'Teach the Controversy'
I don't really have much to add to this debate. I was always laughing about creationists, but after hearing some of their objections to certain (not all) elements of evolutionary theory, and looking into it, I found that there were big gaps in the theory. Talking about a moth, or a finch adapting, is not what most people think of when they think of evolution of species. Most people are thinking about this kind of thing......
....but it is a certain kind of science fiction really.
That doesn't mean to say that Biblical literalists should be let off the hook easily either.
....but it is a certain kind of science fiction really.
That doesn't mean to say that Biblical literalists should be let off the hook easily either.
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
Totally agreed MM.
That is why individuals need to take the time to check it out, especially if you are a teacher guiding young minds. You need to hold a defensible position. Throwing moths and fish that are just moths and fish at people is hardly a basis for convincing any thinking person that evolution is at work over intelligent design. On the contrary, it is the evidence for intelligent design that is overwhelming. Just as the designer of fine silverware uses a hallmark or makers' mark to identify their work, we have unique features such as fingerprints or DNA that point to design.
From Wikipedia:
Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[5] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual. The flexibility of friction ridge skin means that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same hand may be slightly different.
From:http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... cation.php
Use of DNA in Identification
The following is an excerpt from a talk given by Dr. Eric S. Lander at the "Winding Your Way through DNA" symposium, which took place at the University of California San Francisco in 1992. At the time he gave this talk, Dr. Lander was a professor in the Department of Biology at MIT and the Director of the MIT Center for Genome Research.)
Excerpted from the symposium transcripts with permission of the University of California, San Francisco.
In the introduction to Dr. Lander's talk, he refers to the variations in DNA coding among human beings. . . .
Dr. Lander: How much spelling difference is there? Well, there is almost complete identity between any two human beings. Look at the neighbor to your left and to your right. You're 99.9% identical. That should make you feel very common, part of a common species. But of course, in a genome of three billion letters, even a tenth of a percent difference translates into three million separate spelling differences. And so I invite you again to look to the left and look to the right and notice how unique you are. There is no one in this audience who has the same DNA sequence as anyone else.
And indeed, your DNA sequence is unique amongst all DNA sequences of any human that has ever lived and will live for quite some time to come. Unless you have an identical twin, in which case you do have someone who has the same DNA sequence. But apart from that, your DNA sequence is yours and yours alone. Should you choose to leave your DNA sequence behind here in some form in some biological tissue, in principle, I ought to be able to look at it and by its uniqueness know whose it is.
That is why individuals need to take the time to check it out, especially if you are a teacher guiding young minds. You need to hold a defensible position. Throwing moths and fish that are just moths and fish at people is hardly a basis for convincing any thinking person that evolution is at work over intelligent design. On the contrary, it is the evidence for intelligent design that is overwhelming. Just as the designer of fine silverware uses a hallmark or makers' mark to identify their work, we have unique features such as fingerprints or DNA that point to design.
From Wikipedia:
Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[5] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual. The flexibility of friction ridge skin means that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same hand may be slightly different.
From:http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... cation.php
Use of DNA in Identification
The following is an excerpt from a talk given by Dr. Eric S. Lander at the "Winding Your Way through DNA" symposium, which took place at the University of California San Francisco in 1992. At the time he gave this talk, Dr. Lander was a professor in the Department of Biology at MIT and the Director of the MIT Center for Genome Research.)
Excerpted from the symposium transcripts with permission of the University of California, San Francisco.
In the introduction to Dr. Lander's talk, he refers to the variations in DNA coding among human beings. . . .
Dr. Lander: How much spelling difference is there? Well, there is almost complete identity between any two human beings. Look at the neighbor to your left and to your right. You're 99.9% identical. That should make you feel very common, part of a common species. But of course, in a genome of three billion letters, even a tenth of a percent difference translates into three million separate spelling differences. And so I invite you again to look to the left and look to the right and notice how unique you are. There is no one in this audience who has the same DNA sequence as anyone else.
And indeed, your DNA sequence is unique amongst all DNA sequences of any human that has ever lived and will live for quite some time to come. Unless you have an identical twin, in which case you do have someone who has the same DNA sequence. But apart from that, your DNA sequence is yours and yours alone. Should you choose to leave your DNA sequence behind here in some form in some biological tissue, in principle, I ought to be able to look at it and by its uniqueness know whose it is.
Actually I should add that the Creationists main reason for objecting to evolution of species, age of planet, and dinosaurs etc becoming extinct before humanity makes an appearance on earth, is due to the incompatibility of this with the doctrine of 'original sin'. According to the doctrine of original sin, all suffering and death in the world began with Adam and Eve disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
If there was death already in the world before humanity, then this doctrine is a fallacy.
Now the question needs to be asked, are Creationists being selective in their choice of scientific data, or selective in interpreting the data in order to defend their position? If they are, then it is pseudo science. By the same token, does popular science jump its conclusions beyond the available scientific data? If they do, then that to is pseudo science.
For me the study of tectonic plate movement is enough to convince me that the world is very old. But although I accept evolutionary theory broadly speaking (there are several categories) I'm not convinced about some of the stuff I took for granted as a kid. The creationists have been successful in planting the seed of doubt. The reason they have had success in doing so, is that I have never seen a good rebuttal of the following argument.
At what point in time does a major mutation become a useful adaptation? In the transitional period, such a mutation is as useful as tits on a boar pig, and far more cumbersome and possibly detrimental to the chances of survival. Yet in order for a human to evolve from a single celled organism, there are going to countless stages of mutation occurring. Mutation has a great chance of making a creature more vulnerable.
By the way, a poster commented before about the order of creation in the book of Genesis. Number of literal days aside, what is your objection to the order of events as given in Genesis 1? It's looking pretty good to me, given the age of the story, and the lack of scientific data available to the author. It even has plants appearing on the surface of the planet, before the stars, moon and sun are visible. I assume this is because plants are needed to clear the atmosphere, and that the moon and sun were not visible (although light was) before this happened. Birds and fish exist before mammals....is this the same as scientific theory or not?
Anyway, I'm in the deistic evolutionary camp. Sceptical of aspects of both sides of the argument, and doubtful if anyone will be able to sway me one way or the other.
If there was death already in the world before humanity, then this doctrine is a fallacy.
Now the question needs to be asked, are Creationists being selective in their choice of scientific data, or selective in interpreting the data in order to defend their position? If they are, then it is pseudo science. By the same token, does popular science jump its conclusions beyond the available scientific data? If they do, then that to is pseudo science.
For me the study of tectonic plate movement is enough to convince me that the world is very old. But although I accept evolutionary theory broadly speaking (there are several categories) I'm not convinced about some of the stuff I took for granted as a kid. The creationists have been successful in planting the seed of doubt. The reason they have had success in doing so, is that I have never seen a good rebuttal of the following argument.
At what point in time does a major mutation become a useful adaptation? In the transitional period, such a mutation is as useful as tits on a boar pig, and far more cumbersome and possibly detrimental to the chances of survival. Yet in order for a human to evolve from a single celled organism, there are going to countless stages of mutation occurring. Mutation has a great chance of making a creature more vulnerable.
By the way, a poster commented before about the order of creation in the book of Genesis. Number of literal days aside, what is your objection to the order of events as given in Genesis 1? It's looking pretty good to me, given the age of the story, and the lack of scientific data available to the author. It even has plants appearing on the surface of the planet, before the stars, moon and sun are visible. I assume this is because plants are needed to clear the atmosphere, and that the moon and sun were not visible (although light was) before this happened. Birds and fish exist before mammals....is this the same as scientific theory or not?
Anyway, I'm in the deistic evolutionary camp. Sceptical of aspects of both sides of the argument, and doubtful if anyone will be able to sway me one way or the other.
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
It does really.KL&fool wrote:Yes, whichever way we look at it, it always comes back to the question of the 'Prime Mover'.
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
An Earth thats 5,000 years old, a universe so immense yet so inhospitable to human life and what if life is discovered on another planet in a few hundred years down the line?
Intelligent design: Who designed the designer?
Intelligent design: Who designed the designer?
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
Indeed. The 'Prime Mover' isn't the answer; it's just another question.Ira_Hayes wrote:Intelligent design: Who designed the designer?
I came, I argued, I'm out
How is it the same. It is not that the moths themselves adapt, but that the population of children do.No surprises there at all, just like people, animals adapt to their surroundings be it extreme cold or extreme heat, they continue being the same animal.
If you go to Africa you won't suddenly become black. Although you might get a dark tan, but your kids will still be completely white, not black.
Does it? Did HE provide grow lights in the meantime?what is your objection to the order of events as given in Genesis 1? It's looking pretty good to me, given the age of the story, and the lack of scientific data available to the author. It even has plants appearing on the surface of the planet, before the stars, moon and sun are visible.
Google preadaptation. I think there was also news just this year about the observed evolution of proto-eyes or something too. Even a single light-detecting cell is better than nothing at all.At what point in time does a major mutation become a useful adaptation? In the transitional period, such a mutation is as useful as tits on a boar pig, and far more cumbersome and possibly detrimental to the chances of survival. Yet in order for a human to evolve from a single celled organism, there are going to countless stages of mutation occurring. Mutation has a great chance of making a creature more vulnerable.
Yes, lots of mutations are required. Very many go wrong. But when you have a billion years, and trillions of experiments running simultaneously....
Speaking of tits on bores, If God is such an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Or women have clitorae? Etc.
Evolution is subtle and full of difficulty, it's no surprise that some people here clearly don't understand it, but a great pity you're missing out.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
I think I'll conclude my participation in this discussion by repeating this statement. When presented with irrefutable evidence such as pepper moths that have adapted to their unique environment through genetic change as a result of mutations that provide a higher survival rate due to their ability to camoflage, NC is saying "it's still a moth, hence not evolution". When you expect evolution to result in a human giving birth to a mermaid, no, you won't find it. But similarly, there's no more point to my arguing with you about it since you don't comprehend it. Same with Cambod, looks like the school system has failed you in terms of getting you to understand the basics of the scientific method.Ant. wrote:Evolution is subtle and full of difficulty, it's no surprise that some people here clearly don't understand it, but a great pity you're missing out.
The "intelligent design" argument is at least worth having, since it accepts the evidence that has been compiled about science and evolution but simply questions where it all came from. Unfortunately, it's an argument whose answer will never be determined unless you find yourself talking with St. Peter at some version of the pearly gates or, in my case, discussing my daily torture with Beelzebub.
Many thanks, KLNasty Canasta wrote:Well that's good to hear. Hopefully he's got an open mind and he won't attempt to close the minds of his students.KL&fool wrote:He is an educator and a damn good one.
Nasty, you really haven't been paying much attention to my posts.
I've said throughout that a balanced and informed view of all sides needs to be presented independently of the personal beliefs of the teacher and in classes where each way of thought is not in direct contradiction/confrontation with another over the same topic.
And that's exactly what I do in as far as I need to, as I've said in this thread. I'm a language teacher not a Science or RE teacher.
I've seen one.MoodyMac wrote:I have never seen a good rebuttal of the following argument.At what point in time does a major mutation become a useful adaptation? In the transitional period, such a mutation is as useful as tits on a boar pig, and far more cumbersome and possibly detrimental to the chances of survival. Yet in order for a human to evolve from a single celled organism, there are going to countless stages of mutation occurring. Mutation has a great chance of making a creature more vulnerable.
It states that diversity appears at times of plenty, and during following hard times, only some of the creatures from the diverse ecology survive - due to their adaptations. It's not so much about changing in a generation to fit an available niche, but more about opportunity allowing adaptation, then lack of opportunity providing a "cull" of any and all who don't fit the new environmental requirements.
During the time of plenty, adaptations are not cumbersome as they are suited to that current environment. The countless stages of mutation take place in situations that allow for them, so don't make a creature more vulnerable - the changes help the creatures in some way.. until that is a change in environment/ecosystem comes about.
The fish mentioned in the Congo river link are an example.
Give me a while and I'll try to dig up a link.
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
I'm not even going to get involved with this ridiculous argument, but am I the only person who has noticed that the most obvious whore-monger posters on this board also happen to be the most moralistic? Isn't there a slight contradiction there or am I missing something?
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
???Lucky Lucan wrote:I'm not even going to get involved with this ridiculous argument, but am I the only person who has noticed that the most obvious whore-monger posters on this board also happen to be the most moralistic? Isn't there a slight contradiction there or am I missing something?
I'm missing something.
Or maybe I'm not....
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
You're not missing anything MoodyMac, you seem to be quite consistent, I was thinking of another poster.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Canadian Nonce Lawyer Fled to Teach in Cambodia
by Bong Burgundy » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:41 am » in Cambodia News - 2 Replies
- 1152 Views
-
Last post by tombraider
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:03 pm
-
-
-
Teach your children, nephews, cousins, extended family to swin.
by scoffer » Sat May 23, 2020 4:31 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 13 Replies
- 2526 Views
-
Last post by rektj00
Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:42 am
-