Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Critical Evaluation of Evolution ^ | March 2004 | Ohio State Board of Education

[whattajoke]

The life span of a typical G5 star is about 6 billion years. Yet, we don't have to wait 6 billion years to see the entire life cycle. Why? Because G5 stars are being born and are dying and are at every stage in between NOW.

When astronomers look skyward, please tell us how many different frames of time they are looking at? From our sun which we see a few minutes after light leaves it, to the furthest reaches many thousands of light years away, we are looking at a VAST time scale all at once.

While you didn't mean to do so, you have actually done a fine job drawing a parallel to exactly what fossils and the geologic column tells us, in much the same way.

A human being typically lives for 75 years and goes through various stages of development at that time.

Right, and 75 years is such an incredibly tiny time frame to observe the type of speciation you'd like to see.

We should be seeing transitional forms NOW.

We most certainly ARE. Then again, you are probably hoping to see the ol' lizard with one wing or some such silliness.

We should be seeing large amounts of speciation NOW.

We most certainly ARE! All over the place. Avian flu, AIDS, fish in the SW US...

[ElizabethP]

Which of course, relies on how you define common sense.

The existence of consciousness, intelligence, et al is not indicative of a creator. Your religious beliefs provide you with this worldview, but there is no outside verification. It is based on your religious beliefs alone.

And the definition of common sense varies dependent upon the viewpoint.

[ElizabethP]

Thanks!

[ElizabethP]

Give me some time and I may warm up to that, ha ha!

[js1138]

we know head injuries can cause personality changes, and that removal or destruction of certain portions of the brain can literally turn an angel into a devil

Fortunately with MRI scans and such, we don't have to wait for tragedies to happen before studying the physical basis of consciousness.

I would expect that at som point in the next hundred years, we will be building electronic equivalents of brains, but I would also expect that early efforts would start with simple, insect-like brains. What we don't know is how to get such amazing results with such a low component count.

[PatrickHenry]

I would expect that at som point in the next hundred years, we will be building electronic equivalents of brains, but I would also expect that early efforts would start with simple, insect-like brains.

I'm tempted to say something about the simplest kind of human brain they might attempt to build -- really tempted -- but it wouldn't be polite.

[js1138]

When I said insect brain I wasn't ruling out democrats. Or isn't that what you had in mind?

[PatrickHenry]

I wasn't thinking of democrats, but of course they too are primitive. I was thinking of something even lower. But I shall restrain myself from commenting further.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Which of course, relies on how you define common sense.

Yes. And how might we agree on a definiton without using intelligence or design? The existence of consciousness, intelligence, et al is not indicative of a creator.

Please inform me what you would propose as an alternative origin for the following intangible entities:

Intelligence
Design
Consciousness

[Fester Chugabrew]

No. Consciousness may simply be electro-chemical operations in the brain; we know head injuries can cause personality changes

So there is a phsyical connection between the brain and personalities? What is a personality if it is devoid of both intelligence and design?

[biblewonk]

We do see evolution happening all around us

Give me an example of a spontaneous improvement in a species that has occurred "all around us" at a DNA level.

[js1138]

Give me an example of a spontaneous improvement

Evolution is not about improvement. It is about differential reproductive success. If you want a clear example of a life form that has evolved in our lifetimes, there is one clear example, a colony of bacteria in Japan that eats nylon. Nylon does not exist except where humans have made it.

Transitional species in progress are exemlpified by ring species.

[Junior]

What is a personality if it is devoid of both intelligence and design?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

[Junior]

BTW, what is it with you and questions? Are you trying to lead people into tripping up so that you can cry, "Aha! You're wrong so I'm right!" That would only work if we actually knew your position (other than being contrarian, that is).

[biblewonk]

Evolution is about improvement. We must get from bacteria to man via time and chance and random changes and survival of the fittest in 3 billion years. This is about improving species. We all know that if it happens gradually the fossil record should show it, if it happens in large bursts or big changes then those changes are much harder to explain. To say evolution is happening around us you must show an improvement in DNA that yields a better species not a minor change that is only an adaptation or hybridization.

[js1138]

Evolution is not about improvement. Some change results in greater complexity, but the overwhelming mass of living things is made of single-celled organisms. They are significently more successful than multi-celled organisms by any measure that would be used by biologists.

Change toward greater complexity happens but it is not a trend.

[Junior]

Define "improvement." Honestly, evolution, as has been pointed out, is simply about reproductive advantage. A mutation that makes it possible to leave more offspring than others in your species will mean that mutation will be passed onto the next generation. Evolution is not about "improvement" (other than to confer reproductive advantage).

[biblewonk]

As a side note rabbit trail thing, I don't understand this hesitance in evolutionists to say that more complex is better. It is as if they are saying that bacteria are better than man because they are more survivable. So it appears I have to say complex instead of better inorder to be understood. Otherwise we are stuck with all of these multicelled organizms like sharks and man and dogs which are just less efficient side effects of evolution.

[biblewonk]

#296 is about this question.

[balrog666]

To say evolution is happening around us you must show an improvement in DNA that yields a better species not a minor change that is only an adaptation or hybridization.

Stangely enough, the nylon-eating bacteria meets even this unusual definition.