Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
It won't work, mon imbecile. Longshadow has wrestled with (and soundly thrashed) more worthy opponents than you. Give it up before you start drooling while you blither.
Scientists Pin Down Sea Squirt Genetics
"The sea squirt enjoys a special place in the hearts of biologists because it provides the first evolutionary connection between invertebrates and vertebrates," Levine said. "You look at the adult and you think it is one simple creature, but if you look at the embryo, you see a clear connection to higher animals. This is our ancient, ancient cousin."
Of course, such information doesn't fit into your paradigm, so you'll be sure to ignore it.
Absolutely right.
Afraid to challenge their own assumptions, yet they claim to be scientists. What a joke.
Yes, and this is precisely the arena in which both evolutionists and creationists have common ground.
Was there any significance to the point at which you truncated the ABC News article? Here's the last section, the only one that somehow didn't make it onto the thread in your post.
Just another piece of evidence on the pile that says our mtDNA isn't neanderthal. What's really needed is enough nuclear--not mitochondrial--DNA to do a good study.Debate Continues
Loring Brace, an anthropologist at University of Michigan and a proponent of the idea that people descended from Neanderthals he argues that features of skulls show a steady progression from Neanderthal to human says the DNA evidence does not sway him. Different patterns of movement may have caused mitochrondial DNA to diverge more quickly in the past, he says. The whole picture is still very spotty, Brace says.Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, says the DNA evidence does not disprove his assertion that the 25,000-year-old skeleton of a child unearthed in Portugal is the descendent of a human-Neanderthal hybrid. The new research, he says, just shows interbreeding was not common.
There is no contradiction, he says.
Goodwin also says his finding isnt the final word. Perhaps Neanderthals and humans mated and produced sterile offspring, similar to mules, the crossbreed of horses and donkeys. Its very hard to prove any negative, Goodwin says. I wouldnt claim this to be conclusive.
The neanderthal is still a piece of the puzzle even if it's an absolutely proven genetic dead end. If they're offline, they're not far offline. They would be very, very close relatives if they were still around.
after Luther but before the 30 Years WarOf course - I must somehow have switched the years around. But we Swedes always connect the reformation with Gustavus Adolphus, so perhaps I was subconsciously showing my "Swedishness" or something ;)
the harsh treatment of Galileo was a reaction to the anti-heliocentric attitude of LutherHow could the geocentric views of Luther ever have caused the Catholic church to go down harder on the helicentric Galileo? They could of course have said that "since even the heretics thinks the earth is the center, it must be so", but I can't see them ever confirming their own beliefs using "heretics".
I think I disagree with you on this point [...] the way the theory was foisted on me in high schoolI can of course only speak for myself and the way evolution was presented in the Swedish school. We had no "disclaimers" but were taught what a theory is. That is, that it's not fact. We even had one of the principal creationist proponents in Sweden, an archaeologist(!), come to our class and present his views. In that kind of climate, I think it's a whole lot easier to develop the minds of our young.
Meanwhile you couldn't even sing a Christmas carol.That's sad. One of the things I remember most clearly from my first few years in school is how we always sang a psalm first thing in the morning. And this in a public school in "socialist" Sweden :)
Please allow me to excerpt a few paragraphs related to basic scientific method, and then I will comment.
"Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
"It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
"When testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes 'common sense' and 'logic' tempt us into believing that no test is needed."
I maintain that discounting the possibility of intelligent design with respect to the world as we know it is an exceedingly heavy bias. Those who discard this possibility do so with such tenacity, with such fear of questioning their own assumptions, as to make their arguments and teaching appear idiotic.
You do know how he would be expected to be treated by the Darwininians here, of course?
not only should he have been suspended, he should have been fired and then blacklisted from ever teaching a science class again, ANYWHERE!!
You do know how he would be expected to be treated by the Darwininians here, of course?Of course. Just tapping a little of what is said here on FR makes me realize how polarized the issue is, and to what lengths proponents of either side are willing to go for "victory". The loosers in this game are the kids who will grow up equally polarized, unable to take in new information and critically examine its merits. All would be fine if students were made to realize that there are few universal truths in science, if alternative theories are presented and "disclaimers" pointing out specific subjects were thrown out.
Personally, not even psalms every morning, Christmas carols and creationsism lessons could stop me from becoming an "evolutionist". But mostly because of school, I will not ever stop being a "seeker", one that is open for new ideas and is constantly on the look-out for a god. :)
Merry Xmas freepers, with that this Swede signs off for his Xmas holidays.
Yes, it is polarized. But you can easily observe that only one side of the issue is presented in our public schools. You can also see that the non-Darwininian side is not a fringe group. So in a nation steeped in the concepts of freedom of thought, speech, and association, it should be an anathema to muzzle one side of an issue. Muzzled for even so simple a true statement as the disclaimer.
Again it was only from a quick scan and I can't remember the site. My impression was that the Catholics felt the need to come down on heliocentricity in order to maintain credibility with potential Protestant converts. But I could have read it wrong. When I get to my home computer I'll try & track down the site.
I can of course only speak for myself and the way evolution was presented in the Swedish school. We had no "disclaimers" but were taught what a theory is.
I think you've got to the root of the problem. Namely American public schools. Dr. Frank had a very good suggestion a few posts back which sounds akin to your experience. I doubt it would be instituted here. It would require too much work by the NEA members.
That's sad. One of the things I remember most clearly from my first few years in school is how we always sang a psalm first thing in the morning. And this in a public school in "socialist" Sweden :)
Now, I'm sad.
Yes, and this is precisely the arena in which both evolutionists and creationists have common ground.
Absolutely. You would therefore consent to provide positive evidence for creation?
Also (and really, I feel silly for mentioning this), I would like to reiterate that since competing scientific theories are necessarily independant, you'll naturally have to refrain from referencing arguments against evolution as support of creationism.
I disagree. I concede there may be an intelligent designer. But because we have no evidence for such, there is no reason to postulate one. Even if the Theory of Evolution was discarded tonight, you still need to have evidence to support ID.
To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements:
An intelligent designer is a considerably arbitrary element. Until the existence of such can be substantiated, science must assume the opposite is true.
I have a strong hunch that the most current theories in evolution are a somewhat accurate picture of natural history, but I don't know for sure.
Meanwhile, I am completely convinced that the Creator is the God of Israel, and Jesus Christ is His Son.
I have no problem believing both things. I only have a problem with my brothers in Christ sometimes rejecting me because I don't believe that Genesis was written as God's "Materials and Methods" section. This is grievous to me sometimes, because I otherwise see the world as my "creationist" brethren do. The way I see it, the godless have even less excuse if the theory of evolution is true.
I recommend Romans 1 in the Bible, and the writings of John C. Polkinghorne to everybody.
The political argument is moot, too, because no level of government should be involved in the education (which ALWAYS involves indoctrination) of our children.
From everything you know about life - about your observations and experiences over the years, isn't that phrase completely redundant?
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.