Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
Compared with fields like genetics and neuroscience and cosmology, botany comes up a bit short in the charisma department. But when scientists announced last week that they had figured out how plants grow, one had to take note, not only because of the cleverness required to crack a puzzle that dates to 1885, but because of what it says about controversy and certainty in science -- and about the evolution debate.
In 1885, scientists discovered a plant-growth hormone and called it auxin. Ever since, its mechanism of action had been a black box, with scientists divided into warring camps about precisely how the hormone works. Then last week, in a study in Nature, biologist Mark Estelle of Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues reported that auxin links up with a plant protein called TIR1, and together the pair binds to a third protein that silences growth-promoting genes. The auxin acts like a homing beacon for enzymes that munch on the silencer. Result: The enzymes devour the silencer, allowing growth genes to turn on.
Yet biology classes don't mention the Auxin Wars. Again and again, impressionable young people are told that auxin promotes plant growth, when the reality is more complex and there has been raging controversy over how it does so.
Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-buddha.com ...
What is mind boggling if they found a conclusive 200,000 old fossil proving Homo Sapiens existed, there are older ones yet to be found. The mind boggling part is why did human kind only get smart 10,000 years ago?
This post is so full of mistakes it is laughable. Humankind did not just "get smart" 10,000 years ago. Modern man has been around some 200,000 years and while they may have had primitive technology they were as smart as you.
Ever take a class in evolution? Read a real evolution book? Or does your information come from CS/ID websites?
ps. Its not fair starting these threads at 1 AM!
I think it is an errof the highest order to look for signs of God in the physical world. You wind up listening to the worst sort of quacks and frauds, or you wind up thinking that those who expose quacks and frauds are anti-God. Either way you damage credibility for religion, and you get distracted from what we are commanded to do, which is to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Your answer is much better than mine which was too narrowly focussed.
Essentially, they are the same animal (just one is smaller in size). There is not one animal created through thousands of years selective breeding in which we increased their intelligence by several factors.
I suspect that if you were to find a living female Homo Ergaster and tried to breed her with a modern day Homo Sapien they would not be able to produce childern. Just like you couldn't breed your wolf with shelton pony.
Creationism is a theological position. Evolutionism is basically a philosophical/ideological position. If one wishes to see the roots of the controversy, just read Darwin's "The Descent of Man." he obviously had a philosophical agenda that went far beyond the evidence at hand.
[ignoring adhomin attack] The problem with your argument is that parts of astrophysics and quantum mechanics cannot at this time (and may never be) reconciled with the arguments espoused in evothiesm.
There is generally not a problem with evolution as offered to explain a mechanism for adaption within a specific biologic range. However,the problem with the "evolution" you push is that it is not evolution, it is evothiesm; which is a political-based agenda indistinguishable in effect from an extremist religion.
The major problem with evothiesm is that both its message and many of its messengers lack credibility. The message source appears to be originally from Marxists, communists, atheists, civilization parasites, nihilists, politicians with agendas, the lawyers representing them, etc.
Academia is generally saturated with Marxists. Biology departments at major universities do not appear to deviate from the Marxist influence too much thus it is logical to presume the existence of a Marxist political agenda in the average university biology departments; an agenda that benefits the messengers if evothiesm becomes generally accepted as law.
Evothiesm offers incomplete "science" to attack the arguments/questions of anybody who questions the evothiesm theories. However, Evothiesm's "science" arguments necessarily presume and incorporate math and physics as the foundation underlying the "science" arguments. Yet, it is in certain critical aspects of math and physics that evothiesm's "science" appears to lack foundation.
For example, evolution is premised on a theory that change occurs over "time." This necessarily requires that "time" remain a constant. Yet, "time" is understood to be a variable. See Einstein theory of "relativity." Thus, where evothiesm "science" that makes a statement involving time, the statement should contain the disclaimer "assuming the variable time remained constant ..." Throw in the concept that effect can precede cause in some cases and evothiesm's essential "science" foundation becomes arguably suspect.
You appear to be a professional at the art of arguing. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the above brief discussion will not change your mind or provoke a rational legitimate response. It is anticipated that the evotheisits who do respond will attempt misdirection, straw man, ad homin attacks and will attempt to re-frame the issue. The issue here, however, is the fact that certain aspects of astrophysics and quantum mechanics conflict with major premises of the "science" of evotheisim. Astrophysics and quantum mechanics are by their nature more credible then evothiesm and its proponents. Your response?
I have always taken that other commandment -- to love God -- to mean accepting what is, rather than whining about the way we want things to be.
I can think of no intellectial discipline more devoted to what is, than science. It has taken centuries to weed out all the "I want it to be this ways" and "I think God said this".
Creation itself is the breath and word of God. It has the advantage of being equally revealed to all. How can it be a sin to study it with the attitude that it is what it is, regardless of what I think about it?
Define the term "evotheism"
People of faith, despite some peoples opinion to the contrary, believe that God intends us to use the common sense and abilities he has given us and do everything we possibly can for our selves. He gives us the common sense to utilize to the fullest extent possible, the knowledge given to the Medical sciences and all the rest. Proven sciences that work and have been developed and proven, and science that provides us heat and cooling.
We merely reject the asinine scientific conclusions made by junk science in regards to evolution,human caused global warming, etc. People of faith aren't as stupid as some perceive us to be-those who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, for instance.
Changes in size are the main differences between various human ancestors and cousins. True, it's primarily brain size, but such changes do not imply drastic changes in DNA.
Changes of that magnitude could take place in a few dozen generations without violating any principles we know.
Consider the difference in accomplishment between the most and least gifted modern humans. Our cultures don't apply much selection pressure for intellectual talent. If anything, the gifted produce fewer children.
But in a world where survival is tough, the brighter could outbreed the dumber in a few generations.
I am speculating, but tell me where my speculation is impossible.
A cleverly worded sentence that fails to mention where he is wrong, or provide any evidence that he is wrong.
Well put.
Unfortunately, I'm almost done posting for a while today.
Keep up the good fight.
The analogy that ID uses is that "evolution" seems to happen as though there were intervention LIKE human intervention. We do start. after all, with intelligence, which is human intelligence. Are we ruling out the possibility that human intelligence can discern nonhuman intelligence? In a way, some would turn Science into a god, although I don't want to carry this too far, but I recall, perhaps wrongly, that Lewis Mumford referred to the Enlightenment as a kindof worship of Apollo. In this scheme, "prophets" appear, like Marx, Darwin, Freud and we have a progressive evolution of thought. The very word "evolution" evokes progress, like the growth of a child in the womb ending with birth. Scientists replace priests as the keepers of the temples.
They have not figured out the temperature of the primordial soup mix yet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457929/posts
Academia is generally saturated with Marxists. Biology departments at major universities do not appear to deviate from the Marxist influence too much thus it is logical to presume the existence of a Marxist political agenda in the average university biology departments; an agenda that benefits the messengers if evothiesm becomes generally accepted as law.
I have rarely seen so many errors in one place. I'll take on a few.
First, "Evotheism" is a term that immediately takes you out of any serious discussion.
Your statement that the message source for evolution appears to be originally from "Marxists, communists, atheists, civilization parasites, nihilists, politicians with agendas, the lawyers representing them, etc." is false. Evolution has for many years been treated by anthropologists (specifically physical anthropologists) and paleontologists. Louis Leakey comes to mind.
You note that "academia is generally saturated with Marxists." Certain departments are. Try the ones that require mathematics, statistics, or hard sciences. The percentage drops dramatically.
Evotheism as law? Don't creationists want CS/ID mandated into science classes by law?
(By the way, the earth is older than 4004 B.C.)
That's one way faith differs from science--faith has absolute certainty.
"Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
--Mark Twain
You have to admit that in the last 1,000 years our knowledge of the universe increased by a factor of a 100!
Wow, I give up. This evolution thingee is driving me batty. The oldest fossil says that human kind was around 200,000 years. The latest evolutionary site (Discovery Channel) claims human kind was around a mere 40,000 years.
Another site claims that the first solid evidence of human use of fire in Eurasia as early as 790,000 years ago.
Another site says, that the head of the Institute of Archaeology and director of the Benot Yaaqov excavations, is digging a site that has the best evidence yet found for human use of fire during the period of the Acheulian culture (from approximately 1.8 million years to 250,000 years ago).
So, lets see, the evolutionary transistion happened -- 40,000 years ago, no it was 200,000 years ago (oldest fossil record), wait a sec the first solid evidence of human use of fire in Eurasia was 780,000 years ago, hmmm... hold it, fire was used by humans in the Acheulian culture 1.8 million years ago.
However, humans as smart as us been around for 1.8 million years, but earlist signs of writing occured a mere 5500 years ago in Pakistan. OIC.
Your objection is the logical opposite of the canonical if-man-evolved-from-ape-why-are-there-still-apes argument. You're wondering, "if man evolved from homo erectus, why aren't there still homo erectus, somewhere?"
Clearly, the "evolutionary jump" which separated man from the (other) chimp species did not supplant all chimps. Or all apes. Or all primates. Or all mammals. Or all tetrapods. Or all vertebrates. Or all animals. Or all eukaryotes. It has so happened that humans are now the only surviving species of hominid, but it might easily have been otherwise, and up to maybe 30,000 years ago, it was otherwise.
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.