Georgia court to hear evolution disclaimer arguments

The Globe and Mail ^ | 12/14/05 | DOUG GROSS

[js1138]

I'd also really like to know how proponents of evolution jive their theory with increasing evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. One would think that a trait providing such an enormous reproductive disadvantage would be wiped out in a heartbeat, on an evolutionary scale.

You make several false assumptions. First, you assume that homosexuals don't have children. Second, you assume that there can be no advantage to a species in having non-reproducing individuals. Didn't you learn about the birds and the bees? Particularly the bees?

[Politicalities]

The "stickers" are not designed to provide an improved view of science. They are meant to single out evolution as the only field of science, out of hundreds, for special treatment--identifying it as a theory, which to a layman means a guess.

Hmmm. Let me get out my copy of the Constitution here:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or singling out any particular field of science for special treatment

Well, gosh darn it, you're right! How could I possibly have missed that after all these years of reading the Constitution?

By the way, if the students of Cobb County equate "theory" with "guess", their schools have a bigger problem than a few stickers.

[Politicalities]

First, you assume that homosexuals don't have children.

No, I assume that homosexuality is a reproductive disadvantage.

Second, you assume that there can be no advantage to a species in having non-reproducing individuals

No, I assume that evolution doesn't care a bit about "advantage to a species," it cares about the reproductive characteristics of an individual. Species don't pass on genes; individuals do. If you have a tendency to homosexuality, you are less likely to pass on your genes than an individual who has no such tendency. Evolutionary theory says that such tendencies should be gone in the blink of an eye.

Didn't you learn about the birds and the bees? Particularly the bees?

You mean the bees who are all genetically related to their queen?

[JamesP81]

If you're not going to make an effort to even understand the evidence that is presented then you have absolutely no credibility when claiming that the evidence does not exist or is faulty.

I've set in on enough seminars at my secular state university to write a book on the subject. The truth is, talkorigins is making the whole thing long and complicated with intent to obfuscate.

The credibility of dogmatic, closed-minded evolutionists disappeared in my mind a long, long time ago.

[Dimensio]

I've set in on enough seminars at my secular state university to write a book on the subject. The truth is, talkorigins is making the whole thing long and complicated with intent to obfuscate.

Your baseless claim of conspiracy is duly noted as a cop-out.

[Dimensio]

I'd also really like to know how proponents of evolution jive their theory with increasing evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. One would think that a trait providing such an enormous reproductive disadvantage would be wiped out in a heartbeat, on an evolutionary scale.

Then you don't understand genetics. Look up "phenotype".

[js1138]

Species don't pass on genes; individuals do.

Being homosexual is obviously a disadvantage, but disadvantages linger in any population because they can be paired with or associated with advantages. A lot of women like gay men, and it is women who do the mate selection.

[JamesP81]

Your baseless claim of conspiracy is duly noted as a cop-out.

As I said in an above post, if the dogmatic evolutionism had any credibility left with me, this comment might've actually meant something to me. As it is, it's what I expect to see on these threads anymore.

Your dogmatic adherence to ToE come hell or high water is also duly noted.

[Politicalities]

Then you don't understand genetics.

Your baseless claim that I don't understand is duly noted as a cop-out.

Look up "phenotype".

Why? I already know the definition.

But thanks for the neat idea. I think from now on I'll debate by insisting that people look up words.

A lot of women like gay men, and it is women who do the mate selection.

Uh, the majority of human evolution didn't take place in the days of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and men bringing over flowers and begging for sex. No, we're talkin' caveman days here, where you clocked your woman on the head and dragged her over by the hair... and where, more to the point, competition for mates was fierce and primarily physical. A disinclination to engage in the competition would put one at a serious disadvantage when it comes to passing on one's genes.

[doc30]

Assuming homosexuality is genetic in origin (the jury is out on that one way or the other), then it would likely be a phenotypical gene. People carry it, but don't express it unless they have the gene from both parents. A lot of genetic diseases persist in the population based on that exact scenario. One example that confers an advantage is sickle cell anemia. Cariers have greater malaria resistance, but when carriers mate, they can produce offspring that gets SCA.

[ndt]

"You can, and we have, observed natural selection, but this is only a small part of the larger ToE and does not by itself lend enough substantiation to consider evolution a fact, which is how it's taught in schools."

Lets see, we have observed mutation and we have observed natural selection.... which part was it that we haven't seen?

[doc30]

For starters, I find the argument from complexity to have merit. A system comprising numerous dependent parts and requiring all of them for a reproductive advantage would be difficult to evolve through random mutation and natural selection.

Complexity is not an arguement for design. Snowflakes are comlicated structures and no two are identical, but their formation is governed strictly by the chemical and thermodynamic characteristics of water. Therefore complexity does not prove design.

Also, specific research would need to be conducted to explore each instance of interdependence, but I'' briefly dissect the flagellum argument popularized by Behe.

THere has been research that traces the genetic history of such a biological structure. THe complexity argument that leaving out a componenet makes it non functional is a red herring. Such an argument fails to consider that an efficient structure like the flagellum evolved from a less complicated one. In reality, evidence shows that the flagellum evoultion comes from a more complicated structure where parts are removed to give the final structure. It's like building an arch. You need a support structure around it before the arch can be completed. You can't simply build it by straight addition of components. COmponents must be reomved to get the final structure.

There is a lot of research and understanding on these subfields of evolution and it would be good for your to review them. Much of this has been addressed by people more knowledgeable than I on the deep parts of evolution.

[dread78645]

Cartoon caveman placemark

[Dimensio]

Why? I already know the definition.

Then why ask why a trait based partially in genetics would necessarily die out completely simply because it reduces the odds of reproduction for the individual?

[Dimensio]

People carry it, but don't express it unless they have the gene from both parents.

Or unless they're subjected to the correct environmental conditions. Or both.

Any first year biology student should know this. I know this from an elective that I took as a computer science/engineering major. How is it that this question is still asked?

[Dimensio]

As I said in an above post, if the dogmatic evolutionism had any credibility left with me

But since you've already admitted that you want a layman's explanation of extremely complex biological principles, you've already admitted that you don't care about your own intellectual honesty, so who cares what you think is credible?

[Politicalities]

Complexity is not an arguement for design.

I didn't say it was. I said it was an argument against random mutation and natural selection. Design isn't the only alternative. And, for the record, the stickers which are the subject of this thread say nothing about design.

Therefore complexity does not prove design.

A mischaracterization of the argument from complexity, which I can only assume is deliberate.

[Senator Bedfellow]

A system comprising numerous dependent parts and requiring all of them for a reproductive advantage would be difficult to evolve through random mutation and natural selection.

Who says all of them are required for a reproductive advantage?

[Politicalities]

Who says all of them are required for a reproductive advantage?

I don't have the time or inclination to get into a large debate over the merits of evolutionary theory at the moment. My point, which I trust I made, is that there are legitimate criticisms of evolution, and that it should be examined critically... which is exactly what these stickers call for. And that to claim that the stickers constitute an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" is absurd on its face.

[Senator Bedfellow]

There are legitimate criticisms, but you don't feel like discussing them?