Is Palin a Closet Evolutionist?

On the surface there is nothing wrong with advocating a discussion of creationism or intelligent design should it come up in the course of teaching evolutionary science. Young people have lots of questions and don't let their age throw you - they can ask profound questions.

But having a discussion of alternative views should not be confused with teaching an approved science curriculum with evolution as the center piece. All of the evidence gathered over the last 150 years points to change over time, and speciation as a direct result of natural selection.

This is not incompatible with belief in a sentient being. In fact, one would have to be in awe of a design that produces homo sapiens.

Certainly seems intelligent.

One World
Peace

Not difficult, there, but she also claims she believes notions that someone found a human footprint inside a dinosaur one, and that that measn 'young Earth' Creationism' is true.

She's come out for teaching Creationism in schools, therefore, if I'm not much mistaken. How she redefines 'science' isn't a concern limited to education, though, ....it also has to do with what she'd be credulous about in a position of power at a time when 'God Wants Pipelines' may not precisely pass muster in reality for America's immediate future.

Yea, the human footprint inside a dinosaur print is ludicrous. Any credible archeologist would dismiss that that as either a clever hoax or a misreading of the fossel record.

Unfortunately, if she believes humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then she probably agrees with a majority of Americans - sad. Obviously, our science education is abysmal.

Why wouldn't you teach evolution in a Sunday school class? That is really where the source of the problem is. Sunday School teachers need to present the Book of Genesis' two creation stories as just that, creation storie.

And kindergarten teachers need to introduce simplified evolution concepts just as they introduce simple ideas about the solar system.

I am not against teaching alternate theories to evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may have created the universe. And it's possible that the world is supported by giant elephants who stand on the back of an even-gianted turtle. And maybe some invisible being created the whole schmear, complete with gardens of eden and talking snakes.

One thing that *would* irritate me is teaching one religion's myths and ignoring others.

Also, I question the idea of "Intelligent Design." Would an intelligent designer create appendixes? Or joints that ache so easily? I think not.

Maybe the idea of a "semi-dumb" designer is what we need to teach. I can easily imagine a designer trying different ways to do things, discarding some along the way in favor of others that seem to work a little better at least in the sense that more successful organisms would find it easier to survive and reproduce.

Oh, wait! That's ... evolution!

If religion is going to be taught in public school, it should be taught as Evolution of Religion. That would show the relationships between religions that usually are ignored.

"And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth."

Why can't Republicans talk about science education without invoking their magic fairy? They sound childish and just plain stupid when they talk about the hand of their imaginary magic man.

KEVIND1 wrote: "And kindergarten teachers need to introduce simplified evolution concepts just as they introduce simple ideas about the solar system."

That's an excellent idea. Young children have the right to know the scientific explanation for the diversity of life and how their species developed.

Unfortunately most American children are taught the idiotic Christian magical creation myth. By the time American students take their first science class they are too brainwashed and god-soaked to understand anything.

Teaching magical creation anywhere is child abuse. The creation myths should not even be taught in Sunday school because nothing is more disgusting than lying to children.

Perhaps magical creation and intelligent design magic could be taught in a class called "The History of Human Stupidity".

Ok- I am breaking out in a rash as I say this but Palin has a good point. Why shouldn't creationism and ID be allowed to be part of a discussion- but not part of the curriculum- if for no other reason than to point up the difference between faith and science? The free discussion of ideas is healthy and exactly the opposite of what the religious right would have us do. fundamentalists are about repression and I certainly don't fear a good discussion about religion or science. I'm not afraid of opinions that don't agree with mine- I am afraid of those who would prevent me from having the opinion in the first place.

From what Palin responded, I don't see where she said anything other than what Mr. waters also says. ID is not part of a science curriculum, but what better way to show the different kinds of truths by using examples of what science and faith are and are not?

The Texas scientists are battling an effort to require public schools to make room for both by teaching the "weaknesses of evolution."

Remove creationism altogether from the equation.

Actually, teaching the weakness of evolution is not a bad idea.
Scientists who question evolution as a scientific fact do not replace evolution with creationism.

Scientists disagree about evolution- not for philisophical reasons, but because there is a sparsity of physical evidence to support the theory.

Teaching critical thinking is a plus and positive thing.
Evolution seems to be taught as fact, I know when I went to school it was presented that way.
But it is not, it is a theory that is still not satisfactorily and scientifically proven.

If there were young scientific minds that asked old questions that have been accepted as fact by he scientific community- but were not proven according to modern standards of research-

Such an investigation could only increase the ability of young minds to think
critically-
Revisiting old theories has led to a veritable revolution in the field of physics.

And if it can be scientifically proven- it will be!
What is everyone so afraid of- even if it is not proven- maybe better and truer models will be discovered.
Science is a search for truth-
It is medieval and archaic to argue AGAINST it's exploration.

I say, quit trying to indoctrinate the kids either way-
Let their fresh minds and perspectives see new things we are too entrenched to consider.
Has anyone her actually read Darwin's The Origin of the Species?
Even Charles himself prefaces his own work with doubting questions, and points out his own weaknesses in his own theories thoughout the work.

Read it and see.

While I have no problem with students learning about alternative explanantions in science class (remember we're taught both Ptolemy and Copernicus), I do have a question about *which* Creationist theory should be discussed about in class. The Judeo-Christian one? The Hindu one? The various Native American ones? African? Australian Aboriginal? All? While that would be nice, there just wouldn't be enough time to cover actual science in science class.

In addition, the constant referral to evolution as "just a theory" does not accurately reflect what a scientific theory is. There are various theories about the nature of gravity, but no one can deny its existence. It's the same with evolution.

Darwin didn't have all the answers, but neither did Galileo, Newton, or Einstein. Darwin had his doubts, as did Einstein, but the fundamental aspect we should take away from these doubters is that even though they were guessers, their guesses were educated, mathematical, and eventually scientifically backed up with observable evidence.

Galileo, Newton, or Einstein "theories" can be tested in the lab and can be repeated again and again. That is science.

Evolution has NOTHING TO SHOW. It's just a dream. Dream on idiots.

astoria- having studied paleontology I can tell you there is no sparsity of evidence to back up the theory. But the place for alternative ideas about evolution, if they are not based in scientific method, belong in a history class or a sociology class- never a science class.

spidermean2- great contribution to the thread. I am, as always, impressed with the clarity of your thinking and your apt turn of phrase. And the use of the word "idiots" is brilliant. You put us in our place, all right. fer shure, ya.

sparrow wrote " I can tell you there is no sparsity of evidence to back up the theory."

VERY FUNNY. Show the evidence in the lab then. Repeat it again and again like a true science fact.

I still have to see a single device or invention using the theories gotten from evolution. There is none. NOT A SINGLE ONE. It's all in your dreams. Dream on idiots.

spidey2- you obviously have never heard of a paleontology lab, have you? Are you some kind of luddite or hermit locked away in a cave for the last 50 years? Ever hear of spectographs? Isotopes? Carbon 14?- to name only a few, and these are only the older scientific instruments. today, the science is far more sophisticated and accurate. the real problem is you are so close minded and blind you refuse to even consider the science.

You don't win an argument by denying facts or points of debate. It makes you look like an ignorant fool. Nice reuse of the word "idiot" again, although you lost points on lack of originality and repetition. Still, it adds a bit of consistency to your otherwise discombobulated post. I hope this is no indication of your true mental state- they have pills for your problem you know :-)

Sparrow wrote "you obviously have never heard of a paleontology lab, have you? "

VERY FUNNY. What have your labs produced that can be usable for science? What have you discovered in that lab that can be used for practical purposes?

NONE. Monkeys will still be monkeys and humans will still be humans. That's the reality. If you think your grandparents were monkeys, then dream on. Use your mind power. Mind over matter. It might become true if you meditate harder.

No- actually after reading your arguments (or blathering actually) spidey2, I have more respect for monkeys and their intelligence than I have for yours. FYI- Darwin never said we are descended from monkeys, just that at some point there was a common ancestor and studies of DNA - you do know what that is, right?-show both how close and how far apart we are genetically. Of course, you'll simply deny genetics so I have no idea why I persist in holding a discussion with you.

My guess is that you reject every piece of evidence I present in the name of science because you have neither the education or the mental capacity to understand what I'm talking about. In fact, you're incapability really implies you couldn't hold a candle to a monkey.

"What have you discovered in that lab that can be used for practical purposes? "

Knowledge has practical purpose.

So-called 'intelligent design' has been roundly defeated by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Obviously an intelligent designer would have done a better job. Now, the FSM is very smart, but our world has imperfections because His Noodliness was drunk when He created it. Have you been touched by His noodley appendage?

Sprrow4, “You don't win an argument by denying facts or points of debate. It makes you look like an ignorant fool. Nice reuse of the word "idiot" again, although you lost points on lack of originality and repetition. Still, it adds a bit of consistency to your otherwise discombobulated post. I hope this is no indication of your true mental state- they have pills for your problem you know” :-)

Facts or points of debate are up for interpretation unless they are “undisputable facts” meaning that there is no room for personal interpretation and they have clearly proven documented substantiated evidence of their factual proof.

Why are you debating anything with someone that you consider “an ignorant fool?” If that is the case you are setting the platform for an “unresolved debate” to occur since the ignorant fool cannot otherwise accommodate your competitive allegations because of their ignorance.

Doesn’t seem quite fair does it? Perhaps you should not venture on a quest that you intend to use as an ultimate end of humiliation and embarrassment to another person of humanity. And you have never been repetitive? I think not, may I ask, how many times you have used the term “an ignorant fool?”

“They have pills for your problem you know,” please tell me that you did not mean this derogatory statement? Otherwise, I am lead to believe that you are a health care practitioner that has made an assessment and ascertained that the party you reference as Spidy2 is in need of medical treatment by a licensed physician.

I hardly see the decorum in your attempt to conduct a debate. Furthermore, “You don't win an argument” do we really win arguments? Or are they venues of discussion that elicit sharing and the exchange of one another’s knowledge to come to a better understanding of the point referenced for the parties involved to become better informed and educated on the subject matter and to reach a consensus?

What a disappointing factor to see that someone would “pit” a level of knowledge against someone else with the cruel intent to dismember them through opposition of knowledge that you suspect that the other person is lacking in.

A good teacher always shares knowledge to educate others to sufficiently bring about a level of autonomy by building the self-esteem and self-confidence of another through an edification process. What better gain to achieve in a life time then to know that you as an individual had the opportunity to leave you “thumb-print” of knowledge in someone else’s life through the building of their personhood that produces effective, productive, self-assured individuals of society for their betterment and good of all humanity.

I apologize to you my friend in advance if this is too discombobulated for the intent that it was purposed for, and I mean no disrespect to you but as an act of love to admonish you to a higher level as a compassionate human being caring for the good of all mankind.

Lucy

Lucy- since you haven't had many discussions with spidey2, haven't been called many names by him on many threads, and despite the information presented, and the facts to back it up, still get called an idiot for no other reason than you don't believe as he does, I think I am fully justified in telling you, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Doesn’t seem quite fair does it? Perhaps you should not venture on a quest that you intend to use as an ultimate end of humiliation and embarrassment to another person of humanity." I have never seen any indication in spidey2's posts that he ascribes humanity to anyone who is not as fundamentalist as he is. In fact, he has often waxed loquacious over the fact that all of us non-believers (by his lights) will have horrible deaths with the coming of Christ.

"Facts or points of debate are up for interpretation unless they are “undisputable facts” meaning that there is no room for personal interpretation and they have clearly proven documented substantiated evidence of their factual proof." The discussion is whether or not ID is a science or a faith issue. No matter how many times spidey2 has been told by myself and numerous others what science means, and the tools of science, he simply refuses to accept anything other than a refusal to acknowledge what are really rather undisputable definitions of the discipline of science. He is willfully ignorant, yet universally insulting. I have never insulted his beliefs, only his refusal to treat other human beings and ideas with respect and compassion.

I thank you for your protestations of " an act of love to admonish you to a higher level as a compassionate human being caring for the good of all mankind." but before you step onto the floor, know where you're stepping.

(Could be in meat sauce, yes, arminius?)

Hi, Sparrow,

Yer right, apparently Lucy has not tried to communicate with Spidey. Basically, 'communication with Spidey' is an oxymoron. But he is fun to goad once in a while. I had been hoping he would go for my Flying Spaghetti Monster posts, but, sadly, he has not.

I agree whole heartedly with EnemyofTheState's first post. We discussed spontaneous generation in my science class, and how that used to be an accepeted belief, but there is no proof to support it. If you make any subject taboo, this does science a dis-service, as a good scientist should always consider all reasonable possiblities with an open mind. The Bible should not be the focal point of Creationism or intellegent design, as that would be favoring one religion over another. Rather, only the concept of a higher power being the "designer" of creation should be used when discussing these topics. All Biblical discussions should be resigned to elective theology or divinity courses and places of worship.

"Rather, only the concept of a higher power being the "designer" of creation should be used when discussing these topics."- Drwho2

But that is a theological question and at least at this point in time not scientifically provable. To insert a discussion of G-d into a science class is like trying to speak german in a high school spanish class. It was never within the scope of science to say if there is a G-d or not, only if it can be proven or not. It remains an openended question, like so many other things. Perhaps in the future we will have the scientific knowledge to somehow prove what most of us feel is unprovable by nature.

And then, what would we feel if we did prove His existence in terms of numbers, quanta or genetics? Wouldn't we then lose the mystery, and the majesty?

Sparrow4 - For many a year it could not be proven if the atom existed because science did not have the technological capabilities to prove or dis-prove the existenance of the atom. There are many theories in the realm of physics (string theory being one) that science has not been able to prove yet either. By your reasoning, the concept of the atom could only be discussed in a science class in the 20th century, when technology was finally at a level to enable studies of the atom. Many of Einstiens theories could only be proven many years after he presented them, and some we are still not able to prove or dis-prove. Should they not have been aloud to have been discussed??

BTW, I think only about 10 minutes should be alloted to the discussion of ID, as there are not a lot of facts to discuss. But never to discuss it, will leave many students with questions in their mind as they get exposed to ID outside of class, and I feel it is best to discuss subjects openly rather than say it is a taboo subject. As many people believe in it, it is a fair topic for discussion. Not many people truely believe in the Spagetti Monster, should that should be left out.

Spiderman2:

The findings of archeology and paleontology from the last 150 years clearly point to animal speciation and change over time. Darwin theorized that the changes were due to natural selection, which is nothing more than an organism's ability to adapt and exploit its environment. Nothing science has developed since comes close to explaining the fossil record so completely.

The model explains, for instance, why we share more than 95% of our DNA with chimps, and why an isolated land mass like Australia can produce species seen nowhere else in the world.

You don't have to deny God to see the beauty and complexity of life reflected through evolution. Darwin didn't give up his belief in a higher power, and most churches accept the reality of evolution.

And, by the way, evolutionary theory does make present day predictions that can be observed in the laboratory: A virus and how it infects a host is a perfect example. If you're unlucky enough to be infected by a dangerous virus that quickly mutates and adapts to treatment, you'll want your doctor to understand evolutionary principles.

Peace.

"The Bible should not be the focal point of Creationism or intellegent design, as that would be favoring one religion over another. Rather, only the concept of a higher power being the 'designer' of creation should be used when discussing these topics."

That would still favor some religions over others, since many do not have higher powers or creation stories that rely on such beings. The "higher power" concept is really watered-down theism, or at least a theism-centric view of religion. That's similar to how intelligent design was devised as a Trojan horse for Christian creationism.

I propose that if the topic of creationism arises in science class, teachers can explain that many religions have creation stories, so as to avoid inadvertently treating Christian creationism as the only alternative to evolution.

Carstonio, you raise a good point and I agree with you for the reasons you state.

Drwho2- very good points. It's not my intent is keep out discussion but I fear what creationists and IDers are asking for is an equating of these ideas with a scientifically based theory. However if the discussion was about how could we use science to prove or disprove these ideas from a scientific standpoint, by all means we should.

Many ID peple use the word "theory" in the wrong sense. In science, theory refers to facts that can be verifiable and reproducible. It's also a little open ended but remember, Newton, Einstein, Galileo did not suddenly come with these ideas out of nowhere. They came from questioning observable phenomena that had no good explanation at the time. This in no way means that G-d should not be discussed, but that the ideas put forth as factual by creationists and the like, Expect you to take on faith that G-d exists as a scientifically proven fact, and accept the bible is literally true. That's faith, not science.

It is proven that life forms evolve. However, compared to the trillions of evolutionary steps required to explain the multitude and complexity of life forms we observe, would you not agree that the evidence is very paltry? Under the heading of science wouldn't this make a good topic of discussion in our schools?

Personally I think there is way, way too little evidence to explain this complexity, not to mention how the first cell spontaneously came into being, to state with any degree of certainty that the case is closed on the origin and development of life. Is that such a difficuly position to understand???

Sparrow4, "I think I am fully justified in telling you, you have no idea what you're talking about."

I believe that I do. However, it is your choice to believe that I do not, regardless one opinion is not lesser than the other's.

Neither you nor anyone else has proven Spidey to be wrong about his beliefs nor has Spidey proven anyone else to be wrong about their beliefs, so logic tells me that all are on an even plain.

As far as your cross conversation with another blogger on this thread " thank you for your protestations of " an act of love to admonish you to a higher level as a compassionate human being caring for the good of all mankind." but before you step onto the floor, know where you're stepping. (Could be in meat sauce, yes, arminius?" regarding my comment directed to you I would say that you questioned your self assertions.

Thus, felt the need to seek affirmation from another, lacking in self confidence, independent thinking, and being self-assured to secure a level of autonomy that mature adults reach that are competent with standing alone with their convictions and do not have the “need” to “seek” or “require” the affirmations of others.

Consequently, your pre-judgment of my assessment of Spidey by stating "you are justified in saying that I have no idea what you're talking about" without inquiring if I had or have been privy to Spidey's comments.

It is evident in this comment “(Could be in meat sauce, yes, arminius?)” that your coping mechanism is through a passive-aggressive method.

It would behoove you to strive functioning above that level. It would improve your appeal as a person. I am sure that you have other traits that are more worthy to of noticing.

lucy- my lord- you're Sarah Palin.

My comment to arminius is a running joke among several of us.

You took me to task for taking to spidey 2 as I have and let me explain to you in very simple terms- had spidey at any time been polite and respectful to me on any of the threads we have conversed on, or even been polite to others (or is your idea of polite calling everyone idiots several times over?). Among other even more insulting comments. So I repeat my point- you have no clue. You're perfectly free to ignore my posts - as you seem to have ignored spidey2's- gosh. Some folk have all the luck.

Instead you come off like St. Lucy of Cyberspace and failing miserably. They say pick your battles- you picked a poor one. So We can keep engaging like this if you like- I'd prefer not to waste my time, but it's up to you.

Lucy,

Sparrow's comment "Could be in meat sauce, yes, arminius?" indirectly references a post I made (in jest) about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm not sure how that statement fits in here. I have traded posts with Sparrow with no problems, but I understand that she can be caustic.

As to spiderman2, usually known as Spidey here. He is a very narrow minded and bigoted person, who will not answer a question, or even try to explain the largely outrageous claims he makes. He thinks he is the only real Christian here, and tells all that disagree that they are going to hell. I am Christian - and Spidey has posted things here that even I, very liberal about religious views, consider blasphemy. As far as I am concerned, it is open season on Spidey.

arminius- I can be caustic- but only when attacked first. spidey doesn't deserve respect, as we both agree. I've given him many chances to have a civil dialogue (as have you) and he always degenerates into name calling. I will never attack anyone who is civil to me but lucy's first post was insulting and full of condescension. I tried to explain- bluntly, I will say- and she felt the need to reply in a second post dripping with even more saccharine condescension and even more insulting than the first.

for many years I was married to a master of psychological abuse and manipulation. He sounded just like lucy. I know how to deal with people like that now and I will always stand up for myself.

Sparrow,

And well that you should stand up for yourself! I admire that.

As for Lucy - I am puzzled by the interchange between you two, because I have never had any difficulty communicating with you. My advice to Lucy is to reply directly to Spidey and see just how far she gets.

arminius, you should go over to the Wolpe thread. It's very interesting.

sparrow wrote "Knowledge has practical purpose."

I want to know what is that specific knowledge about evolution that can be use for practical purpose.

What device has been made from it. I want to know coz Im an engineer and I want to make use of that knowledge. Engineers build from the knowledge they get. Evolution has NOTHING to show. IT'S ALL IN YOUR MIND. It has nothing for any engineering work.

Lucy,

If you're still here, try engaging Spidey in a conversation. Good luck. Note that he claims to be an engineer - he is lying. He will not say what kind of engineer he claims to be. I have known dozens of engineers, and each and every one, when asks what they do for a living, answer "I am [this kind of] engineer.

Beware.

spidey2- so what? Does knowing how to eat pizza have to relate to you being an engineer? Knowledge is practical but who says it has to be for you? Jeesh- get some logic here willya?

Paleontology is practical for finding oil reserves, geographic formations, history- so what's your point? You can't stick a fossil in your car so it's not science? I am so not wasting my time on you any longer. If you feel like remaining steeped in ignorance I leave you to it.

Evolutionists always talk about "natural selection". Engineers normally ask :

1. What is it?
2. What are the processes involved in a natural selection?
3. Is it a DNA transformation?
4. If it is, where is the lab test that shows that transformation?

Engineers like me think this way. IDIOTS are not capable of thinking. They just absorbed what they are taught, that is, if they are capable of absorbing information in the first place.

Sparrow wrote "Paleontology is practical for finding oil reserves, geographic formations, history-"

Well and good. It should stick to that field and not wander on more complex issues like DNA transformations.

Spidey should define 'engineer' and give three examples.

But he won't.

Because he is a liar and an idiot.

arminius- not only does spidey not understand what science, evolution, and paleontology are, but he doesn't understand how science works, the meaning of applied science or the difference between knowledge and ignorance or knowledge and faith. How sad a life he has, to be so rigid and repressed.

How strong can his faith be if he is so afraid of a little knowledge? I know lots of people who believe in evolution and G-d, and they seem at peace with it.

Sparrow,

I am quite comfortable with evolution and God. When I was young, I knew an Episcopal priest who was also a nuclear engineer.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." This goes for faith. Note that the core meaning of jihad is struggle, meaning an internal struggle with belief. I have a Christian jihad in my soul, and it makes my faith stronger.

Spidey does not have faith - he has been programmed. He is the saddest, most misdirected person I have ever encountered.

Sparrow wrote "I know lots of people who believe in evolution and G-d, and they seem at peace with it."

At peace because they are clueless and idiots. Many people were at peace with how Wall Street works until the meltdown simply because of stupidity.

What they did with that bailout was a stop gap measure. It didn't cure the problem.

There were three factors that I mentioned earlier that should be dealt with. One of which is the interest rate. I hope this massive bailout would address that.

Another problem was the housing market. Those foreclosed houses should have been returned to their owner at a restructured payment so the housing glut would be solved.

There should also be a law that would insure its price stabilization.

Short selling should be dealt with also.

I think, none of which was addressed. If these four factors will come into play again, we would be back on square one - another meltdown.

Sparrow wrote "I know lots of people who believe in evolution and G-d, and they seem at peace with it."

At peace because they are clueless and idiots. Many people were at peace with how Wall Street works until the meltdown, simply because of stupidity.

What they did with that bailout was a stop gap measure. It didn't cure the problem.

There were three factors that I mentioned earlier that should be dealt with. One of which is the interest rate. I hope this massive bailout would address that.

Another problem was the housing market. Those foreclosed houses should have been returned to their owner at a restructured payment so the housing glut would be solved.

There should also be a law that would insure OIL price stabilization.

Short selling should be dealt with also.

I think, none of which was addressed. If these four factors will come into play again, we would be back on square one - another meltdown.

Sparrow,

You will notice at once that Spidey answered no questions, but merely made an accusation and tried to change the subject.

I rest my case.

I noticed. His entire life is so irrevocably invested in anger and hate and fear. He's like a terrified child locked in a dark closet. The only thing I think of when he calls those who believe in evolution and G-d, clueless and idiots is "o ye of little faith."

ARMINIUS wrote: " I have known dozens of engineers, and each and every one, when asks what they do for a living, answer "I am [this kind of] engineer."

I'm thikin' that if Spidey is an engineer, then it must be the kind that drives choo-choo trains.

DuckPhup,

Among other eccentricities, I am a big railroad fan. The job of an engineer driving a train is - believe me - not a trivial task. So please do not insult an honorable profession by associating Spidey with it!

Arminius

Not that there is any point to this, but Spidey wrote: "I want to know what is that specific knowledge about evolution that can be use for practical purpose. "

Every time you get a flu shot you are putting practical knowledge about evolution to a practical purpose.

Astoria wrote: "Scientists disagree about evolution- not for philisophical reasons, but because there is a sparsity of physical evidence to support the theory."

Michael Majerus summarized natural selection very succinctly last year as follows:

"Similarly, Darwinian evolution is logical fact, and had to be even in 1859. Consider Darwin’s four
observations and three deductions, upon which selection theory is based.

Organisms produce far more offspring than give rise to mature individuals. Yet, population sizes remain more or less constant.

Therefore, there must be a high rate of mortality.

The individuals in a species show variation.

Therefore, some variants will succeed better than others, and those with beneficial characteristics will be naturally selected to produce the next generation.

There is a hereditary resemblance between parents and offspring.

Therefore, beneficial traits will be passed to future generations.

Given these four observed facts and three simple, logical deductions, selection cannot NOT happen."

Which part of that do you find to be unproven?

Notsogreatscot,

Well done, sir, well done. Thank you.

BTW, don't bother with Spidey. What is left of his mind is welded shut. He will not discuss, nor even answer a question. He is a true internet troll.

notsogreatscot - let me add my thanks to arminius'- I can't always clearly state the scientific principles and I let spidey draw me into his wierdness too often. I was so flabbergasted that one would even question the need for knowledge it rendered me ...er, at a loss for words. (and arminius can tell you how rare that is :-)!

Back then, Palin already used canned answers to dodge the key issues : "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum"

If you look at the core of the proposition, it means : stop making this teaching illegal, leave it up to the teacher.

Palin is not a closet evolutionist : she is a hardcore theocon, but a careful one. After the publication of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, no politician can promote ID without risking his/her career.

Palin perfectly illustrate the new creationist agenda : we have taken into account the failure of our Intelligent Design imposture, and we understand that we cannot be too pushy these days, but our priority is to make sure some door is somewhat opened for the next waves.

The only evolution Palin will ever accept is from democracy to theocracy.

Hi Notsogreat-
Thanks for answering-

Fossil records of a transition specimen?
But- it doens't matter- I have no emotional investment in the question-

"Therefore, some variants will succeed better than others, and those with beneficial characteristics will be naturally selected to produce the next generation."
"Therefore, beneficial traits will be passed to future generations."

Now, this has occurred to me before-
Why haven't mutations and handicaps not been bred out?
I mean- why is the scientific assumption that the variations and selections be positive?

What may be a logical fact to Mr. Majerus, is not necessarily so obvious to to others-

Shouldn't there be some observable trends in 150 years to support this theory?
If the beneficial traits are passed on- why don't we see a spike in the intelligence levels of people?

I have no idea- maybe there are such stats and studies- and if there are not- I certainly hope the believers start to do them.
Keep track of this stuff- to present to that next generation so we don't have to argue about it.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here with this next info- but I thought I'd add it since it hasn't been presented-

_______________________________
Source: 2008 Fox News interview on "Hannity & Colmes" Sep 17, 2008
Q: Did you ONLY want to teach creationism in school and not evolution?

A: No. In fact, growing up in a school teacher's house with a science teacher as a dad, you know, I have great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.
________________________________________

This is the interview Palindrones are quoting to prove she isn't going to institute ID_notice she doesn't mention ID-

(2)
Source: Boston Globe, "A valentine to evangelical base", p. A12 Aug 30, 2008

"Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools

Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear TEACHING CREATIONISM alongside evolution. "TEACH BOTH. You know, don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I AM A PROPONENT OF TEACHING BOTH. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher."
_________________________________________

(3)
Source: New York Times, pp. A1 & A10, "An Outsider Who Charms" Aug 29, 2008

Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools
Palin is a conservative Protestant and has also been a member since 2006 of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion group. SHE HAS SUPPORTED THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, alongside evolution.
__________________________________________
SARAH PALIN ON EDUCATION
* Never tried to ban books in the Wasilla Library. (Sep 2008)
*Science teacher as dad; believes in teaching evolution. (Sep 2008)
*TEACH CREATIONISM alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
*SUPPORTS TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (Aug 2008)
____________________________________________

THIS IS THE OFFICAL SITE OF SARAH PALIN'S STANCE ON ISSUES
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

Here is where I posted it originally-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_shelby_spong/2008/10/palinbiden_vice_presidential_d/all_comments.html

The reason I posted it was to give the definitive info of her position as a reference-

I thought someone might find it useful-
Ok, thanks and peace

And remember, these are questions of midl curiosity and that curiosity only exists because it seems so very important to polarized groups-

The Bible needs to be taught, but according to the standards of scientific history, not sectarian belief. Were the Bible taught according to the standards of biblical scholarship it would be clear that most of it is myth.

Gosh, ignorance is amazing. For those having trouble with their bunson burners, religion is taught at home or in church. Creationism or intelligent design whateverr other cute or clever name disguise they use, it's no more factual than the exitence of the toogh fairy.

Evolution is by far the truest account of the human species. For those who dare the open their eyes, it is perhaps the biggest no-brainer in the history of western civilization.

But that's the problem. The brains in most religious folk tend to explode when faced with the contradiction of fact to the fantasy-based intelligent design nonsense.

Just go inside the church, get taught whatever you want, and believe what they brainwash you with. Go ahead. But leave running the country and the real-world to those with actual, fact based intelligence.

"A virus and how it infects a host is a perfect example. If you're unlucky enough to be infected by a dangerous virus that quickly mutates and adapts to treatment, you'll want your doctor to understand evolutionary principles."

The small changes that virus' undergo to fight antibiotics in virtually every case make the virus weaker and the virus usually does not embrace these changes...it generally tries to return to its original more robust form. Mutations make organisms weaker in almost every instance and are a poor explanation for the diversity of life.

Saying that, however, does not change the fact that based on the evidence at hand, Evolution is simply the best explanation available to us, and should be taught in our schools. Until intelligent design proponents can give us a testible model, it can't be considered viable as science.

ravitchn wrote: "Were the Bible taught according to the standards of biblical scholarship it would be clear that most of it is myth."

And that is why when you meet an atheist they will usually say they were brought up with religious teachings, not just attending services, but biblical studies.

"Were the Bible taught according to the standards of biblical scholarship it would be clear that most of it is myth."

Can you offer some examples of that scholarship? My first thought was of Bart Ehrman, but I'm not sure he counts because he's now an agnostic.

"And that is why when you meet an atheist they will usually say they were brought up with religious teachings, not just attending services, but biblical studies."

Really? My own position of skepticism is somewhere between agnosticism and true atheism, and I had almost no religious upbringing - just a short time in Lutheran Sunday School.

You see, the kids in Japan, China, India, South Korea (never mind all of Western Europe and Scandinavia) who are ahead of ours in math and science don't have these kinds of farcical intellectual burdens. American middle-school children currently rank 24th in math and science behind all those countries and then some. Tohse other countries don't have school boards like those in Texas and Kansas trying to shove a religious view of science down the public's throat, with nary a care as to what is going to happen to this country's competitiveness in science over the next 25 years, as the EU and China and India emerge as the dominant powers on the globe.

Intelligent Design does not have a scientific leg to stand on. That some scientists believe that All This could not have happened without a Supreme Being is fine. It is also something they cannot prove and will never be able to prove - that's the difference between Darwin's and Einstein's work and the Creationists.

This country needs to remember that the attempt to insert religious orthodoxy in classrooms, courtrooms, etc., is the first warning signs of fascism.

Creationists can homeschool their children and tell them any nonsense they want about how we all got here and when. When those children go out into the world and find out they can't compete with others who were taught REAL sciecne in first-rate labs, their parents can explain why. But they need to keep their bloody religious nonsense out of my child's science classrooms.

Although I'm a Christian, I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, when asked about the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, said he was against it, calling it a "category mistake." I thought that described the issue perfectly. He went on to ask why anyone of faith would want to introduce God into an environment where He is reduced to an unknowable, untestable theory. Good point. As an agnostic science teacher in a largely Christian community told his students, "I don't need for you to believe in evolution, but I need for you to understand it."

On the other hand, I have to smile at the smugness of those who insist that the Universe and everything in it is the result of natural causes. That's a theory as well, folks, and quite a few agnostic cosmologists and astronomers have pointed it out (Jastrow, Smoots, and others). Whatever caused or created the deterministic laws of matter isn't something that can be studied by Science.

There is currently no way of proving that the Universe had a natural cause behind it. Whatever mystery lies on the other side of the singularity we know as the Big Bang, it's unknowable and untestable. Any claim that the Universe and its processes are the result of naturalism are based upon faith that they are, not facts. That's a fact. As one scientist commented referring to the mystery of the origin of the cosmos: It's an indefinable element in an undefined space, and therefore cannot be tested or proven by science.

Of course this doesn't prove the existence of God, but simply points out that the naturalist worldview cannot be proven true. If you insist that being able to observe and quantify the natural world is proof of naturalism, you're indirectly making the claim that you know what a designed Universe would look like. Seeing as how we have a model of one to study, and we don't know what brought it into being, you can't possibly make that claim.

So in the long run, all the argument about evolution is rather pointless. If the Universe can be shown to have come into existence through natural causes, then we can safely assume evolution is a purely natural process. Currently, we have no idea what set everything into play, which leaves open the idea that all the "natural processes" we see could have been the act of a Mind, and therefore have purpose and intent behind them. Until someone can conclusively prove that the Universe came to be through natural causes, we're all —agnostic or believer—moving forward on faith.

God, it turns out, becomes a very viable write-in candidate.

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, nine trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work. Two thirds of that comes from inheritance; interest on interest accumulating to widows / idiot sons; and stock / real estate SPECULATION. It is crap.

Ninety percent of the American public has little or no net worth.

WALL STREET SPECULATORS create nothing. But through SUPER-CAPITALISM (FRAUD), WALL STREET SPECULATORS OWN THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY. IT IS CRAP!!!

RICH GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET SPECULATORS make the rules (news, war, peace, famine, upheaval).

RICH GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET SPECULATORS pick that rabbit out of the hat while the American People wonder how WE GOT INTO THIS MESS.

You are not naive enough to think that we live in a Democracy?

IT'S THE FREE MARKET. And you're a part of it.

GOP REPUBLICAN RICH WALL STREET SPECULATORS have that killer instinct. Stick around, GOP REPUBLICAN RICH WALL STREET SPECULATORS still have stealing to do.

In a Democracy, the AMERICAN PEOPLE suppose to own AMERICA. That's right, the AMERICAN PEOPLE suppose to own AMERICA.

AMERICANS are being robbed by GOP RICH REPUBLICAN WALL STREET SPECULATORS AND THEIR WHITE HOUSE / CONGRESSIONAL STOOGES with their:

Obscenely high salaries,
Luncheons,
Hunting trips,
Golf tournaments,
Escort services,
Corporate jets,
GOLDEN PARACHUTES.

Thousands of GOP Republican CEOs and their White House / Congressional Stooges are walking away with over $20,000,000 each of stolen money from the U.S. Treasury (AMERICAN PEOPLE). This Is Treason Against the American People.

You have selectively omitted Palin's response to the question when posed by the Anchorage Daily News in the run up to the Alaska Gubernatorial election. In that response Palin said both should be "taught". She was either lying then to get votes or lying now to get votes. You do the public a disservice by letting Palin off the hook for her previous statements. You do the public a disservice by publishing her talking points instead of demanding an unscripted interview.

SHeriger, you're arguing conclusions, this is not the ID vs Evolution argument.

Evolution is a scientific principle, ID is a religious principle attempting to disguise itself.

The conclusions reached by the study and experimentation in the science of evolution are reached by the use of the scientific method, by understanding what falsifiability is, and so on.

Also, evolution does not attempt to explain how "it all started", that question is asked by the cosmologist, not the evolutionary biologist.

Dorothy1 correctly wrote: "You do the public a disservice by letting Palin off the hook for her previous statements. You do the public a disservice by publishing her talking points instead of demanding an unscripted interview."

I have to agree. Here is what Palin said during her run for governor 2 years ago according to the Anchorage Daily News (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) in response to a question about teaching creationism in the classroom:

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Now she has since stated she does not *promote* the teaching of creationism and has pretty much stayed out of the contraversy except to make her republican constituency happy by talking out of both sides of her mouth. You know, like being happy to cooperate with the Alaska legislative investigation into her possible abuse of power in troopergate before she decided not to cooperate.

Mr Waters, your statement, "Evolution should be taught as a principle of science, not as a theory alongside others such as Creationism" displays enormous ignorance on your part in discussing whatever Mrs. Palin's convoluted ideas on evolution are. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. One that conforms to the processes used in the scientific method of experimentation and investigation. It is based on testable methodologies, the gathering of evidence and across a wide spectrum of disciplines. Creationism, on the other hand, is nothing more than the twisted interpretations of biblical text by some who wish to force their religious beliefs on impressionable children. Mrs. Palin is trying to use the same offhand method used by bush to persuade the American public that she is not a religious fanatic; you first act like a moderate intelligent politician until you get elected, then you shed your skin and reveal your true self.

SHeriger,

"the smugness of those who insist that the Universe and everything in it is the result of natural causes"

That sounds like a straw man - I've never heard of any scientist making such a flat declaration of certainty. It would be more accurate to say that natural causes are more likely than "supernatural" ones. That's because the latter involves assumptive leaps.

Of course science doesn't know everything about the origin of the universe. The issue is that science, unlike creationist religion, doesn't claim to know. True uncertainty versus false certainty.

"Whatever caused or created the deterministic laws of matter"

That falsely assumes that physical laws have actual existence. Those laws are really human-created ways of classifying the order observed in the universe.

"Currently, we have no idea what set everything into play, which leaves open the idea that all the 'natural processes' we see could have been the act of a Mind, and therefore have purpose and intent behind them."

The objective of theorizing is to explain observations. A Mind-type theory makes assumptions about a Mind's existence and motives. That greatly reduces the likelihood of the theory being true, because it collapses without the assumptions. We have no evidence for such a Mind, so any theories about it amount to baseless speculation.

"God, it turns out, becomes a very viable write-in candidate. "

The point is that we don't need a write-in candidate at all. When confronted with an unexplainable event, it's intellectually irresponsible to make baseless assumptions about causes. That suggests that there is some desperate need to have an answer. It's like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle by filling in the missing pieces with putty. There's nothing wrong with having no explanation at all for the universe's existence.

The problem with the "both sides" concept is that it falsely treats one religion's creation story as the only alternative to evolution. It amounts to a disguised favoritism toward one religion at the expense of others, something that no religion should have in public schools.

Hi again Notsogreatscott-
I'm going to add another observation for you to comment on- (your remarks are in quotes)

"Organisms produce far more offspring than give rise to mature individuals. Yet, population sizes remain more or less constant."

This may have been a truism in 1859- but it is no longer true.

"Therefore, there must be a high rate of mortality."

We are also seeing a shift in mortality, and also lifespans.

"*The individuals in a species show variation.
*Therefore, some variants will succeed better than others, and those with beneficial characteristics will be naturally selected to produce the next generation."

*There is a hereditary resemblance between parents and offspring."

I was reading the DWashington1 post, and a thought occurred to me again-
The captains of industry who made their fortunes by being (of the best and brightest,and greediest and most aggressive)would seem to be shining examples of the apex of the fittest surviving.

*"Therefore, beneficial traits will be passed to future generations."

Why, if these traits are so strong- this innate survival mode- is it not passed onto the their children?

If Darwin's theories manifest consistently (and from a scientific perspective- they must)
Why have we not seen generations of inheritors with groundbreaking developments in the fields of their fathers?

Wouldn't that be the first place Darwin proponents would look to verify the theory?

There is a block of individuals who have proven to have superior survival skills- wouldn't their children, display in numbers, some of these skills? Or their children's children?

(No isolated anecdotal incidences please- but perceptible patterns and observances)

SHeriger: "... I have to smile at the smugness ..."

And irony ... I have to smile at irony.

Palin/Waters: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum,"

This is not just a facile straw man, it is also inherently dishonest. We are TALKING about the curriculum, nothing more. Does anyone really advocate a prohibition on questions and discussion points from students? Are there schools with government minders rapping students on the head with knockers when they deviate from the prescribed dogma?

No, not really ... but that idea sure does rile up the religious right, and irritated people are more politically motivated. Too bad this absurd implication is entirely fictional.

Can we keep our eyes on our own paper and bring subject back to the main point, the only point, the relevant point:

When we design our courses to teach our children biological and life sciences, we must include a comprehensive study of the theory of evolution because it is currently the only known scientifically accepted & tested explanation for the origination of species and extent biological diversity.

The only way science and religion can "comfortably co-exist" in a science classroom is to simply not bring religion into the curriculum at all. But when opponents define the absence of something as an attack on that thing, they create an unresolvable false dichotomy, and coexistence is not possible.

Such a position is consistent with the "Open Letter" statement you provide and entirely inconsistent with Palin's very dishonest implication.

McCain/Hagee '08

If we are going to teach Christian creationism in the academic environment "alongside evolution" then we need to remove Native American "Mythology" from the English classroom and teach it alongside as well. We can add to this list once we get going.

"the Universe and everything in it is the result of natural causes"

That sounds like a God attribution to me. Or is it "mother" nature? Every explanation we have for natural causes ends up in the supernatural realm. Do scientists stop theorizing about black holes, quarks and string because these things are beyond the evidence available to us. No. We extrapolate from the evidence we have to what is missing in order to unify the whole. The problem with conventional religion is that it no longer has any connection to the available evidence. History tells us these kind of beliefs atrophy after a while. In the present case, a long while, and the conservatives become increasingly militant as their way of life disappears over generations.

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

sure, talk! debate! both sides! healthy! but only because your agenda is the underdog. discussions about abortion, contraception, homosexuals, or other issues outside the far-right should be stonewalled or destroyed.

and if she says that others do that and shouldn't, then she and i agree!

"Are there schools with government minders rapping students on the head with knockers when they deviate from the prescribed dogma?"

Maybe not. You have to be very careful how you treat students. The same is not true of teachers. For decades teachers have be subjected to extreme restrictions in their content and "style." Teachers who do not conform to these restrictions can no longer be found in the education system anywhere. They say this is due to "liberal" fanatics in the school system, but this is not liberal behavior. It is tyrannical conservative behavior by those whose ideas are trapped in the past and who are afraid of the bureaucratic forces around them. This is why education is in the sorry state it is in and continues to deteriorate.

Perhaps if Palin were to see an image of Charles Darwin on a burnt tortilla?

Creationists are fools.

"There is a block of individuals who have proven to have superior survival skills- wouldn't their children, display in numbers, some of these skills? Or their children's children?"

My God (deliberate irony) but there are some idiots in this world. If you want to argue against a theory then, please please please, at least take the time to understand what you are arguing about.

For several decades during the century before last there was a heated argument about "the inheritance of acquired traits"

Last century several hundred thousand experiments by several hundred thousand scientists put this matter to bed.

Because these critics are not really interested in science at all they will grasp at any straw and argue any argument up to and including "God made it so".

I don't bother trying to argue against these silly straw man arguments anymore. The people who are advancing them have no interest in my answer - only in enslaving me within a medieval mind set that they would like to see imposed upon every member of our species.

PS - it's pretty much only in America that this argument is being made. Most other parts of the world have entered the 21st century.

Evolution is the product of scientific thinking. Creationism is the product of a diseased Semitic primitive mind. Take your choice.

To jamesmoylan:

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were creationists...were they fools?

"Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were creationists...were they fools?"

Both are well known biologists!

The answer - if they believed that "God made it so" then yes - they are fools.

But they didn't - this is just another piece of BS.

Isaac Newton? Well it's a bit difficult to believe in a theory that hasn't been quantified or put forward yet. As for Einstein? Best use his own words.

Einstein: "the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events -- provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion." (As quoted in Jammer 1999:80)

So let's not have any more of this BS eh?

I am curious how the principals of Intelligent Design plays to the principals of conception?

My problem is in the word itself, in other words, what is conception. Is it when the Sperm breaks the Egg? Is it when the cells start dividing? Is it when the cell division attaches itself to the womb? Is it when the cells finally start creating a form that looks like us?

See the problem with the word conception is that there is no real definition to the word for most who profess it. For if there was they would not be able to describe it in scientific form because they belief only in Intelligent Design which does not have a definition.

Ironic isn't it?

To Jamesmoylan:

Yes, let Einstein speak:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Here are some other famous scientists who mattered and who also believed:

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Would you like to hear them speak as well? Or are they all fools?

"Here are some other famous scientists who mattered and who also believed:

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)"
_________________________________________
First you present me with an assertion (that Einstein believes in Creationism) I refute it with a direct quote - then you come back at me with a quote which just reinforces the fact that Einstein was not a Creationist (?)

As for your list (above) i still don't see your point. More than half of those indicated lived and died before the theory of evolution was coherently formulated.

(And yes - Mendel and Planck were fools. They got almost everything wrong!)

I note that every scientist that you mention is long dead and died many years before evolution was an accepted scientific fact. Put up some names of scientists from the modern era if you want to be taken seriously.

I say that evolution is a fact because it can be proven in much the same way as gravity can be proven. We call it 'the theory of gravity' because that is a requirement of the scientific method. The 'theory of evolution' is as solid a reality as gravity.

Hey MGT 2,

I supply the following information for the sake of readers who might happen upon this thread - not for you because no amount of rational argument will budge you from your position as you are trapped in the box of magical thinking.

It is true that many truly great scientists in the past were creationists of one form or another. However, nothing helpful follows from this for modern creationists.

(i) The scientists creationists cite become scarce as the evidence for evolution mounts up. For instance, one creationist publication (Morris 1982) claims thirty-five "great scientists" for creationism. Of these men, thirteen (Bacon, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Steno, Da Vinci, Ray, Linneaus, Woodward, Newton, W. Herschel, Davy, and Cuvier) died before the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859. Fourteen more (Pasteur, Babbage, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendel, Agassiz, Simpson, Maury, Riemann, Brewster, Joule, J. Herschel, Henry, and Morse) died before 1900. Of the eight who lived into the 20th century (Lister, Kelvin, Fabre, Stokes, Virchow, Rayleigh, Ramsay, and Fleming), only one (Fleming) lived long enough to see the advent of the modern synthesis of evolution. This trend reflects how Darwin's key contributions to biology, and the steadily mounting evidence for evolution thereafter, caused the scientific consensus to shift from creationism to evolution, and eventually relegated creationism to its proper status as a pseudoscience.

Thus, the fact that it was at one time possible for an informed and unbiased scientist to be a creationist, goes absolutely no way at all towards establishing that it continues to be possible today. Arguing to the contrary on the basis of such historical figures is akin to assmbling a list of great scientists who believed in alchemy (like Newton or, for that matter, even Boyle), and arguing on that basis that it is still possible, today, for an informed and unbiased scientist to accept alchemy (while mainstream chemists presumably must be the vanguard of a grand materialist conspiracy against god, truth, and morality).

(ii) The debate about whether or not creationists can count as real scientists (and the point that creationists miss when they complain that evolutionists just dogmatically define science as naturalism) revolves not so much around the question of what creationists believe about the world, as upon the manner in which they approach evidence. The issue scientists have with creationists is not so much that creationists believe the earth to be 6,000 years old or what have you; if that were all there were to creationism, there would be no problem, because scientists could have dialogue with them and show them where they were wrong. The problem is that (most) creationists are not really open at all: they have decided, in advance, on the basis of their interpretation of a religious text, that such and such must be the case about the world, and (rarely) bend, regardless of evidence. That is what scientists usually mean when they say that creationists, even those who publish respectable scientific work outside of the context of creationism, are not real scientists.

(iii) As an amplification of the point just made, the charge that modern creationists are not real scientists is not (or should not be) intended as the claim that a creationist (or alchemist) cannot do good scientific research when working on issues unrelated to those against which they have an ideological bias: in such cases, creationists employ the same methodology and answer to the same standards as mainstream scientists. Likewise, an aficianado of power crystals can still be a good engineer, and a believer in astrology can still be a good doctor, as long as they do not allow those beliefs to guide their practice. An engineer who relies on the mystical force of power crystals to hold up a building, a doctor who uses astrology to dictate what medicine to prescribe to a patient, and a creationist who uses divine activity to explain biological processes, will all fail equally. So again, there is nothing strange about a creationist being able to do normal, even brilliant, scientific research when they behave like other scientists. It is just that when it comes to areas like evolutionary biology, the same creationists, however well-intentioned, are led by religious bias to fail to employ the same methods and standards they otherwise do . This should not be surprising, as it is ubiquitous in life: for any crackpot idea you can think of, you can find someone with an otherwise excellent mind who believes in it. But that is one reason why it is so crucial for scientific work to be peer-reviewed in mainstream journals: bringing the collective attention of mainstream scientists to bear upon an idea or item of research is one of the best ways to control for unnoticed personal biases (while an attempt to bypass them and appeal directly to legislators and the masses is as sure a sign as one could ask for of bias and crackpottery).

From The Defenders guide to science and creationism:
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-1.html

To Jamesmoylan:

Just in case you did not read (or understand)the quote, here is a portion:

"The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Notice his standard for "even the most intelligent human being toward God." Notice also that that very standard implies, as Einstein believed, that someone must be responsible. He was very much aware of the theory of evolution.

As for the other scientists, if it were not for them, who knows where science would be today? They matter.

I will be glad when Palin learns or chooses to express herself a little more succinctly and clearly. Perhaps she could ask her father the science teacher, to summarize his policies of teaching evolution in science class and allowing some discussion of other views -- or, more likely, discussion of the view that most religious people hold, that evolution is the mechanism but God has a hand in it.

Or maybe she needs to write her own summary at leisure and post it on her own site, instead of relying on interviewers to quote her correctly.

Jamesmoylan,

Thanks for that thesis. My point was never whether creationism is science...I do not believe that it is.

This is an unnecessary debate that too often devolve into ad hominems. Folks are not "fools" just because they do not share our views. Like Einstein, there are credible scientists today who believe in the principles of science and also believe in God.

MGT2:

To Jamesmoylan:

Just in case you did not read (or understand)the quote, here is a portion:

"The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Notice his standard for "even the most intelligent human being toward God." Notice also that that very standard implies, as Einstein believed, that someone must be responsible. He was very much aware of the theory of evolution.

As for the other scientists, if it were not for them, who knows where science would be today? They matter.
_________________________________________________
You tell me I didn't read the quote?
You obviously didn't understand what the man said.

Read and understand please.

[So far every quote you choose to shoot back at me is simply acts to buttress the arguments I present.]

The quote you present is a rail against believing that we understand even a fraction of the properties which govern the universe and is most especially a critique of the teleological idea that "God made it all".

Yes Einstein is saying that Science doesn't know it all - however the most significant part of the quote [That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.] is actually a direct refutation of your argument.

What Palin believes is that she must say anything to win this election.

"Folks are not "fools" just because they do not share our views."
BUT FOLKS ARE FOOLS IF THEY BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE!

No, I am not saying that creationists are stupid. Considering the mental back flips this belief system requires you have to be reasonably intelligent to try and advance the argument. But when an intelligent person deliberately ignores or misconstrues information because if does not fit in with their world view then, yes, they are fools.

Forget Creationism. Forget Mumble Design. Instead, teach the HS Seniors a survey course in current research on evolutionary theory. The so-called weaknesses are what scientists regard as current topics of research. The course would have to be somewhat a "culture" course, i.e. a watered-down version of the 80 proof seminar courses served up at university. After all , it has to be taught by the teachers we've got. But there is no doubt that suitable curriculum could be prepared to treat the "weaknesses" in Evolution's current models. It should include accounts of what open questions about evolution are being pursued, by whom, and how.

Of course, you'll need to teach the kids a little more math than what we currently seem to regard as adequate. That would certainly be all to the good! Students aren't up to it? Balderdash. Ask and they'll give. What was I hearing about the bigotry of low expectations?

""Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt...

Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know....

...observation is the judge of whether something is so or not....

..."The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong....

...I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.....

....It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."

It is just more likely. That is all...

...Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool....

...I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean.

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries.

So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that.

God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me."" -Dr. Richard Feynman

Creationism can be discussed in the classroom.

But not in a scientific classroom because -IT'S PRIMARY ASSERTIONS CANNOT BE TESTED BY OBSERVATION OR EXPERIMENT!

Truths are easily understood because they can be tested. Evolution has existed for 150 years already and yet scientists are still divided about it. WHY? Because it's an IDIOTIC doctrine.

Only IDIOTS believe in evolution. The best way to know if a person is a fool or not is to ask if he/she believes in evolution. If he/she answers YES, there's no doubt about it. That person is a GENUINE IDIOT.

Don't you guys know that no evolutionist can make a seed of any kind even if you give them the complete array of elements found in the periodic table? Don't you guys know that not a single seed found in nature can evolve into another seed?

IDIOTS!!

To be fair then, Sunday school teachers must also teach evolution. The priest in his Sunday sermon must also say that Jesus the son of God evolved from the ape that got the forgiveness gene and not the selfish gene. The priest will have to explain that the physiology of spiritual insemination could provide difficulties for preventative sex education because should we produce a plethora of holy and sanctified girls (read virgins), these girls will by Republican leadership be forced to hide the fact that they had sex and got impregnated by God should the occasion arise—lest they be found guilty of blasphemy (I suppose then we will have to burn them at the stake). In fact a holy mother would provide a serious problem for the religious because the entire beliefs of Christ were counter to the teachings of Judaism and thus Mary could easily have been killed for failing to deny God—God’s right to inseminate whoever and whenever is probably not part of legal studies at our Universities either but since we have to have creation in biology—“Kids Chicks come from the rib bone of Adam then at Yale and Harvard law it will be necessary to deal with rape verse divine intercourse—in preparatory for the outcome of sexual encounter between a mortal woman and the Lord Almighty—in case she claims “rape” and demands legal action be taken and just imagine the judge—will the defendant please take the stand—would make a good play if you have a thing for the absurd.

Fairy tales are interesting to hear especially for kids. I recommend that evolution be taught in kindergarten classes side by side with Humpty Dumpty and Jack n Jill.

Zoos are found around the world but even if you wait for a million years those tigers would still be tigers and those monkeys would still be monkeys. Evolve? Evolve your idiotic brains.

A fool is one who does not accept evolution as fact.

But it gets worse. Such a person is imprisoned in a box, and thinks that he has God imprisoned with him. He is too stupid to know that God is not contained, God cannot be contained. That poor individual thinks that God will throw bombs for him, and does not know that God is love, and loves all His children. Please pray for him.

A fact is something that can be tested. What is it in evolution that was tested? NONE, IDIOTS!

It's all a "MAYBE" science. Maybe we come from monkeys because some people look like monkeys. Maybe we come from monkeys because people like Arminius think like a monkey.

Maybe we come from monkeys because some Ape bones look similar to humans. Maybe, maybe , maybe. Now where are the LAB TESTS, IDIOTS?

It's the LACK OF TESTING that this theory remains the FAIRY TALE of all time beating the tale of Santa Claus.

" Now where are the LAB TESTS, IDIOTS?"

uhhhhh...here??:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.abstract

Hey genius, what is the "law of segregation?" How was it discovered?

Please go take a course in elementary science.
Then take one in manners.
Report back.

Doomsday is a sure thing to happen. I think it would be a silly thing if God creates something but these "somethings" act like idiots continually. They are "defective items" and naturally, any intelligent being won't allow a defective item to be roaming around spreading its stupidity.

It's a natural thing for them to be discarded. Im sorry guys but it's a sure thing that you folks are DOOMED.

In a few years, all of you evolutionists will evolve into DUST. The FAIRY TALE WILL BE OVER SOON.

Plaza04433,

You have just had a lesson on the idiocy and bigotry that is Spidey. Note that he did not answer your question - he never does, he just comes back with a hate-filled accusation and tries to change the subject.

Note that I am Christian. Spidey claims to be one, but he knows nothing about the Prince of Peace. He thinks that Christianity is "Who would Jesus bomb?".

plaza04433, what is it in that e-coli experiment, that you present as proof, has something to do with apes and humans? The e-coli were still e-coli in that experiment. Of course they can change into another strain but they are still e-coli, idiot.

What is it in the "law of segregation" which proves evolution? Heredity is a proof of creation and not evolution, idiot.

Arminius, stay there. I might be convince that reverse evolution is possible. That is when humans turn to apes. You are exhibit A.

Ooooh goody, another fulminator. What about the E Coli? Well if E Coli can evolve into another strain of E Coli, then Homo Erectus can evolve into another strain of primate. That is to say, Homo Erectus can evolve into *us*.

Get it? As for the zebras and the tigers in the zoo, their remote ancestors didn't look much like them either. Don't fret, you're not the only one who is hampered in comprehending the effect of running the same program for hundreds of millions of years.

After all, it's only been a short time now that human beings have been able to compete for survival based on their ability to reason. Your remote descendants will do better at it.

fzdybel "Well if E Coli can evolve into another strain of E Coli, then Homo Erectus can evolve into another strain of primate."

Who said so? In science and engineering, you don't make such a lousy conclusion.

you said "After all, it's only been a short time now that human beings have been able to compete for survival based on their ability to reason."

Oh really? Humans still eat fruits, meat and vegetables. What kind of reason is needed to do such a very simple task? Rationalizing how to plant a tree or climb a tree? Or is it how to eat using our teeth? Only idiots have that kind of problem. Have you figured it out already how ants find their food? In a given area, i'll bet that ants would find a small piece of bread faster than you would. Now who's more intelligent if that's the case? idiot.

fzdybel wrote "Well if E Coli can evolve into another strain of E Coli, then Homo Erectus can evolve into another strain of primate."

Who said so? In science and engineering, you don't make such a lousy conclusion.

you said "After all, it's only been a short time now that human beings have been able to compete for survival based on their ability to reason."

Oh really? Humans still eat fruits, meat and vegetables. What kind of reason is needed to do such a very simple task? Rationalizing how to plant a tree or climb a tree? Or is it how to eat using our teeth? Only idiots have that kind of problem. Have you figured it out already how ants find their food? In a given area, i'll bet that ants would find a small piece of bread faster than you would. Now who's more intelligent if that's the case? idiot.

Silly spidey, the ants are cellular automata. The issue of intelligence doesn't even arise.

And while primates have been killing each other since times primeval, only lately do they employ such sophisticated means as require, for example, to support the entirely abstract penetration of Quantum Mechanics. That is what I mean. Increasingly, our survival will depend on our ability to reason about what is quite beyond our direct experience or comprehension. You can chart the rise of this with the development of the first algebras.

Cheerio, silly little name-caller. Or should I say: "idiot?"

fzdybe,

Calling Spidey 'Idiot' does him credit. He is filled with hatred and bigotry, and walks in darkness. In a long life, I have never run across a more ignorant person.

We could combine the Science of Economics, World Religions (VooDoo), American Free to Me Market Capitalism, and Sex Education into a great 21st Century Cultural Survey course.

Explain the difference between a Golden Parachute, and a Golden Shower? Does this explanation alter your understanding of Trickle Down Economics? Just lay there and enjoy it.

"We could combine the Science of Economics, World Religions (VooDoo), American Free to Me Market Capitalism, and Sex Education into a great 21st Century Cultural Survey course."

Look for it in the high schools as an American History unit for Sophomores by 2090 at the latest, if we make it that far. The post-grads will get it much earlier than that, like any year now, and from there it will "trickle down." At that far remove when this stuff is taught in HS, there will be much amusement when the etymology of that fine phrase is explained, I predict. The kids probably won't get much more out of it than the present day lot get out of studying the Medieval Era.

You guys are well above my pay grade on this. I read an article about a year (maybe longer) ago in the NYTimes that said that there has never been proven that there is a link between home erectus and homo sapien. That was the first that I, an avid reader of 58 years, had heard that would challenge 'evolution'. Comment?

JAMES DOYLAN-
"My God (deliberate irony) but there are some idiots in this world. If you want to argue against a theory then, please please please, at least take the time to understand what you are arguing about."

Well- it was a sincere question, prefaced with my own admission of lack of knowledge in the matter-
you certainly don't have to call me an idiot-

you responded-
"Last century several hundred thousand experiments by several hundred thousand scientists put this matter to bed."

Ok- which experiments?

What kind of scientific mind makes fun of questions? There are no bad questions.

fzdybel wrote " Silly spidey, the ants are cellular automata. The issue of intelligence doesn't even arise. "

I hope we can have a simple experiment here. Let's put a tiny piece of bread somewhere in a given area. Use your "cellular automata" and try to compete with the ants to search for that bread.

Arminius, idiots flock together and whoever you ally yourself with, Im sure that guy is an idiot. It's understandable that you like fzdybel very well.

Creationists better be careful what they wish for. If they manage to cram their ludicrous fiction into science classes, the rest of us will insist that our made up stories get taught too. We'll have a good time with equally stupid fictional beliefs.

Which one sound more like fiction?

a) God created the universe.

b) The universe just formed itself. The "dusty universe" formed all intelligent beings from plants to animals and humans. In other words, a loud explosion (the big bang) was responsible for creating man. The "no-brain" created the "brain".

IDIOTS!!

Someone here wrote, "Which one sounds more like fiction? a) God created the universe, b) The universe just formed itself. The dusty universe formed all intelligent beings from plants to animals and humans..."

Well, the ability of stellar matter obeying physical laws to organize itself into increasingly complex structures (lifeforms) through mutation and natural selection is pretty well established, and we're learning the chemical and biological mechanisms by which this happens. Creationism (as opposed to evolution) is bust.

What's amazing though is that the universe exists at all, and also that our brains are conscious and able to experience qualitative sensations ("pain hurts"). If anything demonstrates God's existence it's not the evolution of life from inanimate matter. It's the fact that the universe and its physical laws exist at all, and that we are conscious. Science is not equipped to answer these questions. They lie in the realm of philosophy and religion. This particular philosopher believes that all these factors indicate the existence of a creative transcendent force, like God. To dispute this is a legitimate philosophical position, but not a scientific one.

I am surprised that Mr. Waters took that one line comment of Palin seriously. She was just babbling talking points. In fact, I would be surprised if Palin has spent more than 30 minutes in her entire life thinking about this issue. She exhibits an incurious mind that never gave any thought to the major governing issues of the day, even though she is a politician. The attempt to infer deep philosophic principles from her one line of talking point reminds of me the medieval theologians spending their lives trying to compute the number of angels sitting on a needle point from the Bible.

"two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." "Does that seem so difficult?"

Yes, if one form of true say the world is 13.7 billion years old and the other form says it is 6 thousand years old. Seems difficult to complement...

It seems that when we are in danger even the creationists accept evolution. When the avian flu crisis why Bush and many others made comments about how fast the virus mutate to become resistant, etc instead of saying "woow, how well design is this virus!"

Is there any creationist who can answer this: Did God created/designed the avian flu virus?

May be as a punishment for the chiken sinners!

I would have no problem with Creationism being taught in school. I think the perfect class would be "Comparative Creation Myths". This would be a class which teaches the creation myths of many religions, Christianity, Hinduisn, Islam, Shintoism, Budhism, etc., etc., etc.

The idea that God created the heavens and the earth can be taught right alongside the belief that the earth exists on the back of a giant turtle, swimming through the universe.

Scientific tenets classified as truth are based on verifiable, repeatable facts proven by the scientific method and subsequently challenged by the peer review process. Scientific facts are verified as true. Religious tenets are the product of tradition and rely on faith for their authority. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof. Belief without proof is merely opinion.

Evolution is verified scientific fact which enjoys continuing evidentiary verification. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not and shall never be verifiable fact. For all its virtues, any religious tenet is no more than opinion. The number of people who hold an opinion is immaterial to its actual status as truth. Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design as if they were similar to scientific thought proves a fundamental ignorance of what science is all about.

“We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different… forms of” thought.

Some folks should have spent more time studying paleontology and anthropology - and less time in bible studies. To imagine that homo sapiens is anything less than a direct descendent of some version of homo erectus just demonstrates the lack of a modern education.

Homo erectus, in turn, is clearly a direct descendent of the very early australopithecus and h. habilis. While h. erectus probably shared more in common with h. neaderthalis, it is likely that the phase changes resulting in h. sapiens are the result of a gradual evolutionary divergence away from the less successful line that terminated in Neanderthal man. We likely had a common ancestor.

Fossil evidence clearly shows h. erectus to have possessed the rudiments of society as an early hunter/gatherer culture, and much more so with the more recent but now extinct Neanderthal (with whom h. sapiens may or may not have cross-bred).

The implication that homo sapiens is somehow ontologically different from his earlier proto- human predecessors is pretty absurd, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And DNA is consistently similar throughout the modern hominid population, with chimps recapping over 98% of human DNA.

Everybody has an ancestor somewhere down the line - but extinct or not, they were all residents of Mother Earth, as far as we know.

As Ernst Haekel famously said, 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' - vis a vis a more modern understanding of this idea....which is a fundamental of evolutionary theory.

The universe is about 14 billion years old, earth is about 4 billion years old, and modern man is somewhere between 100-200 thousand years old. What's difficult about that? And why is this so unpalatable to certain religious believers?

Life and human life in particular is miraculous enough without crediting our existence to completely mythical & praeternatural origins.

Why is there something rather than nothing??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

webg wrote "Well, the ability of stellar matter obeying physical laws to organize itself into increasingly complex structures (lifeforms) through mutation and natural selection is pretty well established, and we're learning the chemical and biological mechanisms by which this happens. Creationism (as opposed to evolution) is bust."

Well, that statement is clearly an idiotic claim. If that is true, man will live forever and there's no more death.

The idiocy of these evolutionists are surprising. Their stupidity seems infinite.

Dear SPIDERMEAN2

A) doesnt work as an explanation because if god created universe, then who created god? You are just pushing the question to another domain, which you have no expertize about. Therefore it is not an explanation.

stephanemot :
Back then, Palin already used canned answers to dodge the key issues : "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum"

If you look at the core of the proposition, it means : stop making this teaching illegal, leave it up to the teacher.

Palin is not a closet evolutionist : she is a hardcore theocon, but a careful one. After the publication of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, no politician can promote ID without risking his/her career.

Palin perfectly illustrate the new creationist agenda : we have taken into account the failure of our Intelligent Design imposture, and we understand that we cannot be too pushy these days, but our priority is to make sure some door is somewhat opened for the next waves.

The only evolution Palin will ever accept is from democracy to theocracy. October 4, 2008 8:23 PM

Brakes tapered with, statetrooper report completed, keep building my case, thanks

I don't understand why we are talking so much about Creationism. Most people understand that Creationism is more of a scientific view of Creation. There is some science in it but is more of a religious belief.

The argument that most people are having is about Intelligent Design. This is purely scientific and does not deal with any religion or personal belief system directly. This theory can comfortable be taught as an alternative theory to Evolution. How you do that is a different story.

I am amazed that most people are still stuck on Creationism in sciece since most of it's proponents have moved on. I think people still harp on Creationism because they know Intelligent Design is an argument they can't win. Let's remind people that Intelligent Design is theories have plenty of Science behind them and we don't need to teach Creationism.

stephanemot : "Back then, Palin already used canned answers to dodge the key issues : "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum"

If you look at the core of the proposition, it means : stop making this teaching illegal, leave it up to the teacher.

Palin is not a closet evolutionist : she is a hardcore theocon, but a careful one. After the publication of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, no politician can promote ID without risking his/her career.

Palin perfectly illustrate the new creationist agenda : we have taken into account the failure of our Intelligent Design imposture, and we understand that we cannot be too pushy these days, but our priority is to make sure some door is somewhat opened for the next waves.

The only evolution Palin will ever accept is from democracy to theocracy." October 4, 2008 8:23 PM

Brakes tapered with, statetrooper report completed, keep building my case, thanks

Kert - please list your proofs of Intelligent Design & do not include initial conditions and/or universal constants. These do not constitute proof of ID.

While it is true that tolerances for these primal elements is very close indeed, this again does not constitute 'proof' of a creative intelligence at work - while there may be, but there is certainly nothing that constitutes empirical proof by scientific standards.

This is exactly why there are currently no credible astro-physicists supporting Intelligent Design in their cosmological preferences.

ID is also different from the anthropic view of cosmology, which attributes purpose to the cosmos without specifying a creative intelligence or design.

Even this position is widely disputed as being teleological - attributing purpose after the fact. Nevertheless, some physicists do hold to this 'weak' anthropic position.

Dear Fret

My objection applies to ID as well. If 'designer' introduced complexity into the world, who produced complexity in the designer? Why do you call this explanation for the emergence of complexity rather than hiding from the question?

Sry the preceding post is addressed to Kert1

You forget, Spidermean, that Jesus was an idiot too. Dude was raised in a desert and thought he was the son of God. So the guy who created the universe had a son so he could kill the son so he could be nicer? You are no Einstein yourself there, bucko.

ASTORIA:

JAMES DOYLAN (sic)-
"My God (deliberate irony) but there are some idiots in this world. If you want to argue against a theory then, please please please, at least take the time to understand what you are arguing about."

Well- it was a sincere question, prefaced with my own admission of lack of knowledge in the matter-
you certainly don't have to call me an idiot-

you responded-
"Last century several hundred thousand experiments by several hundred thousand scientists put this matter to bed."

Ok- which experiments?

What kind of scientific mind makes fun of questions? There are no bad questions.

________________________________________________

Sorry preshie - I was having a go at a purposeful idiot not you.

(Yes there are stupid questions - stupid questions are the ones asked as a form of declaration instead of a request for information. The problem I find with trying to argue with most creationists is that they are almost entirely a fact free zone. They ask questions with no intention of providing an answer with anything but contempt.)

As for hundreds of thousands of experiments - the whole field of evolutionary biology is built on scientific investigation. Type 'fruit-fly biology' into google and you will get access to thousands of pages of data demonstrating - beyond a shadow of a doubt - the model being advanced by the evolutionary paradigm.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

jimmykraktov :

You guys are well above my pay grade on this. I read an article about a year (maybe longer) ago in the NYTimes that said that there has never been proven that there is a link between home erectus and homo sapien. That was the first that I, an avid reader of 58 years, had heard that would challenge 'evolution'. Comment?
_____________________________________________

Hiya Jimmy,
My passion is human evolution and I saw the article you refer to. It was plain wrong. The evolutionary path from erectus to sapiens then sapiens sapiens has been documented in exhaustive detail. A series of skulls have been discovered over the last hundred years - primarily from sub-saharan africa - that demonstate a clear gradation from erectus to sapiens with no clear gap at all.

Persiflage -

You are entirely correct but unfortunately you are preaching to the choir because a fool like spidey just won't understand what you are talking about. In a reply to a similar article several months ago I tried to explain the concept that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny but all I got was drooling idiocy in reply.

In my opinion the best thing is to only reply to genuine requests for information and then keep the simple and provide it patiently. Remember a lot of these people have been brainwashed with a load of tripe for most of their lives.

kert1:

I don't understand why we are talking so much about Creationism. Most people understand that Creationism is more of a scientific view of Creation. There is some science in it but is more of a religious belief.

The argument that most people are having is about Intelligent Design. This is purely scientific and does not deal with any religion or personal belief system directly. This theory can comfortable be taught as an alternative theory to Evolution. How you do that is a different story.

I am amazed that most people are still stuck on Creationism in sciece (sic) since most of it's proponents have moved on. I think people still harp on Creationism because they know Intelligent Design is an argument they can't win. Let's remind people that Intelligent Design is theories have plenty of Science behind them and we don't need to teach Creationism.
_______________________________________________
ID is a crock of sh**.
Creationists have moved onto ID because they lost the first argument and thought it best to move onto another tactic. But even though it is a different tactic it is based on the same premise - ie that the world must have been created by God.
(Terrific scientific methodology by the way - first work out what you want to prove and then arrange the data to fit your model.)
The idea that complex forms cannot arise naturally is plain wrong.
ID is not science - it is mere religious assertion based entirely on wishful thinking and corrupted data.

jamesmoylan said,

"ID is a crock of sh**.
......
(Terrific scientific methodology by the way - first work out what you want to prove and then arrange the data to fit your model.)"

My reply: Bingo, 10 points, move to the head of the class. ID is the wolf of creationism in sheep's clothing. Loved your comment on the methodology - reminds me of that sad pseudo-religion, astrology.

By the way, I am a believer - a liberal one.

Hi Astoria - several responses follow.

Astoria wrote: "Now, this has occurred to me before-Why haven't mutations and handicaps not been bred out? I mean- why is the scientific assumption that the variations and selections be positive?"

Reread the observation - "beneficial characteristics" in this context are those that help the organism to survive long enough to reproduce. Characteristics that prevent an organism from surviving to reproduce obviously don't get passed on to offspring.

Astoria also wrote: "Shouldn't there be some observable trends in 150 years to support this theory? If the beneficial traits are passed on- why don't we see a spike in the intelligence levels of people?"

This assumes that intelligence is the only factor that influences whether or not we survive to reproduce. As a scientist - I am all for the "nerds are sexy" argument, but realistically there are other factors that come into play.

NOTSOGREATSCOTT-
I had to laugh not at you or what you said- but for some reason I immediately thought of Dr. Strangleove preaching to the choir about the desirable qualities required to continue the human race and the lamentable necessity of discarding of the monogamous relationship- :)

So, if we are strengthening these survior
characteristics by the evolutionary process- wouldn't we be less suspectible to disease, or see a discernible pattern in the births of children who reflected some adaptation of some sort or another?

(as a side note)When I look at George Bush 43- I wonder if there is a correlating de-evolution process. :)

JAMES MOYLAN- well thanks for your apology- they are rare here, sweetpotatopie-

but I have no interest in rhetorical questions- and dislike the sneakiness of their placement-

but, I have to say- I am not going to do your homework for you to prove your own point to myself-
so, I give the answer an 'unsatisfactory'.

your statement-
"first work out what you want to prove and then arrange the data to fit your model.)"

This is exactly my complaint about the explanations about evolution.
Science is not vague- it gives us specificty.
yet the answers given require a base of belief in the theory that I find mirrors ID.

EUREKA !!!, I FOUND IT !!

I always think that evolutionists are stupid. As an engineer, Im puzzled to think how dogs and cats evolved from "lower" forms of animals. First how do they classify a "lower form" of animal? Is the mosquito lower than the dog? I've seen mosquitos feeding off from dogs by sipping their blood. Which one among the two ranks higher then from the evolutionists' point of view?

This is a very simple question but I hope evolutionists should also start working on this one. How did dogs and cats evolved? Did they evolved from rats? I hope they can make a diagram similar to how they made drawings how man evolved from apes. Also please figure out how dogs started to bark? What is the evolution of their barking?

Im sure they don't have an asnwer for these questions. Who should we blame then? Their ape ancestors ? How did it happen that the so called "common ancestor" produced a talking descendant (human) and at the same time another descendant which cannot speak (apes) ? Was the "common ancestor" mumbling like a 1 year old baby (babakawabongga) ? Which one is dumber , the ape or the "common ancestor?

You know what? Just by asking these simple questions, I think I've discovered the "common ancestors". They are supposed to be the link between man and ape. They are dumber than man but smarter than apes. The "common ancestors" are the EVOLUTIONISTS. They are unusually DUMBER than the average thinking man and slightly more intelligent than apes. EUREKA !!!, I FOUND IT !!

Astoria/Victoria - you seem doubtful about the reality of the evolutionary process. Here's my two cents concerning the presence of genetic anomalies and failure to resist microrganisms. I'm no expert and not even a hobbiest when it comes to genetics.

Nature does not by intent create super-races that evolve super-resistent auto-immune systems free from these flaws -looks like we'll have to do that ourselves (not anytime soon, we hope). Over the next million years this could happen though - if we survive our psychic flaws (another matter altogether).

Micro-organisms mutate at a rate far beyond our systems's capacity to effectively resist by typically slow biologically adaptive processes. However, our auto-immune systems do very well indeed, if we keep our white count up (and we get our innoculations and flu shots). One big danger is when our own AI response turns on it's owner (you and me). We know those malevolent syndromes well.

Serious genetic anomalies that are associated with chromosomal defects affecting reproductive capacity are by and large fairly rare in large populations (some very rare indeed). Many with serious genetic flaws do not reproduce, and are statistically insignifant numbers-wise in terms of tainting gene pools - just my uneducated guess as a non-geneticist.

These genetic abberations don't disappear because they don't much matter to the survival of our species (which at 6 billion strong, is growing geometically apace, if my distant memories of Malthusian theory serves me right).

It would seem that modern man has not changed externally/structurally all that much since homo sapiens sapiens made his appearance over 100,000 years ago - the quality of cognition and consciousness may have changed, as we see in the evolution of human culture itself - and that is probably a co-mutual process.

For an interesting theorem of critical cognitive change processes and emerging self-awareness see Julian Jaynes - 'The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'. This huge development could have happened within the last 5000 years, according to Jaynes.

Anyway, we could all be wrong about this stuff.....

Astoria, do you have other ideas that would replace or enhance evolutionary theory and natural selection?

Spidey - read a book....or don't engineers with your job specifications ever do any light reading just for fun and personal enlightenment? By the way, what are your job specifications??

regards -

persiflage wrote "Nature does not by intent create super-races that evolve super-resistent auto-immune systems free from these flaws -looks like we'll have to do that ourselves (not anytime soon, we hope). Over the next million years this could happen though.

Are you a magician? What is your basis for that MILLION YEARS forecast? You're a funny man. Are you a comedian?

BAN SHORTSELLING !!

The stock market is shooting downward. Naturally, everybody should be saddened. But NO, not everyone. Who are these people? Who are they who profit from this downturn. It's the SHORTSELLERS. The government should realize that shortselling DEFIES NATURAL SCIENCE. It is an ABNORMALITY. Nobody should be allowed to sell things that are not theirs.

THIS IS THE CANCER THAT IS PLAGUING the stock market. It defies science and anything that defies science is HARMFUL. We are now reaping the bad fruits which SHORTSELLING sowed.

When a house is burning, everybody should grieve. If you see somebody who's overjoyed, Im sure HE/SHE IS THE ARSONIST. Shortsellers are the only people who are overjoyed now.

For as long as the "arsonists" are at large, people's money are NOT safe. LOCK THEM (shortsellers) UP BEFORE MORE HOUSES WOULD BURN. For as long as they are around, our money will not be safe in the bank. LOCK THEM UP SOON OR THE FIRE WON'T STOP.

These bailouts cannot continue forever. These water hoses would soon dry up. Stop the fire from it's source -- the SHORTSELLERS.

LET THEM BECOME USELESS (Taliban's rifles and land mines)

Obama was complaining why our military were air-raiding the vilages infested with Taliban and suggest that they do the raid by foot.

NO WONDER WE HAVE RISING AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN. Obama and Bush should be held accountable for the rising American casualties.

More Americans could die in Afghanistan if Obama becomes president. Like George Bush, this man is an AMATEUR.

The life of an American soldier is more precious than a hundred taliban sympathizers.

The talibans' shoulder weapons and mines are useless in the face of an air-raid. LET THEM BECOME USELESS. Don't send foot soldiers. ONLY PLANES.

Spiderman-
To continue with your mosquito analogy-
let me state that I am convinced my cats are superior to me.
I work. I shop. I bring them their food, toys and entertainment, and kitty litter.
When they go to the vet- I carry them on a litter like a proper servant.
They have not deigned to teach me their own private language, because- of my inferior mental capacity and status, all that is necessary for them to communicate their needs to me is a MEOW- and various small inflections-
for my purposes as their servant- it is not necessary for them to include me in their obviously superior mentations. I am sure they believe I would not understadn anyway.
When they are hungry, they meeeerooow at me and I obediently feed them on their own special china set. (I don't even have a dish set- only 2 dishes from the dollar store- less dishes- less dishwashing is my philosophy)
When they need to use the bathroom- I get on my knees and dispose of their waster for them.
They reward my services by laying around the house all day, purring condescendingly at me, and crowding me out of my bed.
I also think they believe that I must be like a bug, and tell themselves that I cannot feel pain- because they jump on my shoulder from the floor, and use their little claws to dig into my back to steady themselves.
Possibly they think I am yowling with joy because I am so thrilled by the attention they are giving me- so they do it often, they seem to like the screams I make.
Anything to keep them amused.

That is my theory of the evolution of cats.
It does not reflect well on my own development- but I feel it is necessary to warnthe world of this subtle rule we are subjected to.

But my little heart is brimming with subversive and revolutionary thoughts- and Ihope, maybe, one day- to spread the wor...
uh-oh- here comes TomTom-
I must submit this before he can read it

SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!

PERSIFLAGE-
1. light, bantering talk or writing.
2. a frivolous or flippant style of treating a subject.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the new word.

I have been posting as Victoria-
and thanks for the reasoned responses- I really appreciate them.

"Astoria, do you have other ideas that would replace or enhance evolutionary theory and natural selection?"

No, but then again, I have never thought about it- I've been a little repulsed by the vehemence with which the subject is approached.

Maybe I'll think about it now- but I hold no great hope that such thought will produce any great results.

Also, the cats have drilled into my head that thinking is bad for me- it ineterferes with my docile servile duties.
Maybe I will try it. Thinking. Hmmmm.:)

SPIDEY - I was thinking that over the next million years one of several things would have happened. Here are some possibilities: we would long since have perfected our genetic engineering skills, Mother Nature would have evolved a more perfect disease-resistent human, we'd all be living inside large plastic sterile air bubbles, or we'd all be dead and gone.

There are the remote possibilities that we'd have blasted off for parts unknown in as yet to be developed space ships, or that the celestial gardeners that originally sowed the 'alien seeds' that became us, would stop by to harvest the crop.

I'm thinking now of that early science fiction movie from about 40 years ago called 'To Serve Man'. After landing in the typical cylindrical spacespip, the aliens proved to be very friendly and spoke a mechanical kind of perfectly understandable English - highly evolved creatures that they were.

At first, folks thought that the welcoming gift of a sizable alien tome was some sort of extra-terrestrial bible that outlined the generous and exceedingly humble plan of said alien visitors to be of service to mankind, as it was entitled 'To Serve Man'.

The earthlings assumed that the reason for their finally making human contact was obvious (given our usual sense of self-importance). The theme of bonding between humans and alien visitors continued throughout the movie in various ways.

But alas their intentions had been completely mis-interpreted - sometime during the last minutes of the movie enough of the peculiar and highly cryptic alien language was deciphered. Just enough to tell that what they had delivered was actually a cookbook.

So we need to be very careful in the future, because sometimes we get what we wish for.

PS. Would your engineering skills be of any assistance in achieving any of the above goals?

Astoria/Victoria - I for one would never leave Mother Earth without the company of katz. While dogz are man's best friend, katz are the soul's best friend.

And we know that the soul is always of the female gender, spiritually speaking....regardless of what kind of body she resides in here on earth. I will have to try and remember my poem concerning katz one of these days......

regards -

Persiflage-
That was a Twilight Zone episode-
I saw a Simpson's episode one time that played off of it, with a twist- where the aliens took the Simpsons aboard and fed them like kings- until one day one of them (Homer I think) got suspicious that they were being fattened up to be eaten- and confronted them- and they gave a little speech about how they really were there to be of service to man- but man was too selfish and greedy and not ready. :)

Here is one I loved as a kid- by Rosalie Moore
Catalogue

Cats sleep fat and walk thin.
Cats, when they sleep, slump;
When they walk, pull in-
- And where the plump's been,
there's skin.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**
Cats walk thin.
Cats wait in a lump. Jump in a streak
. Cats, when they jump, are sleek
As a grape slipping its skin --
They have technique.
Oh, cats don't creak. They sneak.
Cats sleep fat.
They spread comfort beneath them
Like a good mat,
As if they picked the place
And then sat.
You walk around one
As if he were the City Hall after that.

**(You dont know where HE'S been)

For some reason, my little mind inserted a line in there that I have recently discovered is not in there-
while true- only existed in my mind-

Also, SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH is from Douglass Adams Hitchhikers guide to the universe- where, unbeknownst to mankind- the dolphins had been ruling the earth for some time, and when they left, en masse- that was their goodbye.
I am a veritable fountain of obscure references and non-marketable skills.

Astoria/Victoria - how well I remember the Twilight Zone. Never missed it. Interesting how that genre of programming has made a re-appearance in a big way, but with more psychic and horror sci fi twists. I watch TV but not with the same enthusiasm of 40 years ago - much less the transcendent joy of the early days back in the 50's!

TZ host/producer Rod Serling was one of a kind but alas, smoked one too many cigarettes....which is what got him in the end.

I was always glad to have been young at that time in history - being young today invokes no envy from this old timer!

PS. I always enjoy other people's cats......

Astoria wrote: "So, if we are strengthening these survior characteristics by the evolutionary process- wouldn't we be less suspectible to disease, or see a discernible pattern in the births of children who reflected some adaptation of some sort or another?"

As if he heard your question - see info on Steve Jones' lecture the other day at:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/humanevolution

I'm not sure I completely agree with his conclusions, but he gives some insight into the difficulty in picking up the kinds of trends you asked looking for.

Basically his premise is that globalization and technology have improved our survival rate to an extent that currently suppresses the impact that selection would otherwise impose on our species.

Spidey,

"Im puzzled to think how dogs and cats evolved from "lower" forms of animals."

Both modern cats and dogs evolved from more primitive (basal) forms/organisms, though they each evolved on different evolutionary branches, but both stem from the Order known as 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora'. Modern dogs evolved from a group of organisms closely related to today's modern Wolves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

Modern cats belong to the biological group Family known 'Felidae' from which they and other living cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs and all others evolved from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae

"How did dogs and cats evolved?"

The same way all organisms evolve, the genetics of the population varies with each generation via mutations and DNA recombination (sex) resulting in new traits which natural selection can then act on.

"I hope they can make a diagram similar to how they made drawings how man evolved from apes."

I can do a step better, how about a video presentation of the fossils demonstrating it? Refer to works cited for details.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

If the fossils don't do it for you, have a review of some genetic evidence.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

"How did it happen that the so called "common ancestor" produced a talking descendant (human) and at the same time another descendant which cannot speak (apes)?"

We Humans developed the capacity by elongation and modification of our throat, they lack this, so they can scream and yell verbally but they can't speak in coherent form.

Spidey,

For someone who habitually runs others down by inferring them to be 'idiots', your rhetorical questions on evolution do make one wonder if you haven't looked in the mirror lately.

"A fact is something that can be tested. What is it in evolution that was tested? NONE, IDIOTS!"

The facts of evolution support the evolutionary theory/model, therefore these facts allow for scientists to then make falsifiable predictions accordingly which can either refute or support the theory/model further. One such prediction is related to how evolutionary theory predicts that lobe finned fish grew primitive limbs and became tetrapods.

For evolution to be true there must be evidence for this proposition and more importantly the evidence in fossils must bridge the gap between the lobe finned fish (which lived around 380 million years ago) and the first amphibious tetrapods (which lived around 360 million years ago). Thus, evolution makes a prediction that in the geologic column, if evolution is true, we should find species which bridges the gap in the time between 380 and 360 million years ago as such a transition from water to land would have been epic.

So, is there evidence? Yes, many fossils in fact, all in succession in the order we'd expect if evolution was true. Here they are:Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Eliginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpoton, Greererpteton, Tulerpeton. For references, refer to 'Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters' -Prothero

How would you define something like Tiktaalik, but as an intermediate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Spidermean,

"Evolutionists always talk about "natural selection". Engineers normally ask :

"1. What is it? "2. What are the processes involved in a natural selection?""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"3. Is it a DNA transformation?"

NS, along with per generation genetic mutations, gene flow, genetic drifting and others are all part of DNA transformation. NS in itself is not the transformation of DNA, NS is merely the action or end result of given variation of DNA in a population and those which possess the most favorable traits & genes are more likely to reproduce compared to those who don't posses them and thus it's a process of preservation of beneficial (or at least not harmfull) traits, to simplify it.

"4. If it is, where is the lab test that shows that transformation?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

CCR5 mutation is a unique gene mutation related to the T-cell bonding process and those which have this mutations are essentially immune to HIV bonding as a result. Some 9% of Scandinavians posses this mutation.

"Engineers like me think this way. IDIOTS are not capable of thinking."

We are all ignorant of things to some degree, but you protest too much, you need not expose yourself any further. Pick up a few books on biology, genetics, paleontology and then you'll appreciate why being an Engineer is utterly meaningless to understanding the evolutionary processes.

ASTORIA,

"Fossil records of a transition specimen?"

Which transitions shall we discuss? Lobe finned fish to amphibians tetrapods? - Tiktaalik. Small deer sized Ungulates to modern whales/cetaceans? - Ambulocetus. Small Theropod dinosaurs to birds? - Archeopteryx. Reptiles to mammals? Primitive apes to modern humans?

"Why haven't mutations and handicaps not been bred out?'

Relative to the genectic composition (gene pool) in a population they generally they are. However, mutations in themselves are per generational and thus even in a very diverse and genetically healthy gene pool mutations can and do occur resulting handicaps on rare occasions. Obviously, such a trait which doesn't aid in fitness reduces the overall likely hood of propagating ones genes further. Thus, NS ensures only the best fit genes and and thus individuals are able to propagate again and again.

These handicapped, or relatively less fit, individuals though are not as fit relative to others so they lose out in propagating their genes via differential reproduction.

"why is the scientific assumption that the variations and selections be positive?"

The variations (mutations) are almost virtually always neutral, though a small % are beneficial or harmful. For instance in humans, here' is how they break down.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/156/1/297.pdf

As it appears, in humans at least, mutations are 98% of the time neutral or silent, though the added fitness of such a mutation is contingent on the environment, refer to CCR5 mutation for this.

"What may be a logical fact to Mr. Majerus, is not necessarily so obvious to to others-"

To most evolution is obscure, but not b/c it's like quantum mechanics or relativity which are on face value generally not very logical either. The details is where the logical explanations arise though. Rather they are ignorant of evolution for they haven't read much of anything on it.

"Shouldn't there be some observable trends in 150 years to support this theory?"

Sure, and there are. Everything from bacteria immunity to antibiotics, to insects which become resistant to pesticides and plants which become immune to herbicides.

"If the beneficial traits are passed on- why don't we see a spike in the intelligence levels of people?"

Traditionally, the less intelligent have always out reproduced those of lower intelligence....heck, it even goes on today as in the 3d world. Though, an IQ or intelligence isn't just capacity, it's access to knowledge and so not everyone is able to understand relativity, or quantum mechanics for the simple reason that most people aren't geniuses, but rather fall in the middle of the Bell Curve.

GreatScott- so evolution has outlived it's usefulness?
Good! We can stop fighting about it then. (I know, we''ll find something new to fight about- but a girl can dream, can't she?)
And e are already in Utopia?
I suspected as much.

Agentorange- Thanks for the effort (I guess).

This Estimate of the Mutation Rate on Nucloetides in Humans-

While certainly impressive- I don't know what the frenchy french the charts signify- or what impact it has anyway.

It said we should see a large decrease in the relative fitness in some form, and then goes on to say that from this study a deiterious mutation is likely.
Likely is not conclusive.
( I only read the last page- )

What is NS?

"The details is where the logical explanations arise though.

OK by me- what are they?

Logical explanation I can live with.

Modern humans and backwards- that seems the logical step to work backwards from modern man.

I am no more informed by your post than I was before reading it.

And it says that the tiktaalik couldn't suppot it's weigth and didn't walk-
I don't understand alot of what you've written- or what conclusions if any, may or may not be reached.

This nylon eating bacteria- are you suggesting that nature is evolving and adapting to modern inventions and intrusions on its environment?

Please speak to me as if you were speaking to a very very simpleminded child.
Thanks!

ASTORIA,

"This Estimate of the Mutation Rate on Nucloetides in Humans- While certainly impressive- I don't know what the frenchy french the charts signify- or what impact it has anyway."

It is a preemptive strike if you will, against the often wrong notion that 'mutations are always bad/harmful' or can't provide new information, this is a common misunderstanding. Some who don't understand evolution equate mutations as only being harmfull and thus negates evolution as a process, so my intent was on showing that virtually all mutations are in fact neutral/silent and avoid getting off on the wrong foot.

And they (mutations) would have to be neutral/silent if you think about it. There's a difference between mitotic (regular cell division) and meiotic (sexual division) mutations. For example, we would never know the actual malevolent mutation rates in meiotic lines, as the zygotes (prior to embryos) would never develop!

"What is NS?" - Natural Selection.

"It said we should see a large decrease in the relative fitness in some form, and then goes on to say that from this study a deleterious mutation is likely. Likely is not conclusive."

Not quite, read the whole article, it outlines how most mutations are neutral/silent. One way you'd see a decrease in the relative fitness would be if other individuals in the population got the lucky mutation which is beneficial thus making others less relatively fit. 'Fitness' is always relative and contingent on the ecology and other factors.

Nachman and Crowell - 2000. 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious (harmful) mutations per generation 3, (1.72 percent). I've seen a figure of 98 percent of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28 percent are beneficial.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/297

"OK by me- what are they? "

You can't expect me to explain all the principles, processes, mechanisms, and details here, but I can provide texts, articles, and sources for your own review. Evolution is fairly straight forward, but it's Science and so it can't really be 'dumbed down', it requires reading, researching and some gumption on part of the reader. Here are some texts on evolution I would recommended to familiarize yourself with the concepts, evidence and processes.

1) 'Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters' - Prothero

2)'Encyclopedia of Evolution' - Rice

3)'From Lucy to Language' (expanded version)- Johanson

4)'Making of the Fittest' - Carroll

5)' Finding Darwin's God' Miller

If you have a particular detail of evolution you would like to target, by all means specify and lets see what we can do. =)

"Modern humans and backwards- that seems the logical step to work backwards from modern man"

I created some vids on just this, but it's from primitive apes to modern humans, let me know what you think/objections and review cited sources for questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

"And it says that the tiktaalik couldn't suppot it's weigth and didn't walk-"

These transitional species like Tiktaalik didn't need to walk long distances, their limbs were mostly used to essentially scoot across the shallows of ponds/lakes and such, also in water their buoyancy would provide aid in supporting its weight.

These modified limbs would also be serviceable in providing some crude locomotion from one body of water to another, so in situations where the ecology changes and only those with this trait would be most likely to reproduce as they had a means to move to another body of water where resources would be more plentiful.

Mud skippers, lungfish and others manage to do just this and they have less of a limb then Tiktaalik did.

Walking is relative, and it certainly wouldn't be walking in the typical sense, it's range of motion was too short and not equipped to remain out of water indefinitely, so the use for these limbs were limited to just scampering from pond to pond and little else.

"This nylon eating bacteria- are you suggesting that nature is evolving and adapting to modern inventions and intrusions on its environment?"

Yes, that is basically the principle of evolution. The only constant is chance. Either the organisms adapt and reproduce as the environment changes, or they go extinct.

Astoria,

"Actually, teaching the weakness of evolution is not a bad idea. Scientists who question evolution as a scientific fact do not replace evolution with creationism."

The difference is in grade school the kids don't understand the principle of science in general, let alone the supportive evidence for a theory/model. No science is every taught with a 'strengths and weaknesses' premise, they are always taught according to supportive evidence and frankly evolutionary theory shouldn't be singled out.

"Scientists disagree about evolution- not for philisophical reasons, but because there is a sparsity of physical evidence to support the theory."

I am not sure if others retorted on this, but either you're not aware of the ongoing debates in evolution, or you're unaware of all the physical evidence for it.

They don't disagree on the model/theory itself, , nor on the evidence, but instead on the more finer points (like gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium) and which of these best explain the evidence.

"Teaching critical thinking is a plus and positive thing."

Generally yes it is, though in classes there is little time to critically analyze every detail. Grade schools should consist of introduction of supportive evidence at the very least.

Evolution seems to be taught as fact, I know when I went to school it was presented that way.

It's taught as both theory & fact. There is a evolution the process (the facts) and evolutionary theory (the model/theory explaining the facts consistently).

"But it is not, it is a theory that is still not satisfactorily and scientifically proven."

Nor will it ever be, science theories never become 'science facts', this isn't how science works.

Revisiting old theories has led to a veritable revolution in the field of physics.

"And if it can be scientifically proven- it will be!"

It can't be, but regarding all the supportive independent lines of evidence which are consistent, it's logically conclusive that it occurred beyond any reasonable doubt.

Astoria,

"Has anyone her actually read Darwin's The Origin of the Species?"

Yes, and on audio books (which is free BTW), apparently you've not read it though.

Even Charles himself prefaces his own work with doubting questions, and points out his own weaknesses in his own theories thoughout the work."

Ugggggh. Darwin, like all good scientists thought it would make sense to list and define the most objectionable reasons how one could refute his theory of evolution via natural selection. Having doubts is natural, he's being skeptical about his own view and draws out how one could refute his theory.

Part of this outlining of objections was to then deliver the solution to such objections, one instance is with reference to the evolution of the eye. He in the beginning begged how it seemed entirely impossible....unless, the eye were to evolve along short and successive changes. It was like a figurative sucker punch

So far, 150 years later, it's still going strong.

And FYI, Einstein and plenty of other well reputable scientists have at times doubted their own ideas.