviously means that parts can be lost or broken and the organism can still survive. THis is a crude example but people who have lost their sight have lost arguably the most important sense they have, but they are still capable of having children and living. A cell without a component of cillia doesnt have working cillia, but the scientists who observed that cell realize that it is still alive and also realize that it is still reproducing so the cillia are not absolutely needed. The cell is reducible, a protein is not.
If I have time I will look at the other discussions that trumptman proposed, but I think I have taken care of the irreducible claims and where they arise.
Take your personal attacks and get the &^%$ out of this thread. Only you would respond to a perfectly reasonable post with accusations of McCarthy style witch-hunting.
Take your personal attacks and get the &^%$ out of this thread. Only you would respond to a perfectly reasonable post with accusations of McCarthy style witch-hunting.
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Trumptman: ANSWER THE POINTS HE MAKES. With less of the ludicrous accusations.
And while you're at it, are you going to demand that everything in the curriculum without empirical, repeatable evidence or in need of simplifications are to be subject to the same rigourous disclaimers that you want for evolution? BECAUSE THAT COUNTS OUT EVERY PHYSICS CLASS BELOW DEGREE LEVEL.
So I say again, is it just evolution you want have with the disclaimers?
Evolution is the best explanation we have and it's consistent with everything we know about anatomy, physics and genetics. Do you dispute this?
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
TRUMPTMAN: GREAT DECIDER OF WHAT IS CONTENT AND WHAT IS NOT.
Obviously, poor Xenu must be an intolerant, ignorant, paranoid fascist similar to McCarthy becuase you said so.
Wow.
Blowing me away with your content.
I stand up for Xenu because he reasonably explained the education system. Good post, xenu. Good post.
One more thing about irreducible (took a 5 minute nap on it). The only point that any "living" thing would have to be irreducible is at the very beginning, when all that needs to occur is an autocatalytic formation of self. THat is the point (at least for our cellular life forms) at which a DNA or RNA strand catalyzes its own creation from monomeric chemicals. At that point a failure to do so makes or breaks the system. After that redundancy kicks in and evoluion may occur...
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
Oh what BULLcrap. You got angry the bloke's articulate, you made a ****ing pathetic accusation and now you've derailed the thread.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Yep. Jumped in on the fifth or sixth page. But with the exception of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, all of those fossils were somewhere on the tree of evolution, if not on the trunk, then on branches, leading to modern man.
Not one of those claims disproves a thing, but this is my favorite quote:
"Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like."
First of all, a missing-link would be "ape-like". Duh. Second of all, the phrase "on the line from apes to humans" already assumes lines of evolution exist.
How many of those fossils, according to your references, have been called "ape-like" or "like Homo-sapiens"? Does this somehow exclude them form the evolutionary lineage? That's just plain stupid. Are you looking for the exact being in the precise centre of ape and human development? Isn't that a little nit-picky? Maybe there was a sudden transition too fast to have left enough of a record to have been discovered by now. In fact, to me, this seems likely. Each evolutionary step would be sudden. Man would "suddenly" develop opposable thumbs. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
This is the last post for me tonight and this time I am serious. I don't buy that any of the fossils found on the list you mention are evidence of transition from one kind to another. The data is only as valid as those who dig up the finds and then on top is only speculation as to a morphing process. I do not believe we have any morphing from one kind to another.
Fellowship
btw fellows get to bed it is 4:45 EST, I work the graveyard, what's your excuse, I swear your like that kid who has to squeeze in that last minute of tv before Mom forces him to go to be
Originally posted by tonton
Birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, all developed from common ancestors that were entirely or only partly bird, fish, reptile or mammal.
Shouldn't there be any examples of animals in transition today?
There are. Platypuses lay eggs. Kiwis have no wings. Armadillos have scales. Octopuses have three hearts.
Platypuses kick ass. They have a duck bill, lay eggs, and have poison spikes behind their claws. They are the coolest animals on the planet. Oh, and as you said, one of the most important evolutionary links.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Not all theories explain reality however. You can not imply that either tonton. Some theories are accurate and others are not so.
Fellowship
Unfortunately for fellowship, evolution is quite accurate, as theories goes.
150 years, and still going strong.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
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
And once again fellowship is being dishonest.
But then, fellowship doesn't even understand what evolution is supposed to explain, so I guess that counts him out as a reasonable critic.
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
Actually, your problem is that we see through your religious agenda.
Critical thought already exists. Just read the books of Gould or Dawkins, as an example.
Your problem is that you don't understand the education system.
In high school we are taught Newtonian physics. Why? Because it is a fine mode of "macroscopic" events. Later, at University, you are taught relativity and quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean Newtonian physics is wrong. Even though it doesn't explain "reality" at the quantum level.
In high school we are taught about matrices and vectors. At university we are taught tensors and spinors, and so forth. That doesn't make matrices and vector worthless.
Evolution is taught because it explains our origins, and explains it well.
Is it perfect? No. Is that point hidden? No. Does it matter? No. It's the current theory that explains the observed empirical evidence. You could call the theory "grandma's spectacular orange cake", and it is still evolution.
Let us know when you come up with a better model.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I disagree. Can you give me one piece of evidence that you find to "support" evolution?
Fellowship
Read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist chemist, and you might actually answer your own question.
But then, you don't even know what evolution is trying to explain, so you will never understand the evidence.
But the truth is that you don't want to understand.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What I love about questioning evolution is the fact there are so many avenues to question.
Yep, it's called science, and it's a good thing, although you seem to believe otherwise.
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
It was the original ancestor. Would you like its name, address and post code?
Secondly why would an evolutionist believe a creature would adapt to nature? (generation over generation changes).
Because there is evidence to support this? Try reading abook on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist with fake PhD's.
There are birds in South America that sit above pedestrian crossings and drop nuts for cars to crush. When the walk sign comes on, the birds hop to the nuts and eat the contents.
Are you suggesting that cars and crossings were always there?
That the birds didn't adopt to nature?
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.
Then why bring it up? That right, you have a religious agenda.
My question is if let's say a given animal adopts certain traits that were (for sake of argument not designed by a creator)
Such as the birds mentioned above, or the domestic dog or cat.
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) .
Wrong assumption. They do assume extintions. Lots of them. The fossils show lots of them.
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?
Nope, unless you have no idea because you have never read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
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.
Wrong again. No card trick. Just your ignorance. See, you really should have read those books on evolution that weren't written by creationists. Then you wouldn't be so ignorant.
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.
Wow, then there would be lots of black moths, and no grey moth eating birds because their food source is gone.
You know what fellowship? This is a testable hypothesis. A first for you, I believe.
Let us know the answer, will you? That's a good chap.
*Notice* and I mean (*(*(*NOTICE*)*)*) evolution of any sort did not account for how the two colors came to be in the first place.
Um, they evolved? Perhaps female balck moths love grey, and produce grey moths after mating? Guess what? This testable. Be a good chap and let us know the results of your experiments.
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?
No, but your ignorance is shining through.
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.
Still no trick being observed, just your ignorance.
I suggest you read some books on evolution that weren't
written by creationists. If you didd, you would find your questions answered.
The only problem is, you don't want them answered, hence your continuing ignorance.
I ask you... consider what I have revealed above in regard to evolution.
You have revealed your ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty.
Duely noted, sir.
Consider the trick of leaning on natural selection (which by the way is very observable and does indeed occure)
Nope, no trick, just your ignorance.
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.
Read a lot do you?
Perhaps grey moths are warmer that white moths in England?
The moths did not adapt new features at all.
An Intelligent Designer had the plan worked out from the begining.
Fellowship
Nope, no such thing had to happen at all.
Why are some flowers bright yellow? Or some birds bright red?
May I suggest you borrow every natural history dvd produced by richard attenbourgh. Since the written word seems to cause you grief, perhaps these flickering images will be of some benefit.
By the way, do your London black and grey moths exist, or are you being dishonest by putting forward a false argument?
Therefore Darwin is right.
;-)
The dog is not brown therefore it must be bright orange.
The sky is not yellow therefore it must be blue.
Fellowship is not a Zoroastrian therefore he must be Buddhist.
Bah. Debate evolution all you want but when you conclude that because evolution is wrong intelligent design is right, it is quite obvious we knew you had an agenda all along.
YOU HAVE COMMITTED THE CARDINAL SIN OF SCIENCE, FELLOWSHIP:
You started with what you believe to be true and manipulated the world around you (quite poorly I might add) to fit that view. You don't approach the situation with an open mind. You are a joke. Period.
Originally posted by zounic
God doesn't exists.
Therefore Darwin is right.
;-)
Bah you and your simple two line reply...beat me to it.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Nick I have left this thread but I will step in for a sec simply to say...
Fellowship,
Take your personal attacks and get the &#(! out of the thread. Thanks.
Originally posted by xenu
Actually, your problem is that we see through your religious agenda.
Critical thought already exists. Just read the books of Gould or Dawkins, as an example.
Your problem is that you don't understand the education system.
In high school we are taught Newtonian physics. Why? Because it is a fine mode of "macroscopic" events. Later, at University, you are taught relativity and quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean Newtonian physics is wrong. Even though it doesn't explain "reality" at the quantum level.
In high school we are taught about matrices and vectors. At university we are taught tensors and spinors, and so forth. That doesn't make matrices and vector worthless.
Evolution is taught because it explains our origins, and explains it well.
Is it perfect? No. Is that point hidden? No. Does it matter? No. It's the current theory that explains the observed empirical evidence. You could call the theory "grandma's spectacular orange cake", and it is still evolution.
Let us know when you come up with a better model.
This is the most ignorant post I have read yet.
Xenu, please show some reasoning if you wish to convince.
You see through my religious agenda? Perhaps you a paranoid facist. I suppose you and Joseph McCarthy would get along well. Criticism=you are the enemy and believe as them. Yes you certainly show your tolerance for crititical thinking.
Gould and Dawkins do contribute information and I have not said it should not be shown or taught. I have just added that when their explanations use assumptions, imaginings, and simplifications where none exist, we ought to be willing to consider the explanations of others who are not taking squar peges and smashing them through round holes.
Likewise this is the second thread in as many days where a layperson tells an educator they don't understand the educational system.
Newtonian physics is taught in high school through the use of experiments. The students can see the margin of error there and when they ask about it, you can mention relativity and quantum mechanics give us a more true representation of the world.
What experiment do they do with evolution that shows the margin of error? Likewise when they do see the margin of error, what would we say to explain it. Where is the more sophisticated explanation?
You do nothing here but prove my point. Present evolution with no experiment, no discussion and no questioning however I guess that suits a McCarthyite just fine.
Nick
"But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed."
Aside from the leap at the end, I think the author of this piece is missing the important revelation that proteins are related to eachother. While it is true that cillia do not function when they lack one of their components, it is also true that many of the proteins within the cillia are incredibly structurally similar (the author had previously used the guise of saying that different amino acid strands have different structures which is often true on a highly precise level, but more often than not slightly different amino acid strands produce remarkably similar structures). The author also fails to mention pili which are related to cillia, in that they have basically the same strutural components, but do not functionally move. In addition, the author doesnt mention that many celliated cells have other means of movement. So my point is as follows, in mathematical terms, a set of sets is reducible to the basis set, a basis set is irreducible. In this case a cell is a set of sets, cillia is one projection of a (part of a) basis set. The author is discussing the evolution of a piece of the thing that is evolving, which is not what evolution deals with.
Perhaps that is too complex. Basically, the irreducible claims only work for parts of the thing that is evolving, and while i completely agree that looking at just the cilia it is nearly impossible to understand how they evolved, if you take the broader look at the organism in which the cillia function, you see a redundancy of function, which to me obviously means that parts can be lost or broken and the organism can still survive. THis is a crude example but people who have lost their sight have lost arguably the most important sense they have, but they are still capable of having children and living. A cell without a component of cillia doesnt have working cillia, but the scientists who observed that cell realize that it is still alive and also realize that it is still reproducing so the cillia are not absolutely needed. The cell is reducible, a protein is not.
If I have time I will look at the other discussions that trumptman proposed, but I think I have taken care of the irreducible claims and where they arise.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Take your personal attacks and get the &^%$ out of this thread. Only you would respond to a perfectly reasonable post with accusations of McCarthy style witch-hunting.
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
And while you're at it, are you going to demand that everything in the curriculum without empirical, repeatable evidence or in need of simplifications are to be subject to the same rigourous disclaimers that you want for evolution? BECAUSE THAT COUNTS OUT EVERY PHYSICS CLASS BELOW DEGREE LEVEL.
So I say again, is it just evolution you want have with the disclaimers?
Evolution is the best explanation we have and it's consistent with everything we know about anatomy, physics and genetics. Do you dispute this?
Originally posted by trumptman
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
TRUMPTMAN: GREAT DECIDER OF WHAT IS CONTENT AND WHAT IS NOT.
Obviously, poor Xenu must be an intolerant, ignorant, paranoid fascist similar to McCarthy becuase you said so.
Wow.
Blowing me away with your content.
I stand up for Xenu because he reasonably explained the education system. Good post, xenu. Good post.
One more thing about irreducible (took a 5 minute nap on it). The only point that any "living" thing would have to be irreducible is at the very beginning, when all that needs to occur is an autocatalytic formation of self. THat is the point (at least for our cellular life forms) at which a DNA or RNA strand catalyzes its own creation from monomeric chemicals. At that point a failure to do so makes or breaks the system. After that redundancy kicks in and evoluion may occur...
Originally posted by trumptman
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.
Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.
He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself. He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.
Definition for McCarthyism:
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.
Nick
Oh what BULLcrap. You got angry the bloke's articulate, you made a ****ing pathetic accusation and now you've derailed the thread.
Nice going.
[ad hom attack removed]