A column about Kansas Science Standards

EducationNews.org ^ | November 14, 2005 | State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM

[Exigence]

Origin of life is not evolution.

You're mixing my replies. I never said it was evolution... and would appreciate not being misquoted. Let's leave that for the professionals, (ie, the liberal press). Fair enough?

[VadeRetro]

I also notice you cite this guy as a "rocket scientist" explaining to us what "rocket science" has to say about the Second Law. It thus looks ever so wrong that his footnotes are heavy with citations of Henry Morris and Hugh Ross. These are rabid creationists whom most would not accept as rocket scientists and yet this guy appeals to their authority to convince us. I notice he also argues from the universe being a closed system, as if that were 1) relevant or 2) established. It only matters that the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system.

[Exigence]

OK. Dr Abrahms's claim is vacuous.

Now, that's better, isn't it? A grown up approach to debate. Or, what passes for grown up debate 'round these parts. *vbg*

[Exigence]

Then please explain to me what force or forces prevents enough microevolutionary changes from summing into macro change.

I'd be delighted. Please give me the change you'd like me to discuss... one with hard evidence behind it. If there is no prevention, as you allude, you should be able to supply dozens of examples with a clear record of progression from species to species.

[Quark2005]

Nowhere in the very long excerpt that you quoted does the author make any case that evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The biospehere is not a closed system; as the author points out; if it was, no life would exist on earth at all. Also, is not apparent that 100kg of modern life has more entropy than 100kg of precambrian bacteria.

Also, looking at the Big Bang model, the entropy of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang was very low (possibly almost zero), giving a universe very consistent with the 2nd Law.

Using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to attack evolution and cosmology is just plain silly - it doesn't have any useful application in this arena except for irritating physicists.

[KMJames]

...The earth is not a closed system...

This was copied from GarySpFc post #117. How is it you comment that "the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system." as if you are bringing new information that was left out of the post #117?

[MeanWestTexan]

Ever notice when the sun shines down on cockroaches, they scatter?

Remind you of anyone?

[From many - one.]

This is the post I was replying to:

"To: The_Reader_David
Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.

Precisely.
75 posted on 11/14/2005 9:13:52 AM PST by Exigence

The_Reader_David had, in post 73 had said:

>>"To: Exigence
Okay, is that what this row was all about? A clause in science standards mandating criticism of origin-of-life theories? Any of the Kansans are yahoos (in Swift's sense, not subscribers to a certain on-line company) crowd have some missing quotations from the Kansas BOR standards to show otherwise?

Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education."

73 posted on 11/14/2005 9:11:43 AM PST by The_Reader_David<<

And -that- referred to item 7 in the standards which included origin of life as a part of the evolution standards.

[MeanWestTexan]

Speaking of omissions, when Adam left the Garden, God cursed all his senses --- except smell.

Which is interesting, in that smell has a profound memory-response-triggering ability, unlike any other sense.

Smell certain kind of mildew and you're back in Grandma's garage, getting down the hammock.

[atlaw]

Oh, of course. I get it now.

The entropic hash equivalence is ¡Ý 0 (¡®dQ¡¯) ¡®dS¡, where ¡®T¡¯ represents heat, ¡®QR¡¯ represents either potatoes or corned beef, and a refrigerator-dripping-water-down-a mountain-peak-onto-a-small-animal-stuck-in-a-tailpipe-without-a-food-source represents a can opener.

How could I have been so blind?

[Quark2005]

Oh, of course. I get it now.

Further inspiration to keep my current tagline for a while.

[From many - one.]

OK, where is it?

[VadeRetro]

How is it you comment that "the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system." as if you are bringing new information that was left out of the post #117?

Because the author of the piece forgot to consider that the Earth is not a closed system at the specific point when he argued the water can't get out of the bottom of the valley ever again without Intelligent Design. Unless, that is, you're saying the Sun and all the other stars in the universe can't operate except by continuous intelligent intervention.

[VadeRetro]

Remind you of anyone?

People with sun-sensitivity? ;)

[aNYCguy]

I'd be delighted. Please give me the change you'd like me to discuss... one with hard evidence behind it.

Perhaps you don't understand my question. You referred to a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Please define these terms you used and briefly explain the distinction.

[GarySpFc]

Michael Shelton is a rocket scientist, and currently works as an Aerospace Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center on Tomahawk missiles. If you want to further question his credibility or think you know more about SLOT I will be more than happy to provide you with his e-mail address. I guarantee you he will welcome the debate.

[Quark2005]

If there is no prevention, as you allude, you should be able to supply dozens of examples with a clear record of progression from species to species.

You might want to start with one of these, courtesy of PatrickHenry's links. Smooth transitions from species to species. We also see such processes in progress today, among ring species, et.al.

The inevitable rebuttal is that these are "only microevolutionary changes", which is untrue, because there is clearly an emergence of a different related species in the cited cases. If you wish to push back the envelope further, and demand interfamily transitions, interorder transitions, etc., there are examples also, but due to the length of time and paucity of the fossil record, and the "branching" of peripheral species, the wider the relation, the more "gaps" there will be in the fossil record. However, there are numerous examples of clear transitions between these wider groupings as well. Fortunately, also, there are other lines of inquiry to confirm broader relations in addition to the fossil record, including biogeographical and genetic/morphological evidence.

[VadeRetro]

Or you could tell him where FR is if he's the last creationist on Earth who doesn't know.

[Quark2005]

Michael Shelton is a rocket scientist, and currently works as an Aerospace Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center on Tomahawk missiles. If you want to further question his credibility or think you know more about SLOT I will be more than happy to provide you with his e-mail address. I guarantee you he will welcome the debate.

I wouldn't even know what to debate. The excerpt you quoted doesn't make any comment about the validity of thermodynamics as it relates to evolution at all. It is just an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue. Could you point where, specifically, in that long rambling, where it is proven that thermodynamics makes evolution impossible? I didn't see it, and I don't think anyone else did either. It would certainly be news to the worldwide scientific community if this was indeed the case.

[VadeRetro]

Doesn't address evolution, but it sure shows you better be careful spilling water lest it run down a steep hill.