Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Elok]

Hell, God made you guys. It might not be a question of His competence so much as His sobriety.

[Last Conformist]

My father is a tee-totaller, and I don't think he's God.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Elok
Hell, God made you guys. It might not be a question of His competence so much as His sobriety.

Well if you consider that Jesus's blood is actually wine, then God himself must be completely loaded all the time

[Boris Godunov]

[Wernazuma III]

Long thread, so just my few cents.
It seems ID is generally misunderstood, and has been misunderstood or misused in the statement, otherwise it wouldn't be played out AS BEING OPPOSED to evolution. Teachers are completely right not to read the statement, that paper is really in its essence similar to holocaust denial. Maybe they could add, that a non-evolutional atheist approach is perfectly possible too!
In discussion, any good teacher would point out that evolutionary processes are what facts and research tell us has happened/is happening and that this has simply nothing to do with the question if there is or is not some God or Bob or intelligence behind it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

This does little for science, as you must imagine

I dunno, given the constipated nature of many scientists, they might do better thinking outside the box.

Please see the example of the Salamander and other "ring" species. These fit this discription quite well. There's also several more cases here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I read it. Here we have salamanders that were originally defined as subspecies of one species based on morphology. Subsequently, with biochemical and molecular data they believe that they are not one species but seperate species. The same old problem of defing a species is present but 'all well and good'.

One problem is that there is no evidence of the ancestral salamander from which they evolved. Since I accept evolution as a theory I understand that there must have been one but until there is a link this doesnt pass muster.

In addition, since the driving force of evolution is selection why is there no mention of (for example) the seperate niches that these seperate species inhabit. Darwins classic descriptions of the finches and their presumed changes in response to habitat are notably absent here.

All I seem to get from you for these examples are handwaving dismissals. So which statements were not given evidence? I"m asking for clarification here. You seem to be keen on expressing misgivings generally but not specifically.

OK, I'll expand on one

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West.

Totally anecdotal. That doesnt mean its wrong, but no evidence is given that goatsbeards did not exist in NA etc etc.

"Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring.

"

Again no data. Is this an observation? If so made by whom and where was it made?

"Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The use of suddenly suggests that the apparance of goatsbeard wasnt being carefully observed. Perhaps all that happened is that the observer(s) finally noticed the fertile offspring that were there all the time. Its hardly likely that thousands of botanists carefully studied this question over decades.

These comments may seem like nit-picking or handwaving but they are the kinds of criticisms that are given by any scientific reviewer of any journal publication.

"A single one, perhaps not. But that is not the standard used in science anyway, although a single mutation can lead to large phenotype changes. But even Creationists agree "microevolution" occurs--are you saying it doesn't?

The definition of speciation under discussion was based on two species inability to generate offspring. Theoretically a single stable mutation could cause that difference. I dont accept a single stable mutation as evidence of evolution. Someone wants to call it micro-evolution, thats fine, but the transformants I made last week are still the same species that I started with and some will have more than one mutation.

Evolution is a change in alleles in a population over time.

The classic definition from the "age of genetics". You've been reading up eh?

The examples provided relate to that, not just a single mutation.

I'm not sure what examples you're specifically refering to.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the fossil record at hand. "Two or three bits?" How about thousands upon thousands of bits? There is an enormous fossil record that clearly details evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Those are a mere smattering of the fossil record available just for perusal on the internet. "Two or three bits?"

Compared to the billions and billions of animals that have lived on the earth and the complexity of that life over a billion years I'd call it two or three bits. The super lotto is a better bet.

More handwaving.

Strange, I've no Italien in me.

You are again grossly misinformed about the evidence. I suggest a lot of reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

The evidence for common descent is overwhelming, so much so that 95% of the world's scientists accept it as fact (that's including non-biologists), and 99.9% of the world's biologists accept it as fact. I suspect that were your standards applied to other things you accepted as scientific fact, you'd find yourself having to deny the earth orbits the sun.

Not quite, but I suspect you'd be quite surprised about how critical and conservative other scientists can be about judging the merit of specific evidences of evolution. This particular discussion began with my denial of "observation of evolution" not with whether or not evolution is accepted as fact despite the lack of concrete evidence.

You seem to also be confused as to the scientific meaning of the word "theory." It's not indicative of something not being fact, you know:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

An interesting double negative there Boris.

Heres what I use: "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory".

A fact: "a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts".

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe they could add, that a non-evolutional atheist approach is perfectly possible too!

ID/Creationism is inherently inconsistent with atheism, and there really isn't anything else.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Azazel

But you haven't given a definition of speciation you find to be acceptable. Please provide.


I'm not sure that I can. Its kinda like porn- 'its hard to define but I know it when I see it'.

quote of the day

Its unlikely I'll ever use it in a lecture at a meeting so I'm gonna save it and use it when teaching undergrads.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Totally anecdotal. That doesnt mean its wrong, but no evidence is given that goatsbeards did not exist in NA etc etc.

How do you come to the conclusion that this was anacdotal, as opposed to a known fact that is simply not being fleshed out anymore than if someone says the sky is blue. (do they then have to go into a full fledged discussion of why?) Would they have to have alid out beforehand the entire botanical history of the species and thus shown , through copmparitive genetic studies that this was a European transplant? Is the introduction of Kudzu just anacdotal for you as well? norway rats?

What do people need to do?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Maybe they could add, that a non-evolutional atheist approach is perfectly possible too!

ID/Creationism is inherently inconsistent with atheism, and there really isn't anything else.

Not necessarily. You could have some sort of "eternal panspermia" with aliens going around designing finches on different planets forever.

Yes, this'd run into major problems with thermodynamics and contemporary cosmology, but that's another kettle of minor gods.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Not at all. My argument is that the definition of speciation based solely on reproduction is too narrow. The author also recognizes this problem.

If an example satisfies a strict definition, it will also satisfy a broader definition. No?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Everyone acknowledges intelligent design when it comes to say a tv or a computer. We all understand that any object that is designed by an intelligence will have certain characteristics (complexity, functionality, organization etc.). And yet, when scientists obeserve these same characteristics in life, suddenly it can't be intelligent design, nope, has to be by accident.

That is just a rehash of the old broken watch analogy.

We only recognise a watch is artificial because we have prior knowledge. If you show it to an African Bushman, he won't know.

That's why the analogy fails.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You could have some sort of "eternal panspermia" with aliens going around designing finches on different planets forever.

As it was pointed out, if you suggest a version using aliens the question then becomes "Where did these aliens come from?"

[Alexander's Horse]

otu of the head of the people who believe such rubbish

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


As it was pointed out, if you suggest a version using aliens the question then becomes "Where did these aliens come from?"

Either, they were always around, or they were created by another alien species.