[olePigeon]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in....ap/index.html



I'm glad he saw the difference and I agree with him 100%. Keep it in schools, let students discuss it, learn from it, explore it, but do NOT call it a science. It does not belong in a Biology class. It is mythology, that's it. Keep it in the liberal arts.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in....ap/index.html



I'm glad he saw the difference and I agree with him 100%. Keep it in schools, let students discuss it, learn from it, explore it, but do NOT call it a science. It does not belong in a Biology class. It is mythology, that's it. Keep it in the liberal arts.

Hopefully not missed in the decision is that the current school board did not scrap teaching/discussing ID, they moved it to the sociology curriculum where it belongs.

This is a pretty resounding defeat for those who wanted to take ID and wrap it up in their own religious ideology (or vice versa). Not only did the court rule against them they can't appeal the case because the folks of Dover voted them out of office and the new SB has no intentions of appealing. I would assume this case will then become precedent and present a significant hurdle for the introduction of ID in science classes throughout the country.

[anthology123]

Does someone know the answer to this: Do they teach ID in biology in private schools and in parochial schools? Just wondering, I imagine that most of the proponents of ID in biology, may not want THEIR kids in such a biology class, not if it hinders their pre-med qualifications to Harvard to become a doctor. On the other hand, having public schools spend up to 1/2 the time in biology teaching ID, it gives their kids in private schools a chance to get ahead for college.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by anthology123

Does someone know the answer to this: Do they teach ID in biology in private schools and in parochial schools? Just wondering, I imagine that most of the proponents of ID in biology, may not want THEIR kids in such a biology class, not if it hinders their pre-med qualifications to Harvard to become a doctor. On the other hand, having public schools spend up to 1/2 the time in biology teaching ID, it gives their kids in private schools a chance to get ahead for college.

Private schools have less political pressure to teach BS like ID. No respected school would do that..even if the school has a religious affiliation..it would wreck the schools reputation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm glad he saw the difference and I agree with him 100%. Keep it in schools, let students discuss it, learn from it, explore it, but do NOT call it a science. It does not belong in a Biology class. It is mythology, that's it. Keep it in the liberal arts.

You would allow the mythology of evolution as cause for the origin of the species (an idea based not on fact, but simply a series of suppositions concerning unproven ideas), but would want to censor other forms of mythology just because you don't believe in them? I'm using the term "mythology" in place of theory or idea since that's apparently your codeword for things you disagree with. When in Rome....

Get back to me when you can prove ANY kind of macro-evolution that could even possibly result in the creation of a species. Otherwise, you're dealing with a faith based, unproven idea just like ID. You don't make "science" out of hopes just because you think it's a really good invented idea.
But, I do realize that this is about prejudice and intellectual dishonesty, and not really about science anyways...so I'll just remain humored.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You would allow the mythology of evolution as cause for the origin of the species (an idea based not on fact, but simply a series of suppositions concerning unproven ideas), but would want to censor other forms of mythology just because you don't believe in them? I'm using the term "mythology" in place of theory or idea since that's apparently your codeword for things you disagree with. When in Rome....

Get back to me when you can prove ANY kind of macro-evolution that could even possibly result in the creation of a species. Otherwise, you're dealing with a faith based, unproven idea just like ID. You don't make "science" out of hopes just because you think it's a really good invented idea.
But, I do realize that this is about prejudice and intellectual dishonesty, and not really about science anyways...so I'll just remain humored.

Let me ask you this, do you think the idea/theory of Intelligent Design is
equally valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?
more valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?
less valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?

Which idea/theory do you think is better at explaining the evolution of species?
I'm not arguing we shouldn't teach both, but if we were to teach both I want to know
which idea/theory YOU think should be given more emphasis in the class room.
(I don't want to know why, unless you feel like volunteering that information.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Let me ask you this, do you think the idea/theory of Intelligent Design is
equally valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?
more valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?
less valid as the idea/theory of evolution for explaining the evolution of species?

I consider all unproven theories, where there is an almost total lack of evidence to support (possibly circumstantial or unreproducible observations like witnesses to "miracles" or the fact that there is micro-evolution are equally unconvincing as "proof", in my book since neither can be reproduced to show that the underlying theory is or can be true), to be equal as unproven theories. However, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to examine several of the most widely held theories, explain the evidence for and/or against the theories and allow the student to decide for themselves if the goal is to teach students about the origin of the species.. If the evolution theory has more circumstantial evidence that can be reproduced, then of course it should be pointed out that there is an unequal amount of such evidence for other theories.

Which idea/theory do you think is better at explaining the evolution of species?

Which theory do I think is better at explaining the myth of the evolution of species? I guess evolution? Which theory do I think is better at explaining the myth of the creation of the species? I'd guess ID. Again...if your goal is to teach students concerning how we may have ended up as we do you can't do it in an intellectually honest way, unless a single theory can be shown to be proven and the proof reproducible, by censoring equally unproven ideas.

I'm not arguing we shouldn't teach both, but if we were to teach both I want to know
which idea/theory YOU think should be given more emphasis in the class room.
(I don't want to know why, unless you feel like volunteering that information.)

I don't think there needs to be more classroom time spent on any unproven, unlikely to be proven any time soon theory than another. The statistical probability that you're simply wasting the student's time with information that is pure invention and no more "fact" than other theories is too high to pick one and treat it like THE TRUTH. BUT...I do believe that the scientifically correct and honest thing to do is to explain the "evidence" for the theories in question. I think that on that basis, more time would be spent on explaining the scientific processes and observations that might lead one to believe in evolution over some of the less concrete "evidence" for ID.

Also, while I do not believe in the myth of "seperation of church and state" invented by the courts {as much as there can be no acknowledgment of the possibility of the existence of a supreme being(s)), I do believe that there is a line that has to be drawn between espousing specific religions and belief systems in government financed institutions. It's actually why I feel strongly about the current situation since those who support the notion that there is no God, and therefore evolution is fact, are themselves pushing a "state" religious belief - one that God does not exist. You can not honestly teach about the origin of the species if you exlude one possibility due to your own personal belief systems. Currently, the judge in this case has implemented a "separate but equal" judgment which is as intellectually dishonest most all similar attempts to segregate things (in this case, ideas) based on people's fear of them. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with prejudice.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You would allow the mythology of evolution as cause for the origin of the species (an idea based not on fact, but simply a series of suppositions concerning unproven ideas), but would want to censor other forms of mythology just because you don't believe in them? I'm using the term "mythology" in place of theory or idea since that's apparently your codeword for things you disagree with. When in Rome....

Get back to me when you can prove ANY kind of macro-evolution that could even possibly result in the creation of a species. Otherwise, you're dealing with a faith based, unproven idea just like ID. You don't make "science" out of hopes just because you think it's a really good invented idea.
But, I do realize that this is about prejudice and intellectual dishonesty, and not really about science anyways...so I'll just remain humored.

Evolution is a process, it is ongoing. Creationist/IDers like to equate speciation as evolution itself but speciation is just a part of evolution and it takes a long time relative to the life span of humans. Creationist like to use examples such as no one has ever seen a salamandar change into a horse and thus, this debunks evolution. In fact, if anyone ever witnesses this feat it would debunk evolution. Evolution is typically subtle genetic variations which may or may not make an individual creature more likely to survive to reproductive maturity, whence the new gene would get passed on to the offspring. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance.

As for examples of evolution on a macro scale - malaria parasites are good example. They have evolved to become resistant to the drugs used to combat them, thus leading to a rise in the number of malarial cases (300 million last year) throughout the world. [Just an aside - I have had malaria, it sucks]. Mosquitos are another example of a species changing to become resistant to environmental stress. (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513083.html). A new species of mosquito the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. (http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html) For evidence in vertibrates there is the stickleback fish. In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).

There are other examples but I doubt presenting them would do anything to persuade you of the validity of evolution. Ironically, at least from my own experience, the reverse is not necessarily true. Most people I know (and this includes several scientists (chemists and biologists and physists) have no problem believing in God as the creator and also believing in evolution.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Thoughtful post snipped.

So, it sounds like you want evolution, ID, and other ideas/theories about evolution (or scientific concepts in general) presented as being all questionable (perhaps with some qualfiers as to the degree of questionability) with the student being allowed to decide for themselves which one they would choose to be the best explanation. Sounds fair enough.

Do you think this approach to teaching a subject should apply across all the disciplines or just in the sciences?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Evolution is a process, it is ongoing.

Evolution is a theory, it is unproven and there is no direct, reproducibile credible evidence that macro-evolution as a means to create a species is possible. Your "missing link" versus their "missing God".

Creationist like to use examples such as no one has ever seen a salamandar change into a horse and thus, this debunks evolution.

Evolutions like to use examples such as no one has ever taken a photograph or measured "God" and thus, this debunks intelligent design.

You can go on and on about what you THINK has or can happen just as ID'ers can do the same. Neither of you can come up with any real solid, credible proof. They are both interesting and possibly "true" ideas, but both at this point are faith based theories with no direct reproducible evidence to show them to be true. Not even close.

[Spliffdaddy]

Since most Americans believe that humans were created by a God - it wouldn't make sense for schools to ignore such a widely held belief. Social studies would probably better encompass the subject matter of ID. Get it out of the science classes - but get it into the schools.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, it sounds like you want evolution, ID, and other ideas/theories about evolution (or scientific concepts in general) presented as being all questionable (perhaps with some qualfiers as to the degree of questionability) with the student being allowed to decide for themselves which one they would choose to be the best explanation. Sounds fair enough.

Do you think this approach to teaching a subject should apply across all the disciplines or just in the sciences?

All disciplines where there is no concrete or absolute. Alternatives should be offered to what is generally accepted, otherwise people will train their brains NOT to "Think Different".

An example is history. The courses I believed I learned the most in, and in the end helped me to understand the material the most were the ones where a professor would explain what happened, then give widely held alternatives to the "official" account. An example would be what happened in regards to Pearl Harbor. There are a number of different alternative accounts of how and why we got involved in WWII that differ from the generally accepted theory that we were blind-sided and simply reacted to an act of war. I believe that knowing the alternatives gives us a much deeper understanding of the subject and gives us direction to further our knowledge of the subject in the future.

Isn't knowledge and the search for truth and absolutes what learning is all about? You may never find the "truth", but the search yields knowledge you'd never have if you simply accepted pretty good guesses as fact.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Get back to me when you can prove ANY kind of macro-evolution that could even possibly result in the creation of a species.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

<does so 3 times over>

Originally Posted by stupendousman

<ignores all but first and last sentences of above>

prejudice and intellectual dishonesty indeed. It's a nice song and dance number you have, stupendousman. perhaps some day you will actually read your own words.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Since most Americans believe that humans were created by a God - it wouldn't make sense for schools to ignore such a widely held belief. Social studies would probably better encompass the subject matter of ID. Get it out of the science classes - but get it into the schools.

I thought ID was supposed to be scientific and non-religious. Is that no longer true?

I also thought public schools in this country weren't supposed to teach religion. Do you wish that weren't true?

[demograph68]

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Thank you.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Evolution is a theory, it is unproven and there is no direct, reproducibile credible evidence that macro-evolution as a means to create a species is possible. Your "missing link" versus their "missing God".

Evolutions like to use examples such as no one has ever taken a photograph or measured "God" and thus, this debunks intelligent design.

You can go on and on about what you THINK has or can happen just as ID'ers can do the same. Neither of you can come up with any real solid, credible proof. They are both interesting and possibly "true" ideas, but both at this point are faith based theories with no direct reproducible evidence to show them to be true. Not even close.

Don't neglect my last paragraph. Evolution is not out to debunk or prove the existence of God, it is just out there to show how things got from A to B. The scientific theory (and before one goes in support of the it's just a theory defense one should understand the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory, as an example, gravity is a scientific theory though no one would dispute it. I'm not saying you don't but it, IMO, destroys the credibility of the anti-evolution crowd when they tout that line) and if enough evidence can be put forth to the contrary the theory can be debunked or changed. Evolution is fact-based, it says we went from A-Z and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the world regardless of whether we are missing G and R. ID is based more on the things are complicated and therefore not so random notion, which IMO is really just an extension of chaos theory - things are not so random but patterned. Which I would/do find interesting if it was just left to that. But when ID starts asking for faith in an untestable creator, be that God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens it has to be shuffled from science to philosophy, sociology or religion.

In the end, ID doesn't threaten my belief system because I do believe in an Almighty, just that he didn't plunk down everything in its final form and said, ok, job done. We evolve, physically, socially, intelligently and so do things around us, though perhaps more on the physical than other levels. I think that evolution is the process of getting us to that line in Genesis, 'we were made in his image'. Think of it as the process of children, as they grow older one can see it greater detail the influence of the parents, genetically and in their personality. We are on a similar journey, one that will probably take 100,000 if not more of years. Evolution let's us see the path we have taken and let's us decide the path we should take.

[G Barnett]

From Judge Jones' decision:

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

This is exactly the same line of thinking you're using, Stupendousman. No matter how much evidence is provided for evolutionary theory, you're going to just keep pushing up the bar, saying "that's not enough, show me *this* now." Science does not work that way. Science never has worked that way. At the same time, ID sets a nice low bar for itself. Must be nice, to be able to redefine the rules to always suit yourselves, hm?

G Barnett

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You would allow the mythology of evolution as cause for the origin of the species (an idea based not on fact, but simply a series of suppositions concerning unproven ideas), but would want to censor other forms of mythology just because you don't believe in them? I'm using the term "mythology" in place of theory or idea since that's apparently your codeword for things you disagree with. When in Rome....

A theory (in the context that we're using it, as in a scientific theory) is only formed based on fact, direct observation, and the abillity to test the theory using scientific method. It is also designed so that, if wrong in part or in whole, can be disproven through more direct observations, facts, and testing. The theory of evolution is based on fact (fossils, subspecies, unique geographical related traits), direct observation (bacteria, the relatively recent Bubonic Plague/HIV immunity discovery), and testing (isolating bacteria and watching it evolve due to condition changes; related experiments with larger organisms.)

The word "theory" should not be thrown around so lightly as if it doesn't mean anything. It is not a synonym for an "idea" or a "hunch," much less "mythology."

Intelligent Design is mythology and soemtimes religion. The principal of Intelligent Design is not based on any fact, nor can it be observed, nor can it be tested in any fashion. Therefore, it is NOT a theory and does NOT belong in any science class room. There is not a single fact that there's a god or super being, we can not observe any gods or super beings, and we can't test any hypothesis based on the previous two by any measure of the word. Intelligent Design is a myth.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Get back to me when you can prove ANY kind of macro-evolution that could even possibly result in the creation of a species.

Only Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution. They are one and the same. You need to look up what macro-evolution is and how it works before repeating that rhetorical crap.

Sudden, large scale changes can be attributed to a single gene in the body. And yes, it can create brand new species. Macro-evolution is the direct result of micro-evolution and sometimes tragedy-of-the-commons. A single gene, mutation, or defect can spread causing rapid change amongst a species, even creating entirely new species and certainly many subspecies. Likewise, that single gene can cause only minor changes (as they usually do), or, many small changes result in a broader effect over time.

It always boils down to micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the result of large scale changes caused by micro-evolution. Large, rapid changes can occur in almost any species from a single mutated gene or defect. It happens. How this applies to evolution is, if this mutation somehow benefited a species and allowed it to survive changes in the environment where others of the previously same species died out, and this gene was passed onto future generations, you'd "suddenly" have an entirely new species as a result of a mutated gene.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You don't make "science" out of hopes just because you think it's a really good invented idea.

The only intelligible thing you've said.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

But, I do realize that this is about prejudice and intellectual dishonesty, and not really about science anyways...so I'll just remain humored.

I think you've come to the wrong conclusion. But that's just my theory.

[stupendousman]

The problem with all of your responses is that you simply INSIST that because you can observe one thing (micro-evolution) that's evidence of something else (macro-evolution) which isn't any kind of scientific method for anything. And NO, they are not the same thing. Malaria that adapts to drugs to the point of resistance is still Malaria. One definition refers to small mutations within a species and the other a trans-mutation of one species into another. NO ONE has proven that such a thing is possible, no less that it's the method in which our species has originated. That's precisely why there's still a debate.

The possibility of ID doesn't not preclude micro or macro evolution though (anymore than evolution debunks the existence of a higher power). I'm not debating that it's not possible...just that it's not proven and that it relies on faith that certain things can or may happen (not direct observation or other scientific methods).

The judge's response above is indicitive of the type of fuzzy headed, intellectually fallacious argument that the entire anti-ID movement exemplifies. If you can show that there is microevolution, then therefore that's proof of existance of macroevolution which simply is not true. Again...we aren't debating whether or not micro-evolution can be taught. Including that into the debate simply is a red herring, and it's suprising that thinking people in this thread would include such specious reasoning to support their claims.

[G Barnett]

It's called logical inferrence based on a preponderance of evidence, and it's a valid tool in scientific theories for all branches of science. We can't directly observe black holes, but all the evidence we have so far allows astrophysicists to reasonably infer that they do exist. Hell, we can't even directly observe subatomic particles like muons and quarks, just certain traces left by particles in colliders; but again, all the evidence we have shows that particle physics is headed down the right path.

It's the exact same route being taken by evolutionary theory, only in this case, it happens to contradict people who insist that Genesis must be taken literally, and now we have a problem. I have absolutely no problems with ID being taught in a philosophy/religion class -- that's where it belongs. Just keep it out of the hard science classrooms, 'cause it has no place at all there.

G Barnett

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

One definition refers to small mutations within a species and the other a trans-mutation of one species into another.

If it's your understanding that evolution predicts one existing species to evolve into another existing species, that would explain why you don't find the theory believable, and why you keep falling back on the "they're still X" argument. "Men may have evolved from lower primates, but they're still primates!" It's true, of course, but it doesn't mean they're not a new species. Before anyone says anything else, stupendousman, perhaps you'd like to clarify what you consider to constitute a new species, and how exactly will you know when/if a new one has been created by evolution (or by some other means)?

Examples:
A new species is one that cannot breed with the old one,
A new species is one that looks at least 10% different than the old one, on some specific quantifiable scale of physical differences,
A new species is recognizable as another species I already know, one that's different from the old one,
etc.
(please give yours)

[Yose]

What I like about evolution and "science" is that people are always trying to figure it out, they question ideas and blah blah blah.

With ID/creationism it seems the questions stop with the answer of "well, god did it". To me, that isn't a good enough answer.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Yose

With ID it seems the questions stop with the answer of "well, god did it". That comes off as an answer for a people who want to stop thinking.

not god. something or someone. possibly allah? inherent physical characteristics of the universe?

one problem with speciation is that it requires certain conditions, many of which are not available to reinforce emerging variations. malaria has many different strains, but do they represent speciation? the same can be said with the flu virus. every year, a new flu vaccine is made based partly on which strains (speciation?) of flu are most likely to be prevalent (historically) and which strains are the most dangerous (emerging).

one requirement for speciation is isolation. as has been seen with SARS and avian flu, it is very easy to transport around the world, and therefore, while single strains mutate (and evolve btw) they do not have a particular niche in which to survive and have specific traits defined. plus humans have the capability to supress these dangerous mutations almost immediately. take away the ability for humans to travel easily world-wide then you would see speciation of the flu become more defined in different parts of the world where they emerge.

historically, this isolation depends on massive splitting of continents, movement to newer climes and then the subsequent adaptation (or death) of new traits to these environments. it takes a long time, so long that we have to rely on the fossil record - an incomplete record to be sure - to determine this evolution.

filling in the gaps has been the crux of the debate. holdouts want a representative fossil from each generation of each species that ever lived for proof, one they know they won't get. even though there exists fossils that point to changes in morphology over time, these fossils are few and far in between, but a progression can be seen, enough to gauge within any reasonable doubt that there is a progression.

[Yose]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

not god. something or someone. possibly allah? inherent physical characteristics of the universe?

//bunch of text you wrote, thanks btw, I liked reading it.//

Isn't God and Allah the same thing? Perhaps some people define them differently but I meant it as a catch-all for something "greater".

I don't understand why this arguement becomes to heated - whatever it was that happened that "we" came about, it's something that will take a long long time to comprehend fully.

I see the Creationism/Id proponents putting forth that a higherpower/god/whatever set the path or the stage that we are on. I see the evolution folks saying this is what we think now, but who knows what we'll learn later and that maybe, we'll learn that it did happen like the ID folks say.

I guess I feel more in tune with the evolutionary folks because their philopsophy is something that can accomodate a new discovery. Whereas a god answer is pretty final, I mean, it's predefining the answer based on some faith that may, or may not be correct.

I also suppose that if there is a higher power, they would rather I not make an assumption like that of Creationism/ID. I really doubt it matters to "whatever it is" so long as I don't stop growing. Sort of like how we want our children to never stop dreaming, or being open to ideas.

Thanks for your info on speciation... I'd never heard of that before and had to look it up in the dictionary. Always learning, right?

E.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Yose

I see the Creationism/Id proponents putting forth that a higherpower/god/whatever set the path or the stage that we are on. I see the evolution folks saying this is what we think now, but who knows what we'll learn later and that maybe, we'll learn that it did happen like the ID folks say.

evolution, i'm sure will be replaced with a better theory down the road. as far as i can really tell, ID believes everything that science has done as far as supporting evolution as a theory. but where questions remain, science aims to find the answer while ID simply inserts a higher power into the increasingly smaller gaps.

advances in evolutionary knowledge doesn't disprove ID. throughout history, science has de-mystified the world. back in the day, it was a popularily held belief that planets and stars were created (divined from nothingness in a matter of days). now we know this to not be true, but it doesn't disprove a higher power from providing the raw materials that go into process of solar/planetary formation. but one thing that has become apparent is that the world has become less the will of a superior being but rather a series of processes that continue to be more well understood.

[edit to add: i think this is seen by many as an attack on their god(s)/faith as it takes away the anthropomorphized view of god as being there for, and a champion of human endeavours]

[analogika]

stupendousman and others of his ilk just prove time and again that they have no idea what "theory" means in scientific context, and that it has nothing to do with what is colloquially called a "theory".

Colloquial "theory" is called "hypothesis" in science. I.e. you have a hunch about how stuff might work, and you think out that idea and write it down.

What scientists call "theory" is what is commonly called "fact".

Gravity is a scientific theory. I.e., it has been proven correct by all available evidence, thousands of times over, and nothing has been observed yet that would disprove it (though the theory's details have been refined and updated continuously as new evidence comes up).

The same is true of evolution.


I.D., btw, is NOT a "widely-held belief". There is a small handful of extremists who insist upon creationism, most of these apparently located in the United States. This is not something seriously considered anywhere else by more than a dozen people or some crackpot religious sects.

[itistoday]

THERE ARE SOOOO MANY IDIOTS OUT THERE!!! SO MANY!!!

Really. I think I need counseling or something. I'm going to go insane. I cannot believe how many stupid people there are. Everywhere I go, in the real world, online, on Ars Technica (wtf?? I thought relatively smart people were supposed to read this), on Slashdot, here, everywhere. They cannot claim they are just ignorant and not actually dumb in the head, because all they have to do is just learn about it. For free! Online! Without even having to get into your car or leave your room!! There's so much knowledge out there and so many of you MORONS just choose to ignore it!

I don't get it. You'll wake up early in the morning and drive to your local church to be fed complete bullshit, but you won't take the effort to educate yourself about how things really work? At least have the decency to think: "Hey, I think my preacher knows what he's talking about, but just in case he doesn't, maybe I should check out what the other side is talking about? You know, I have to admit I never really did all that well in school, or cared about it for that matter, and I went to a crappy college and only took courses that taught me how to plan dinner parties... Maybe I am a bit too ignorant for my own good. Maybe I should try and learn something useful for once."

But no, it doesn't work that way. Everywhere you go... be it online or not, you see people spouting off complete bullsh1t, talking about things they have no understanding of--at all. They won't even admit that they don't know what they're talking about.

Ah... ok, thanks, I needed to get that off my chest. Sorry you people here at MacNN have to be the ones to hear my ranting. It's a lot better than calling every other person I walk by a moron, you'll have to admit. I might not live too long if I did that.

Please, just before you post something next time. No, before you say anything, in any way, ask yourself: "do I really know what I'm talking about? How can I say evolution is bs if I don't even know how it works and have never read anything about it other than what my local yokel has told me?"

[Spliffdaddy]

I studied evolution for 18 years. It's complete and utter BS.

Now you can get on with your life.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I studied evolution for 18 years. It's complete and utter BS.

Now you can get on with your life.

Wow... And wait, let me guess, next you're gonna tell me you're a stout believer of some religion? 18 years and unable to understand it... Hmm... tell me, where did you study this one topic for such a long period of time? Are you a super-super-senior or something? Why did you "study" it for so long?

I have a feeling you didn't actually study it. No, you probably just "read" little articles in newspaper's where people expressed their "opinions" on it, over the past 18 years. Anyone who studies anything for 18 years is easily one of the world's leading experts on it. Are you? Are you really one of the most knowledgeable people on this topic? Haha, the shear idea is laughable, that you would spend 18 years of your life studying something that you would consider to be "utter BS".

No, the truth is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[black bear theory]

thanks for the input. now do you have anything meaningful to add aside random accusations?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I studied evolution for 18 years. It's complete and utter BS.

Now you can get on with your life.

Really? So we can assume you have a doctorate in the field, or some subspecialty thereof. We are honored to have the ultimate expert on the subject here in our humble midst.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Really? So we can assume you have a doctorate in the field, or some subspecialty thereof. We are honored to have the ultimate expert on the subject here in our humble midst.

seriously. dish it out...

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by analogika

stupendousman and others of his ilk just prove time and again that they have no idea what "theory" means in scientific context, and that it has nothing to do with what is colloquially called a "theory".

Really? No ****. I've never been told that in a debate on evolution. Ever. Glad you enlightened me.

[rant]I am so sick and tired of Evolutionists and their sanctimonious attitudes. "Oh, they must not know what a theory is." I know what a theory is, I've been told a million times. And then of course you (not you, analogika), have to go on to tell us how theories in science are made, essentially saying how they can never be wrong because they are a compilation of all information at hand and can be re-tried thousands of times and so forth. And that's what really pisses me off. If new evidence is found that makes a theory have to change, even if it must change dramatically, that theory wasn't "wrong", it just needed "updated" with this new information. The real problem with evolution is, this new evidence can easily be a hoax. It isn't like with the theory of gravity where any scientist can conduct independent tests with gravity to prove the theory. With evolution, the evidence is a fossil or something of that sort, where it is a single object that must be tested, and therefore a good hoax could have scientists fooled for decades.

And then with the assumptions that anyone that even remotely doubts evolution must be some kind of religious zealot who doesn't know his ass from the donkey Jesus rode in on. Anyone who questions evolution is instantly treated like some kind of child. If I say "I find it hard to believe that humans evolved from apes." I get 10 different replies saying "No one says that humans evolved from apes, humans and modern apes had a common ancestor that was an ape-like creature." Well again, no ****. I've been told this numerous times as well.

Then you've got the people that act like they are in the know and are right there digging out fossils with the real scientists. "Well, in scientific circles, there's no distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution." Right. I'm sure you and your scientist friends talked about this non-distinction while you were on a dig in southern Egypt. Believe me, there is a difference in saying it's possible a wolf(-like creature) will evolve canine teeth for eating pray and saying that a wolf(-like creature) will evolve into whales. Someone, please, give me a detailed scenario on why a wolf would need to learn to live in the water again (not really, remember I'm just ranting). Did the wooded area he was living in stay flooded for a billion years, giving him time to evolve into a whale? What? Half the time the reason given (like the one I just gave, that they environment made a drastic change) is something that would happen suddenly and kill off the species, not give it time to evolve. Then of course they cite mutations. You give me a group of wolves that have enough of the same mutation (say, huge lung capacity) to survive in new conditions and therefore reproduce enough to create a new species, I'll give you some credit.

Then there's of course the notion that I.D. and creationism should be left in mythology class. I've been told by reliable sources that psychology is a pseudo-science . On this subject I'll just say that not everything taught in today's science classes are as proven as theories like gravity (which Evolutions so love to tout when showing what a theory really means).


Evolutionists aren't the only ones though.
Spliff, wtf? You say evolution is BS because you studied it for nearly 2 decades and you know. Care to elaborate?

Anyone else, please don't try and promote ID as a real scientific theory. Even I know that it's just an excuse to get creationism mentioned in science classes. ID has some of the same problems as evolution in the respect that in can't really be tested in the same way as other theories can. The difference between ID and evolution is ID cannot be tested at all.

Please do not try to use religion to back up your position (not a problem in this thread, but has been before). You can't use science to prove the existence of God so don't use God to try debunk science.


Whoo...that's all. End rant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Really? No ****. I've never been told that in a debate on evolution. Ever. Glad you enlightened me.
...
If I say "I find it hard to believe that humans evolved from apes." I get 10 different replies saying "No one says that humans evolved from apes, humans and modern apes had a common ancestor that was an ape-like creature." Well again, no ****. I've been told this numerous times as well.

Well you can't very well complain about hearing something you already know after you asked the question again to which you already know the answer, now can you?

The real problem with evolution is, this new evidence can easily be a hoax. It isn't like with the theory of gravity where any scientist can conduct independent tests with gravity to prove the theory. With evolution, the evidence is a fossil or something of that sort, where it is a single object that must be tested, and therefore a good hoax could have scientists fooled for decades.

I would say the real problem is that anyone ever treats fossils as more than just an amusing novelty. Most evidence for evolution is not from fossils, despite common opinion.

And then with the assumptions that anyone that even remotely doubts evolution must be some kind of religious zealot who doesn't know his ass from the donkey Jesus rode in on.

I agree, but it doesn't help that the majority of people that question evolution are exactly that.

Then you've got the people that act like they are in the know and are right there digging out fossils with the real scientists.

It might interest you to know that some people you run into from time to time actually are real scientists. Scientists use macs too

Believe me, there is a difference in saying it's possible a wolf(-like creature) will evolve canine teeth for eating pray and saying that a wolf(-like creature) will evolve into whales. Someone, please, give me a detailed scenario on why a wolf would need to learn to live in the water again (not really, remember I'm just ranting). Did the wooded area he was living in stay flooded for a billion years, giving him time to evolve into a whale? What? Half the time the reason given (like the one I just gave, that they environment made a drastic change) is something that would happen suddenly and kill off the species, not give it time to evolve. Then of course they cite mutations. You give me a group of wolves that have enough of the same mutation (say, huge lung capacity) to survive in new conditions and therefore reproduce enough to create a new species, I'll give you some credit.

There are many mammals which are arguably in the midst of a back-to-the-water transition (hippos, polar bears, otters, seals, those people that dive for pearls). The reason for evolving underwater-friendly traits might be filling a new niche as easily as fleeing a disappearing one. (once you ask the question you don't get to tell us not to answer it )

Then there's of course the notion that I.D. and creationism should be left in mythology class. I've been told by reliable sources that psychology is a pseudo-science . On this subject I'll just say that not everything taught in today's science classes are as proven as theories like gravity (which Evolutions so love to tout when showing what a theory really means).

I don't recall ever learning any psychology in science class, at least not below the college level.

Anyway, as long as people keep playing the "just a theory" card, you can't complain when others respond with the "gravity" card. And if you can calm yourself and ignore the one then you really ought to do the same to ignore the other.

Spliff, wtf? You say evolution is BS because you studied it for nearly 2 decades and you know. Care to elaborate?

Yeah, I'm curious about that too. It seems with that much experience on the subject one ought to be a little more articulate than "utter BS." I suspect a troll.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Really? No ****. I've never been told that in a debate on evolution. Ever. Glad you enlightened me.

It's actually part of BASIC science education.

I was taught that as part of the standard 8th grade science class curriculum.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by analogika

It's actually part of BASIC science education.

I was taught that as part of the standard 8th grade science class curriculum.

Indeed, that's the real sad part. That people learn this basic understanding in "debates about evolution". So ridiculous. There's no real debate about evolution, firstly, and secondly, as you pointed out, they should have been taught this concept in the 8th grade. Either they were and they didn't pay attention or our education system sucks.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Well you can't very well complain about hearing something you already know after you asked the question again to which you already know the answer, now can you?

True, but they aren't really wrong. It *is* just a theory. A theory that will very likely be changed with new evidence in the not-so-distant future, and therefore the current one will be wrong (or need "updating"). Again, it sucks arguing with people who have something (a theory) that can never be wrong because it's always changing.

I would say the real problem is that anyone ever treats fossils as more than just an amusing novelty. Most evidence for evolution is not from fossils, despite common opinion.

Then what is the evidence? Serious question. How can we know what happened pre-history other than looking at fossils and similar types of evidence?

I agree, but it doesn't help that the majority of people that question evolution are exactly that.

Fair enough.

It might interest you to know that some people you run into from time to time actually are real scientists. Scientists use macs too

But do they surf MacNN?

There are many mammals which are arguably in the midst of a back-to-the-water transition (hippos, polar bears, otters, seals, those people that dive for pearls). The reason for evolving underwater-friendly traits might be filling a new niche as easily as fleeing a disappearing one. (once you ask the question you don't get to tell us not to answer it )

I say don't answer my questions because I know I'm probably being ignorant. I know when I don't know what I'm talking about.

I still find it hard to believe there is much reason to change from a land creature to a sea creature (and I mean starting out as a serious land creature, like a wolf, not ones that already go into water a lot). Why change? Just because you can? Are isolated humans living on an island going to evolve into sea creatures just because they are surrounded by water?

I don't recall ever learning any psychology in science class, at least not below the college level.

All I'm saying is not all sciences are as proven and obvious as gravity.

Anyway, as long as people keep playing the "just a theory" card, you can't complain when others respond with the "gravity" card. And if you can calm yourself and ignore the one then you really ought to do the same to ignore the other.

I CAN'T CALM DOWN! AAHHH!

Yeah, I'm curious about that too. It seems with that much experience on the subject one ought to be a little more articulate than "utter BS." I suspect a troll.

Maybe he's one of those real scientists that actually surfs MacNN and can't type long posts because his fingers are so sore from archaeological digs.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Indeed, that's the real sad part. That people learn this basic understanding in "debates about evolution". So ridiculous. There's no real debate about evolution, firstly, and secondly, as you pointed out, they should have been taught this concept in the 8th grade. Either they were and they didn't pay attention or our education system sucks.

If there is no real debate then why do 45% of Americans not subscribe to evolution? Stupidity? Ignorance? I don't think it's that simple.

You are one of the people with a sanctimonious attitude. "Oh, anyone who even doubts evolution must not have paid attention in 8th grade or belong to a piss-poor education system." Yes. That must be it...

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by analogika

It's actually part of BASIC science education.

I was taught that as part of the standard 8th grade science class curriculum.

So was I. Sorry I forgot to mention every time in my life I was told/taught what a theory is. I'll be more thorough next time.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I still find it hard to believe there is much reason to change from a land creature to a sea creature (and I mean starting out as a serious land creature, like a wolf, not ones that already go into water a lot). Why change? Just because you can? Are isolated humans living on an island going to evolve into sea creatures just because they are surrounded by water?

evolution is not a process where beings cognitively work to change their physical traits. it happens by chance and success aka survival of the fittest. in this way traits that are beneficial, increase the chances of survival are more likely to pass those traits on (though that is not required). it's a slow process.

micro-evolution of bacteria occur over many generations, but a generation may last a day or two, and as such over many generations (years) new strains of the flu virus appear that have capabilties (resistance to drugs) that inherently more likely to survive.

Originally Posted by deej5871

All I'm saying is not all sciences are as proven and obvious as gravity.

and that's fine. if a science is not valid, it will be shown for what it is.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by deej5871

If there is no real debate then why do 45% of Americans not subscribe to evolution? Stupidity? Ignorance? I don't think it's that simple.

evolution posits that man evolved over time which flies in the face of the anthropomorphized view of god as being there for, and a champion of human endeavours. i think it is the not-knowing that scares people, and religion offers an easy answer.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by deej5871

If there is no real debate then why do 45% of Americans not subscribe to evolution? Stupidity? Ignorance? I don't think it's that simple.

It is that simple. Evolution is about as solid as the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I studied evolution for 18 years. It's complete and utter BS.

Now you can get on with your life.

Well, I'm sold.

[ironknee]

PA is A-OK!

i was watching booktv and caught the last few minutes of Simon Winchester talking about his latest book about the SF earthquake of 1906. SW is a great author check him out. Anyway, he quoted a recent poll that 40% of Americans believe that the Earth is 10,000 years or younger...how sad!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

True, but they aren't really wrong. It *is* just a theory. A theory that will very likely be changed with new evidence in the not-so-distant future, and therefore the current one will be wrong (or need "updating"). Again, it sucks arguing with people who have something (a theory) that can never be wrong because it's always changing.

It will no doubt be amended, but that's different from being proven wrong. Gravity as described by Newton was amended by Einstein, but that doesn't mean that Newton's description of gravity was wrong or that it was unfalsifiable. It just means it was incomplete. There's a difference between a theory being amended to fit further evidence and it being unfalsifiable. The difference is whether the new evidence illustrates something not considered by the theory or something that contradicts the theory.

Then what is the evidence? Serious question. How can we know what happened pre-history other than looking at fossils and similar types of evidence?

Well I'll start by saying that I don't have time to explain the details of everything, and if you want that then you can read this (or someone else might want to pound out details with you). Also I'm coming up with this summary on the fly, so it might be a little garbled and rough around the edges. But in a nutshell, there's documenting the similarities and difference between species, and there's documenting observed adaptation of those species to artificial selection. This was done on a macroscopic scale by Darwin and his contemporaries, and on a molecular scale since DNA was discovered.

Basically, selection was not a new idea in 1850. Everyone knew that artificial selection could be used to modify species' appearances in a heritable way. The new part was just pointing out that nature did the exact same thing but on a larger scale. The evidence for it is along the same lines of noting that bats and birds and bugs all have wings, but those wings all have different mechanisms, because they are in 3 different taxa. If species could have received their traits from any source other than heritability, probabilistically those traits would be seen shared across different taxa, yet they aren't. (in the example, if a bat needed wings, he could simply get the same wings a bird had, unless he was restrained only to the wings he and his ancestors could develop from scratch). This alone is not evidence of course, and part of Darwin's research in formulating the theory was minutely documenting thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of details like that one, and observing that not one of them crossed taxonomical boundaries.

A less convincing evidence I think, but one which lead Darwin to the conclusion, was noting that certain taxa were confined to certain locations, despite the fact that outside organisms thrived there once introduced. The only logical explanation* was that species developed on their own after arriving.

*one can always fall back on the explanation that any evidence was designed that way, if for the esthetic whim of the designer if for nothing else. But this is not logical.

But do they surf MacNN?

Why wouldn't they? Just imagine if they went around saying "trust me. I'm a scientist." You'd call them a pompous windbag and they'd never be taken seriously again, and rightfully so. We have other professionals here, why not scientists?

Besides, your comment was about people who are around scientists all the time, and are familiar with the field. Many undergraduates could qualify for that description, and who loiters on the internet more than college students?

I still find it hard to believe there is much reason to change from a land creature to a sea creature (and I mean starting out as a serious land creature, like a wolf, not ones that already go into water a lot). Why change? Just because you can? Are isolated humans living on an island going to evolve into sea creatures just because they are surrounded by water?

I know this has been covered, so I'll try to be brief. Yes, it's exactly because you can. Adaptation is not something that has to be planned ("alright wolf buddies. we need to concentrate on adapting to this water thing so we can eat more fish."). Adaption happens, then is either rewarded or stomped out ("huh, I wonder why the other wolves never explore the water as much as I do. It's great."). Besides, would you consider polar bears to be land creatures or sea creatures? Dogs and wolves aren't exactly afraid of water. And the whole wolf->whale cliche isn't the theory of what happened anyway, it's an oversimplification for the benefit of people with short attention spans and a love of alliteration.

All I'm saying is not all sciences are as proven and obvious as gravity.

It's people who discover that fact who are ready to learn that gravity is not as proven and obvious as you think it is.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The problem with all of your responses is that you simply INSIST that because you can observe one thing (micro-evolution) that's evidence of something else (macro-evolution) which isn't any kind of scientific method for anything. And NO, they are not the same thing. Malaria that adapts to drugs to the point of resistance is still Malaria.

Direct observation is apart of scientific method. Observation, logic, deduction, and reason are all core parts of scientific method outside of actual testing.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. The only difference between the two is the end result. Did the mutation cause a small change, or did it cause a huge, abrupt change? Again, only the religious and Intelligent Design supporters try and differentiate between the two, as if there's some conspiracy.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

One definition refers to small mutations within a species and the other a trans-mutation of one species into another. NO ONE has proven that such a thing is possible, no less that it's the method in which our species has originated. That's precisely why there's still a debate.

Again, you're tying to differentiate between identical items. Many subtle changes over time in one species will eventually "transmute" into an entirely new species. When comparing the original species, then with the resulting species after thousands (if not millions) of years, the two are obviously completely different species despite sharing a common ancestor.

Macro-evolution does not happen "instantly," with complex organisms. Certainly not within a human lifetime. However, when compared in a timeline of 4.5 billion years, a few hundred thousand years is an instant.

Smaller organisms will see faster change because there is less genetic code. When it mutaes, you see more dramatic changes in a shorter amount of time. That is why bacteria is such a popular example of directly observing evolution. Because it's a quick living organism, because it's susceptable to change relatively fast, it is much easier to observe.

Take your Malaria example. So it become resistant to antibiotics, we still call it Malaria. Now suppose it mutates and can live outside of organic bodies (such as miquitoes). Now suppose it mutates again and becomes airborn. Now it mutates and attacks different immunities than what it originally did.

At what point do you stop calling it Malaria? A flying, indipendent body that doesn't act anything like Malaria is not Malaria. It may share a common ancestor, a "cousin" of Malria, but it isn't Malaria anymore.

As for existing examples of evolution in human beings, again, a great example is the Bubonic Plague/HIV immunity in some people. After extensive testing as to why some people were seemingly unaffected by the Bubonic Plague, it was discovered that there's a genetic mutation in some people where a reciprical in a cell is closed off and can't recieve additional genetic code from alien bodies. This made some people immune to the Bubonic Plague, and coincidently, HIV and many other diseases that directly effect the immune system.

If the Bubonic Plague and HIV/AIDS spread to every single person on the planet, who'd live? Why, the people with the mutated gene. And what would happen after that? They'd propogate and produce more people who share that same mutaiton. So now every human is immune to a previously deadly disease. That trait was the best trait to allow them to survive adversity, so they lived and passed it on. It's Evolution.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The possibility of ID doesn't not preclude micro or macro evolution though (anymore than evolution debunks the existence of a higher power). I'm not debating that it's not possible...just that it's not proven and that it relies on faith that certain things can or may happen (not direct observation or other scientific methods).

Evolution doesn't try to debunk the existence of a higher power because there's no evidence to the contrary. The fundumental flaw in your argument is that you don't have any evidence to support it; so it's not really an argument at all, but really just a nonsensical statement.

Half of a theory is the opportunity to provide enough evidence to change, or, disprove it alltogether using scientific method. Just because it is theory, doesn't mean that it can't be wrong, however, you need to show that it's wrong.

Intelligent Design can't disprove Evolution becuase it doesn't have an argument in the first place. Unless you can show there is a God, gods, or super power that contradicts Evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design is utter BULLSH*T. There is abolsutely NOTHING substantial about Intelligent Design because the main principal behind it can't be tested.

If people want to say that Evolution is wrong, then go provide evidence to the contrary and show that it's wrong! The key word here being evidence. Simply stating that "God did it" is stupid.

"Billy, why don't you explain how photosynthesis works."
"I don't get it... F*ck it, God did it."
"Good job, Billy! Becuase he doesn't understand how it works, it's obvious God did it."

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The judge's response above is indicitive of the type of fuzzy headed, intellectually fallacious argument that the entire anti-ID movement exemplifies.

Actually, the Intelligent Design/Evolution argument asside, he saw what this particular board was tying to do: The people who supported Intelligent Design were doing it purely on a religious basis, they were trying to introduce religion into a government run institution. That is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Luckily, this judge didn't really have to deal with the techical symantecs going on between Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

If you can show that there is microevolution, then therefore that's proof of existance of macroevolution which simply is not true. Again...we aren't debating whether or not micro-evolution can be taught. Including that into the debate simply is a red herring, and it's suprising that thinking people in this thread would include such specious reasoning to support their claims.

Again, you completely lose focus in just the time it took to write the beginning to the end of your reply.

No one is proving anything, they're not proving that Evolution is true. It's a theory, not a proof. We leave proofs to the mathematicians.

This is about teaching the Theory of Evolution as it is, a theory. Telling kids what we know to be fact and how it applies to the theory. Showing them the evidence we use to support the theory. Having them participate in activities that help test and explain evolution, to directly observe and see what conclusions they come to.

What we don't tell them is made up bullsh*t that some Flying Spaghetti Monster came down to Earth and created midgets (although, I find that one much more amusing than the Christian version), and that it's just as likely as Evolution.