skydyvr 0
Recommended Posts
jdhill 0
QuoteThe only ones who don't accept it are some who are trying to push some political agenda.
You are aware the group that suied were the ones wanting something changed... not the ones advocating the stickers...
How does the sticker remotely approach state endorsement of religion? It does not mention religion or creationism... absent the court case, most of the students would probably have not even seen the sticker.
Who's pushing an agenda more, the so called Right-Wing bible beaters who want to state evolution is a theory, which even by a scientific definition, it is; or the ACLU who feels threatend by an invisible intent that would be either missed or ignored by the target audiance?
No one in this case has asked that creation be taught, or even mentioned.
QuoteAs far as the constitutional issue with the sticker that only arises after you look into WHY the sticker was put in and by whom.
So you have to go beyond the sticker to reach the consitutional issue, and since the why and whom does not appear in the on the sticker in textbook, there is really no Consitutional issue is there?
J
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Do to newton's theory, we can in most cases predict the outcome of an
>event. The Theory is mathmatically provable with restrictions.
Correct.
>Evelution, however, does not allow anyone with any certainty to predict the
>outcome of a situation.
Incorrect. We have observed both evolution and speciation in both the lab and the real world. If you breed fruit flies, and you kill off all but the big ones, you can predict with near-100% certainty that they will eventually become bigger as a population. Such natural selection is at the heart of many medical and agricultural policies here in the US.
>If we confine a species in a specific environment, what will future
>generations evolve to?
See above.
>We have no idea if they will evolve at all.
We have demonstrated conclusively that they will.
>See evolution is not provable in any situation in the future or in any
>specific instance.
We have proven it in the lab hundreds of times. Do a web search; you'll get thousands of hits.
>event. The Theory is mathmatically provable with restrictions.
Correct.
>Evelution, however, does not allow anyone with any certainty to predict the
>outcome of a situation.
Incorrect. We have observed both evolution and speciation in both the lab and the real world. If you breed fruit flies, and you kill off all but the big ones, you can predict with near-100% certainty that they will eventually become bigger as a population. Such natural selection is at the heart of many medical and agricultural policies here in the US.
>If we confine a species in a specific environment, what will future
>generations evolve to?
See above.
>We have no idea if they will evolve at all.
We have demonstrated conclusively that they will.
>See evolution is not provable in any situation in the future or in any
>specific instance.
We have proven it in the lab hundreds of times. Do a web search; you'll get thousands of hits.
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteI wish I was not constantly reminded of that fact.
That's not fact, it's only a theory.Quote
I rest my case.
AndyMan 7
QuoteAnyone who would term either "Evolution" OR "Creationism" a theory does not comprehend evolution, creation or theory.
I think the problem is that people do not understand the meaning of the word "theory".
Lets remember, Gravity is only a "theory". Acknowledging this does NOT imply that it's up for debate.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
pajarito 0
QuoteLets remember, Gravity is only a "theory". Acknowledging this does NOT imply that it's up for debate.
Yes, but gravity is a hell of a lot more demonstratable. Sure, examples of micro-evolution can be demonstrated with bacteria (i.e. exchange of genetic material and mutation), however, there isn't any evidence to show that same bacteria changing into anything other than bacteria. That part (i.e. macro-evolution) is a theory with a lot less strength than that of gravity and would make it very much "up for debate." I think there was nothing wrong with informing students to approach it with an open mind and not to necessarily accept it as a given. It certainly wasn't a sponsorship of religion.
GeorgiaDon 340
The condensed version of evolution by natural selection:
1) The phenotype (physical structure) of living organisms is largely determined by the genotype (underlying genetic structure).
2) Organisms produce many more offspring than normally survive to reproductive age. For example your average fly can produce several thousand baby flies (maggots) in its life. If they all survived to adulthood and all also produced thousands of maggots, within a decade or so they would comprise the total mass of the Earth. That doesn't happen. In fact, in a steady-state population each female produces on average one adult female (and maybe one male). That is an average; in reality some produce more and some none at all.
3) Some phenotypes (and hence genotypes) tend to be more successful at producing offspring that survive to also reproduce thenselves. Over time the population will come to be made up mainly of these more successful genotypes.
4) The successful genotypes will tend to be those that are better at finding food and mates, can avoid being someone elses food, can resist disease, etc.
Each of these postulates can easily be tested experimentally, and all of them have been shown to be true many many times. If evolution is false, then one of these points must be false. So all you creationists out there, which one is it? Is heredity a lie? Do flies secretly produce only one pair of little flies and make it look loke a lot more somehow? Where is the logical flaw? How come "creation scientists" have never disproven one of these points?It seems to me that organisms have to evolve, it's as inevitable as increasing entropy.
One mistake people commonly make is reasoning backwards; they start with the end result (humans, for example) and they ask "what are the chances evolution would have produced humans?" This supposes that evolution had some sort of a goal to produce humans. All the theory predicts is that over time genotypes of populations will change because poorly adapted genotypes don't get to reproduce themselves. If you wound the clock back 100 million years and let it run all over again species, genera, phyla would still evolve, but they would end up as a different collection of species today (and it's unlikely that humans would be one of them).
Here's a simple analogy for those of you who like to blow things up. You can build a bomb, and enough is known about chemistry and thermodynamics that you can predict the yield and even the size and temperature of the fireball pretty accurately. But you could not predict with any accuracy exactly where every molecule of air in the fireball would go. You couldn't even predict the exact trajectory of every piece of schrapnel. You could only describe the gross behavior of the system as a whole. Does that mean that bombs don't exist?
1) The phenotype (physical structure) of living organisms is largely determined by the genotype (underlying genetic structure).
2) Organisms produce many more offspring than normally survive to reproductive age. For example your average fly can produce several thousand baby flies (maggots) in its life. If they all survived to adulthood and all also produced thousands of maggots, within a decade or so they would comprise the total mass of the Earth. That doesn't happen. In fact, in a steady-state population each female produces on average one adult female (and maybe one male). That is an average; in reality some produce more and some none at all.
3) Some phenotypes (and hence genotypes) tend to be more successful at producing offspring that survive to also reproduce thenselves. Over time the population will come to be made up mainly of these more successful genotypes.
4) The successful genotypes will tend to be those that are better at finding food and mates, can avoid being someone elses food, can resist disease, etc.
Each of these postulates can easily be tested experimentally, and all of them have been shown to be true many many times. If evolution is false, then one of these points must be false. So all you creationists out there, which one is it? Is heredity a lie? Do flies secretly produce only one pair of little flies and make it look loke a lot more somehow? Where is the logical flaw? How come "creation scientists" have never disproven one of these points?It seems to me that organisms have to evolve, it's as inevitable as increasing entropy.
One mistake people commonly make is reasoning backwards; they start with the end result (humans, for example) and they ask "what are the chances evolution would have produced humans?" This supposes that evolution had some sort of a goal to produce humans. All the theory predicts is that over time genotypes of populations will change because poorly adapted genotypes don't get to reproduce themselves. If you wound the clock back 100 million years and let it run all over again species, genera, phyla would still evolve, but they would end up as a different collection of species today (and it's unlikely that humans would be one of them).
Here's a simple analogy for those of you who like to blow things up. You can build a bomb, and enough is known about chemistry and thermodynamics that you can predict the yield and even the size and temperature of the fireball pretty accurately. But you could not predict with any accuracy exactly where every molecule of air in the fireball would go. You couldn't even predict the exact trajectory of every piece of schrapnel. You could only describe the gross behavior of the system as a whole. Does that mean that bombs don't exist?
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
GeorgiaDon 340
One last thing while I'm on this rant. One of the diseases I work on (Chagas' Disease) is caused by a parasite that will infect you when you're a kid, silently move into your heart, and gradually destroy it. You won't know you've got it until 30 or 40 years later when you can't walk up a flight of stairs any more. A few years later you'll drop dead when your heart explodes. If you're lucky. In some people it destroys the colon so they can't shit. Eventually you die when your colon bursts and you get massive sepsis. Or maybe it will destroy your esophagus and you'll have to be fed through a tube for the rest of your life. About 18 million people in South and Central America have this. It kills about 200,000 a year. No cure, no drugs, no vaccine. I could quote as bad or worse for any number of other diseases. Malaria kills between 1 and 3 million people a year.
What's my point? Evolution can easily account for this. We're just food to organisms that can resist our immune defenses. Of course over time parasites will evolve to use us like that.
On the other hand suppose creationism is true? Why would any God intentionally create such monstrous diseases? I am serious with this question, I have wondered many times how a divine God could even permit this to happen. But y'all want me to believe that He/She/It did it ON PURPOSE? CREATED IT? Please please please explain this to me, so whenever I have to tell a grieving mother that her baby is dead of malaria I can explain why it had to happen.
end rant
What's my point? Evolution can easily account for this. We're just food to organisms that can resist our immune defenses. Of course over time parasites will evolve to use us like that.
On the other hand suppose creationism is true? Why would any God intentionally create such monstrous diseases? I am serious with this question, I have wondered many times how a divine God could even permit this to happen. But y'all want me to believe that He/She/It did it ON PURPOSE? CREATED IT? Please please please explain this to me, so whenever I have to tell a grieving mother that her baby is dead of malaria I can explain why it had to happen.
end rant
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
dorbie 0
Quote
Here's a simple analogy for those of you who like to blow things up. You can build a bomb, and enough is known about chemistry and thermodynamics that you can predict the yield and even the size and temperature of the fireball pretty accurately. But you could not predict with any accuracy exactly where every molecule of air in the fireball would go. You couldn't even predict the exact trajectory of every piece of schrapnel. You could only describe the gross behavior of the system as a whole. Does that mean that bombs don't exist?
No, no, can't you follow simple illogic? It means there's no theory on bombs, there's only a hypothesis on bombs and even that's pretty flimsy.
Good post btw.
There is a scientific principal that's not been touched on before or at least it has been misunderstood w.r.t. prediction. The ability to test a theory does not exclusively hinge on how it predicts the future but how it predicts the outcome of future observations and experiments. For example the theory of evolution predicted that when we were able to sequence genes that there would be evidence of genetic inheritance and lineage across species, moreover that this could indicate in part a progression w.r.t. the family tree of evolved species. This does in fact correlate with findings. The theory predicted that we would find repressed genes in existing species and we do, chickens have the genes to grow teeth for example and these can be activated. There are many predictions we can make about the outcome of observations that test evolutionary theory and the observations confirm these predictions and therefore support the theory.
billvon 2,435
> there isn't any evidence to show that same bacteria changing
>into anything other than bacteria.
Evolution doesn't work that way. Bacteria evolve to become better suited to their environment, not to become wolves - unless. over the course of a hundred million years, conditions favor _every_ organism becoming a wolf. That's unlikely, and even if it were true, it would take millions of years. We don't have that much time.
One of the problems with people's conception of evolution is that they see science fiction movies in which a human (for example) 'evolves' into a monster in one generation. This is a necessary distortion, because evolution is deadly boring. It might take 10 million years to evolve an eye, and at first there might be nothing more than a light sensitive patch on an organism's skin. Then there are more patches, and soon they have a crude compound eye bulging out there. Not because anyone designed it that way, or because the organism wants it, but because the organism that was accidentally born with ten light sensitive patches does better than the one with five. The one with ten does not become dinner because he sees a hungry fish coming - so his phenotype wins the survival game and is passed on in his genes.
If this species is lucky, they may hit a point where a punctuation of equilibrium occurs. Because of a one-in-a-million genetic 'flaw' one organism is born with an inside out eye. Instead of a bulge with light sensitive cells, he's born with a _pit_ with light sensitive cells inside. Suddenly he has a very crude pinhole lens, and he's ten times better at avoiding predators. Within a few generations every organism has pit eyes.
Then evolution goes back to its slow plod. The organisms that have smaller openings in their pits do better at focusing, so the pits slowly close up. One organism is born with a muscle in a bizarre place, and when contracted it closes the hole a bit. Now the first iris begins operation. Ten million years later you have an eye.
Now, when did one of these organisms "change" to have eyes? If you looked at it generation by generation, you'd see very little change (other than a few punctuations where change comes along rapidly.) We just aren't long lived enough to see a worm evolve an eye (or a bacteria evolve feet.) But we are long lived enough to see all those things happen individually. Organisms change to fit their niches. Sometimes two groups of the same organisms in two different niches change so much they can no longer reproduce between the two groups, and a new species is born. This has happened several times while we have been watching.
>into anything other than bacteria.
Evolution doesn't work that way. Bacteria evolve to become better suited to their environment, not to become wolves - unless. over the course of a hundred million years, conditions favor _every_ organism becoming a wolf. That's unlikely, and even if it were true, it would take millions of years. We don't have that much time.
One of the problems with people's conception of evolution is that they see science fiction movies in which a human (for example) 'evolves' into a monster in one generation. This is a necessary distortion, because evolution is deadly boring. It might take 10 million years to evolve an eye, and at first there might be nothing more than a light sensitive patch on an organism's skin. Then there are more patches, and soon they have a crude compound eye bulging out there. Not because anyone designed it that way, or because the organism wants it, but because the organism that was accidentally born with ten light sensitive patches does better than the one with five. The one with ten does not become dinner because he sees a hungry fish coming - so his phenotype wins the survival game and is passed on in his genes.
If this species is lucky, they may hit a point where a punctuation of equilibrium occurs. Because of a one-in-a-million genetic 'flaw' one organism is born with an inside out eye. Instead of a bulge with light sensitive cells, he's born with a _pit_ with light sensitive cells inside. Suddenly he has a very crude pinhole lens, and he's ten times better at avoiding predators. Within a few generations every organism has pit eyes.
Then evolution goes back to its slow plod. The organisms that have smaller openings in their pits do better at focusing, so the pits slowly close up. One organism is born with a muscle in a bizarre place, and when contracted it closes the hole a bit. Now the first iris begins operation. Ten million years later you have an eye.
Now, when did one of these organisms "change" to have eyes? If you looked at it generation by generation, you'd see very little change (other than a few punctuations where change comes along rapidly.) We just aren't long lived enough to see a worm evolve an eye (or a bacteria evolve feet.) But we are long lived enough to see all those things happen individually. Organisms change to fit their niches. Sometimes two groups of the same organisms in two different niches change so much they can no longer reproduce between the two groups, and a new species is born. This has happened several times while we have been watching.
AndyMan 7
QuoteThat part (i.e. macro-evolution) is a theory with a lot less strength than that of gravity and would make it very much "up for debate."
Quite the contrary, really.
Now I'll grant that we don't test and reinforce evolution every time we drop a crystal glass, but to suggest that it's debateable in science is quite simply, wrong.
Someone who suggests otherwise is either pursuing an agenda, naive, or ignorant. And no, that's not intended as a personal attack. There's a great many things in the world to which I'm both naive and ignorant. To acknowledge those when they exist is a strength.
Evolution - macro or micro, (there is no difference) works. It started off as a theory that just plain worked, and a slew of discoveries since continue to show that it works, and moreso - is right.
Until a better theory comes along, it will stand as the only scientific theory that explains the origins. In science, "better theories" do not replace old ones, they tweak the old ones. You can't throw out a system that works just because you want to. "New theories" always build on the old theories, they do not replace them when the old ones work. Evolution works. It will not be thrown out, or replaced, but tweaked.
What you call "macro-evolution" is solid theory with demonstratable and predictable characteristics. To suggest otherwise only has value if you're trying to push a non-scientific agenda. In scientific circles, the basis of evolution is no more debatable then the nature of gravity.
You don't have to believe it, nor do you have to accept it. However, you would be wise to understand that by openly contradicting it, you're showing yourself plainly to be one who's pushing a religious agenda, naive, or ignorant.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Kennedy 0
QuoteWhat's my point? Evolution can easily account for this. We're just food to organisms that can resist our immune defenses. Of course over time parasites will evolve to use us like that.
Actually, the most succesful bacteria are those that do not harm the host. Only about three percent of all known bacteria harm the human body (while it's alive).
The most successful are those that can use the host and leave it alive to be used again. Similarly but slightly less successful are those that are helpful to us (such as those in our gastr-intestinal tract).
(success for bacteria defined as most reproductive and least changing)
Personally I believe large-scale "evolution" only happens following some amazing catastrophic event that opens new niches. All life is driven to survive and reproduce, and so the niches are filled by those most able to work the new system (Bill's bug example requires the death of all large bugs to set it off, not exactly a normal occurance).
Otherwise I believe evolution is nearly non-existant. It doesn't happen without a spur. Mutation is another story, but hardly equals evolution.
ps - that bad things happen is hardly proof that there is no God(s).
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteQuestion, if the athiest's had their way, and this country's political, educational & judicial systems were stripped bare of any religious symbolism or structure, would any of you still want to live here?
Sure...why not?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
GeorgiaDon 340
Well I had actually hoped to get some serious discussion from some of the creationist-leaning types who post here. Too bad.
Kennedy, I think you're partly right that well-adapted parasites don't do overt damage to their hosts, but there are lots of exceptions. Some of it has to do with how the parasite gets transmitted to new hosts; sometimes the pathology results from the mechanism the parasite uses to move from host to host. For example smallpox never evolved to be less virulent because it has to form pustules to shed virus and get transmitted. Similarly ebola is transmitted by contact with infected blood, so making you bleed is critical to the propagation of the virus; a mutant ebola that didn't do that would not get transmitted and that strain would be trapped in the host, it would die out when the host died. Another strain that made you produce lots of virus-laden blood would probably be transmitted to lots of new hosts so a few generations down the road you would only find the virulent strain persisting. Of course if it killed you too quickly it also wouldn't be very efficient, it's better (for the virus) if you bleed out over a month than if you kick the bucket in two days. The example I gave the other day (Chagas' Disease) takes about 30 years to kill you, that's about 3,000 generations for the parasite, so it's like us living for 75,000 years (25 yrs/generation) on an island before ruining the ecosystem so the island becomes uninhabitable. Of course that whole 75,000 years some people will sail off every year to colonize new islands, so by the time the island becomes uninhabitable the islanders will have millions of descendants all over the place.
My issue here wasn't whether or not bad things happening proves or disproves the existance of a God. The issue is that God must have made those bad things in the first place, if the creationist paradigm is correct.
Kennedy, I think you're partly right that well-adapted parasites don't do overt damage to their hosts, but there are lots of exceptions. Some of it has to do with how the parasite gets transmitted to new hosts; sometimes the pathology results from the mechanism the parasite uses to move from host to host. For example smallpox never evolved to be less virulent because it has to form pustules to shed virus and get transmitted. Similarly ebola is transmitted by contact with infected blood, so making you bleed is critical to the propagation of the virus; a mutant ebola that didn't do that would not get transmitted and that strain would be trapped in the host, it would die out when the host died. Another strain that made you produce lots of virus-laden blood would probably be transmitted to lots of new hosts so a few generations down the road you would only find the virulent strain persisting. Of course if it killed you too quickly it also wouldn't be very efficient, it's better (for the virus) if you bleed out over a month than if you kick the bucket in two days. The example I gave the other day (Chagas' Disease) takes about 30 years to kill you, that's about 3,000 generations for the parasite, so it's like us living for 75,000 years (25 yrs/generation) on an island before ruining the ecosystem so the island becomes uninhabitable. Of course that whole 75,000 years some people will sail off every year to colonize new islands, so by the time the island becomes uninhabitable the islanders will have millions of descendants all over the place.
My issue here wasn't whether or not bad things happening proves or disproves the existance of a God. The issue is that God must have made those bad things in the first place, if the creationist paradigm is correct.
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
That's not fact, it's only a theory.
And here's another: If humility were even half as common as stupidity, the world would be a much nicer place.
. . =(_8^(1)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites