Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[Greg o the Navy]

SEATTLE, March 7 (UPI) -- A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The Government Schools, run by the leftist NEA (union) need to be closed. There would be no more argument and finger pointing about motives."

I am all for phasing out government schools and letting private schools do the educating. The reality is though that that isn't going to happen any time soon; as in in the next few decades. In the meantime, while children are in science class, they should be taught science, not theology.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Professing your self to be wise, you appear a fool."

And lacking any meaningful point to make about what I have said, you ARE a fool. :)

[RunningWolf]

No gravitas, no credibility, 3 dogs pooping image posting is the beast he can do place marker.

3 dogs pooping not appears a fool is a fool, FOOL

Wolf

[Dark Knight]

This is not always the case. It may simply be a lack of communication, where the speaker understand what they mean, but they are unsuccessful in communicating the ideas to others.<<

That doesn't sound like a useful case in science. How would you KNOW they understood?

In this case the ambiguity is simply a consequence of biology not conforming to rigid standards, which is a result of evolution. However, even in the rare cases where "species" becomes ambiguous, there are still means of making distinctions, such as what occurs with "ring species".<<

Thanks for the "ring species" comment, I had to look it up.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

I found this comment the most telling:

>>The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species. <<

The still interbreed and are still declared a new species.

>>The birds distinguish between these differences; males respond aggressively to tape recordings of their own songs, thinking that another male has invaded their territory, but they do not respond to songs of the other form. In most species of songbirds, songs play an important role in mate choice; usually, only males sing, and females listen to songs when deciding which male to choose as a mate.12 <<

They tested the wrong thing and came to a bad conclusion. Is the access to females enhanced when they other birds do not provoke an aggressive response. They should have been testing the female response.

Bird studies are problematical. Many bird "species" do interbreed, they just don't get caught by the observing scientist. If the birds can physically and successfully reproduce together, and are not isolated from each other, it probably happens. Isolation is a difficult concept especially for birds, since they have been known to catch a ride on jet streams unexpectedly. I loved the story about the american bird, (I don't recall which species, sorry) showed up in Britain in front of droves of bird watchers, and was promptly eaten by a another bird in front of them.

>>Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

You are suggesting that a concept in science is not known with complete certainty. This is a meaningless statement, however, because it is true of all concepts in science.<<

Sorry, that is not what I am suggesting. I have given a mechanism for nonisolation of birds. Jet streams. The oceans are not isolated physically from each other, there is intermixing, we just don't know the extent. If scientists ignore those factors, in the quest to be right...ToEs occur that really aren't very effective or useful.

>>What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure?

Understanding evolution of bacteria is very important for doctors working with antibiotics. The implications for agriculture can be employed to apply specific reproductive pressures to encourage the emergence of traits in the majority of a population of a specific crop.<<

There is that pesky question about does the devolopement of resistance in a bacterium really indicate evolution of the bacterium or just a change within the same entity that can easily and under the same mechanism change back. I do admit though without evolution, we could not have conquered HIV, the common cold, and cancer.

I am also pleased to know that evolution has replaced Mendelian genetics on the farm. An the GM crops...oops that is intelligent design, sorry.

>>Evolution is political science.

This is an assertion, not an example.<<

Unfortunately it is more than an assertion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585018/posts

If the tools ToEs provide were as powerful as the fanatics that wrote this article suggest, everyone would be flocking to them. They aren't and there is a reason.

It's not that useful.

DK

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No gravitas, no credibility, 3 dogs pooping image posting is the beast he can do place marker."

I'm glad I struck a nerve with you. :) Every time you bring your pictures, it fills my heart with such... serenity. :)

And yet again, you latch on to the silliest anti-evo posts to support, Mordo.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That should be bring up, not bring, your pictures. :)

[ahayes]

Which is more moral: A theory that involves God's miracles, or one that denies Him any role in our genesis?

That's a silly question, most people would say neither. You would say that the theory involving God's miracles is more moral (although I hope you would realize it's unscientific), however to those who don't believe in God neither theory would have any moral weight and one would be called scientific and the other philosophical.

Besides, God is not required for morality anyway, in case you were trying to head that direction.

Darwin's Black Box, for example is an explicitly scientific disproof of Darwinism.

Actually it's more an argument from personal incredulity. Behe doesn't see how some biological systems could have evolved, therefore they can't have evolved. There are others that can't see how object A and object B can be travelling towards each other at near light speed, yet viewers on object A would not perceive object B as approaching faster than the speed of light (and vice versa). That doesn't mean that this isn't true.

[ahayes]

"Professing your self to be wise, you appear a fool."

Ooh, we're getting into the Bible quote throwing game! How about this:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

SCORE!!

Now a good comeback would be,"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," but sadly that's from Shakespeare and not the Bible.

[Boiler Plate]

DK
Then why isn't there life on Venus and Mercury? While you're at it please provide some serious scientific evidence for your statement.
Thanks.
Boiler Plate

[js1138]

That would be near the prohibition on swearing oaths. It's interesting how literalists pick and choose what they want to take seriously.

[Boiler Plate]

EM2,
That is a rather simple whitewashing of the problem. A further look into the problem reveals that simply adding energy into a system does not necessarily decrease entropy. In this case what we are really dealing with is information systems (genetic code). If you were to apply a flame to a CD disk it is safe to say that the increased energy also increases entropy. The amount of energy needed to create systems so complex as life requires a mechanism to direct that energy.

Science has yet to figure out what that mechanism is. That is why we are still studying genetics. As with most science the more we learn the more we find we don't know. Right now we are learning that RNA plays a much more sophisticated and important role then was ever imagined. Needless to say we don't know how or why. The riddle of life is more complex than it was 10, 20, 100 or 1000 years ago. In another 100 years people will view our understanding of genetics as being pretty elementary.

Science is fascinating and intriguing, but if you think that it will ever explain how we got here or why we are here you will be most likely be disappointed. Good luck just the same.

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[elfman2]

Science has yet to figure out prove what that mechanism is.

Which is of course very different from claiming it's "impossible" therefore the first piece of empirical evidence for ID has been found so it's now a "scientific" theory to be included in high school science class. I'm glad critics of evolution like you exist and I hope you ensure that criticism of it is included in school. It keeps the evo know it alls from marching too far off the edge, but it's wrong to corrupt high school science classes with alternatives that have no Characteristics of Scientific Theories. Teach ID in another class.

[Dark Knight]

DK
Then why isn't there life on Venus and Mercury? While you're at it please provide some serious scientific evidence for your statement.
Thanks.
Boiler Plate

<<

You asserted a violation of the second law of thermo...I blew your @ss out of the water because you have no clue what the second law is. If you chose to say that life must exist everywhere that follows the second law...well, that is your problem. Explain away.

By the way, it is your obligation to supply proof when you assert something. It is not my obligation to prove a negative.

You asserted a second law violation, what is your evidence?

Face it, you really don't understand how to apply the second law.

I have major disagreements with ToEs and their importance to the advancement of science. Anyone one this forum would agree with my position being consistent.

You asserted a second law violation, I informed you of the second law system that would allow disorganization in the sun to allow greater organization to take place on the Earth.

It does not require life on venus or mercury.

Consider yourself spanked. Go out there and do better, be mean to me but do it well.

Study more about the second law, and become a good physicist.

I wish you all the best!

DK

[Dimensio]

Then why isn't there life on Venus and Mercury?

Neither Mercury nor Venus have conditions conductive to supporting life. I do not see how this question furthers your claim.

While you're at it please provide some serious scientific evidence for your statement.

You are the one who claimed that evolution has a "problem" with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Should not you be the one who provides "serious scientific evidence" for this alleged problem?

[RunningWolf]

You have not stuck any nerves but if you need to believe that well okay whatever.

You don't have the gravitas or credibility to strike any nerves LOLOL. That you must resort to the use of imagery as you do only reinforeces that no matter how much you insist otherwise LOLOL.

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You have not stuck any nerves but if you need to believe that well okay whatever."

Whatever you say Mordo. :)

" You don't have the gravitas or credibility to strike any nerves LOLOL."

And you do? You, the person who looks for the dumbest anti-evo posts to latch on to? Or the ridiculous attempt to try to show Darwin doubted his theory from a passage in his autobiography that was ONLY about his loss of faith? Or your defending someone who was saying that all non-Christians were atheists? I like how you retreated real quick from those. Now you defend someone whose only *argument* against me was ad hominem. Truly a one-trick dog you are.

"That you must resort to the use of imagery as you do only reinforeces that no matter how much you insist otherwise LOLOL."

Be lucky I chose a flattering picture of you, Mordo. :)

[ahayes]

Then why isn't there life on Venus and Mercury?

Great, why don't you ask why there isn't life on the Sun next?

Totally ignoring the second law issue (which does not create a problem for the theory of evolution) there is the minor detail that there is no liquid water on either planet, which pretty much rules out life to begin with.

[Boiler Plate]

EM2
I agree with you in that science should be left to discerning facts and not speculation. As we both agree we have not been able to figure out what the "Life" mechanism is does not necessitate improbability however as the complexity increases in will tend towards impossibility.

The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened. This is the assumption that Darwin made and it remains as the basis of most arguments.

This assumption is two edged sword in that eliminates the alternative, but it also limits the search for the truth. Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God? Would it bring an end to the discovery of truth and fact? I don't think so there are many great scientific minds that seemed to have both advanced science and acknowledged that there is God.

Therefore I think it is essential that all reasonable ideas be taught in science class so as to stimulate open midedness and a desire to discover scientific truth.

These are truly exciting days we live in and I really don't see these crevo debates as much more than socio/politico/philosophical debates. I have good friend who is a patent attorney and he deals a lot with genetic engineering patents. There is some pretty amazing things that will be hitting the street in the months to come that could bring to reality things we only thought possible in science fiction.

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

which pretty much rules out life to begin with.

Only life as you know it.

[ahayes]

It rules out any life imaginable by chemists poring over the periodic table searching for alternatives.

What's your background?