Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Boris Godunov]

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

I don't think that's really a problem for most scientists of any note. After all, becoming a scientist of note usually entails thinking outside of the boxes.

But thinking outside of the box that is scientific method is a wee bit much to ask.

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'.

Actually, the molecular data you mention has led scientists to conclude pretty unanimously that the salamanders are in the process of speciation. So if even scientists who quibble over what determines new species agree that this is an example of speciation in action, on what grounds would you disagree with them? I'll quote the article again: "In fact, by analyzing electrophoritic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."

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.

Whoa, where do you get this? Just because the page didn't mention the ancestor, there isn't any evidence one existed?

I'm curious as to what you think would even be evidence that one existed, anyway, considering you hold fossils in such contempt.

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.

I presume because it's a short description of the issue, not a scientific paper? But I'm not sure what you're looking for with bringing this up. Geographic variations need be only minor to produce such niches. And certainly, the range the salamanders inhabit cover a broad variation of topography.

But niches aren't the only driving force behind evolution, you know. There's sexual selection as well.

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

Oh come on. I wasn't aware you would only accept scientific papers in the argument. It was a summary, not a treatise.

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.

And I find it quite funny that you would think that such questions weren't already asked, had there really been such gaping holes in what the scientists presented. How everyone could leard from you, if only the slow-witted scientists questioned everything as vociferously as SpencerH!

Seriously, you're being a tad bit naive to think that this stuff hasn't been gone over by scientists time and again very critically. I mean, they LIVE for shredding the hypotheses of others.

Theoretically a single stable mutation could cause that difference. I dont accept a single stable mutation as evidence of evolution.

If a single stable mutation causes a noted change in phenotype in a population, why wouldn't that be evolution? I don't understand your naysaying here. Seems like fingers-in-the-earsism to me.

Or did you mean speciation? You seem to be switching terms willy-nilly here.

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.

And what difference is there in those cells as opposed to ones for which speciation has been observed (which you must acknowledge has been on the cellular level, I hope)?

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

Pretty much all the ones cited on those links that you're handwaving away because the summaries weren't scientific papers (though the papers relevant to them were cited).

We can focus in on the London underground mosquito I cited before, if you like. I'm sure you'll have a fascinating observation that the we can't prove the mosquitos weren't underground before the tube was built...

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.

Handwaving at it's finest. We're talking millions of fossils which tell a pretty concrete story in many instances. I note you don't address any of the content of those links, just laugh away!

If fossils are so useless, what does it tell us when we can line up a series of fossils and see evolutionary development of the horse from ancient ancestors? I mean, you can literally line up the fossils and see the progression. The same is true for fossils of hominid skulls.

So your mischaracterization stands as just that: a blithe denial of the evidence sans any substance.

Strange, I've no Italien in me.

Too bad,

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.

It amazes me you can say this and then shrug off the fact that those same critical and conservative scientists haven't had problems accepting the instances of observed speciation I mentioned.

You seem to vacillate wildly between accusing scientists for not being conservative enough to being too conservative... I think you're just flailing now.

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.

And both are glaringly inaccurate, as we have observed evolution and there is a plethora of concrete evidence.

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".

And the link I provided shows why, in the context of science, Evolution is BOTH theory and fact.

[Berzerker]

Oh Jeez, whats the big deal? This is how you teach intelligent design: "Okay Kids, here is all you need to know about intelligent design, some intelligence up there made everything". There, takes no more than 10 seconds. It might take a little longer than telling kids creatures evolved or adapted due to environmental factors, but both can easily be knocked off in a couple minutes.

[Urban Ranger]

AH & LC,

With that path, eventually you would end up with a god.


Berz,

ID is not science and it has no place in a science class.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh Jeez, whats the big deal? This is how you teach intelligent design: "Okay Kids, here is all you need to know about intelligent design, some intelligence up there made everything". There, takes no more than 10 seconds. It might take a little longer than telling kids creatures evolved or adapted due to environmental factors, but both can easily be knocked off in a couple minutes.

Oh, sure, that's how it starts. But then even that's not enough, and the religionistas want more, and more... the next thing I know my kid's coming home and if I discipline him he starts singing "We Shall Overcome" and I swear if I hear that song or "Kumbaiya" ONE MORE TIME I'm gonna kill someone.

[Boris Godunov]

Berz, do some research on IDists and their "wedge" strategy. It's like the Avon lady getting her foot in the door...

Oh, and did anyone mention that ID isn't science yet?

[Theben]

The offer to allow it if religious schools getting public funding teach evolution still stands...

[Boris Godunov]

To be fair, most religious schools already do teach evolution, as most such schools are Catholic, and the church long ago accepted evolution as fact.

[Urban Ranger]

Not that long ago, it's only since 1996.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kant would have something to say about that Kuci .

Then he's an idiot. Purpose means the intended effect or use of the creator of some object. If there was no creator, it can't have a purpose. And if there was no creator, there clearly is no answer to the question "who created it".

He's far cleverer than you are Kuci, have some humility . Purpose and morality are, in essense, interchangeable in this respect, now while I disagree with him, Kant introduces the categorical imperative for this purpose*, which does not require God. Read his "Critique of Pure Reason" and then expect to be taken seriously.

*This is where I don't concur with him, I'd have taken another of his concepts, the hypothetical imperative as he uses it, in its place.

So basically, God just is. He had no beginning since there was no time before Him. He simply is.

-> Ontological argument

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

Jesus = Jon Miller?

To be fair, most religious schools already do teach evolution, as most such schools are Catholic, and the church long ago accepted evolution as fact.

It's insufficient. Both should be taught I give you that. One should be taught as an applicable, working, proven, verifiable, consistent and valid theory, just like gravity or that the Sun is a star... the other should be taught just as "Hansel and Gretel" are taught, but preferably at a much older age.

[Theben]

Wow, I've seen double posts before, but not in the same post. Kudos

EDIT: DanSed!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not that long ago, it's only since 1996.

Actually, that was just JPII saying something about it. The Church has acknowledged evolution to be true since the 1950s, albeit in an IDist perspective, which I suppose renders my point moot anyway.

But that's the fault of all you people confusing the terms!

[Imran Siddiqui]

All I have to say is @ Kuci calling Kant an 'idiot'.

[Boris Godunov]

Only on the internet, I say.

[Berzerker]

Public schools aren't about teaching the truth, they are political battlefields for liberals and conservatives to indoctrinate other people's children into their belief systems. So, satisfy both - teach both ideas. What is there to teach about either in high school anyway? Where do you go from "an intelligence we cannot fathom created everything"? I'd love to see the textbook, its probably just an attempt to refute evolution, not provide evidence for ID.

Naturally I oppose politicians telling teachers what to teach because I view education as a contract between a parent and the teacher, politicians have no business interfering with that contract. But since the left has been using the schools to promote their nonsense (like the Constitution is in effect), then y'all can't expect others to refrain from using the schools to push their nonsense.

[Whaleboy]

Public schools aren't about teaching the truth, they are political battlefields for liberals and conservatives to indoctrinate other people's children into their belief systems.

That's quite sad . In the UK it's far more productive, evolution is accepted fact for the most part and schools teach it as such, with creationism as part of religious education. Has worked for years.