Designed to Create Controversy: 40% of UCSD Freshmen Students Skeptical of Evolution

San Diego Union Tribube ^ | 02/17/2006 | Bruce Lieberman

[phelanw]

I'm sorry. Intent should have been intend.

[Stellar Dendrite]

wow you sound like a real idiot.
we'd take you seriously if you only believed in evolution.







/sarcasm

[dread78645]

Personally, I'm skeptical about the Chixculub asteroid being responsible for killing off the dinosaurs. There's still a live debate over whether they held on for hundreds of thousands of years after the asteroid hit, in which case it'd be hard to argue that it really was the asteroid that killed them.

But that's a matter of definition. How long does a victim have to survive a gunshot before it becomes 'non-murder'?

The dating of asteroid and the demise of dino is clearly correlated.

The possibilities:

• Pure coincidence -- keep looking.
• Just their time to die -- There is already evidence that a few species had died out or were on the decline. But why the sudden slam 65Mya?
• The asteroid
  1. Heat pulse. -- Dinosaurs died within a few hours due to sudden rise in temperature.
     Species that could burrow in holes or shelter in water mammals, birds, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, turtles and amphibians survived.
  2. Cold climate. -- The dust and ash in the athmospere altered the albedo balance.
     Lush flora died out, starving the herbivores. Large carnivores died without prey assuming their metabolism was up enough to catch it. The survivors would have been those that lived on sparse vegetation, insects or fish.
  3. Poisoning -- Dust and ash in the athmospere (as above) included various compounds that the dinosaur population couldn't handle.
     In addition to outright death, poisoning could include disruption of the development of the embryo, egg calcium or gestation or maybe even behavioral changes; such as not recognizing a potential mate.
     The offending compound(s) might even be something we consider totally innocuous such as salts or sulphates. Survivors would have been those with liver metabolism to deal with it.
  4. Something we haven't considered -- space aliens, mass murder-suicide ...
  5. Combination of the above -- If you assume dinosaurs were well adapted to their environment and biologically 'fit', then you'd have to expect several factors would be needed to wipe out an entire superfamily such as Dinosauria.
     Aves could be considered to have fallen through the 'cracks'.

Until the observations come in that can support any of the above, I think you're right to be skeptical.
Extinction by asteroid should be a strong hypothesis, nothing more. It's not quite up to the term 'theory', IMO.

[185JHP]

Excellent post. BTW I like your tag...

[wallcrawlr]

interesting article/thread/comments

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[LiteKeeper]

INDOCTRINATION ALERT - INTREP

[Sola Veritas]

"Today, the science establishment is perceived by many as just another object of authority that's worthy of suspicion, she said."

The most profound statement in the entire article.

[Elsie]

with an IQ that high; what do you think of JESUS?

[Elsie]

156, former member of MENSA, and I believe in evolution.

And you paid money to join?

[Elsie]

...between a rock and a rabbit.

It's usually Elmer Fudd's hand!

[RunningWolf]

with an IQ 130'sh; what do you think of JESUS?

Why thank you! I think he is fabulous, great. Wish I knew him better.

Wolf

[JamesP81]

with an IQ that high; what do you think of JESUS?

I'm glad you asked.

He is the one who forgives my sins and makes me right with God. Without this mercy, there is no chance that I could be admitted to heaven. I greatly appreciate the fact that God gave me a mind that functions fairly well, but if, hypothetically, I had to choose between it and Jesus, then give me Jesus.

[Elsie]

Amen, Brother!

[Elsie]

TAINTK ;^)

[Elsie]

Tribube?

What is THAT??

[Elsie]

Tribube

---

In San Diego

[Quark2005]

Generally speaking, Mensa people don't use IQ scores or any equivalent to back up their positions. It's not a substantive argument.

It's also important to note that accomplished people with high IQs generally tout their accomplishments, not their IQs.

Having a high IQ doesn't imply that one has learned anything. Someone with an IQ of 110 can be well more informed and educated on specific issues than someone with an IQ of 170.

Some people need to stop checking their IQs and start checking up on facts & data. (The latter is the approach favored by evolutionary biologists...)