Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
If you really understood population genetics, you would understand that it is the frequency of alleles in populations that changes. If an existing allele changes frequency in a population, that is evolution.
If a new character appears and grows in the population, that is evolution. For instance, when something went wrong and the vitamin C gene disappeared from primate lines, the frequency of that allele in the population went to zero. Should we have a mutation in humans or chimps that brings that back to 1%, that is evolution.
If a completely new allele that gives us pink eyes establishes itself in the population, that is evolution.
Sickle cell anemia is a good example of how allele frequency changes in populations. Look it up. Study it.
Get back to me with questions.
First, prove that you are conscious.
Well, the first is an obvious conclusion since you don't understand the article. And the second is an outgrowth of your first lapse. It is unquestioned that the subject was in a journal of science. It was new science. It involved deleterious mutations in several species and a conclusion. You simply do not understand the importance of that conclusion. These journals don't just print rehashed knowledge. Another conclusion can be drawn which is at least remarkable, deleterious mutations were fixed in a genome prior to their correction.
Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.
Not quite true. It is not absolutely necessary for individuals to reproduce in order for variations to be beneficial to a population, particularly with recessive traits. In the case of sickle cell trait, this has happened.
What do you make of polyploidy?
"I really don't see much significance to the article you are so enamored of. I don't think you understand populations in genetics.
Well, the first is an obvious conclusion since you don't understand the article. And the second is an outgrowth of your first lapse. It is unquestioned that the subject was in a journal of science. It was new science. It involved deleterious mutations in several species and a conclusion. You simply do not understand the importance of that conclusion. These journals don't just print rehashed knowledge. Another conclusion can be drawn which is at least remarkable, deleterious mutations were fixed in a genome prior to their correction.
Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure."
Deleterious mutations do not remain in the population. That is the whole point. There is no need to have another mutation counteract it.
If that is your point, it shows, again, your misunderstanding of the whole process and your inability to understand the populations are the concern of evolution.
Give it up. You don't know what you are talking about.
Andrew posts nonsense that he thinks supports his cult.
False. A trait may be disadvantageous to an individual but advantageous to the breeding group. Examples are well-known.
Color-blindness is an example. Some color-blind individuals see things differently and thus can detect camouflaged things (tanks, lions, tigers, bears, etc.) A few color-blind individuals may improve a group's survival chances even though taken separately, these individuals may be less fit.
There is an exterme example of this. There is an inherited condition in which the individual is born without retinal cone cells -- complete color blindness. Even worse, the cones are the primary agent of our central vision, where we see detail. These people have extremely poor visual acuity. I have a nephew with this condition, and he was first diagnosed as blind.
Interestingly, there is a Pacific island where about 20 percent of the population has this condition. A side effect is extremely good night vision, which enables these people to dive for fish at night, adding more than their share of food to the island's resources.
Your bitter fulminations serve only to present theories of evolution as more firmly rooted in ego and wishful thinking than in science and common sense. If that is what you prefer, then please keep it up.
The so-called geologic column rests on data so incomplete it is preposterous to hold it up as a “cornerstone” of evolution theories. Simple math bears this out quite well. Should anyone conclude, after lifting a fraction of a single card off a deck, that the entire deck is suited in diamonds? Such a one would be not playing with a full deck, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps evolution theories, insofar as they purport to have the true answers to history, could better be described as a full deck of jokers dressed up as aces.
Rather than address the math and substance related to data present in the world today, you’ve insisted that I present a specific model as to how the Grand Canyon was formed “billions of years ago,” all the while accusing me of bait and switch tactics. Despite the fatuity of your question, insofar as no answer will prove satisfactory other than one rooted in your faith tradition, I will address address it shortly.
Rather than address the question as to how evolution theories have been scientifically demonstrated in the present day, you apparently insist schools must adopt a faith based upon a static record that could be interpreted in billions of ways. As mentioned before, I would not consider predictions based on a static record as science any more than I would call it science if I were to predict a find of cheeseburgers at a McDonald’s restaurant.
As for the hydrological principles in play at the time the Grand Canyon was formed, I would assume deposition and erosion were the two most prevalent and in that order. Sudden plate up thrusts may have opened the gaps rather suddenly, much as what happens in the present day when a pond dries up and one finds a pattern of gaps amidst the dried mud. I would also think the amount of water in play at the time was enormous, though nothing compared to the total amount of water present upon the earth today. The fossil tracks present in the geological record indicate watery conditions at the time they were formed.
If you believe my ideas in this regard to be unsuited to the record at hand, so be it. I'll leave it to you to specify how this understanding is ipso facto incorrect and then back your specifications up with science rather than extrapolations based upon an incomplete, static record.
. .if you continue your lunkheaded insistence . . .
You wouldn't know scientific evidence if it bit you in the butt.
Your bitter fulminations serve only to present theories of evolution as more firmly rooted in ego and wishful thinking than in science and common sense. If that is what you prefer, then please keep it up.
"The so-called geologic column rests on data so incomplete it is preposterous to hold it up as a “cornerstone” of evolution theories. Simple math bears this out quite well. Should anyone conclude, after lifting a fraction of a single card off a deck, that the entire deck is suited in diamonds? Such a one would be not playing with a full deck, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps evolution theories, insofar as they purport to have the true answers to history, could better be described as a full deck of jokers dressed up as aces.
Rather than address the math and substance related to data present in the world today, you’ve insisted that I present a specific model as to how the Grand Canyon was formed “billions of years ago,” all the while accusing me of bait and switch tactics. Despite the fatuity of your question, insofar as no answer will prove satisfactory other than one rooted in your faith tradition, I will address address it shortly.
Rather than address the question as to how evolution theories have been scientifically demonstrated in the present day, you apparently insist schools must adopt a faith based upon a static record that could be interpreted in billions of ways. As mentioned before, I would not consider predictions based on a static record as science any more than I would call it science if I were to predict a find of cheeseburgers at a McDonald’s restaurant.
As for the hydrological principles in play at the time the Grand Canyon was formed, I would assume deposition and erosion were the two most prevalent and in that order. Sudden plate up thrusts may have opened the gaps rather suddenly, much as what happens in the present day when a pond dries up and one finds a pattern of gaps amidst the dried mud. I would also think the amount of water in play at the time was enormous, though nothing compared to the total amount of water present upon the earth today. The fossil tracks present in the geological record indicate watery conditions at the time they were formed.
If you believe my ideas in this regard to be unsuited to the record at hand, so be it. I'll leave it to you to specify how this understanding is ipso facto incorrect and then back your specifications up with science rather than extrapolations based upon an incomplete, static record."
God doesn't need you or any of you anti-science terrorists to lie for Him.
"Interestingly, there is a Pacific island where about 20 percent of the population has this condition. A side effect is extremely good night vision, which enables these people to dive for fish at night, adding more than their share of food to the island's resources."
God is doing some special creation right now to provide fish with night vision goggles and Uzis. Tell your friends on the island to be careful.
"Doggoneit, my fin got stuck in the full auto switch"
The first cause of life is not a question that can be so easily dismissed by theories of evolution. Take a look at most public school textbooks today and see if they do not address the question along the lines of spontaneous generation. They do.
If theories of evolution (which by definition ascribe specific processes to the development of life on earth) want to adopt the notion that history is uniform, then they must work themselves all the way back to the most primitive of conditions. Good heavens. They have no problem swiping billions of years out from under their belts. Why not grab a few billion more? That is, if they want to be consistent.
But the debate will undoubtedly shift to more accusations of "bait and switch." While theories of evolution would like to claim consistency all over the place, it does not come into play where abiogenesis is concerned. Such is the world of ad hoc "science."
s: First cause of life is not in the Theory of Evolution.
brew: The first cause of life is not a question that can be so easily dismissed by theories of evolution.
Are you retarded or sumthin?
Have to go play bridge with my mother placemarker.
Of course God does not need me. He is my Maker. As for your god, I can understand why it needs you, for it is spun out of the imagination of your heart and depends upon the same for its very existence.
When it comes to fully understanding the world God created, I must say I am more than retarded. Thank you for asking.
Bottom line. If you turn the clock back far enough and if you believe in evolution you have no option but to believe in non living things giving rise to living things. Something a high school biology text contradicts yet MUST be assumed if you believe in evolution. The consequence of NOT believing this is that life has always existed, something natural science CAN prove false. Change the name from Spontaneous Generation to whatever you want. The end remains the same. The evolutionist states that non living material gave life to living material at some point (He has too).
More pseudo science for you!
Since evolution does such a good job at explaining everything, the evolutionist had to create another theory just to support his bigger theory. Where are the transitional life forms?????? There are none. But if evolution were true you should have them (Fossil records). So, you now end up believing in Spontaneous Generation and that evolution actually takes place in big “leaps” at once. That theory is called Punctuated Equilibrium. Check that one up! “Well, we really can’t explain our theory with facts and data so we’ll just make something else up to support our theory, our faith based belief in something which requires miracles if it is true.”
Evolution is a temple built on a weak foundation. It is “presented” as fact, which it is by definition not. It is embraced by many who laugh at religions for creationism while all along falling victim to the same fallacy. Religion can not prove it’s position (Creationism) and is largely based on circular arguments. The evolutionist does the same, although he “attempts” to portray as if he has science backing him. It’s your choice where you put your “faith”. Neither can be conclusively proven to date. But the evolutionist "knows" he's right, just as the bible told one that God created man in an act of creationism.
Red6
That does not make sense. Non-reproducing individuals have no impact on future populations. Still, the sickle cell trait is beneficial under certain conditions.
Ask Darwin, those were his words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.