St. Petersburg schoolgirl sues authorities over Darwinism

RIA Novosti ^ | 01/ 03/ 2006

[muir_redwoods]

"Genetics provides no evidence for evolution; rather to the contrary."

That is 100% demonstrably untrue. There is good empirical evidence for evolution from genetics. You are simply totally wrong.

Again.

[annalex]

My point is rather simple. Teach the empirical proof of the existence of evolution. From genetics, Knorr soup labels, or what have you. Then offer your hypotheses. That would be how science is supposed to be taught. The longer you pretend that speculation is evidence the less science will be respected in the American classroom.

As to why genetics is an additional reason for skepticism vis a vis evolution, see my 96.

[muir_redwoods]

"My point is rather simple."

Extremely so, and with very good reason.

[annalex]

Yup. The reason is not to allow you guys to obfuscate with obscure high-science findings, since we are discussing what is to be taught at the high school level.

[AndrewC]

Are you kidding?

[BlueDragon]

He has no idea what the picture of the fish---might actually mean!

I was LMAO over that one...

[BlueDragon]

come to think of it, your reply photo has such a subtle humour to it, I'm not sure anyone but [certain] well-read crevos, would catch it.

That's a good one...delicious.

[RobbyS]

As a matter of fact, a 10th grade class in biology need not address the subject of evolution, except that stardized test ask questions asbout it and to be unable tyo answer them might affect a student's score on an AP exam.
But it is not very relevent to the main body of knowledge.

[whispering out loud]

Fine, if you don't want them to teach other possible, and widely believed explanations for the origin of man, then science teachers should at least be required to bring all the questions to evolution, as well as the evidence that does not support evolution. But that will never happen, because then students might think for themselves, and when the lack of supporting evidence, and evidence against evolution is brought, then the theory falls apart to anyone with functioning brain cells.

[Dimensio]

Fine, if you don't want them to teach other possible, and widely believed explanations for the origin of man

The issue is that other explanations are not scientific, and should not be presented as such, no matter how "widely believed".

then science teachers should at least be required to bring all the questions to evolution, as well as the evidence that does not support evolution.

Perhaps you could explain what evidence exists that does not support evolution.

[whispering out loud]

It is impossible to create life from inanimate matter.

the absence of transitional species today, (if it was happening before, it would still be happening today) ie, monkeys would still be evolving to apes, and apes would still be evolving to man....... it's just not there.

the absence of trans species fossils.

need I go on?

[Dimensio]

It is impossible to create life from inanimate matter.

Not only is this an unsubstantiated assertion, but even if true it has no bearing on the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution does not address life originating from inanimate matter.

the absence of transitional species today, (if it was happening before, it would still be happening today) ie, monkeys would still be evolving to apes, and apes would still be evolving to man....... it's just not there.

Curious that you say this. Why would you expect to observe monkeys "evolving into apes" today, especially within a timeframe observable within a human generation? What selection pressures exist to cause such a shift?

the absence of trans species fossils.

I am afraid that you are mistaken on this point.

[whispering out loud]

"Not only is this an unsubstantiated assertion, but even if true it has no bearing on the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution does not address life originating from inanimate matter.

Are you saying that evolution doesn't say man evolved from "primordial ooze". This statement is taught in schools as part of the theory of evolution, having been presented in every school in which the theory has been taught me. This statement by you, is to coin your own phrase, "A shameless lie".

"Curious that you say this. Why would you expect to observe monkeys "evolving into apes" today, especially within a time frame observable within a human generation? What selection pressures exist to cause such a shift? "

You mistake my statement, the statement made was to say if this happened before, it would still be happening, and if it were still happening, there would still be specimen existing which were transitioning between species.

[Dimensio]

Are you saying that evolution doesn't say man evolved from "primordial ooze".

I am saying that the theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of the first life form or life forms. Evolution occurs after reproducing life forms exist. As such, it cannot address the process by which the first came to exist, as it requires a step in which no life forms exist.

This statement is taught in schools as part of the theory of evolution, having been presented in every school in which the theory has been taught me.

If this is the case then the theory is being taught incorrectly. The objection, then, should be on the inccorect presentation of the theory. I do not see presenting non-scientific claims as science as a viable solution.

You mistake my statement, the statement made was to say if this happened before, it would still be happening,

You have not explained why monkeys should still be transitioning into apes. What environmental selection pressures exist to facilitate such change?

and if it were still happening, there would still be specimen existing which were transitioning between species.

Speciation events have been observed. I believe that you do not understand the means by which speciation occurs. It is not a triggered event where organisms begin "transitioning" into species. Speciation is a gradual consequence of isolation between breeding groups and significant selection pressures resulting in one group becoming significantly genetically different than the other.