Biology just created itself. Amazing.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists despise Intelligent Design.
It's always fun trying to guess which side they are on when they trash it.
I'm a monkey with a drivers license.
Cool.
Not a barf.
Evolution is what scientists use to study much of biology.
ID and Creation do not belong in science classes because there is no scientific approach to studying them.
Can someone clarify this authors statement :The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground,"
Is this representative of the ID argument?
Pure editorializing on the part of the reporter.
Why does this have a barf alert?
The article nails it.
Evolution is a theory, and as such, it can never be scientifically proven (much like the Theory of Gravitation, or Atomic Theory, etc.)
Intelligent Design can never even become scientific theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
No, math is unequivocal. You add 2 items to 2 items and you have 4 items. It's provable, testable and works the same way every time you try it. It's so easy and basic that you can teach it to small children who can demonstrate it to others.
Evolution on the other hand is a theory constructed upon available evidence. It's a common shared belief held among a segment of the population. You can't prove it to those who don't believe it because it requires that you give up your own beliefs in order to believe it. It's not probable or testable. You can't show me that a fruit fly turns into anything other than a fruit fly over countless generations of fruitflies. You can't demonstrate that a virus turns into anything other than a virus over countless generations.
Hey, was this a "plant" message?
OK>....
The professor who said that antibiotics is an example of
evolution probably doesn't understand that most if not all
of the mutations are "plasmid" related, that is, an extra
source of DNA is inserted into a bacterium, and this confers
the ability to resist certain antibiotics. Also, many of the
"evolved" defenses are simply variations of already existing
structures. The size of the "porins" which are openings into
the bacterial cells can change. This can cause less bacteriotoxins
to enter the cell, (confering "resistance").
The point the professor misses, is that the bacteria so far
has not been known to mutate to lets say a PPLO, or a
mycobacteria, or a fungus or....whatever.
The point is made that the HIV virus mutates so fast....
in fact it mutates so fast that there is no such thing
as a definable species of HIV...you cannot grow it in culture
without it mutating, so what is the original virus???
Technically, I believe it is called a "quasi" species...
Their mutations are seen because these viruses have no
correction system, as mammalian cells have. Which brings up
a serious conundrum. Why would a system evolve which suppresses
genome change? Wouldn't a more deformable genome allow an
organism to survive and adapt better? What was the selection pressure
that caused a very complex, redundant, feedback gene repair
system to develop, if it would be detrimental to the organisms
ability to survive?
However, if it mutates so fast, why
doesn't it become a different type of virus??? It is still a
retrovirus with a specific shape and ordering of of its
genome. And this brings up another issue. Why do combinations
of drugs suppress its replication? Because these drugs work
on different areas of the genomic expression (i.e. different
biochemical entities)...the chances of let's say all 3 or all
4 of the sites mutating favorably in favor of survival of
the virus is very small...so the viruses cannot reproduce...
a few do survive either by "hiding" in body tissues, or
my getting that mutation. They still remain retroviruses.
This brings up the point of the "belief in inches" not miles.
If I can run 10 miles an hour, shouldn't I be able to run
20 miles an hour? If I run 20 miles an hour which is double
the previous,shouldn't I run at 40 miles an hour?
Of course not, I don't have the heart, weight, blood supply,
oxygenation, muscle speed, etc to do the latter.
The application of a simple mathematical concept (i.e. proportion)
to complex biological processes is as simple-minded as it gets.
I feel sorry for the students of that professor.
The final value of pi has not been determined yet.
We still use an approximation for it. This is a conundrum for
me...why does a number which represents a finite
geometric relationship not have a final value. What is the quality with our mathematical
concept of numbers that allows that type of number? Not that
it's too important in a Newtonian world, it would certainly
be difficult to predict ones direction in an infinite space
using pi as a guide...we're blessed in that our approximations
of Pi are good enough for Newtonian space.
Finally, the teachers were upset that Americans don't really
understand science....they neglect that many (if not most)
journalists, filmmakers, authors, teachers (non-research oriented)
, newscasters don't understand science (since they would fall
into that group called Americans). Yet the latter groups are
the ones who have popularized one type of scientific thought,
and repeat it,and repeat it...why isn't the professor bemoaning
their ignorance? This conference was about was that
Americans don't understand science, well that includes those
who believe in evolution too, doesn't it?
Like I said, was this a plant?
Bravo! Great article. You can't allow the uniformed to graft a non-scientific idea onto science and expect those within the field to accept it. In no other academic study, from engineering to medicine to literature, would such an assault by outsiders be accepted. The inmates can't run the asylum.
Ping
Spoke of the two side on the issue.
How some scientist claimed it all happen with a big bang.
His response, what caused the bang to occur? If they say it was always there,then they are identifing God.
One can marvel at how the inverse square law produces stable orbits about massive objects like the sun, molecules that are mirror images of each other, the difficulty of finding living conditions similar to earth on other planets, etc., etc., but scientists only delve into the "gee-whiz" when they're giving tours of labs and making guest appearances on PBS. The stuff that needs to be tought in school is not "theories of everything", but doing real science, i.e. details. designing experiments and interpreting data. Same thing goes for math. Injecting ideology or philosophy into science is just as dumb as extracting ideology or philosophy from science. This country needs more technocrats and fewer activists.
Why the Barf? I pretty much agree with the entire article.
ID'ers = Monkeys watching the other monkeys looking into a mirror, and have opinions of their own about whats goin on..
Creationists = Monkeys watching the other two groups debating about the mirror, but don't care about the mirror, and don't think they are monkeys...