Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Wagnon: Evolution will return to state board agenda

New board is seated Jan. 9

December 13, 2006

Advertisement

— When the new State Board of Education is sworn into office next month, one of the first items on its agenda will be evolution.

At least that is according to board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat from Topeka, who is expected to become chairman of the board when a 6-4 moderate majority is seated Jan. 9.

Wagnon, whose district includes Lawrence, said today that the new board will be briefed at its first meeting on the current science standards that criticize evolution and were approved in 2005 by the existing 6-4 conservative majority on the board.

And the new board will be briefed on science standards that support evolution, which were developed by a committee of scientists and teachers.

"It's likely we'll have a discussion of the proposal and act on it in February," Wagnon said.

When Wagnon brought the matter up during today's final meeting of the 6-4 conservative board, several conservatives protested.

Board members John Bacon, Kathy Martin and Ken Willard objected to bringing the issue up again, saying the current science standards are sound.

Comments

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr said, "(Ahh, you mean like the "homosexual gene" - If it were a gene rather than a choice?)"


Ah, you're also a homophobe. Colour me surprised. Like most religious homophobes, you don't know the current research on homosexuality. It's obviously not a "choice". That was discarded (for dreadfully obvious reasons) long ago. It's not, per se, a gene either, although genes seem to be a factor. It's developmental, in the womb or shortly after. There may be genes that increase the chances those with them will "develop" a homosexual preference, but having the genes don't guarantee you'll be gay. And not having them don't guarantee you'll be straight. They just seem to increase the chance.

Nor does being gay necessarily remove you from the gene pool. Especially in more homophobic societies where they are pressured to remain in stealth ("in the closet"), and marry and have kids...

However, they are LESS likely to have kids, especially in a more mature society who treats them as equal human beings, without persecution.

But since it's developmental, not strictly "genetic", there is no "gay gene" that would be filtered out by natural selection. Even the genes that may be a factor are often present in their heterosexual brothers and sisters also.

And our study of evolution has shown that not every member of a population has to be a breeding member, either. Sometimes there's an evolutionary benefit to some NOT reproducing, not having their own kids. From insect species with infertile workers helping the breeding members (thus increasing their chances of surviving and having offspring), to yes, gay people who are less likely to have their own kids and thus tend to have more time to help out their families, help them raise their kids well, etc.

Although I realize your homophobic sense of outraged morality would step in here, because you foolishly think we CHOOSE which gender we're inherently attracted to, and thus being around gay people can make kids "more likely to choose to be gay"... It might make them more likely to be OUT OF THE CLOSET if they are already gay, more accepting of themselves if they have a positive role model, however. And more tolerant of others, even if straight. Which I'm sure is just as bad in your mind. shrug

I've even heard of research that says stress on the mother during pregnancy is another factor that increases the chance the offspring will be homosexual, both in humans and in other species. I haven't read anything recent on this, though. But it makes sense. This would be a good advantageous trait for a species to evolve. Increased stress on the mother can be caused by overpopulation, leading to crowding, violence, more rivalry over food and other resources (including prey species being heavily reduced), homes, etc. More homosexual offspring than the neutral average would help the population stabilize.

Anyway, you didn't really want a serious answer.


Merry Christmas, folks. :)

0

ImpactWinter 7 years, 10 months ago

"sound" my right buttcheek,

The current board would have us skeptical of gravity, for all their hooplah about only being a "theory".

Lets get some scientific method back in the classroom.

0

ryanjasondesch 7 years, 10 months ago

Rationality to Kansas: Learn from your mistakes so we don't have to do this a third time after the next election.

0

SpeedRacer 7 years, 10 months ago

It's going to be a fun first couple of months on the BOE. I can't wait.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"The current board would have us skeptical of gravity, for all their hooplah about only being a "theory"."

That's right.

The effects of gravity can be observed.

Just like all life descended from a few individuals. We're here, aren't we?

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

The effects of evolution can be (and are) observed, also, gr. I'm sure you know this by now, even if you won't admit it. And you'll use copouts like defining evolution as being only "all life descended from a few individuals", carefully avoiding that evolution is also the process we observe daily (in some fast evolving species).

And even though we don't/haven't directly observed your macro-fallacious strawman of evolution (the aforementioned "all life descended from a few individuals"), we do observe lots of evidence that it happened, like anatomical similarities, fossils showing transition, studies of genetics and DNA which clearly support common ancestry, etc.

0

Janet Lowther 7 years, 10 months ago

The basis of science is "Natural explanations for natural phenomena."

"It's magic," "It's a miracle," and "God made it so" in no way qualify as science.

To many, the work of science is understanding the work of God, not in the scholastic way practiced by so many theoconservatives, where all understanding must derive from the Bible, but by direct examination of the world.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Exactly so, jrlii. "God made it so" is actually the antithesis of science, because it tends to make us STOP looking for answers and explanations. And the early great minds of science (many/most of whom were Christians, and are often dishonestly cited by creationists AS creationists) knew that, and were the ones who decided the scientific method should be neutral to the supernatural, aka "materialistic", "naturalistic", etc. Finding natural explanations.

They may have believed in God personally, and saw science as the study of what God created, but they knew the difference between faith and science. God may exist but there is no evidence (for or against) that we can study scientifically, so GOOD science must remain neutral to the question, and look for natural causes.

And it usually works. We've discovered natural causes and explanatory theories for thousands of things once thought to be "divinely caused" by our ignorant ancestors.

And the "God made it so" attitude of the creationists (including the IDers) would have hindered or stopped these discoveries. Even if it would have made one segment of society more secure in their weak faiths.

Creationists believe in the "god of the gaps". They WANT science to have lots of unanswered questions, so they can say "Here lives God, in the unknowns! May they forever remain unknown!"

Good science is a threat to them because of this. As we learn more, and fill in those gaps, their god is seen as retreating, squeezed into a narrower dominion, closer to extinction. The "God made it that way" is an attempt by them to shore up a haven for God.

Good rebuttal to the "god of the gaps" view of creationism: "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

gr8dane,

"copouts"?

And who is copping out? I don't know any creationists who deny the "evolution" you are speaking of. And as soon as one agrees with your definition, you'll switch your definition. Are we to take it that you deny "your macro-fallacious strawman of evolution (the aforementioned "all life descended from a few individuals")? Then, immediately, you claim it is observed.

"we do observe lots of evidence that it happened". Ha ha. And, we do observe lots of evidence that we were created - "we're here, aren't we"? Surely, you don't think that's science!

"STOP looking for answers and explanations." - or is it to STOP making up fantasies? Fantastic conclusions which have nothing to do with science. Creationists come to conclusions, too, but that doesn't make either one, "science".

"scientific method should be neutral to the supernatural, aka "materialistic", "naturalistic", etc. Finding natural explanations." "so GOOD science must remain neutral to the question, and look for natural causes"

And what if there were no natural explanations to be found? Does science disqualify an option right off the bat? If one finds an arrowhead, does he say nope, we must find a natural explanation. Saying someone "made it", is a copout and stops us from looking for answers.

Or, does science (rather, scientists - at least some of them) say, only humans can create things, humans, try as they might, can't create life, therefore, life has not been created.

if scientists were to create life, that proves humans created life, therefore, another intelligent being did not.

Other explanations for life have been eliminated without being investigated.

0

conservative 7 years, 10 months ago

GR, I bet you're in favor of roundabouts considering your use of circular arguments.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

I find it curious how you try to equate abiogenesis (or your term which is "created") with evolution. Please show us where abiogenesis is defined in modern evolutionary theory. Your argument is irrelevant of course since evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. You can argue all you want about creation Gr but just don't call it science.

You also claim that gr8dane is switching definitions with evolution and you know perfectly well that evolution has always included micro with the macro. The only difference between these concepts is time. The process is the same no matter how much you claim that they are not.

"Other explanations for life have been eliminated without being investigated." -- Gr

No idea what you are talking about there but once again you are not defining what you mean by "life". Life as in the ORIGIN of the first life ever or are you talking about the self-replicating life forms (after the first life formed)? Please be more specific Gr because we don't want to misunderstand each other here and tell us what you mean by "other explanations".

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Continued from above....for Gr's benefit

Finally evolution is just as much of a fact as gravity and both evolutionary theory and theory of gravity are both valid well-tested scientific concepts.

Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other and bodies pulling towards each other is evidence of gravity. Gravity is a fact. Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change and organisms changing generation to generation is evidence for evolution. Evolution is a fact.

The facts of gravity and evolution require an explanation. Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton created explanations of the fact of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the fact of gravity. Einstein's explanation of the fact of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity.

Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the fact of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations. Darwin's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the fact of evolution. Darwin's explanation of the fact of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.

Many groups of people chip and shape rocks to a point with notches and attach them to the end of sticks that are called arrows hence the term "arrowhead". They use them for hunting and warfare. These are facts. Arrows with rock arrowheads or just the arrowhead themselves have been found in archaleogical digs or on the ground. An archeologist's explanations of what defines an arrowhead (chipped, shaped points, and notches at the base) and who made these arrowheads is known as the Theory of the Arrowheads. It is a "gasp" a natural explanation. These explanations could be used to determine who lived at certain sites, how did they live, where did there go, who did they fight, etc etc etc. Do you understand Gr. It doesn't stop us from looking anymore, it helps us to look for more answers.

You could claim that God made them if you wanted to do but then you wouldn't be doing science. There would be no need to go any further after saying God made the arrowheads. No further explanation needed.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"I find it curious how you try to equate abiogenesis (or your term which is "created") with evolution. Please show us where abiogenesis is defined in modern evolutionary theory."

Technically, I didn't. I said from a few individuals. Slight difference. But, I believe (not absolutely sure, mind you) you defined evolution as descent from a few individuals.

Are you now saying that's not true? I am asking, what is it that creationists object to, as I don't know any who object to genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection....

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

Hmmm? Not sure what you are trying to say Gr. Are you trying to put emphasis on the word "few" from the sentence "I said from a few individuals"? Evolution says that all contempary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent. Please note that says nothing about "creation" or abiogenesis....concepts that have to do with the beginning of the first life on earth. Again, you are obscuring your intent by not directly defining what you mean by "life" and/or you are trying to confuse the reader by moving back and forth between different meanings on the word "life".

Also you indicated that you know of no creationists who object to those specific concepts (which may be a true statement but I can guarantee you there are many "strict" creationists who object to even these concepts) however it does not mean they don't object to evolution (that is common descent of all CONTEMPORARY organisms).

Again not sure what you are trying to do here Gr. You do understand that there is no difference between micro or macro evolution. If you accept micro, then you accept macro because they are they same thing Gr. If you accept the idea that organisms and populations will change, then you accept the idea of macro-evolution. How can you not. The evidence for it is overwhelming. There is no controversy nor any religious agenda here.

You know I always say this and have yet to see anyone respond to it but if the creationists think they have a viable "scientific" theory, fine. Go find a problem in biology that scientists have struggled with and use this theory of creationism to find a viable solution to the problem that is accepted among the scientific community. Of course this never happens since all creationists are busy trying to do PR campaigns and use public opinion to try to force their theory through science. The task is simple Gr, do the work and show the science. Stop trying to use the children to further your religious agenda.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr, the only ones SWITCHING definitions, and doing so intentionally and dishonestly, is you guys. Such as switching the definition of THEORY to the meaning most people in the general population think of, "just some guy's wacky idea", when it means something very different in science. Such as the way you guys have redefined "micro and macro" evolution differently than science used them. And many other ways...

I never "switched" my definition. The definition of evolution in science INCLUDES small-scale single-generation changes, new traits, speciation (collective changes adding up to enough variation to be considered a different/new species), right up to common ancestry of all life. It's ALL evolution. It's different DEGREES of the SAME process. And YOU guys are the ones dishonestly switching definitions.

Yes, you're right. Most creationists accept some evolution. You use the copout that the parts YOU accept are "only micro" evolution. YOU guys make a distinction between the degrees YOU accept, to all the OTHER degrees of evolution, a distinction that just does not exist in reality. And even the parts you DON'T accept are well demonstrated, observed, supported (by evidence) facts in science.

You said:

"The effects of gravity can be observed.

Just like all life descended from a few individuals. We're here, aren't we?"

That was YOU dishonestly "switching definitions", equating one tiny part of evolutionary theory, and the most broad and long duration one, as ALL of evolution, and comparing THAT to gravity. That's why I took you to task for it. I'd say "for shame", but I know most creationists don't feel shame for using bald-faced lies like that.

Drop something, you can see it fall. But can you demonstrate, that easily, the more complex parts of gravitational theory? The way we can compute orbits of planets, stars, galaxies, etc? Much less our theories of HOW gravity works? No. That takes a lot more work, and is based on studying countless other fields of data. Same with the more complex parts of evolutionary theory.

It was very dishonest of you to compare the SIMPLIST and EASIEST TO SHOW aspect of gravity with the most far-reaching degree of evolution.

And you'll probably never admit that.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Bah, maybe I'll respond to some of the other fallacies in gr's posts another time. Like the "arrowhead" nonsense, which is pretty typical "design" propaganda.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Kodiac said: "Again not sure what you are trying to do here Gr. You do understand that there is no difference between micro or macro evolution. If you accept micro, then you accept macro because they are they same thing Gr. If you accept the idea that organisms and populations will change, then you accept the idea of macro-evolution. How can you not. The evidence for it is overwhelming. There is no controversy nor any religious agenda here."

The creationists typically have a belief that they use to justify the distinction they make between micro and macro. They tend to share a dogma that God put some mysterious mechanism in place (that they can neither explain, nor demonstrate, and that science has disproven) that allows a species to "adapt" to its habitat (micro), but only so far. Then this mystical mechanism STOPS any more evolutionary change just before speciation would happen.

Since we have multiple observed instances of speciation, and have vast evidence of greater changes in the past, this is obviously poppycock. But creationists accept only what they want to accept, and ignore/deny the rest of science.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

When I said, "so GOOD science must remain neutral to the question, and look for natural causes" gr asked, "And what if there were no natural explanations to be found?"

That's when science says "we don't know (yet)", which is a perfectly legitimate answer in science, and encourages them to keep looking. "God did it" discourages further inquiry into the REAL cause.

Then gr said, "Does science disqualify an option right off the bat? If one finds an arrowhead, does he say nope, we must find a natural explanation. Saying someone 'made it', is a copout and stops us from looking for answers."

Oy vey. Let me spell this out for the retarded. Saying "someone made it" IS the NATURAL CAUSE, moron. HUMANS are natural organisms. We exist in the natural world. We are not supernatural. We have evidence WE exist. We know WE "create" (and design) things. We can recognize our OWN handiwork. We know HOW we made it.

God IS supernatural. We have no evidence any deities exist. No confirmed examples of anything "designed or created" by such deities. Science has discovered natural causes for thousands of things once assumed to have been divinely created or caused. Assuming the things we don't yet understand the cause of were "created by God" makes us STOP looking for natural causes and explanations. In other words, it would make us remain ignorant. All of the aforementioned things are why science MUST remain neutral about God, and look for NATURAL causes.

This is not saying there IS NO God, that God DIDN'T create anything. It's saying "God did it" is a copout, one that STOPS scientific inquiry. The forefathers of modern science (most of whom were Christians) REALIZED this, and decided on a policy of neutrality toward the supernatural, of remaining methodologically naturalistic. And it works. I wish you creationists would stop trying to destroy science to make it a mouthpiece for your fundamentalist religious cult.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr said, "'STOP looking for answers and explanations.' - or is it to STOP making up fantasies? Fantastic conclusions which have nothing to do with science. Creationists come to conclusions, too, but that doesn't make either one, 'science'."

You're right. Fantasies and fantastic conclusions have nothing to do with science. And it's you creationists who have these fantasies and fantastic conclusions. Not the scientists.

Only an utter fool would make the sort of statement you just did, implying that that's what scientists do, sit around making up "fantasies and fantastic conclusions"... and implying their explanations are equally "fantastical" to your creationist pre-conceived conclusions.

Or an utter liar. So which are you? Fool or liar? Wait, I realize that's a false dichotomy. You MAY be BOTH.

It's obvious you have no idea of the scientific method, how they try to come up with the best explanations, and how rigorously they test it. And from past experience trying to (re)educate you, attempting to explain it to you would just frustrate both of us.

Nuff said. Leave it at that. You think scientists sit around "making up fantasies" that are "no more science" than the flat earth, talking animal fantasies of creationists. What more can be said to that?

For the rest of us, it's the only honest position science can take. And the only one that WORKS, and leads to results. At least until we have evidence of God, which I'm guessing would take cooperation from God Herself.

You creationists just want to destroy scientific naturalism to make science a branch of Christianity, and fundamentalist Christianity at that, to help you evangelize and convert others. You don't care about honest scientific inquiry and advancement, which actually makes people less likely to fall for your "fantastic conclusions" because science has disproven them.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr said, "Or, does science (rather, scientists - at least some of them) say, only humans can create things, humans, try as they might, can't create life, therefore, life has not been created."

gr, you really need to give your head a good shake. Shake those fallacies out. Then keep going, shake some sense into you.

Does science say that? No. Your strawman version of science might. Your initial premises are flawed.

Science doesn't say only humans can "create" things. Science is also about studying natural processes that can also "create" things. Evolution being one of them. It can "create" a diversity of species, adapted for their niches and habitats. It can "create" new, novel biological traits and abilities. And because of how the mechanisms of it work, the resulting species and organs and traits can give the APPEARANCE of "design". Understanding the theory of evolution lets you understand how it can do this, how it can adapt species to their habitat as if they were "designed for it". But it's certainly not perfect.

Instead of trying to understand, you'd rather believe your simplistic and incompetent and dishonest creationist god did it, flaws and shoddy "design" and all.

"Humans, try as we might, can't create life"? We create life all the time. It's called procreation, you moron. Even non-human life. We create that all the time, too. We've been breeding new varieties and species of animals and plants for some 10,000 years or so, without even understanding WHY our breeding programs let us do that (evolutionary mechanisms). Mind you, since figuring out how it works, we've become a lot better at it in the last 150 years.

"therefore, life has not been created"... Well, since your two premises were both false, your conclusion is therefore invalid. You fail logic 101.

"life" is "created" all the time. Both through natural processes (evolution in the wild) and through "design" (artificial evolution, aka our own breeding of organisms to have traits we want them to have, and now with more complex biological techniques like genetic engineering). But we STILL have ZERO evidence (one way or the other) if any gods exist, or whether they had any hand in the creation of anything. So science can't formulate theories about it or test them.

I realize you creationists think you have an advantage there, since you start with your "fantastic conclusion" ("God did it, and our holy book describes how") before even needing to find any evidence, and that lets you fit the evidence you do find into your conclusion, and throw out and deny anything you can't hammer into the wrong shaped holes... But that ain't science, child.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Anyway, you're an apologist for your cult, gr. I'm sure I could keep picking apart fallacies and falsehoods in your posts, but really, would it do any good at this point? I just spent three long messages doing that, and I could keep going.

Everyone sees you for what you are already, and you yourself aren't likely to let yourself learn anything contrary to your dogma. I'm just going to dismiss you now, until I see some sign you want to try being honest, or ask sincere questions to learn.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Kodiac: "Hmmm? Not sure what you are trying to say Gr. Are you trying to put emphasis on the word "few" from the sentence "I said from a few individuals"? Evolution says that all contempary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent. Please note that says nothing about "creation" or abiogenesis.... "

I think you now understand how my "few individuals" says nothing about abiogenesis.

"they don't object to evolution (that is common descent of all CONTEMPORARY organisms)."

which gr8dane objected to me using.

========

gr8dane: "the definition of THEORY to the meaning most people in the general population think of, "just some guy's wacky idea","

Who on this forum has used "THEORY" in the way you mean it?

"The definition of evolution in science INCLUDES small-scale single-generation changes, new traits, speciation (collective changes adding up to enough variation to be considered a different/new species), right up to common ancestry of all life. It's ALL evolution. It's different DEGREES of the SAME process."

Small changes happen. Therefore, given enough time everything came from a few individuals.

Quite the leap of faith, don't you think? Small changes and common ancestry is not even related, much less science.

"YOU accept are "only micro" evolution. "

I don't recall defining "micro" evolution. I wouldn't know how you could draw the line between "macro" and "micro" - what is a "species"? Something that someone arbitrarily wrote in a book which is changed the next year?

Descent from a few individuals is not observable and not repeatable.

It would be like your gravity idea and the only observation was on the 150th floor of a building with only a small window to look out. Some drops a rock from above and the only thing you see is two feet of the rock going down. Therefore, you conclude that rock hits the ground. Which would be faulty logic since it didn't happen.

The science part was observing the rock moving towards the earth, assuming there was enough other facts that there was a earth the building was built upon - otherwise, the "earth" would not be a question. Another observation would be a calculation of it's velocity. Based upon other object within the room, the density of the rock could be calculated. However, hitting the ground was not observed and not repeatable.

But, at least you admit that common descent is "the most far-reaching degree of evolution."

And you propose to teach THAT to elementary students? And not teach the complex parts of gravitational theory?

"(that they can neither explain, nor demonstrate, and that science has disproven)" Is that one of them there, "bald-faced lies"? They explain it through what science has proven - genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection....

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"HUMANS are natural organisms. We exist in the natural world. "

Hence my:

Or, does science (rather, scientists - at least some of them) say, only humans can create things, humans, try as they might, can't create life, therefore, life has not been created.

if scientists were to create life, that proves humans created life, therefore, another intelligent being did not.

I did qualify it. Maybe I should have qualified it further by saying "at least gr8dane says it".

"Evolution being one of them. It can "create" a diversity of species," (Note to the one who objected to me saying evolution had a "goal": See gr8dane's statement.)

gr8dane, your "moron" statements sure make you sound so, er, "scientific"....

""therefore, life has not been created"... Well, since your two premises were both false, your conclusion is therefore invalid. You fail logic 101."

You excel at bait-and-switch!

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

You are going to have to explain yourself. You lost me on your postings.

For example when you referred to my comment...."they don't object to evolution (that is common descent of all CONTEMPORARY organisms)."

You left out an earlier part of that sentence. The whole meaning of that phrase is "however it does not mean they don't object to evolution (that is common descent of all CONTEMPORARY organisms)." In other words Gr, creationist DO OBJECT to the idea of common descent of all contemporary organisms. Were you misunderstanding what I saying? Do creationists accept this concept of common descent of all existing organisms currently on earth? I don't think they do otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I was also indicating that YOU are talking about abiogenesis and/or creation which has NONTHING to do with evolution. Your statement of "I think you now understand how my "few individuals" says nothing about abiogenesis." is completely misleading, worthless, and irrelevant. YOU switched tactics there Gr and it makes me wonder whether you are being sincere about this discussion. I certainly hope you are.

I will leave gr8dane to answer your other fallacies.

I don't have time to deal with it now. More later...

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

The point I was making was gr8dane appeared to object to me using common descent.

Ok, let's try this slow and easy.

I said descent from a few individuals. That had nothing to do with spontaneously generating life. Why did you bring abiogenesis in?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

Here is some contradictions within your own postings...

You said "Are we to take it that you deny "your macro-fallacious strawman of evolution" -- Gr.

Then you said..."I don't recall defining "micro" evolution. I wouldn't know how you could draw the line between "macro" and "micro" --Gr

And you said "I don't know any creationists who deny the "evolution" you are speaking of. And as soon as one agrees with your definition, you'll switch your definition. --Gr

Hmmmm apparently you are referring to evolution as being Macro. See where you said MACRO blah blah evolution. Are you making a disctinction here or are you not? What definition switching are you talking about. Is it "micro" vs "macro"? You tell me.

Another great quote from the slippery Gr...

"And, we do observe lots of evidence that we were created" -- Gr

This is you talking about the first living organism. The big O as in the ORIGINS OF LIFE. This is not about origin of species which is what evolution is talking about. Do you understand the difference. I don't think you do because you keep trying to compare evolution to creation. Evolution has nothing to do with creation and no matter how much you try to portray this dichotomy, it is still a false dichotomy. If you want to make a true comparison you need to be comparing creation with abiogenesis. Leave evolution out of it.

Also lets be clear about who is saying what. You are saying "descent from a few individuals". I am not sure why because I don't see anyone else saying that. I said "common descent of all contemporary organisms" which is a different statement then what you are saying. If you are going to quote someone or some source, I suggest you use the actual quote then making up your own words and then attributing to someone.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

There are of course many many many other things I could take up. But I have a feeling it will get us nowhere mainly because you have closed your mind off to looking at the evidence and the data from our natural world. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory and ultimately science is much more than just "being here". I could direct you to multiple sources and websites that can tell you evidences from all areas of science that support evolutionary theory. But again I say not sure if that would simply be a waste of time with you since you have continiously chosen to ignore it. However I am leaving this option open if you want to go down this path again. I would be more than happy to do it again because I always learn something new when I do. It is quite fascinating to me and I always enjoy exploring new (to me) evidences that simply strengthen evolutionary theory, not diminish it.

I have been reading a book about Richard Dawkins and his theories. Right now I am reading about how his book "The Selfish Gene" resulted in some very important insights into evolutionary theory and changed the way scientists viewed certain species. You should read it Gr. The person writing it was studying a flightless parrot called the Kackapa (sp?) or something like that. It currently is one of the most endangered species on organisms on the earth because of its bizarre lifestyle and the fact that humans introduced mammals to its habitat. It is quite obvious the bird evolved in the absence of mammals. This is of course getting off the subject but I bring it up simply because I think you need to start expanding your current reading list.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Hmm, my last post seems to be missing. Oh well. Wasn't important. I just exposed more falsehoods from gr. Nothing new. I suspect that could be a fulltime job, were I interested in such a futile endeavor.

Kodiac said, "Evolution has nothing to do with creation and no matter how much you try to portray this dichotomy, it is still a false dichotomy. If you want to make a true comparison you need to be comparing creation with abiogenesis. Leave evolution out of it."

That's because the creationists have one origin story for everything, origin of the universe, origin of the stars and planets, origin of life, origin of man and the other species, etc... they assume all of the corresponding theories of science are "one story" too, which they paste the label of "Evolution!" onto. Big Bang, expansion of the universe, galaxy and star and planet formations, abiogenesis, etc... all part of evolution to them.

It comes down to this: If evolution were as flimsy as CREATIONISTS say it is, and creationism as plausable, why is evolution still around, more strongly accepted in science than ever?

Creationists can't prove creationism, as they have no evidence. So all they have left as a strategy is to try to debunk evolution... And they can only do that by misrepresenting what evolution says (strawman arguments, misquotes of scientists, etc), and out and out lying, as we see from gr and bondmen and the rest.

It's hilarious to me that gr would actually say "And, we do observe lots of evidence that we were created". If that were true, this "evidence" wouldn't have to remain a secret. She could share it with us, and indeed, with science. But it doesn't exist. There is no evidence we were created. None. Nada. Zip. So all they have are dishonest tactics, semantics and redefining words, etc.

And they want to peddle this dishonest propaganda onto everyone else's kids, kids who aren't mature enough (for the most part) to see through these fallacies. That's disgusting to me, no matter how pure they think their motives might be, to justify such tactics.

If they want to teach their own kids creationist nonsense after they get out of school, fine. But keep your brainwashing away from everyone else's kids, creationists. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Kodiac: "What definition switching are you talking about. Is it "micro" vs "macro"? You tell me."

You appear to be defining "macro" as common descent. I'm saying common descent did not happen. I'm also saying how does one distinguish where "micro" stops and "macro" starts. Some suggest species, but what is a specie?

"Another great quote from the slippery Gr...

"And, we do observe lots of evidence that we were created" -- Gr" Which you didn't include the last part. And how did I say we observe it? You are attempting to mislead rather than merely refer to the content. And you sure mislead gr8dane. Do you have no shame?

"This is you talking about the first living organism."

Ummm..... No.

""common descent of all contemporary organisms" which is a different statement then what you are saying. "

Who am I attributing it to? Since you keep bringing it up, obviously, you must think it is you. Maybe not, but I believe you were involved when I was saying common descent from one organism and they corrected me by saying it's from a few individuals. Do you remember that?

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

If creation were as flimsy as EVOLUTIONISTS say it is, and evolutionism as plausable, why is creation still around?

Evolutionists can't prove evolutionism, as they have no evidence. It just too "complex". Why would you want to peddle something so complex to gradeschoolers? Something which can't be observed nor repeatable? Don't teach creationism nor evolutionism in school. Teach science. You know, things like genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection.... Save the complex conclusions for higher classes as we do for gravitational theory, particle physics, theory of relativity. Unless evolutionism doesn't fit those categories.

Kind of like, is a certain painting beautiful? Can science answer that question or is it outside of science? If it's outside of science, does that mean it's not beautiful?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

"Maybe not, but I believe you were involved when I was saying common descent from one organism and they corrected me by saying it's from a few individuals. Do you remember that?"

Nah I don't think I was part of that discussion but I see that it was you who said "descended from a few individuals" not anyone else. We also see that you made a feeble attempt at trying to mislead and distort by saying "one organism". Pretty typical of you Gr. I have come to expect no less from you.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"We also see that you made a feeble attempt at trying to mislead and distort by saying "one organism"."

So then, you agree that "one organism" is not correct (in your thoughts) and "a few individuals" would be correct?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Neither one. Are you trying to get some specific number here or something? Do you want to say 2 or 3 or 1000 or 10000 or 1 million. What the heck are you trying to get at?

It is simple Gr. All you need to do is say "common descent of all contemporary organisms". Is that so hard to do?

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by gr8dane (anonymous) on July 20, 2006 at 4:44 p.m.

"Evolution is: 1) Common ancestry of all life from one, or a few, ancestral populations."

Is the problem, "individual" rather than "population"? If so, where did the population come from, magic? Or is that outside of science - which indicates that some things are?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

Actually your question of where did the first life comes from is outside of evolutionary theory. Exploring the origins of first life or how first organisms occurred can be a part of science (such as abiogenesis and other hypotheses) but such explorations remain just that possible hypotheses for right now. I won't say they will never be able to test this but certainly given our current knowledge and progress it would seem to be outside the ability of science to find an answer to this question. Evolution on the other hand, is a well-supported fact. Evolutionary theory remains as the viable explanation for the origins of species (not life).....

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Sorry that last sentence should say "Evolutionary theory remains as the ONLY viable explanation for the origins of species (not life)....."

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

GR, your boys loast. Your ID/Creo pipe dream is in ruin. It is not reflective of the New Testiment. It has nothing to to with conservative political principals. It dos involve the government in public schools, and you WHACKED OUT FUNDAMENTAL KANSAS TALIBAHNI WAHIBISTS NEED TO SHUT THE HECK UP.

PLEASE! Do you know how dumb you are. Do you know how low your have brought the word of God down? Do you understand wat a disservice you have been to the faith? Do you understand you are prosetilizing a LIE?

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"It is simple Gr. All you need to do is say "common descent of all contemporary organisms". Is that so hard to do?"

Actually, I can, now that you have made it so vague.

I DO believe that all contemporary organisms have descended from a prior population.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Ha ha ha ha Lol

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

God that is so rich....

I'm sorry Gr.

You are killing me....

Uh let see here, oh you know what, you left out the word COMMON.

COMMON descent of all contemporary organisms....And you don't have to believe buddy. We have the evidence for it. It is as real as your right opposable thumb...

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Yes, yes, yes, the usual lies from gr. "evolution has no evidence", etc. Repeat until everyone believes it. When shown evidence that contradicts this claim, deny it exists, claim it's ACTUALLY evidence AGAINST, or just engage in so much double talk everyone gets confused.

As for the nonsense about it being "too complex", it's not too complex at all. It's essentially very easy to grasp, and essential to understanding biology. Variation is generated in a population. Some variation is harmful, and tends to get those with it killed off. That variation tends to get removed from the gene pool this way. Other variation is helpful to those with it, and they are rewarded by being more likely to survive and reproduce, increasing and spreading that trait through the population, letting the species adapt over generations.

That is basically what Darwin said in a nutshell, and it's really not a hard concept, unless you have a religious bias against accepting it. And the kids should be learning such basics about it as part of basic scientific literacy. The "complex" parts are the parts they should go to university/college for.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

I also like how gr also tried to MISQUOTE me, to support her convenient redefining of evolution (picking one definition out of several, the one which conveniently fits their fallacy, and is out of context from the way others were using it):

Posted by gr8dane (anonymous) on July 20, 2006 at 4:44 p.m. "Evolution is: 1) Common ancestry of all life from one, or a few, ancestral populations."

My ORIGINAL post defined evolution thusly: "Evolution is: 1) Common ancestry of all life from one, or a few, ancestral populations. 2) Any change in allele frequencies of a population over time. 3) Descent with modification due to differential reproductive success acting on random genetic variability. "

("random genetic variability" includes mutations. "differential reproductive success" is basically natural and sexual selection.)

It's all of those. They're all related. They are the same process, from a different degree. 2 tracks genetic changes per "generation". 3 gives us a slightly longer view, seeing how those changes allow the population to adapt to its habitat and develop helpful traits, and 1 is about how one population splits into two or more and they evolve differently from there, becoming different species, eventually different genus, family, order, class, phylum, whatever. Common ancestry.

All the same process. Defined from a different focus. All helpful in science. And all chosen from as convenient to a creationist to craft their strawman argument.

All three are OBSERVED FACTS. We see genetics changes over individual generations. We study them over longer time and see a species adapt to its habitat, to smaller and larger degrees. And we've seen speciation, including one species split into two or more, sharing common ancestry.

I find Ring Species especially fascinating. That's where a species spreads out around some natural obstruction (mountain, river, sea, even around the world as with some species of birds), and when the two ends meet up on the other side, they're different enough to be a different species, unable (and/or unwilling) to reproduce, even though they can reproduce with their neighbours back the other way, and they with theirs, right around the ring.

I know of about ten examples of ring species... and that's just one type of speciation. Biologists can probably tell you hundreds more. And some of it happened in the relatively short time we've been watching for it.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Back to gr's fallacy. Yes, we observe common ancestry. Because the process is still going on TODAY. Did we observe the branching events that happened before we were around and watching for the process? No. gr is dishonestly claiming that since we didn't see THAT, it didn't happen, and we can't say it's an "observed fact". It IS an observed fact. We see branching speciation happening today. Claiming we didn't see EVERY single one (which would be impossible because many happened before our own species evolved the ability to think and understand and LOOK FOR such a process), therefore we can't say it happened is like saying "we didn't see the sun rise and set before we were born, so therefore we don't know it happened, and can't say it's an observed fact (that it happens now)"

But science doesn't need to just OBSERVE something HAPPENING. This denies the valuable contributions the historic sciences have given us. We don't have to OBSERVE something to study the EVIDENCE that it DID HAPPEN. And common ancestry of various species has plenty of evidence, even when the split happened millions of years ago. And gr and other creationists keep claiming such evidence doesn't exist. Tsk, tsk.

Just goes to show you. They're religious zealots. For the most part, they NEVER WILL accept evolution. No matter how much evidence and observation we can show. They won't LET themselves. So they have to play apologetics and semantics and denial games and fallacies. And try to get their dogma taught in public school science classes illegally/unconstitutionally, crying for "equal time", appealing to our love of "democracy" and "freedom" as they try to subvert both of those.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr then said, "You appear to be defining "macro" as common descent. I'm saying common descent did not happen. I'm also saying how does one distinguish where "micro" stops and "macro" starts. Some suggest species, but what is a specie?"


Exactly why "micro and macro" are not really useful terms in science. Science defines macro evolution as evolution at the level of speciation and above. That's all. It's the same process as "micro". Just been happening longer. Get enough "micro", you have "macro".

Of course, you creationists came up with your own redefinitions of the term, making them out to be two DIFFERENT processes, one supported/observed, the other not (and impossible, you claim, even though you can't give us any hypothetical mechanism to stop macro from happening and can't explain the observations and evidence of it happening...).

But back to your post. That's exactly why the terms aren't as useful in science, nor as set in stone as you guys treat them. What's a species? When, exactly, can we say a single species has varied enough to be a "different" species? When, exactly, have two populations of the SAME species evolved apart to be considered a different species?

The generally accepted definition is when they can no longer interbreed, or would not do so on their own without our intervention.

But this is not a black and white thing. Science actually has some six or seven different definitions of species, some more useful for some types of life than others. "ability to interbreed" is obviously not very useful for ASEXUAL SPECIES, for instance.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

To continue, evolution is a generally gradual thing, over many generations, as minute changes accumulate to noticable effect. Exactly when does it become a "new" species? We can't say. Any more than if you painted a line on the road, starting on the east coast, stretching to the west coast, and you started with all blue paint, and added minute amounts of red until it was completely red on the other coast.... At exactly what point would you say it is no longer blue but is red? You can't exactly say.

Evolution is like that. What's more, we EXPECT it to be. We EXPECT it to be hard to say exactly when a species is a "new" species. We EXPECT it to be hard to pinpoint the exact time two populations become "unable/unwilling to interbreed" or otherwise different enough to qualify as a different species. That's how evolutionary biology works. We know we won't see a sharp demarcation point where we can go "Aha! A NEW species!".

Creationists seem to think evolution is something as simplistically obvious as "a chimp giving birth to a human", or "a dog giving birth to a cat", or all the other lame images they use. It's not.

What we actually had was a common ancestor that wasn't like chimps, exactly, and wasn't like humans... it split into two or more populations, which gradually evolved apart, generation by generation, until the two modern day species we see today existed. At exactly what point were we "different species"? We can't say. At exactly what point were we "modern humans"? We can't say. If you understand how biology works, you don't EXPECT us to be able to.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

And the slippery gr still can't back up the claim that "we do observe lots of evidence that we were created".

Creationists claim scientists have no evidence for evolution, denying the mountains of evidence and observation supporting it (or trying to white wash it as "just an interpretation of the evidence" or other fallacies), while claiming they have evidence of their religious beliefs, and being totally unable to provide any when challenged.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr said, "Something which can't be observed nor repeatable?"


Again, you're confusing creationism, which has no evidence supporting it (and much disproving it) with evolution, which IS observable and repeatable.

And again, I'll point out that it's NICE if something is observable and repeatable, but it doesn't HAVE to be for science to study it. There are HISTORICAL sciences, which study the evidence that SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE. It's a further creationist fallacy that evolution is not observable/repeatable. Scientists are doing both today.


Then gr babbled: "Don't teach creationism nor evolutionism in school. Teach science. You know, things like genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection..."


Aha. So you want us to teach the kids evolution. You just don't want us to CALL it that. All those things you just mentioned ARE evolution. They are the mechanisms of the process of evolution, and the theory explains how they all work together.

Evolution is the single unifying scientific theory of life and an essential element of scientific literacy. As noted scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

You basically admit evolution happens. You just won't let yourself accept the inevitable conclusions because they go against what your cult teaches.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Oops, I forgot to put a disclaimer after my third paragraph last post:

"It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE. It's a further creationist fallacy that evolution is not observable/repeatable. Scientists are doing both today."

^^^ Because this is where gr again takes "evolution" out of context to mean the most extreme degree of it, the common ancestry of all (terrestrial) life, and asserts it's NOT observed/repeatable, so therefore my statement is false... slaps herself in exasperation How could I be so silly!

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Oh, I saw gr twisting my words around, but missed that one at first:

"If creation were as flimsy as EVOLUTIONISTS say it is, and evolutionism as plausable, why is creation still around?"

Hahaha... It's NOT still around. It's DEAD. It's been rejected in science for the last few centuries. It's only religious zealots in the non-scientific main population who are holding on to it fanatically. It's a religious sect, a minority of Christianity (the mainstream of which mostly accepts evolution now).

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

gr8dane (anonymous) on December 18, 2006 at 4:52 p.m. "Same with the more complex parts of evolutionary theory.

It was very dishonest of you to compare the SIMPLIST and EASIEST TO SHOW aspect of gravity with the most far-reaching degree of evolution."

Posted by gr8dane (anonymous) on December 21, 2006 at 10:58 p.m. "As for the nonsense about it being "too complex", it's not too complex at all. It's essentially very easy to grasp,"

My, what a space of a few days make on complexity! Was that entertaining, or what!

"Some variation is harmful, and tends to get those with it killed off. That variation tends to get removed from the gene pool this way." (Ahh, you mean like the "homosexual gene" - If it were a gene rather than a choice?)


But, I don't know why you are still against me. Didn't you understand, I'm a believer of evolutionism now? I believe in genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection... and "Common ancestry" - that is, all contemporary organisms have commonly descended from a prior population group. So why are you railing on ad nauseous against someone right after they said they were in agreement? What is it you think I disagree with?

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

laughs Ah, gr. It's a good thing you don't get dizzy from all the circles you go in.


For example, gr said, "It was very dishonest of you to compare the SIMPLIST and EASIEST TO SHOW aspect of gravity with the most far-reaching degree of evolution.""


Actually, that was you who did that. When you said:

"The effects of gravity can be observed. Just like all life descended from a few individuals. We're here, aren't we?"

Next fallacy:


gr said, "My, what a space of a few days make on complexity! Was that entertaining, or what!"


Again, you're dishonestly trying to make me out to be a "flipflopper" (must be a neocon fad these days), with a little selective misquoting. What I said does not contradict what I said earlier.

What I SAID was, the BASIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION is essentially easy to grasp. And it is. Random mechanisms (like mutation) cause variation in the population. Selective mechanisms non-randomly select from those variations, causing changes to the population over generations, leading to more distinct traits, adaptation, etc. Small changes accumulate over generations. Eventually to the point of speciation and above.

Quite a reasonable explanation (and the only valid one we have) for the evidence (anatomical, fossil, genetic, etc) showing common ancestry of diverse species, the aforementioned "more complex degree of evolution" (although common ancestry is obvious and observed to smaller scales, so it's sensible to extrapolate to farther degrees, unobserved past events, but supported by the evidence).

You guys haven't yet knocked a hole in that explanation (that actually stands up scientifically), nor have you provided your own (scientific) rival theory. "God did it" doesn't qualify for obvious reasons.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

""Common ancestry" - that is, all contemporary organisms have commonly descended from a prior population group." -- Gr

You still can't get it right can you. You are disappointing me Gr....

If you truly accept the evidence for evolution then say that common descent of all contemporary organisms is a fact. Don't say you believe and don't add extra words to it like "commonly" and or "prior population group". This is a fact of life just like your existence here on earth is a fact of life.

Of course I know you will never say this and as far as I can tell, will continue to mislead and misquote as if you are playing a game. How disappointing.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Kodiac, adding copout words and sneaky rewordings and redefining words is what they do. :)

As if playing a game? Oh, they're playing a game. But it's one they are deadly serious about. They know most of their arguments are bogus.

To most creationists, it's NOT about being right, not about finding the truth, not about the advancement of science, not about honesty, not about increasing our body of knowledge. It's about evangelization (some of the creationist gurus even admit this). And defending their cult from what they consider a "rival belief".

Evolution is their rallying flag. The symbol of everything they hate. Atheism, science, liberalism, secularism, moderate Christianity, people thinking for themselves instead of just doing what their religious authority figure (and only the RIGHT religious authority figure, aka the fundies' own pastor) tells them GOD says for them to believe, etc.

So they know their arguments are logically invalid and disproven by the evidence already. They still keep using them, along with rhetorical tactics and folksy sayings and poor analogies, because it's all about "winning souls", and fighting what they are taught is an "atheistic worldview" that their fundamentalist pastors and churches tell them will lead to the downfall of society, and worse, to more people going to HELL. So even if they have to knowingly LIE to people, if it saves their souls, it's worth it in their minds.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Now me personally, HONESTY is too important to me and my faith in God.

And this honesty makes me admit 1) evolution is a fact, well supported by the evidence, as are many other parts of science they reject, 2) these facts don't clash with my faith, 3) science must be secular and neutral to God, to do its job right, 4) so must government, if we value freedom of religion and other liberties among our citizens (Christian and non), 5) Creationists have the right to believe whatever flat earth nonsense they want, but that right ends when they want it taught to everyone else's kids in SECULAR public schools, AS science, against the constitutional separation of church and state.

Creationists are an embarassment to educated moderate mainstream Christians. And they should be actively fought. They have the right to believe what they want. They have the right to say what they believe (in private property and churches, or even in public, such as streetcorners, as long as they can't force you to listen if you don't want to. Just as we have the right to speak up and correct their misconceptions of science and falsehoods. Not so much to educate them (most of them are probably beyond learning or accepting the truth no matter how much evidence we have), but to stop the spread of their propaganda against science to others, which has gone on too long and is the only real reason there is still a "controversy" about this today.

What they DON'T have is the right to push it into government institutions that are open to all citizens, of any religion (or none), including public schools, with a captive audience of impressionable children who don't know better (yet), and have the state (and its employees) peddle it as if it's actual science or supported by evidence when it's clearly neither, and/or not teach the kids what they SHOULD be teaching them, basic scientific literacy as educational experts and scientists decide should be taught, which includes basic understanding of evolution: what it is, why it happens, some of the overwhelming evidence for it, etc.

Sorry. I know I'm preaching to the choir here. Just summing up how I see it.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"Ah, you're also a homophobe."

I don't know that you can conclude that from my statement.

"It's not, per se, a gene either, although genes seem to be a factor."

Thank you for clarifying that. Some say it's a gene. I was only saying it couldn't be.

"Nor does being gay necessarily remove you from the gene pool. Especially in more homophobic societies where they are pressured to remain in stealth ("in the closet"), and marry and have kids..."

Many people do not marry. Why do you say gays are pressured to marry whether it's against their genetics (which you said wasn't) or against their choice or against their developmental disorder?

"Sometimes there's an evolutionary benefit to some NOT reproducing, not having their own kids. " Most of those species only choose not to reproduce temporarily, for the benefit of reproducing at a later time.

"From insect species with infertile workers helping the breeding members" I think you mean, "member".
Do you suggest humans are like ants, bees, and such?

"I've even heard of research that says stress " I've heard stress causes rats to chew on each other's tails.

"More homosexual offspring than the neutral average would help the population stabilize." So, if I'm hearing you correctly, homosexuals could be a result of overcrowding and stress which results in a population correction factor.

"And they should be actively fought." (referring to Christians) Hmmmm.

"most of them are probably beyond learning or accepting the truth" Hmmmm.

Sounds like you're at WAR.

===========

Kodiac: "If you truly accept the evidence for evolution then say that common descent of all contemporary organisms is a fact."

I did. It is truly a fact that all contemporary organisms have commonly descended from a prior population group - whether "2 or 3 or 1000 or 10000 or 1 million."

"don't add extra words to it like "commonly" and or "prior population group".

Posted by Kodiac (anonymous) on December 21, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. "Uh let see here, oh you know what, you left out the word COMMON."

Do you want "common" or not? You don't believe that the current population group arose from a prior population group? Or is it "common" but not "commonly"?

com*mon 1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.

commonly 2. in a common manner.

Being a new convert to evolutionism, I find this "extreme degree of it" to be one of "the more complex parts of evolutionary theory".

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

You are a tool. Please stop playing your little word games and wasting time. Enlighten us on what you think "commonly descended" means as opposed to "common ancestry".

Here lets make this simple for you....Do you agree that that COMMON ANCESTRY means all organisms living on earth now came from a single progenitor. This along natural selection is part of evolutionary theory.

"Being a new convert to evolutionism, I find this "extreme degree of it" to be one of "the more complex parts of evolutionary theory"." -- Gr

Ha ha. I find your handling of these concepts to be quite extreme and not productive in the sense that you are being completely dishonest Gr. Gr8dane is right. You are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in spreading your religious dogma.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"Enlighten us on what you think "commonly descended" means as opposed to "common ancestry"."

Well, they're the same. All life has descended from their common ancesters.

"Do you agree that that COMMON ANCESTRY means all organisms living on earth now came from a single progenitor. This along natural selection is part of evolutionary theory."

But I thought you were saying that's not true?

Posted by Kodiac (anonymous) on December 21, 2006 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal) " "Maybe not, but I believe you were involved when I was saying common descent from one organism and they corrected me by saying it's from a few individuals. Do you remember that?"

Nah I don't think I was part of that discussion but I see that it was you who said "descended from a few individuals" not anyone else. We also see that you made a feeble attempt at trying to mislead and distort by saying "one organism". Pretty typical of you Gr. I have come to expect no less from you. "

Are you now saying that we did descend from not just a few but exactly one progenitor or are you just trying to confuse me?

You keep changing what you want me to say, but I think you will never accept me. I don't think you want to.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr,

Progenitor meaning not a single individual but a single or a few ancestral forms. I was objecting specifically to the way you were saying number of individuals in that form not that there was one or several forms. I thought you understood because you realized that it was more than one individual when you talked about the term population. This is evolutionary theory Gr. Do you not understand that? The theory is that all organisms on earth right now came from a single or a few ancestral form or progenitor (I am adding the words few since it has been proposed that life might have had multiple beginnings). The usual evidence for this is the univeral genetic code and the universality of biochemisty (for example all amino acids found in organisms or left-handed).

The reason why I don't accept what you are saying Gr is that you keep trying to make it follow a special creation event. For example instead of saying that all organims came from a single or few progenitors, you say "All life has descended FROM THEIR common ancesters". This is of course a different statement than what evolutionary theory is saying and I think you know that. It isn't a matter of accepting you Gr. Your own statements give your game away.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr said, "I don't know that you can conclude that [homophobia] from my statement."

Hardly. The fact you even brought it up demonstrates you're a homophobe. There was no reason for it. It's irrelevant to the current topic. And the WAY you brought it up demonstrates your bias against homosexuals. Hardly surprising from a creationist, who are mostly Christian fundamentalists, anyway. Pretty typical, actually.

Let's examine that:

gr8dane said, "Some variation is harmful, and tends to get those with it killed off. That variation tends to get removed from the gene pool this way." gr replied, "(Ahh, you mean like the "homosexual gene" - If it were a gene rather than a choice?)"

So right there we have you mentioning the "homosexual gene" when I was talking about HARMFUL VARIATIONS, which makes it clear you think homosxuality is harmful, negative, etc. Also, used the false dichotomy fallacy by asserting it's either "the homosexual gene" (it was obvious you didn't think this was possible, which you later admitted) or "a choice", a common homophobic assertion about homosexuality that is blatantly false.

A little common sense will tell you it's not a choice. But fundamentalists aren't big on common sense that goes against your biases. Much less all the evidence that supports it.

This is getting even farther off topic, but you were the one who brought it up...

Any rational person knows we don't choose our sexual orientation. Who the hell would CHOOSE to only have sex with a gender they're not inherently attracted to? Who the hell would choose to become victimized by ignorant bigots over who they love and sleep with? Who the hell would choose to be insulted, discriminated against, attacked, fired, beat up, murdered?

Anyone who has gay friends and has asked them knows they didn't choose to be gay. Just as we didn't choose to be straight. We just are.

Claiming it's a CHOICE is an irrational copout. You know that for something to be a sin, it has to be something we chose to do.

We choose who we have sex with (if it's mutually consenting). We don't choose who we WANT to have sex with. Much less who we'll fall in love with.

Homosexuality is neither a choice, nor a sin, by definition. But of course, homophobes of a religious persuasion (not all are) NEED to believe it is a sin, so they insist it MUST be a choice (and a wrong one at that), and damn all the logic and personal testimony and scientific evidence otherwise. They KNOW. GOD TOLD THEM. Their pastor and their interpretation of an ancient text (which also says the earth is flat) say so. "God says it, I believe it, that settles it!" That's a common fundamentalist refrain. Both about creationism (usually the young earth variety, but not always) and about other things like homosexuality being wrong/sinful.

You're just trying to weasel around actually saying that, while obviously believing it and mocking science and moderate liberals for saying otherwise.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

Cont from last post:

I believe you also made that initial comment because you think 1) science's position, and that of liberals who accept homosexuality, is that it's a gene causing them to be gay, 2) that conflicts with how gr8dane is explaining evolution works, so therefore 3) I'm in a win-win position, either homosexuality is a choice and therefore a sin, or it's a gene, but that proves evolution is false because natural selection should filter it out of the gene pool.

But my reply explained why that's a fallacy. Your first premise was incorrect, that there was a third option not covered in your false dichotomy of "genes or choice", that homosexuality is developmental as the fetus is growing. Your second point was therefore wrong because the initial premise was false, and because genetics DOES seem to be a factor, but not the only one, and it in no way conflicts with evolutionary theory, as I explained (and as experts in the relevant topics could explain in even more depth). Your third point, the conclusion, was also false, obviously.


gr8dane said, "Nor does being gay necessarily remove you from the gene pool. Especially in more homophobic societies where they are pressured to remain in stealth ("in the closet"), and marry and have kids..." gr replied, "Many people do not marry. Why do you say gays are pressured to marry whether it's against their genetics (which you said wasn't) or against their choice or against their developmental disorder?"

Are you actually DENYING there is a social stigma in our society against gays? DENYING that they are victims of insult, attack, prejudice, persecution, firing from jobs, being ostracized from families and churches and friends, etc? Are you DENYING many feel strong pressure to hide their natural sexual orientation and pretend to be "straight" to avoid this? Are you DENYING that this defensive pretending often includes dating and marrying spouses of the opposite gender? (as well as things like getting macho jobs, like cop, firefighter, military, etc). It sure sounds like you're denying it to me.

No, you don't have to marry in our society. But it's a strong way to publicly show you love someone, and if it's an opposite sex partner, to show you're heterosexual. So it's a strong way to hide a gay person in an immature homophobic society like ours (although it's slowly changing as we advance). While we don't assume all single people are gay, it's more likely, especially if they have other traits, stereotypical mannerisms, an active love/sexlife (with the same sex) or no visible love/sexlife (with the opposite sex), etc.

The fact that you denied closeted gays feel pressure to marry shows either great ignorance or denial. Perhaps both. I don't know what else you expect us to conclude...

And I liked your little slam that it's a "developmental DISORDER" (emphasis mine)... Again, so much for you not being homophobic. You talk the talk of one.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr8dane said, "Sometimes there's an evolutionary benefit to some NOT reproducing, not having their own kids. " gr replied, "Most of those species only choose not to reproduce temporarily, for the benefit of reproducing at a later time."

Sorry, that's false. I was talking about non-reproducing members of a population. Not members who "temporarily choose not to reproduce" "for the benefit of reproducing at a later time."

And there ARE sometimes evolutionary benefits. Like, for example, ensuring breeding members of their family pass on THEIR genes (and thus also most of the genes of the non-breeding member, which are very similar).


gr8dane said, "From insect species with infertile workers helping the breeding members" I think you mean, "member". gr asked, "Do you suggest humans are like ants, bees, and such?"

I was NOT suggesting any such thing. Such a thing is so blatantly obvious it didn't NEED to be suggested. We ARE like ants, bees, and such. We are biological organisms. They are biological organisms. We are subject to the process of evoluiton. They are subject to the process of evolution. There are millions of other ways we are similar. More than ways we are dissimilar. (although some of those ways are fantastic)

It's you creationists who tend to get squeemish when compared to "lowly animals"... :P

I was simply saying, in biological organisms (like humans or insects, FOR EXAMPLE), there is sometimes an advantage to not all members of the population breeding. People who don't understand evolution think it's ALL about EVERY organism spreading its genome. They don't realize that helping a family member do so is also spreading YOUR genome, or pretty close, and giving that genome a greater chance of making it. From an evolutionary viewpoint, that's a big bonus.


gr8dane said, "I've even heard of research that says stress " gr opined, "I've heard stress causes rats to chew on each other's tails."

Ah, I love non sequiturs from fundies. :) Especially ones they think actually advance their personal biases (like that we shouldn't compare ourselves with "lowly animals")... Hilarious. :D

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr8dane said, "More homosexual offspring than the neutral average would help the population stabilize." gr asked, "So, if I'm hearing you correctly, homosexuals could be a result of overcrowding and stress which results in a population correction factor."

No. I'm not saying this is the CAUSE of homosexuality. I'm explaining this is how evolution could use an already existing trait like homosexuality as a POSITIVE thing for the population. I'm not citing a causative factor, not saying if overpopulation INITIALLY caused the first instances of homosexuality, or if homosexuality happened first, then evolution co-opted it for a positive role (sometimes). Although that IS what evolution does. Takes what it gets, and works with it. The result isn't always pretty, or perfect, or optimal, but it usually works (or the species tends to go extinct).

We don't actually know (yet) what the CAUSE of homosexuality is. Or rather, the CAUSES, since there are probably more than one. Genes SEEM to be a factor. Stress on the pregnant mother, causing flooding of certain hormones on the fetus in the womb, SEEMS to be another. I'm sure there are others also.

The root cause seems to be that our genes have the capability to let a certain percentage of the population (which seems to be a set average under normal conditions) DEVELOP a homosexual orientation instead of heterosexual. How that actually came to be, we don't know. That means with any genome in the population, the offspring born with it have a certain chance of developing a heterosexual or homosexuality orientation. The percentage seems to be pretty stable, except when other factors (like stress, which overcrowding also causes) are introduced, which seem to increase the chance.

There also may be other factors, like random genetic mutations that may increase or decrease the chances, too. Like I said, having or not having them doesn't guarantee you'll be gay or straight, though.

Nor does having a stressed out mother... (or a lot more of us would be gay) :P

Does that make it a bit clearer? Or will you do the song and dance routine and look for more things to nitpick or take out of context?

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

gr8dane said, "And they should be actively fought." gr tacked on, "(referring to Christians) Hmmmm."

Ah, there you are again, misquoting me, dishonestly misrepresenting what I said. I'm a Christian myself, so it's obvious to any HONEST person I said NO SUCH THING. Not even in that snippet, and certainly not to anyone who read the full quote, where I spelled out it was the CREATIONISTS who should be actively fought in the sentence right before your quoted snippet. Creationists. A subset of Christianity. A fanatic minority who rejects science. I'm part of the majority. So I'm obviously not encouraging fighting myself. Come on, gr. That was sloppy and obvious, even for you.

Oh, that's right. In your mind, your minority cult is the only TRUE Christianity. The rest of us are deluded fools. Silly me.

Before you attack that as misquoting you, it's well supported, from your own earlier comments bashing my own faith, implying i'm not a real Christian, challenging me to "prove" I'm a TRUE Christian. Common tactics for creationists to the moderate majority of non-fundamentalist Christians, even though you're trying to be sneaky and avoid direct preaching/proselytizing so you can pretend you're not a creationist but some unbiased third party, unconvinced by either argument completely and pretending to represent open-mindedness and 'hearing all sides'. A lot of creationists try that tactic too.

On the plus side, your reaction gave a very good demonstration of WHY creationists must be actively fought. Thanks for that. :)


gr8dane said, "most of them are probably beyond learning or accepting the truth" gr hmmmmed, "Hmmmm."

As you've more than demonstated, time and again...


gr concluded, "Sounds like you're at WAR."

Yes. And you guys declared it, on science and truth and education and Christianity and anyone not in your cult. And you're trying every sneaky tactic you can to "win" over people to your dogma. And I hope more people in the USA wake up to the dangers you guys represent, before you do even more damage.

0

gr8dane 7 years, 10 months ago

I caught this after I logged out earlier and reread my posts:

gr8dane said, "From insect species with infertile workers helping the breeding members" I think you mean, "member".

Actually, no, the plural is correct in that usage.

And I'll add, "and helping the offspring".

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.