Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[Agamemnon]

Since I started my post by saying that historical biology and geology were branches of their sciences, I cannot imagine why you would start a post by arguing against something I haven't said.

You did not start your post as you claim here. You said,

"...the past is not a readily observable phenomenon."

Here's what I replied,

"The study of Science is not only about the study of the past."

You contradict yourself, sir, and therein you are simply found to be wrong.

I have to assume tyo read everything, including the Bible, with the same care.

Actually, yes I do. It is your own writing that you need to read with considerably more care and hopefully prior to the time you ultimately decide to post.

"Again, you describe forensic science, not Science, itself." Something I've said hundreds of times on these threads, and I know you've posted on these same threads. Why do you bother arguing this?

Answer: Because you too often carelessly equate "Science" with what is only it's subset, forensic science. You did it again and I called you on it. You play far too loose with your terminology, and that's where you become confused and your arguments fail.

The opposite of fraud is integrity. Integrity is the result of one's consistent and unwavering demonstration of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness may only be established by unwavering demonstration of one's truthfulness and honesty. Do we agree with all the above statements, beginning with the statement, the opposite of false is true?

Fails to to answer. Point surrendered and awarded to Agamemnon.

If you want to know what institutions are most trusted, ask yourself whether ID is trying to present itself as a science or as a religion.

Here we are back to the concept of trust, and hence back to credibility and the concept of truth as the underpinning of "trust" again.

What can you claim to know about trusted "institutions," when the thing you call "science" is not in pursuit of the truth?

I submit that on the basis of this tortured distinction you make between the study of Science and the pursuit of truth you are unable to think truly scientifically about anything, because you can't think truthfully about Science in the first place.

Has ID become an "institution" now? Like evolution, I consider ID a premise. One is a premise founded in things Science may study, the other is founded on a thing called faith.

Since ID states the obvious about what is readily observed in the present, and Science studies that which can be readily observed, the premise of ID may be considered a premise founded in that which Science may study.

Evolution on the other hand is a premise defining a subject that has never been readily observed either chemically or physically, and of which no credible evidence exists either past or in the present. Hence, evolution is not a premise founded in that which Science may study. It is founded merely on faith.

Faith is the cornerstone of religion. From the writer of the biblical book of Hebrews we read, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."

ID has nothing to do with faith, and therefore has no particular reason to be required to have anything at all to do with religion. This stands apart from what may be one's desire, which often wells up from inside onesself to openly praise the Creator of this marvelously complex universe. ID, itself, doesn't mandate such adoration of the Creator. ID merely states the obvious, and has nothing to do with faith, because ID is so obvious.

On the other hand, evolution has everything to do with faith, and therefore, religion, because there is no evidence, just the enduring hope by it's less-than-rationally thinking devotees that man is his own creator, that he will someday create life from non-life, that he will evolve himself into the superman his primordial and primate "ancestors" intended him to be, but he'll do so only... if only we'll believe he can....

Takes more faith for your side to believe what it does than it takes for my side to readily observe and study what it does.

We'll see alot of evolutionists loosing their religion before too much longer, I suspect. They'll be toppling the alter of Darwin, and bolting for the "church" doors, as reformation enters their thinking, and they head over to the only logical, enlightened, and abundantly obvious side of this argument.

ID is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign.

[MacDorcha]

Standing ovation!

Bravo, good fellow! Well put!

[js1138]

Since I started my post by saying that historical biology and geology were branches of their sciences, I cannot imagine why you would start a post by arguing against something I haven't said.

You did not start your post as you claim here. You said,

"...the past is not a readily observable phenomenon."

You lying sack of dingo kidneys. Here's how Post # 398 started out:

the past is not a readily observable phenomenon. Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.

[js1138]

You are giving a standing ovation to a liar. Good job.

[donh]

I admit ignorance. I understand it would be necessary for survival of species but what drives the need for survival?

The fact that only a long line of ancestors that survived long enough to procreate could lead to someone who could ask the question?

[bondserv]

You are giving a standing ovation to a liar. Good job.

Was that the supposed lie you posted in #583? Our country is in such a mess because of this lawyerly thinking. The obvious gets thrown to the wind to argue over a non-related technicality.

Redirect!

[donh]

ID is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign.

You mean, a well-orchestrated attempt to torpedo a long-standing discussion from out of left field?

[anguish]

Retroviruses and Evolution for dummies, by a dummy.
1. Viruses insert their genome into a cell's DNA (at a random place), forcing them to make copies of the virus.
2. If the virus genome is damaged, or placed wrong, it might not function.
3. Sometimes this can happens to sperm or egg cells (germ line cell).
4. Offspring can inherit the viral insertion.
5. Given that the spread of such viral insertions are rare¹, and that it can be inserted in literally billions of places in the DNA, a match in DNA sequence and placing would make a convincing evidence of decent.
6. A genetic trait can, even if it is neutral, spread to a whole population (neutral drift).
7. IF the TOE is accurate, we might find viral insertions that are common to multiple related species.

¹ While cells are regulary attacked by viruses the probability of a insertion gone wrong, be in a germ line cell that actually produces a offspring and being spread through a population, is very low.

Lo and behold, we already have multiple matching lines of retroviruses found in the evolutionary tree! So, at some point in the chain of events described above, there's obviously something you disagree with. It would be really informative to know where that point is. Personally I can't really understand how not to be convinced by such evidence, but at the same time I understand that some people (at least think they) already know the TRUTH®, and will not be convinced whatever the evidence.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Thanks for the Ping!

[Virginia-American]

IMO, another reason for the scarcity of science teachers is that schools are administered by people with education degrees - who wants to be bossed by people both stupider and more ignorant then you are?

[stremba]

True as far as it goes, but science is not just about looking for patterns in observations. It is about explaining those patterns. We will never know whether our explanations of these patterns are true. We do know, however, if they are useful. In your example, "the moon blocks out the sun" is a useful explanation of the patterns while "magic" is a useless one. It is not possible to determine which one is really true.

[Diamond]

See, you've managed to drag me kicking and screaming off topic. I don't often argue abiogenesis because, honestly, it's not a discipline I know a great deal about. This thread is about evolution, not origins. Please don't keep trying to change the subject.

As you alluded to in your post 459, there is a disconnect between the common usage of the term, evolution and the technical definition. In textbooks however, (and this is a thread about what is being taught in schools, btw) there are a least half-a-dozen usages of the term. It can mean anything from change over time, a historical narrative of the universe, to changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population, to limited common descent and the mechanisms for it, to universal common descent, or the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

The problem is equivocation. Some of these meanings generate no controversy at all. Nature has a history, gene frequencies change, limited common descent among organisms has occurred, and natural selection has played a significant role in speciation and species modification. The problem starts when evolutionists offer evidence and argument for evolution in these senses of the term and then speak of evolution in the macro-sense as if it were equally well established.

Your technical definition is of course permissible and proper, but I have given in this thread ample instances of varied and sometimes shifting meanings of the term used by scientists, teachers, and textbooks, etc, which are relevant to the subject of the article, which deals with aspects of the controversy. Abiogenesis is one of the subjects that is encompassed by the term as it is used in textbooks and elsewhere by scientists, whether it fits your preferred technical definition or not.

Cordially,

[Agamemnon]

You lying sack of dingo kidneys. Here's how Post # 398 started out: the past is not a readily observable phenomenon. Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.

You can call me names but you just proved my point -- again.

What you started with I addressed. And I went on to address the second portion of your post in the context of truth --- which you have danced around completely --- and I addressed quite thoroughly.

But since you are an evolutionist and admit that you are not in search of the truth through scientific experimentation and inquiry, that says it all right there. I need no additional proof.

I'll just let your words bear witness against yourself.

[MacDorcha]

"It is not possible to determine which one is really true."

Adding qualifier: using scientific reasoning.

[js1138]

I'm not dancing. Science isn't about truth. It's about useful and productive ideas.

But while science cannot prove the truth of its statements, it can demonstrate that some statements are reliable, and some statements are false. And that is a useful thing.

[Diamond]

IF the TOE is accurate, we might find viral insertions that are common to multiple related species...we already have multiple matching lines of retroviruses found in the evolutionary tree! So, at some point in the chain of events described above, there's obviously something you disagree with. It would be really informative to know where that point is. Personally I can't really understand how not to be convinced by such evidence, but at the same time I understand that some people (at least think they) already know the TRUTH®, and will not be convinced whatever the evidence.

Well, if you're trying to prove a claim of universal common ancestry then this evidence is insufficient because there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree. It also is insufficient to establish common ancestry because it is based on the the presumption that the retroviruses are non-functional (because of the presumed randomness of the retrovirus insertion.) But just because we don't know what the function might be or have been in the past doesn't mean that there is no function. Also there is some evidence to support the idea that some of these may serve functions, and that their insertion is not entirely random.

Cordially,

[Liberal Classic]

Well, I'll say this: you won't get any argument from me if you advocate better science texts.

[stremba]

Agreed, but just curious, how would you demonstrate using something other than scientific reasoning that the "magic" hypothesis is false?

[anguish]

Well, if you're trying to prove a claim of universal common ancestry then this evidence is insufficient because there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree.

This example is of course only for the species in the diagram. I don't follow the research on retroviruses closely enough to tell what parts of the evolutionary tree has been tied together like this. Of course, I'm not trying to prove anything, as that's really outside of science's scope (unless you're of the school that includes math in the scientific realm), but merely to present evidence.

It also is insufficient to establish common ancestry because it is based on the the presumption that the retroviruses are non-functional

Of course this evidence can be falsified, just like DNA tests to establish paternity could, but that has yet to happen.

Also there is some evidence to support the idea that some of these may serve functions, and that their insertion is not entirely random.

Such as?

[PatrickHenry]

600