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 ...
H. erectus used fire. You must have misunderstood.
The Acheulian culture was a community of H. erecti..
Thanks for the ping!
Scientists need things to believe in as surely as we do. By and large that accept the stuff they are taughty as uncritically as any believer. Without a faith, modern science would not have been born. The alternative is not only relkigious fideism but the kind of skepticism that Pascal encountered, people who believed in NOTHING. We need remember that Descartes' began with what amounted to a private revelation. Galileon's cocksureness got him in trouble. Just remember that Bacon's notion of science is, historically, not true.
Or, that the Designer created everything in a perfect state, but creation came into a state of imperfection due to consequences of human actions.
They use the term Human in their description throughout the articles. However, how long has the "Homo sapien" species been around? The fossil record says over 300,000 years at least (see link below).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm
Certainly there are older fossil records not yet found since this was a relatively recent find. My question still stands, why did humans suddenly become significantly smarter over the last 10,000 years? The first evidence of writing was a mere 5,500 years ago. The first 98% of existance we couldn't do squat, but from the first writings to now we built spaceships and gone to the moon. The last 2% of our existance is strikingly different.
Where he was wrong? He contended that there is only a small difference between a "negro" and an ape. He ASSUMED that the biologial differences between man and the other primates are small. In fact they are huge in comparison with the differences among human races.
I don't know why creationist don't find this strange, but every site relating to the timeline of the orgin of Homo Sapiens varies. I am taking the kids to the mall, you guys have fun.
You have to admit that in the last 1,000 years our knowledge of the universe increased by a factor of a 100!
You are confusing intelligence with knowledge! Of course we know more now. You possess more knowledge now than you did as a wee lad, but you are no more intelligent.
I see by the rest of your post that you are not serious about this. Any reasonable study of evolution would serve to clarify the points you raise. If you are seriously interested I will try to explain them, or you can consult the List-O-Links.
I'm going to have to ask you for references on this. Everything Darwin ever wrote or published is online, so you will have no trouble finding the relevant passages in his works, in context.
Any "Homo" species can (and often is) referred to as a human. The Acheulian culture was a H. erectus community. You will just have to deal..
However, how long has the "Homo sapien" species been around? The fossil record says over 300,000 years at least (see link below).
I cannot find the term "300,000" anywhere in that article. Could you excerpt it? Meanwhile, I see 195,000 over and over and over again, starting with the headline...
Certainly there are older fossil records not yet found since this was a relatively recent find. My question still stands, why did humans suddenly become significantly smarter over the last 10,000 years?
You didn't ask that of me, but the answer is that they didn't. They became significantly more educated. There's a difference. A number of them are still questionable....
The first evidence of writing was a mere 5,500 years ago.
Well, what is your point?
The first 98% of existance we couldn't do squat, but from the first writings to now we built spaceships and gone to the moon.
Knowledge is exponential. You don't have to relearn what others have already learned before you. Granted, a substantial portion of the population these days refuses to accept inherited knowledge, which is a loss to humanity as a whole, because they then contribute nothing towards its further advancement, or even inhibit the progress of others. In any event, the exponential curve of technological advancement is quite clearly and self-evidently and indisputably demonstrable within the span of recorded history itself, and is hardly a matter of controversy.
The last 2% of our existance is strikingly different.
Whatever point you are trying to make eludes me.
First, "Evotheism" is a term that immediately takes you out of any serious discussion.
This sentence contains at least two classic debate tactics. Misdirect the issue and attack the messenger. Evolution and evothiesm are distinguished in the original post. Your response here did not address the substance of the issues raised.
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.
This paragraph also contains at least two classic debate tactics. You inserted the term "evolution" where the original sentence said "evothiesm" thereby attempting to re-frame the issue. Evolution and evothiesm are distinguished in the original post. Then, you attempted to set up a straw man argument. Nonetheless, your response here did not address the substance of the issues raised.
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.
There is no dispute on this. This fact supports the argument that Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics are by by their nature generally more credible. Thus, Astrophysics and Quantum mechanics represent a touchstone for the theories espoused by the evothiests. It is where they conflict with the evotheist offered "science" explanations that the creditability of the "science" is arguably cast into doubt.
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.)
This paragraph reflects more debate tactics. It has misdirection and one or more irrelevant straw man arguments. Nonetheless, your response here did not address the substance of the issues raised.
I like your tagline.
Are you saying that no transitional fossils have been found in the last 100 years?
Darwin has been castigated for saying that men excel more than women at tasks that require genius. Here is one of his concluding remarks:
* J. Stuart Mill remarks (The Subjection of Women, 1869, p. 122), "The things in which man most excels woman are those which require most plodding, and long hammering at single thoughts." What is this but energy and perseverance?
Darwin and J.S. Mill seem to have anticipate the claim being made now that women are better at multi-tasking, and men can only focus on one thing at a time.
Please give us an example of "other means" and I don't mean supernatural miracles.
So, do you believe god took six billion years to create earth including one billion years to create man and then took another billion years to rest? If so, what's he doing now?
(Modern) humans "showed up" about 170,000 years ago and pockets of Neanderthals survived until as recently as 30,000 years ago.
Based on that timeline God's still resting.
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.