Posted on 10/16/2005 12:02:32 PM PDT by gobucks
Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science.
Snip
"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting," Diamond said.
snip
"One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity," said Lance Grande. Field's $17 million, 20,000-square foot, "Evolving Planet" exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.
snip
"In many ways, I blame science itself in that we have done a terrible job of explaining what science is," said Leonard Krishtalka of ... Kansas in Lawrence.
"I would imagine to non-scientists a lot of science and technology sounds like so much magic," he said. "Is it any surprise that so many people are choosing one kind of magic over another kind of magic?"
In an effort to deepen visitors' understanding of evolution, the Field Museum has designed "Evolving Planet" to showcase dinosaurs without allowing them to overshadow everything else. In past evolution exhibits, McCarter said, people "whipped through the origin of life, and everything before the dinosaurs, to go look at the dinosaurs. And by the time they got done looking at the dinosaurs, they were so tired that they whipped out."
This time, he said, "we're using the dinosaurs as kind of the marquee to draw them in and saying, this is a very complicated story, which you've got to dig into over a long period of time."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Having a cell phone strapped to your ear doesn't give a person an ounce of character. Worshiping Science leaves people wanting, and tears down a great Constitutional Republic built on the blood of men and woman of Character.
I refused no such thing. It's a three hour presentation and I noted the relevant gist of his commentary that lead me where I went - explained myself. Apparently, you didn't read. I noted that his suggestion that mutation in embryological development tied to the evolutionary tenet of randomness provides the logical paradox that you refuse to examine. You're so stuck on the theory that you can't evidently see past it. You're so evolution minded that you're of no scientific good. Randomness doesn't care where, when or how.
Genetics may provide a where, but absence of observation when you don't otherwise observe macro-evolution is useless. The only thing you've demonstrated is a willingness toward charlatanism. Your belief is a self-perpetuating delusion. You've reinforced it to the point that it can't be proved or falsified.
In the cases I mention, you can see morphological differences.
here's a ref for the goldenrod:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/abrahmsn/solidago/plantid.html
Basically the speciation is ongoing with reduced fertility ultimately leading to reproductive isolation.
Thanks for the info. Genetics is cool. :)
Bafflegab.
You posted:"...I noted that his suggestion that mutation in embryological development tied to the evolutionary tenet of randomness provides the logical paradox that you refuse to examine...."
I challenge any literal creationist to translate this into English.
Keep in mind that there is no "evolutionary -tenet- of randomness"
and that "mutation in embryological develpment" has no inherent meaning.
LOL... the condescension in this article is hilarious.
Yeah, genetics is way way cool.
I was in college when the DNA structure came out and switched majors.
I suspect that it is not a fallacy by those who propound it, just those who believe it.
The propounders seem to show evidence of malicious intent.
Just having a little fun.
Light relief for the lurkers.
Haven't used horsefeathers yet.
I don't think that last post came out quite the way I intended. ;->
The DNA structure did not come out because it wasn't in the closet
....and it didn't switch majors, I did.
Oh, well.
"The DNA structure did not come out because it wasn't in the closet."
Typical evolutionist covering up the homosexual agenda of your evil *theory*!
(crazed creationist mode)
:)
I think I am going to seriously regret hitting "post" on that one.
Looks as if there's less havoc to deal with. I'm off for a while.
Bah.
Ben Franklin was a scientist. So was Thomas Jeffereson.
And the regard people have for science says a lot about their character. Some appreciate a method that helps them to get closer to the truth. Others, on the other hand, rely on 2,000+ year old myths created by desert nomads to get their "truth".
Yep. That says a lot about character.
Science is an entertaining hobby that can sometimes be helpful. It has very little to do with truth because the vast majority of knowledge will always be outside it's reach. Without all knowledge, Science is destined to be incorrect a majority of the time.
Great Scientists understand these things.
Thanks I will download them
Embryological development starts with the sperm and egg at conception. The entire developemental process from there is contingent upon cell division arising from the marriage of those two things. Evolution intends to argue that mutation either mainly or always happens as a result of baby. While you would argue that mutation can't happen in embryological developement, I would argue that this is where science has had some of it's best experiments in recent days - ie injecting human stemcells into a pig after the pig has passed a certain point in embryological developement. So, if you wish to discount your best lab results.. feel free. Who am I to gag your apparent ignorance.
As I noted before, I don't believe the theory; but, I can suspend disbelief and ask questions about randomness. Having been a coder in multiple programming languages, I have written routines that make use of pseudo random engines. And once you call on randomness, unless you later provide for direction (when the random consequence becomes known) what you see is what you get.
When you put limits on randomness, it fails to be random and thusly is properly referred to as pseudorandomness. And the limits applied are direction - Intelligent direction as it were. Now, if you intend to call upon pseudo randomness, you need to explain the intelligent direction that placed the limits on randomness.
We're essentially in an excercise of logic here because evolution is an idea not seen in the real world. Micro-evolution is witnessable; but, micro-evolution is not big E evolution. Micro-evolution is merely variation - which is expected by creationists and non-creationists alike. So, there is variation and there is Evolution. When said variation means that a Dog might exhibit changes in fur color, height, weight, etc but is still a dog, you haven't witnessed speciation. And since that is the core of the problem. Having never witnessed it and proposing the concept as though it can happen, it is fraud to then posit that you know how it can or cannot happen. As I noted earlier, We're looking to observe these things to begin with - having never observed them, it is counterintuitive to say one cannot observe x or it will falsify the theory when one hasn't observed anything supporting speciation to begin with. It begs the question. If you want to say it can't happen in X place because that doesn't provide the best chance for surviveability, you haven't proffered anything but an attempt at self-reinforced delusion.
You said it earlier yourself. You gave it away without thinking. If it happens single step, the outcome is obvious to anyone - there is no mate. But then this is problematic no matter whether you involve single or multiple steps, there still has to be a mate. You want to posit that the population transforms as a whole; but, there is no evidence to support this in fossils - and we've got an overabundance of fossils to work with. In the trillions if my understanding is correct. So there is no shortage of fossils, there is just a vast shortage of any that support your long-term approach. If you wish to argue that single step can't happen because it isn't observed, then it must also be argued that multiple step can't happen because it's not observed either. Alas, since you are selective in which observations you wish to use.. we're back to your belief rather than dealing with science.
So, my earlier conversation stands. You are left with a choice between random where your theory cannot direct the end result, or directed - which invokes intelligence. Natural selection is not random, that's true. But Natural selection doesn't choose where mutation occurs. So invoking it is a fallacy.
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.