Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers (Page 5)
Thread Tools
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 01:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Mithras:
(looking at ebuddy, spacefreak, Simey):

Anyone who truly believes in God, rather than some particular human's interpretation thereof, should understand that both Scripture and the natural world were created by God, and thus there cannot be any contradiction between the two. One shouldn't fear the conclusions of scientific inquiry into the natural world.
I am not a religious person, so I don't know why your addressing me.

I am all for furthering the study of evolution. I just believe that there are holes in evolution theory. If there weren't, there would be no need to continue study and research.

What I am not for is needless God and Christianity bashing. So many lives have been affected positively by the essence of God and Christ, and I'm not about to crap on themose people. If God and/or Christ keeps them at peace and on the straight-and-narrow, then all the power to them.

As for the sticker issue, I feel that local school boards, which are elected by the people of that community, should have the right to place such stickers on the books. The message wasn't offensive or false, and if the community is so opposed to the stickers, they will surely elect new school board members.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
More;

<ebuddy's 15,000 quotes snipped>
Would you like me to post quotes by everyone who's ever said God is impossible? I really don't see how a bunch of random quotes is supposed to make any sort of case.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 04:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Chuckit:
Would you like me to post quotes by everyone who's ever said God is impossible? I really don't see how a bunch of random quotes is supposed to make any sort of case.
What he's proving is that even the scientific community isn't buying all the opinions regarding evolution. For something that's supposedly "elementary", there are a surprising number of learned scholars in the field who aren't following lock-step.

It's an interesting idea, and one that I largely agree with, but it's not a "fact".


Edit: Also, FWIW, no scientist would say God is "impossible", because by doing so they completely discredit themselves and the investigative process. The only ones who would say that, have an agenda, and it's most definitely not scientific.
( Last edited by Shaddim; Jan 27, 2005 at 04:34 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 05:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Busemann:
LOL! Even Fred Flintstones wouldn't be foolish enough to attack a T-REX with a spear. By looking at the last presidential election, is it that hard to see humans stem from the apes?
I owe some apologies, I've got a lot of typing going on here and many people addressing me on this as well as full-time employment and other forums. The spears were found near t-rex remains in the same strata posing problems for dating techniques and offering the imagination much. While I'm in the apologetic mood, the Creationist models are not the Alpha and Omega of science either. The fact remains that I think anyone with a critically minded outlook should scrutinize all with equal fervor. I see all too many, immediately assume because they read it in National Geographic, or saw the ancestoral suppostion on billboards at the zoo, that these theories are fact. I see nothing wrong with the reminder be it a sticker or otherwise, of the importance of critical examination of science. I am not alone and those in my company are not ignorant of the naturalist model, nor are they void of the very same collegiate credentials enjoyed by those who support the entire evolution model.
ebuddy
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 12:21 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
The spears were found near t-rex remains in the same strata posing problems for dating techniques and offering the imagination much.
Do you have a link for this? I searched every science forum I know and can not find this anywhere...
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 12:39 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
What he's proving is that even the scientific community isn't buying all the opinions regarding evolution. For something that's supposedly "elementary", there are a surprising number of learned scholars in the field who aren't following lock-step.
Are you saying this is something so un-common in a field of study that the fact that a few scientists have different ideas shatters the whole concept of evolution? Following lock-step would go against the very principal of science, in fact if we were all going lock-step we wouldn't have any science.

It's an interesting idea, and one that I largely agree with, but it's not a "fact".
Evolution is a fact. How it works is the 'theory' part. (if that is what you were referring to)

In order to falsify evolution, one of the following must be disproven.

1.) Heredity. Biological organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring

2.) Mutation. Some organisms are born with genetic mutations, Sometimes these mutations may give an organism a slightly greater chance to reproduce (it's reproduction that counts, "survival" is a bit of a misnomer) than other organisms in the same species population.

3.) The Universe is very old.

If all of the above is true, and populations of species are subjected to a sorting mechanism such as Natural Selection, then speciation and evolution MUST occur over time unless something were to stop it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 04:49 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
What he's proving is that even the scientific community isn't buying all the opinions regarding evolution. For something that's supposedly "elementary", there are a surprising number of learned scholars in the field who aren't following lock-step.
I don't recognize most of those people as "learned scholars in the field" of modern evolutionary biology. In fact, the few that are credited are mostly credited as NOT being biologists. Several of them are quite old.

Originally posted by zerostar:
In order to falsify evolution, one of the following must be disproven.

1.) Heredity. Biological organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring

2.) Mutation. Some organisms are born with genetic mutations, Sometimes these mutations may give an organism a slightly greater chance to reproduce (it's reproduction that counts, "survival" is a bit of a misnomer) than other organisms in the same species population.

3.) The Universe is very old.
I don't see how it's even necessary for the universe to be very old (at least not on the the scale that it's currently believed to be very old).
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 10:30 AM
 
Evolution is a fact. How it works is the 'theory' part. (if that is what you were referring to)
I disagree that something can be deemed fact if the very mechanism it needs to be plausible is not fact. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
In order to falsify evolution, one of the following must be disproven.

1.) Heredity. Biological organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring
We know this to be true. This does not have to be disproven and does nothing for the theory of evolution. Remember, this theory is comprised of two precepts, one that is known and observable, and the other is not.
2.) Mutation. Some organisms are born with genetic mutations, Sometimes these mutations may give an organism a slightly greater chance to reproduce (it's reproduction that counts, "survival" is a bit of a misnomer) than other organisms in the same species population.
We know that the vast majority of mutations are either neutral (meaning they do not augment nor diminish the species' ability to do anything) or harmful. We do not observe beneficial mutations at the rate needed to comprise all that we know exists.
3.) The Universe is very old.
I'm not sure I understand how you came up with this list. These are not concepts that prove evolution, why would they need to be disproven? That said; two of the three issues you bring up are in fact extremely questionable and are the cornerstone of the debate in ideals.
If all of the above is true, and populations of species are subjected to a sorting mechanism such as Natural Selection, then speciation and evolution MUST occur over time unless something were to stop it.
Limited adaptation is what generally stops the evolutionary process. We see this in extinction of species. When the fossile record does not support gradual morphism, we rely on a new facet of theory; punctuated equillibrium. This unfortunately, flies in the face of the evolutionary theory in and of itself. Species, by your mechanism cannot 'explode' onto the scene. Yet evidence suggests they have. Back to the drawing board...
ebuddy
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 10:35 AM
 
Simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 11:01 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I disagree that something can be deemed fact if the very mechanism it needs to be plausible is not fact. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Do you disagree that Gravity is a fact, because the mechanism for gravity is a theory as well.

The very laws of our universe, surely you use and observe some of them every day, yet the mechanisms of how these work are a theory.

You seem to be singling out evolution unless you are willing to say "Gravity is not fact because the mechanism is uses is not fact.


We know that the vast majority of mutations are either neutral (meaning they do not augment nor diminish the species' ability to do anything) or harmful. We do not observe beneficial mutations at the rate needed to comprise all that we know exists.
We have plenty of beneficial mutations that have been observed just in the last 100 years. *** Show me a calculation that proves the rate at which we see mutations over 5 billion years is not enough to come to what we see now.


I'm not sure I understand how you came up with this list. These are not concepts that prove evolution, why would they need to be disproven?
Because if 3 of 3 are correct, then you need to show me a limiting factor for evolution. You would need to show me a mechanism that STOPS an organism from evolving.

This post wasn't for you however as all you do is post your theories with nothing to back them up. I asked for some kind of links, some kind of studies or even an obscure forum post that shows a hominoid spear found in the same strata as t-rex.

I know what is coming next, you can just quote your post before... "SHOW ME LINKS BLAH BLAH EVILUTIONISST WANTS LINKS BLAH"

While you are at it I would love to see something showing the above *** "Calculation of impossible evolution" as well.

Limited adaptation is what generally stops the evolutionary process. We see this in extinction of species.
No that is called death. But you are correct, there is only so much time for adaptations to take place, no time, death occurs. Unless you can quickly beat the problem that will extinct you.

When the fossile record does not support gradual morphism, we rely on a new facet of theory; punctuated equillibrium.
Nothing new here, Darwin recognized PE, not by name but by concept.

Charles Darwin considered punctuation as an explanation for this observation, writing in The Origin of Species, "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

Again, nothing "new" here.

This unfortunately, flies in the face of the evolutionary theory in and of itself. Species, by your mechanism cannot 'explode' onto the scene. Yet evidence suggests they have.
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism.

Imagine an ecosystem with hundreds of species in it. Most of the time it will have co-evolved to work like a good machine--everything in its niche. Say for example though, that suddenly a volcano erupts, changes thee climate and drives species into others niches to survive. Well, the machine is out of whack now. Evolution now has a "pressure" driving it. After some time though, evolution will happen, and the "gears" in the machine will have changed into a new, but functioning, machine, balanced and running stably until another shakeup happens.

Does that make sense?

Of course this can happen not only due to climate chage, or kaliedescoping within an ecosystem, but even within single populations in response to just about anything that would change the dynamics of the "machine". It hinges on applying a "pressure" at specific times, and evolution occuring to re-balance and regain equilibrium amongst organisms.

Basically, the idea is that speciation, while still a gradual process, does not take millions of years or generations to occur; the process can occur quite rapidly with the right pressures (in geologic terms).
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2005, 11:06 AM
 
Originally posted by Busemann:
In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate).
Great contribution!

I studied this at the falls of the Ohio. I believe this is the largest public Devonian fossil bed in the world. There are layers upon layers of fossils from the Silurian and Devonian ages. The walk down from the Interpretive Center to the Ohio river spans 70 million years of geologic time. It is truly impressive. You can take a virtual tour at The Falls of the Ohio website but even this doesn't do it justice.

http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,