Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman / LJWorld.com

26 May 2006
at 5:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

“The controversy may drive him out of the job.”

This is insanity.

26 May 2006
at 5:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Asolutely wrong. Yes, human knowledge is limited; however, evolution is one of the most substantiated phenomena in all of science - even moreso than the movement of the earth around the sun.

Evolution is fact, not theory. Perhaps, to redress the appalling circumstance of this Awbry being a journalist, a newspaperman no less, the LJW should print science's definition of a “theory.”

It may be that “both sides” practice a form of religion. We practice the religion of Truth, of empirical knowledge, while the “other side” practices a religion of deception and mythological, superstitious “faith.” No, we haven't seen dinosaurs - well, maybe birds, or crocodiles - but we have seen their bones.

How did someone as stupid as this bozo graduate from KU?

26 May 2006
at 5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The State Board hires in Corkins as over paid administrator with no background in education. Corkins hires in Awbrey
who apparently has no back ground in Science at I'm betting maximum salary as was Corkins.

There is a serious problem here.

26 May 2006
at 6:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lonestar1 (Anonymous) says…

Since he is not “house trained”, we should look at why he is paid 75K a year to do his job? What is wrong with our State Boad of Education? Do they need some education on how to hire the right person for the job? When is the next election!!

26 May 2006
at 6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

when you hire someone and then neglect to train them on in-house policy (house training as Awbry states) because you don't believe the house's traditional stance, this is what you get. i have a feeling this was a choice, calculated or not, on corkin's part, not to teach Awbry any of what might be viewed as party line for the DOE, but which unfortunately also includes public decorum.

26 May 2006
at 6:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pundit (Anonymous) says…

“Awbrey said his appearance at the forum was not on work time and he did not charge the state department for his mileage”

outrageous statement #1. Why was he invited to participate, what is his title.

“I haven't been house-trained in public relations”

outrageous statement #2 David Awbrey literally grew up in journalism and public relations. He has spent nearly his entire life either reporting on or critiquing those in public service and public policy. He beyond all people! can not feign lack of knowledge in understanding his role as a public information officer.

To read a critique of Awbreys comments:
http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=92

To read Awbrey's letter to the Cap-Journal and his response:
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/20…

Decide yourself: Listen to audio of the forum:
http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?page_id=96

26 May 2006
at 7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Hooray for Mr. Awbry.

His statement is the worst fear of the evolutionists. The strawman of creation is a very convenient method to deflect the argument away from the lousy science of evolution. But Mr. Aw has stated that evolution is not science. And it hurts.

Macro-evolution makes statements of fact that cannot be tested in the same sense as Newtonian mechanics. We can send objects into orbit around the sun. Evolutionists have yet to combine the primordial chemicals into an organism that replicates. Thus, earth-around-sun is tested and therefore science.. Macroevolution has not been replicated, thus tested, therefore, not science.

QED

26 May 2006
at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Luxor (Anonymous) says…

Remember, devobrun, that Paul Mirecki lost his post as department chair for the exact same thing. Now the shoe is on the fundies' feet.

26 May 2006
at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

I believe that the core of the theory of evolution is speculation… but dinosaurs? i don't think one can say that belief in dinosaurs is “speculation”. They just were.

Now, that having been said, that's my final post on this story. This is going to be a bloodbath, and I'm not going to participate in the flame war that is about to commence.

Have at it.

26 May 2006
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

I echo xeno on this one. Evolution is fact and is one the the most integrated and well-supported theories in science. I suppose scientists practice religion if that religion involves using empiricism, logic, reality, and facts to understand our world.

Devo is back at it with his “if you can't replicate it, it isn't science” nonsense, again conflating engineering with science. Devo tends to ignore the “historical” sciences, so I guess we should just ignore fossils and stars and galaxies and black holes and history and archaeology, anything we can't directly recreate (as of now). Science should just sweep those things under the rug and ignore them. There is more to science than replication in the lab.

Again, by Devo's logic, our criminal justice system is worthless. How could one be convicted of a crime if all of the evidence is historical and the crime can not be recreated?

Devo, you are just wrong on so many issues and you have been proven wrong again and again in this forum. Yet, you continue to pose these same arguments that have ben proven wrong on at least three separate occasions. I will be here to set the record straight, so rock on, Devo.

26 May 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

In terms of the content of this article: it seems to me this is a bit of a witch hunt based upon someone's thoughts and comments. While I disagree with him, I do not see why he would not be allowed to make such statements. He is wrong and foolish and makes Kansas education look like a joke, but there is no law against these things. Even in his official capacity, I do not see why he should not express his opinions, even if they are wincingly stupid and embarrassing to the state.

A breach of decorum maybe. Grounds for dimissal from his position? No way. Let the voters do that.

26 May 2006
at 9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Alfred_W (Anonymous) says…

Oh, great. The old Macroevolution argument.

Do you know the single operational difference between macroevolution and microevolution? Hint: it's in the names.

It's a matter of scale, specifically. The only operational difference is the amount of time that passes - whether measured by generations or by the calendar. The functions and processes that drive the two are identical, so you really can't accept one with out the other. And these processes have in fact been tested, replicated and documented ad nauseum.

Intelligent Design/Creationism has not been replicated, thus tested, therefore, not science.

QED

26 May 2006
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

OldEnuf, I might come back to read, but I agree. Not touching this post.

26 May 2006
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pundit (Anonymous) says…

Nightmare, Grounds for dismissal? Professional incompentence is always grounds. Professional integrity to the press is a job requirement of any public PIO.

Just the fact that he made statements in front of his principal clients (news media) and then denied he said the same thing shows his lack of intellectual honesty.

The basis for this go far beyond this particular article. Awbry has professionally skewered many others in print for far less in the decades of his career, and now he should have the same standards imposed on him he imposed on others.

Dismissal? No, he should acknowledge his hypocracy and resign in shame.

26 May 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Alfred_W (Anonymous) says…

Back on topic (sorry for the lapse), I don't think we have grounds for dismissal here, just disappointment.

26 May 2006
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Meatwad (Anonymous) says…

The only thing speculative about dinosaurs is exactly what their skin looked like. What is this guy smokin?

Again Kansas is made to look backwards and idiotic. Though this is on smaller scale. Get these bozos out.

26 May 2006
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

The most basic principle of science is that there must be natural causes for observed evidence.

“It's a miracle”, “It's magic” or “God made it so” do not pertain to science.

Now, there are a lot of people out there who's God is so weak, so puny that he can't work through natural causes.

My God does not have that problem.

26 May 2006
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Emmanuel Kant proposed that it is impossible for a finite mind to understand an infinite mind. Both sides on this debate are idiots to proport they have the absolute answer to a universe we have seen about 0.0000001% of. History shows us that science drastically recreates itself every 200 years or so. Religion needs to stop trying to be science, and science needs to stop trying to be religion; they are two different things. Both sides on this debate are obstinate to a spectacular degree. Let the standards of science be taught in schools, and then teach your kids religion at home. Otherwise we stand to turn out a bunch of hillbilly kids onto the world. Maybe the theory that the world is flat will be in vogue once again.

26 May 2006
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

pundit,

I agree that he should resign in shame. It is obvious, however, that these right-wing liberal fundamentalist chrisitians have no shame. They must be voted out. FGive often and freely to KBOE moderate candidates for this next election.

26 May 2006
at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Looks like Mr Awbrey stepped into this tarbaby in a big way. You'd think someone with his journalist background, journalistic intelligence and journalist's 'savvy' would recognize that he was being set up.

Oops - guess the operative word here is 'journalist'.

26 May 2006
at 10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

“right-wing liberal fundamentalist chrisitians”

Good one there nightmare.

“evolution is one of the most substantiated phenomena in all of science”

Wrong, unless you're going with the, if you keeping telling a lie over and over again then people will believe it. We've been through this though so enough on the evolution/creation debate.

26 May 2006
at 11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Who cares what Awbrey's said? Apparently, it accurately (or at least closely) mirrors the thinking of his boss - Corkins - as well as the majority of the Board. Don't blame Awbrey - blame Kansas voters.

That said, $76,000 in salary! That's completely and totally outrageous. This is not an exceptionally high-skilled occupation. The work environment is not all that onerous. No policymaking decisions are made by this guy. What possible justification exists for looting the state treasury to pay this guy two times the average Kansas wage to do this job (let alone to do it poorly)?

(BTW - maybe this explains why the Wichita Eagle editorials are so poorly reasoned.)

26 May 2006
at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

bankboy 119:

Evolution is one of the most substantiated phenomena in science, even moreso that the revolution of the earth around the sun. It is fact, not theory.

I normally dismiss anything you post, for you belong to the local tribe of narrow-minded troglodytes who routinely infest this site; however, I - and probably others - am willing to help you understand the truth - historical, scholastic, even cultural - about evolution.

All you have to do is ask.

26 May 2006
at 12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Me not trog…trodge… trogg.. me hit you with rock!

26 May 2006
at 12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

I realize that the scientific reality of evolution conflicts with the religious dogma of many, causing the vehement denial of evolution without understanding the science behind it. This is called willful ignorance, and the willfully ignorant are generally not worth the effort.

Trouble is, the willfully ignorant control KBOE and much of the legislature. Vote them out.

26 May 2006
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thea (Anonymous) says…

Seems to me the biggest issue is that the fellow the State Board of Education has hired as their Director of Communications doesn't know the first thing about communications…”I haven't been house-trained in public relations,”

Ummmm:shouldn't the Dir. of Communications have a strong understanding of public relations??

26 May 2006
at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Why are there Kansans who support students' ability to discuss the glaring gaps in evolution? Easy, just consider a few…

Questions for the Evolutionists:

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe.

Evolution is not a good theory-it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Space does not permit the other 29 questions.

Kansans who are not members of The Church of Darwin are tired of his dead religion being forced on students who have no alternative to public schools. If evolution is taught then all the great questions which blow holes in it must also be allowed. Right? Otherwise why should one not consider this promoted unilateral dogma, brainwashing or state propaganda?

Let's face it - if it's heresy to question evolution, it merely proves what many already suspect - Evolution is the new State Religion!

26 May 2006
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Yes, nightmare, there is more to science than just replication in the lab.
Science includes evidence, theory, and test. Popper calls it conjecture and refutation.

Nightmare said that I believe: “Again, by Devo's logic, our criminal justice system is worthless. How could one be convicted of a crime if all of the evidence is historical and the crime can not be recreated? ”

No, no what I believe is that history is history. The law is the law. And so forth. Implicit in your assertion is that I consider science to be the only source of knowledge and that since science cannot test these areas of knowledge, they are worthless.

History and law (and even religion for that matter) can be fecund in their own way. Science is used as one tool in the toolbox for these folks (CSI). Science doesn't define them. They are not taught in science because they are not.

Macroevolution should also not be taught as science because it cannot be properly tested. If you want to believe in macroevolution, go ahead. Just don't call it science. If you want to argue with christians, Budhists, or other pagans about the origin of all this around us, go ahead. When you hide behind the word science, you sully all the physical sciences.

The general public sees the power of the physical sciences, and when anthropologists, archaeologists, and macroevolutionists insist that they engage in science, they are lying to us. Does it make their endeavors worthless? No, nightmare, it just doesn't make them science.

This appears to be the position of Mr. Awbrey, so I congratulate him for using his position to pose the obvious possibility that neither creation nor evolution has much to do with science.

26 May 2006
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

voxpopuli (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen,

Science involves collection and analysis of data. The sufficiency of that data to support a theory (the answers the theory postulates) is the real “test.” Your statement that “the test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions” is just wrong.

There are some legitimate critiques of some of the evidence behind the evolutionary theory, but your critique and questions reveal only that you really don't know what the theory of evolution says or what science is or how it is conducted.

For example, the study of the origins of life is Abiogenesis not Evolution (which is concerned with what happened after life began)—thus arguments that the Theory of Evolution does not provide sufficient evidence for the creation of life are erroneous.

'nuff said.

26 May 2006
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sloppyscience (Anonymous) says…

I imagine that the rest of bondmen's unanswerable questions that blow holes in the theory of evolution include:

Is pluto a planet or a star? Evolution is false
Why do I like ketchup but not tomatoes? Evolution is false
Why won't Sean Hannity return my phone calls?

ect.

26 May 2006
at 7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>Evolutionists have yet to combine the primordial chemicals into an organism that replicates.

Right, first of all, evolution is more than just the study of how life may have emerged from “primordial chemicals”. It also makes statements about how organisms can change from one kind into another over time. That part of it has alot of evidence going back hundreds of years.

Second, it seems silly to expect that an event that is as highly improbable (once in a billion years) as a self replicating organism emerging from chemical soup under the right conditions is going to repeat itself in the limited amount of time we've been doing the testing. That doesn't mean that such an event didn't happen in the past.

Quantum theory says that it is possible (though insanely improbable) for the moon to suddenly wink out of existance and reappear in a different location. Are you saying that because we haven't seen it happen yet, that this part of the theory is invalid? Are you trying to say that biology and evolution should be held to a different standard than other branches of science?

26 May 2006
at 7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

It's not our fault that Christianity is essentially a lie, one that cannot be proved by Reason. Christianity tried to accomodate to Aristotle - if anything is real, it can be demonstrated by Reason - and failed … miserably.

It's not our fault that so many people cannot understand that supernatural religions - and their creation myths - are fairly common throughout human history, and even resemble each other to a remarkable degree. In this context, Christianity is even less notable, for it was created largely out of the old pagan religions that used to squat around the Mediterreanean.

It's not our fault that you have to make a choice - either believe in your bible, or believe in evolution. Choose faith, or choose Reason. You cannot choose both.

If you choose faith, then you have my heartfelt sympathy. You choose to believe in a lie, in that which is not true. Jesus is dead. He was not God, not ever. He will never return.

If you choose Reason, you should be applauded. The history of mankind, at least of Western European mankind, for the last thousand years is essentially the story of us moving away from religion and priestly control, to empirical knowledge and secular humanism. It has been a long, arduous struggle, with many setbacks and casualties along the way. The path ahead is not entirely smooth, for those who insist their dead Galilean must be included in public discourse are still too numerous.

But we are winning. Truth and Reason will triumph over ignorance and superstition

26 May 2006
at 8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

Newtonian gravity was thought to be a fact. Einstein proved it wrong. Atoms were thought to be a nucleus with a single shell of electrons orbiting. Bohr proved this wrong. Atoms were then thought to have shells of electrons. Schrodinger proved this wrong. Black holes were though to be completely black. Stephen Hawking proved this wrong. Science is, in a rough definition, proving everything wrong. One cannot completely prove a theory, one can only disprove theories. To call evolution a fact is arrogant. Nothing is a fact. If anybody here were educated beyond the high school level in science, they would realize the world is full of phenomena that cannot be explained. (Side note: Quantum physics, where particles can spontaneously appear and disappear, energy can be borrowed from nothing; the wave nature of matter; the sum of all histories/sum of all paths theory; Gravity, which is quite controversial when dealing with small particles; Fibonacci sequences…)

Also, to clear things up, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the size of the evolution. Microevolution exists. It is the human population gradually becoming taller and smarter, viruses mutating. It is evolution withing a species. Macroevolution has only been supported using DNA and fossils. It is the evolution from one species to another. The major barrier for me believing in macroevolution is the existance of hundreds of fossils of any particular species, and no fossils of the “in between” animals. One day, there are no more apes, just neanderthals. Then no more neanderthals, just humans.

26 May 2006
at 8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Fossils do not prove evolution except in men's minds imagining origin stories.

Fossils are evidence of billions of dead things, covered by rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

Oh, and a couple times a year a living fossil is found alive in some remote earth ecosystem. Millions and billions of years of evolution and still no change? Go figure.

26 May 2006
at 8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BOE (Anonymous) says…

“I haven't been house-trained in public relations,” Awbrey said Thursday, adding, “I'm going to have to spend some time during the next week or two thinking about where I'm going to go with my career.”

===

Take heart, Dave!

I hear there's a couple of openings as the sole employee at two right wing stink tanks.

You could do both of them standing on your head. You can be your own boss, editorialize to your heart's content, and you don't have to worry about PR, since it wasn't the “long suit” of the last guy in the job. You need only focus on lobbying and promoting the defunding of public education in the State of Kansas.

The proverbial ” Piece O' CakeÂ®/¢ ”.

26 May 2006
at 8:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

anonimiss & bondmen:

transitional forms. It might not be a bad idea to actually read a high school biology textbook … or an issue of “Discover.”

26 May 2006
at 8:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

Transitional forms are still their own seperate species, with multiple fossils found. Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Habilis all lived for hundreds of thousands of years unchanged. They suddenly appeared and disappeared. When did Homo Erectus evolve into Homo Sapien? Homo Erectus just vanished and Homo Sapien appeared. Each remained unchanged during its span.

26 May 2006
at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

It always knew how to reproduce itself, otherwise it wouldn't really be considered alive. (essentially see #6).

>8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here. Are you trying to ask the cellular equivalent of, “which came first the chicken or the egg”, or, “what would a rooster mate with if there was no hen”? I'll go with the second:

There are alot of ideas about this, but the quick answer is it didn't happen overnight and there were steps along the way. As far as a cellular level, it didn't really work in a strictly sexual or asexual way. Bacteria pass genetic material around all the time either in the form of plasmids, which are where pieces of genes are dumped in the environment and picked up by another bacterium, or through bacterial conjugation where two cells bump together and pass information along a bridge.

From the distribution of part of the genetic code that bacteria do, it follows that you might just break half of the code off and send it out into the environment. This is what yeast does, when it produces acospores, though yeast can also reproduce asexually through budding. When the spores from different cells meet up in the environment, they fuse together to form a zygote and the cycle continues. If you want to answer your question literally then, the first cell to reproduce sexually most likely reproduced with one of its daughter cells.

>9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive e, or the species? How do you explain this?)

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Most animals want to reproduce because their genetic code makes them want to reproduce. It's not a concious decision. If for some reason the genetic code was changed so that this drive was suppressed, then that (unsuccessful) genetic code would have not been passed on and would have died out. It's not really a “why” kind of question.

>10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

I have no idea what alphabets have to do with this since genes all use the same alphabet: GTCA. Random mutations occur all of the time and are passed down through reproduction. If the mutations are disadvantagous, like a club foot, they will lose out to the organisms with unmutated genes and remain either a minority or disappear completely from the species. If they are advantagous, like making someone taller, then they have the potential to take over and become the majority characteristic of a species. There is an awful lot of information about this, I'm surprised you don't know the answer to that.

26 May 2006
at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

Bondman:

What bothers me the most about this sort of “42 questions” format is that somehow you think that nobody involved with the science of evolution has come up with these questions in the hundred fifty years or so this theory has been around. The answers are out there if you really want to find them.

In any case, some of your questions are more related to cosmology (i.e. physics and astronomy) than evolution (i.e. biology), however, if you want a more complete set of explainations for the Biology, try reading “The Blind Watchmaker” by Dawkins.

Here goes:

>1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Nobody knows, but that's really a physics question. In any case, why do you feel it has to “come from” anywhere?

>2. Where did matter come from?

See previous answer.

>3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Again, a physics question, but most of them are related to how things played out immediately after the Big Bang.

>4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

It isn't “perfectly” organized.

>5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it isn't “perfectly organized”

>6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

I'm assuming you're refering to life on earth I guess that answers the where part. There are a few theories about how, which would take along time to explain, but the basic idea is that it happened in a highly improbable event several billion years ago when a chain of simple protein-like structures organized into something that could make copies of itself out of the materials in the surrounding environment it was in. The result was a simple virus-like lifeform. I don't think there is an answer to the “why” part, if there is, it's related to philosophy.

26 May 2006
at 8:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

hmmm.. looks like they got switched.

26 May 2006
at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

My main argument is that science advances not because scientists are satisfied with their theories, but set out to disprove them or modify them. Nothing was ever learned from saying “(fill in theory here) is a fact. You're stupid to question it” Learning comes from questioning existing theories.

26 May 2006
at 9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

From what I'm getting out of this evolution controversy is that Galileo was a moron for questioning the fact that the Sun moved around the Earth, Columbus was a moron for questioning the fact that the Earth was flat, Einstein was a moron for questioning the fact that Newton already explained gravity, Schrodinger was a moron for questioning the fact that atoms have distinct shells of electrons, Wegener was a moron for questioning the fact that the continents have always been where they are today, and Darwin was a moron for questioning the fact that animals change.

26 May 2006
at 9:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

If you're truly concerned about science, you would welcome criticism of evolution-it will only lead to a more complete theory. When in human history have we been completely right?

26 May 2006
at 9:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Thank you, MyName. I can go drink beer. Anonimiss and the other one should read Stephen Jay Gould … and then apologize to the cosmos for their … lack of acumen.

26 May 2006
at 9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

We are “completely right” when we note that evolution is fact, not theory. Truth and Reason, over ignorance and superstition.

26 May 2006
at 9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Anonimiss:

You're doing better. Saying the right things. You seem to understand one of the basic tenets of empirical science: question everything.

But I don't welcome criticsm of evolution, largely because the “critics” are often motivated by a religious agenda anathema to reason. If you don't fit this description, then … okay.

26 May 2006
at 10:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

holygrailale:

Greetings! Still smile over the thrashing you put on the trogs over the creationist thread. They truly must be gluttons for punishment. Poor Arminitwit has ran and hid for days; con-man went and bought a thesaurus; rightthinker was caught reading a transcript of Hillary Clinton's energy speech, and Lepanto paid a priest to say mass for his soul in purgatory after he dies.

Keep up the good work.

26 May 2006
at 10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

I wuz rong. My sweetie insisted I cook dinner - pork loin in olive oil, with jalapeno peppers, onions, mushrooms, and garlic - and I did.

I'll have her check Truckstop's schedule and see when/where we can catch them. She disapproves that I “spend so much time on-line, playing with your Republican friends.”

27 May 2006
at 8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

holygrailale:

I believe that it is childish for people to insist on explanations for everything. Creationists and macroevolutionists strike me as people who cannot live in a world that has questions left unanswered. So they create reality to soothe their worried minds. It's like whistling past the cemetery.

Einstein's theories were conjectures. Subsequent testing of these theories failed to falsify the theories.

We could argue semantics over Einstein's “discoveries”, but I believe that the people who noted the anomalies in classical mechanics in the first place are to be commended. Also, the folks who tested (and continue to test) these theories are part of the march to scientific knowledge.

But they don't get the press that Einstein gets because it's amazing to the general public to hear about theoreticians. The guys who test aren't amazing. But the wild-haired theoreticians are intellectually sexy. Sagan and Gould knew it.

The result is that theory becomes science. Evidence becomes test. Testing with the intent to falsify becomes blasphemy. Can't test? It's alright, no one but the fundies will question you, and they are easy to beat.
Especially when they create bogus science like creationism.

Scientists grow in their arrogance as the press, public and colleagues praise them for their cleverness. Clever is entertaining. Clever is sexy. Einstein was clever. Darwin was too, and we all aspire to their status as scientists, don't we?

Not a clever person? Use a computer.

27 May 2006
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Seems to me carbon dating is the relative concentration of isotopes of carbon in previously alive organisms. This has been related to the amount of time between an organism's death and the present time, because the carbon in the organism decays, but isn't replentished. This technique has been tested over periods of a few thousand years.
It is a tool in the tool box, complete with calibration and error estimates. It is a whole lot like physics, therefore it is science.

Its use is not necessarily science. When it is used to make measurements and theories are derived to describe the measurements, the resulting theories must be tested.

Further carbon dated items are placed in context with the original data and a picture emerges which either supports the theory or falsifies it.

This is tautology, not science. Statements of theory are made and supported by evidence. Further evidence is accumulated, and if it doesn't disprove the theory, it is taken as a (passed) test of the theory. This is not testing. It is the gathering of further evidence.

Testing of Bernoulli' law involves building structures and testing the theory over all parameters. Airplane wings are fabricated with lift derived from Bernoulli. You and I climb on the plane and fly to Memphis to see Graceland.

We test Bernoulli with our lives……… This is science, for people who live in a reality not created by arrogant scientists.

28 May 2006
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

First, I have no religion. Indeed, that's the point. Creationists and many others do have a religion. The zeal of some scientists (and others) makes me think that their work is their religion. Proselytizing is unbecoming the Cartesian thinker.

Second, The leaders of science are arrogant. No different than any other leader in any other endeavor. They actually welcome the fact that it is forward 7, back 5. Note that any really good scientific work results in more new questions than are answered. They revel in saying that there is much work to be done…….

The formal physics definition of work is force times distance. Evo-bios and environmental-bios and other grand solution types generate a lot of force, but little movement. It appears to the general public that much work is done because of the magnitude of rhetorical force.

Yet, I wonder where is the movement? I mean, why should I care about links between various birds and dinosaurs. When I ask this question of evos, paleos or other non-physical sciences, I am excoriated for being stupid. Where is you sense of wonder? Aren't you curious? You must be stupid!!

So my view of these sciences is that they produce great stories; lots of light, but no heat.

My mother contracted polio when I was 9 months old. She became paralyzed. She lived for 19 more years with the help of my father and his buddies (engineers) designing the wheelchair, springs to replace triceps, book holders, and so on. Thus, I became an engineer. A baby-killer in 1970's parlance.

And today, those hippies of my generation are in positions of authority, like Deans and Presidents of universities. Mayors, news reporters, etc. They argue with religious conservatives over where we came from, how this all got here. I am embarrassed by the nature of the argument and the clear authoritarian stance of the hippies. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, The Who said.

So sing yer songs, christians, dance yer dances, paleo-evo-enviro-gaia worshippers. I just wish all of ya would stop wasting so many resources on something that has such a lack of fecundity.

What, are you stupid or something?

28 May 2006
at 7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thinka (Anonymous) says…

We know that comets don't behave as we expect them to, and many meteors don't, either. And so on across cosmology. Why don't we consider other ways these things might work? As it turns out, that's due to our prior religious commitment to Atheism and so to Materialism; it's definitely NOT through any rational process.

Now I see a bunch of fruit-loops (e.g. devobrun) waffling on about Christians having religion and themselves none. you have religion, people, a devout one and with it the even stronger blindness needed to support it. When you notice this, a lot of words suddenly start making sense; until then, it all seems so confusing.

28 May 2006
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thinka (Anonymous) says…

Carbon dating is not a panacea for Materialism, either. Many items have been carbon dated at hundreds of millions of years old.

HOW? There should be no serious amount of unaltered carbon atoms left in there at all.

That, by itself, is a clear message for anyone not prejudiced by prior religious commitment to Materialism (which is almost always in support of Atheism).

28 May 2006
at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thinka (Anonymous) says…

xenophonlet: evolution is only a “fact” to true believers who have no potentially valid alternatives to admit to and who are willing to wave a “scientific” wand of authority in order to avoid thinking about many thousands of necessary and sequential steps which do not work in real life but are vital to the support of this faith.

Call it what you like, but my dictionary calls it “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” or in shorter words “a religion”.

28 May 2006
at 10:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…

You know, all this debate about evolution and intelligent design….enough already!

The people who believe in evolution are probably smart enough to teach their kids what it is about evolution that they need to know outside of the school system. At least enough to fill in the gaps.

That said, the people who do not believe in evolution are also probably smart enough to teach their kids what they want them to believe outside of the school system. At least enough to fill in the gaps.

So what it boils down to is (once again) getting parents involved in the teaching of the children, outside the school's curriculum if need be.

Be involved parents! If the school isn't teaching what you want your kids to learn, teach them what else it is you want them to learn yourself.

28 May 2006
at 11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

late to read this..life is hell here..waiting for more morphine for the kiddo…

first chance to get on in quite a while.

This is great, I love it!

Did everyone read that they've proven by DNA that chimps and a former human form branched, yet later chose to mate again? How's that for an eye opener?

28 May 2006
at 11:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

So, thinka, you think I support evo because I don't support creation?

This whole discussion began with Mr. Awbry suggesting that neither creation nor evolution is scientific. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

As Ernest Rutherford said about 100 years ago: so far physics is the only science, everything else is just stamp collecting. Today he might include theology along with the stamp collecting.

GardenMomma, the reason that this discussion has some purpose lies in the top-down style of government that America is adopting. Kids are fed breakfast, lunch and taught all kinds of things besides the 3 rs. Religion is, of course, off limits, so……….teach it in biology class.

Give the students answers to questions that are quite spiritual in nature. Where did we come from? In the beginning there was energy and then there was a big bang…….. This isn't science, it is religious speculation.

29 May 2006
at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

In evo, paleo, history, literature, the law, or any other endeavor, the level of scientific veracity is proportional to the quality and quantity of the test.

Knowledge can be gained through means other than science, but to call this acquired knowledge science, one must test.

Science is test. The law uses scientific tools. It uses rational rules of determining relative truth. It seeks new methods for getting at the truth and administering justice. HIghly intelligent people ply the waters of the legal profession. Evidence is gathered. Evidence is put together in a rational story. The evidence and the theories of the prosecution are challenged in court by the defense.

The law is not science. Neither is macroevolution. Just because macro-evo gathers evidence which is put together in a rational story doesn't make it science. I think that macro-evo should be studied. I think people should continue to probe the mysteries of the past. But for the same reasons that history isn't science, macro-evo should not be taught as science.

You said: Evolution has a great deal of scientific evidence to back it.

Yes, and OJ had a lot of evidence suggesting that he killed his wife. Believe what you like, holygrailale, just don't call evidence science.

Check out typical statements like this:
“Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called “microevolution.”
But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.”
Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 09 November 2005

The first paragraph is testable, the second is not. You have to start with dinosaurs and let time run for millions of years. Can't be tested. Evidence can be gathered, period. Not good enough.

29 May 2006
at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Several years ago, I new a gal at JPL who worked on the ozone project. Chloro- and Fluoro- carbons were indentified in the lab as catalysts for the elimination of ozone .

A U-2 airplane owned by NASA Ames was used to sample the ozone and historical maps were produced over a period of years. Result was to recommend elimination of freon from the environment.

Today we test the ozone. Manmade chlor- fluoro-carbons are reduced. A test is being conducted as I type.

So far, the tests are disappointing to the scientists. The hole in the polar ozone hasn't changed much. It is early, and there is still some freon and other manmade chlorine and fluorine emitted. And volcanic emission is up, and …….. Well, I dunno, but damn, at least they are testing.

Do ya see the difference between evidence and test? Measurements and theories followed by small laboratory tests are the conjecture part of the above science. The statement that the polar ozone hole is exacerbated by manmade emissions is a broad theory. It is right at the edge of testability. It costs a lot of time and money. It may prove false. But it is being tested. We are now in the refutation phase of the science. It is science. Macro-evo statements like the one in the previous entry (man and beast) cannot be tested. It cannot be refuted by a direct test.

No matter how much you would like to call macro-evo science, it just isn't.

Look up Karl Popper. Read “Conjecture and Refutation” by him. Look at the epistomology of science. You will find the basis of my complaint re macro-evo.

I think macro-evo Darwinism has done a disservice to biology.

29 May 2006
at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

devobrunsaid:

“I think macro-evo Darwinism has done a disservice to biology.”

Then you do not understand biology, the ToE, or education. Your use of the “darwinism” term “outs” you as a YECer or IDer. You are one of these guys that has it is his head that your term “macro-evolution” equals orgins of life. You also make up the fact that evolution theory = orgin of life. Wrong on both counts. The “macro-evo Darwinism” is a made up word and concept, and relates in NOT WAY to science whatsoever. What you are doing is called “rationalisation”. Justifying your thoughts and world view and then seeking evidence to back up your pre-concieved notion. Again, not science.

You also need to know what terms mean. Like “LAW” in science is different as in LAW in the legal terminology. “Theory” is different too. WHat you are stating is a “concept” which is not even a hypothesis on which to test.

You are doing a diservice to science and education by talking this smack. It is ignorant and unsupported. Your testable issue is again a strawman.

You said:

“Do ya see the difference between evidence and test?”

Do you see that by this statement you have no clue about what science is? Testing fine, and evidence too. But a “Scientific Theory” is when your peers or a peer review panel on multiple runs of “tests” on your proposed theory come up with the same result. It then becomes a theory.

Macro and Micro evolution are made up terms by YEC or IDers, however evolution Theory has been “tested” and “peer reviewed” many times and has been proven to thepoint of being a theory. Only fundamentalist yahoos do not want to accept the obvious.

You do not understand the terms of “theory”, “evolution”, “Science”, ad nauseaum.

Evolution is not Origin of life, it is how life changes. That is whe the fundie yahoos fall off the wagon of knowledge. They simply do not understand the theory and yell and holler about things that the theory simply is not.

29 May 2006
at 10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun said:

“Macro-evo statements like the one in the previous entry (man and beast) cannot be tested. It cannot be refuted by a direct test.”

The very same thing can be said about God and Jesus. Do they not exist then? Can you test if Jesus is the messiah on emperical evidence or a testable theory? I just kind of took that with out the evidence, thank you. But that is not science, it is FAITH. See what happens when you circular logic and misrepresentation of facts?

“No matter how much you would like to call macro-evo science, it just isn't.”

That is exactly right, you are not using proper science terms and do not know what you are saying. And the ToE is definately NOT what you think.. abiogenesis or origin of life.

I am a Republican and a Conservative and you guys in our party is making me want to vote Democrat. You pushed us out last time in 1992 with your fundamentalist agenda, and the nation went Democratic. You are doing it again.

You want to believe all this stupid stuff you are spouting…FINE. But keep this fundamentalist talibahnist BS out of the public schools.

29 May 2006
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…

Holygraile, I wasn't suggesting homeschooling. I was suggesting to supplement the school curriculum with extra education in the area(s) wanted. Whether that extra education is in the form of Sunday School, classes at the museums, zoo, Science City in KC, or books (Heaven forbid we actually learn from books!).

I agree that the people instructing do need to have the proper education. Passing along misinformation is just as bad as not passing along any information.

29 May 2006
at 12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Awbrey made the mistake of thinking that, even though he is a public employee, he has the freedom to his own opinion, and to state it, in public. He should know that, in Kansas, the only people who enjoy that right are university professors.

29 May 2006
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Correction: the only public employees who enjoy that right are university professors.

29 May 2006
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

HGA wrote: “The problem wasn't that he expressed an opinion. The problem was that he expressed an indefensible erroneous opinion.”

I didn't know that was in the constitution. Show me.

29 May 2006
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Godot it may not be in the COnstitution, but it certianly is in the Kansas Statutes and Kansas Employees Handbook and his job discription> What part of that don't you understand?

If you are going to pass yourself off as the keeper of the moral high ground, then you had better not champion dishonesty in to remain on that high ground.

29 May 2006
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Godot, great point. The rest of us are ignoramuses (ignorami?) who don't know the definitions of parsed terms in the evo-devo battle.

Don't believe in the happy crap that comes outta the arts and crafts science departments? Must be a christian. Has to be. Why, nobody could question the esteemed committee that monitors the science that is good and wonderful, eh Asbestos?

Holygraileale, Lets see, you argue that you know the difference between test and evidence, but I am unconvinced.

Grailale said: “As a published scientist, I do know the difference between evidence and test.

Paleontology and biology have much data to support the earlier forms of humanoid life on this planet.

To deny the data is not adherence to science, it's denial.”

So evidence is test.

You say that I am ignoring DNA testing. No, this is DNA measurement. Yes, there is some primitive DNA manipulation going on now, but compared to the diversity of life on the planet, you got a long way to go.

29 May 2006
at 2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos, There is anger in yer messages. Watch the blood pressure.

Don't forget, no children (or adults) will be harmed by any of these speculations unless they MUST believe in them.

No clocks will stop, no airplanes will crash, no one will die a gruesome death if you choose not to believe the origins of species or the power of god.

You can choose not to believe, oh non-flammable one. Better yet, choose to believe any damn thing you want as long as you don't insist that others must.

It's tough to answer you, amphibole, because you missed the definition of me by such a wide mark.

I am a PhD, ex-NASA scientist who now teaches university electronics and high school physics. I think the best characterization of my politics/philosophy is anarchistic/atheist. Details are important, but you won't get them, they are mine.

So, you don't like what christians did to the Republican party. Me too. I also don't like what the Bushes did either. The non-christian republicans look like a bunch of libertarian sellouts if you ask me. I'd be a libertarian if they had any political sway.

29 May 2006
at 4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

HGA, Awbrey did not espouse a religion. He dared to expose his personally held doubts about commonly accepted scientific theory. Why are you so threatened by people who question your conclusions?

I listend to an NPR piece on evolution this weekend. Seems some scientists believe they can compress evolution into a four year process, and then, lo and behold they can undo it in even less time!!!

Their experiment? They took a species of fish, isolated a large number of them, and systematically removed all but the weakest specimens. Eventually all the fish in the experiment had the dna of the weakest fishes, and the colony was on the brink of “extinction.” It took four years to accomplish this feat.

The scientists did not create a new species, they simply ruined the general strength of a species by removing the strongest ones. Yet they claimed the species had evolved.

Next, they reintroduced healthy specimens of the original species, and, voila, evolution was reversed.

Back when I was in high school biology, we did a simliar experiment, with fruit flies. We introduced a small number of red eyed fruit flies into a colony of black eyed fruit flies (or maybe it was white eyes and red eyes, I forget which) and recorded the change in eye color, noted that one color wiped out the occurrence of the other color, and how many generations it took to accomplish this, and concluded that there were recessive and dominant characteristics. We did not claim to have sped up evolution. We simply recorded the effect of natural selection.

It appears to me that the real evolution that has occurred is in the definition of “evolution.” It apparently does not mean the development of an entirely new creature (perhaps that cannot be proven) but rather refers to gradual changes in genetic makeup through natural selection, which can be proven.

Which camp, the intelligent design group, the creationists, or the evolutionists, claims that evolution is the development of an entirely new animal form from an existing one?

29 May 2006
at 6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Grailale: ” So anatomy is not “real” science???

Paleontology???

Archeology???

Biology?????

Genetics????”

Devo: “stamp collecting????”

Graileale:”You were confusing science with engineering. If it wasn't materials engineering, it was “crap”.”

The reason I'm still around is because you and the other evo-religious types have yet to get me right. And I am a patient person.

I do not confuse science and engineering. Engineering is applied physics and more. The more includes ergonomics and psychology to build machines that sell. It includes marketing and knowledge of people and their needs to sell product.

Physics, as Nobel winner Rutherford said, so far is the only science. The rest is stamp collecting.

Theology is not science, but it isn't “crap” either. See, you just don't understand this argument.

––––––––––––––––

“Yes, I do know what data, evidence, test, protocols, results, etc are.”

Ok, convinced me. Golly gee whiz, Graileale, it was there in front of me all the time. You are on the peer review committees. Thou sayest it, thus it is true.

I'm surprised this isn't all written in Latin, so the peons like myself can't understand these proceedings.
––––––––––-

I'm glad you find this so funny. How's this one: What do the Irish call lawn furniture?

Paddy O'Furniture.
––––––—

Now you can go on with a smile on your face, confident that the world of science is safe for committee. I have acknowledged the great Oz of science, the peer review committee. Pay no attention to man behind the curtain.

29 May 2006
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun said:

“I am a PhD, ex-NASA scientist who now teaches university electronics and high school physics.”

Big woop for you, electronics and physics are neither one a “Life sciences”, if we are to respect your “speciality” then you must respect others. This is the problem with the IDer crusade, “I have alphabets after my name listen to me and take it as the gospel”. Intellectual arrogance and dishonesty by academic misrepresentation. Stay within your field and within the bounds of ethics. You do remember that on don't you, you worked for NASA after all.

You also state:

“You can choose not to believe, oh non-flammable one. Better yet, choose to believe any damn thing you want as long as you don't insist that others must.”

Yes that IS what this is about, the Korkins Krew of KouKous want to establish only one form of a biblical explaination of the origin of life ala creationism, and to do this they are mislabeling evolution to include the origin of life, which is isn't, and never has been about. it is about changes over time!!!! How many times do we have to say it.

You say:

“Asbestos, There is anger in yer messages.”

Damn straight! I am so tired of self important yahoos mucking up the education system with their off the wall non science views. For someone who beats their chest so much on working for NASA and a PHD. I think you would want integrity of the Scientific thought and the educational system, after all it produced you, and you must have turned out fine.

Godot said:

“Which camp, the intelligent design group, the creationists, or the evolutionists, claims that evolution is the development of an entirely new animal form from an existing one?”

None of them. That is not how it works, that is what you say, but that is not evolution. ie Changes over time, that is not what you are saying.

Godot said:

“HGA, Awbrey did not espouse a religion. He dared to expose his personally held doubts about commonly accepted scientific theory. Why are you so threatened by people who question your conclusions?”

We are not threatened. We are however paying this guys salary, and he should do his JOB or get another one. His job is to speak for the KSBOE, not give his opinions, but be a spokesman for theirs, and ALL of the board members. He can keep his personally held opinions to himselfg until such time as he is only representing himself. He DID however intorduce himself as the PR person for the KSBOE, at that point he was working for us, not hmiself! If you can't figure that one out, you are too far gone or too much of a fundie for me to reach with reason.

29 May 2006
at 7:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun said:

“I do not confuse science and engineering. Engineering is applied physics and more. The more includes ergonomics and psychology to build machines that sell. It includes marketing and knowledge of people and their needs to sell product.”

None of these are Life Sciences. Marketing??? Get real! Psycology? Get more real!

You confuse alot of things big time! who do you think you are kidding here? That circular logic may have played well for you in the past, but it ain't gonna pas muster here mister.

29 May 2006
at 7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos wrote, “”HGA, Awbrey did not espouse a religion. He dared to expose his personally held doubts about commonly accepted scientific theory. Why are you so threatened by people who question your conclusions?”

We are not threatened. We are however paying this guys salary, and he should do his JOB or get another one. His job is to speak for the KSBOE, not give his opinions”

I will grant you this, he should have prefaced his remarks with, “This is my personal opinion, it is not that of the BOE.”

If he had said that, what would be your stance?

29 May 2006
at 7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Godot, right on.

“We did not claim to have sped up evolution. We simply recorded the effect of natural selection.”

Well, not good enough. This approach to biology (according to the grand theory guys) is like reading the bible, commenting on the wonderful philosophy therein, but not believing that Jesus is the son of God and the bible is the word of God.

After I read that back, I just know that some evo-priest is going to claim that my words prove that I am a bible-thumper. Take a breath Darwinians, keep your feet on the ground. Knees jerking up into the computer table can harm you and your computer.
––––––––

“Why are you so threatened by people who question your conclusions?” These folks are naturally afraid that they will be found out to be light-weight, pencil-necked scientists.

Too rough? Well, ever since you evo guys barely made it through high school math, you wanted to be scientists. So you went into biology, then evolutionary bio, etc. You might be found out. Quick, hide behind platitudes, become scientifically pious. Dodge the definition. Above all, avoid fecundity of your science because this implies that the science has merit.

And some damned engineer might try to build a product based on the science and risk peoples lives, i.e. conduct a serious test. This would be far too heady for your size 15 neck to support.

29 May 2006
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

HGA, I asked a serious question, and you responded with name calling. Scientists are not the majority of the populace. If you scientists cannot deliver a message that convinces the majority that the rest of us (even those, like I, who have attained a degree from your esteemed KU) can buy into, you are lost.

It seems to me that you are not addressing the issue: creationists and ID'ers hold that natural selection is a law of nature; they do not call this evolution; evolutionists call natural selection “evolution,” and declare that this is the creation of new life forms.

How do we resolve the conflict that some believe the process does not create new life forms, but only represents the natural progression of an existing life form, while others recognize the process and declare that it has created a totally new life form?

The two sides must agree to disagree. The same principle applies; who cares what we call it?

I call on all sides to call a truce, to agree that there is a slow, progressive change within life forms as a result of natural selection, and that the result (aka “the survival of the fittest)is “Q”.

29 May 2006
at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

graileale, Yer mind works in a very strange way.

So, I challenge your science by committee on the basis of questioning authority. You respond by conjering some personal vendetta that I might have.

What?

Is this supposed to be clever? Do you have information regarding papers that I submitted?

Why is this getting personal about me instead of about physics/engineering science vs. the untestable sciences?

You use adapting bacteria as an example of evolution. So, there is one small test among countless others that could and should be conducted.

How does the drug resistance formation vary vs temp, electromagnetic radiation (at various wavelengths and intensities) , pH, concentration and type of antibiotic, pressure, salinity, presence of other insulting chemicals/organisms, organism that you begin with, and the ubiquitous “parameters that I don't even know about”?

Uh oh, too many variables, not enough time or $. So, we'll ignore the probable difficulties. When they are pointed out to us, we gleefully say that our research points to even more questions than it answered. Just look at the research possibilities!

And then you want to use this example as proof of evolution. I don't buy it. And neither should the young little jr high kids. Only you have the power of the state behind you. You dictate what they shall learn as science. I'm tellin' you that you are dangerous.

The evo crowd are the same bunch that wants top-down control of everything. Government uber alis. We know what's right and wrong. We are experts, we are authorities.

I'm tellin' ya, you sound like yer fathers. Different orders, same authority. You guys are sublime.

29 May 2006
at 9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Godot:

“It seems to me that you are not addressing the issue: creationists and ID'ers hold that natural selection is a law of nature; they do not call this evolution; evolutionists call natural selection “evolution,” and declare that this is the creation of new life forms.

How do we resolve the conflict that some believe the process does not create new life forms, but only represents the natural progression of an existing life form, while others recognize the process and declare that it has created a totally new life form?”

That is circular thinking and logic, you self contradict. The first paragraph is what YOU think evolution, not what it actually is, nor how it is scientifically defined. You don't buy it. Nothing we can do there, but that doesn't mean it ain't science, just because you cannot understand or conceptulize the obvious and factual.

devobrun:

“You use adapting bacteria as an example of evolution. So, there is one small test among countless others that could and should be conducted.

How does the drug resistance formation vary vs temp, electromagnetic radiation (at various wavelengths and intensities) , pH, concentration and type of antibiotic, pressure, salinity, presence of other insulting chemicals/organisms, organism that you begin with, and the ubiquitous “parameters that I don't even know about”?”

The strawman cometh! THat is the argument, it is too complex, too many varibles. Well that is exactly what drug companies do every day!! They address the all those varibles you have just stated and it is utilized in drug manufacture everyday, and it is applied evolutionary principal. Just as you use APplied Physics to determine stress and strain. How can you be so blinded by narrow point of view and mind? As for 2 many $, as I said Glaxo/Welcome do it everyday, that is why drugs cost so much, LOTS of research on just those varibles.

But as you creo/IDers do you take an argument off tangent when you are starting to loose. Ie “it's not about religion”, yes it is and your narrow minded version at that. Then you try to pawn off the argument that Evolution is a “religion” now. When we started it was evil because it was atheistic, well which is it and which side of your mouth are you talking out of now.

29 May 2006
at 9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

So sad that evolutionists have to label everyone who poses questions to their theories a “creationist.”

I do not espouse any religion. I do, however, challenge idealogues like you.

30 May 2006
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

You are right, my argument is circular. As is the entire discussion of the topic. It goes round and round and round, and will until a scientist creates an entirely new life form, from nothing but “primordial soup.”

30 May 2006
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“until a scientist creates an entirely new life form, from nothing but “primordial soup.”“

thank you!! That is NOT what evolution is about. It is not about the origin of life, but you keep arguing that point.

Thank you for revealing yourself to the world.

30 May 2006
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

xenophon/worstnightmare:

if strict evolution (meaning from day one) is so black and white, why is there even debate on the subject? sure there are evolutional tendencies with all animals throughout history, but what proof is there to support the first organism evolving into millions of animals today? are you keeping the secret from the rest of us?

30 May 2006
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“HGA, I asked a serious question, and you responded with name calling. ”

That is something she's known for. That, and a whole list of other things as detailed in another thread.

30 May 2006
at 12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

myname: what's the purpose of posting a response to bondman's questions 1 through 6 if you don't have any answers? just to bash?

30 May 2006
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

holygrailale: so, what your saying is that there is no evidence for the occurences at the beginning time? i understand that. you say that there is no science related to the beginning of time. i understand why. what i don't understand is how people think that evolution and creation theories cannot co-exist. everyone i know that is a christian understands how nature evolves over time. the reason they don't support evolution in it's entirety is because it claims that the beginning of time “just happened”.

if i may remind you, you stated there is no science regarding the beginning of time. so, who has the better argument if there is no evidence either way. most people here are just fighting against creation because they fight against anything religious in nature. they argue out of spite and without science to back them up.

christians for the most part do believe that nature has evolved, but don't buy into the fact that everything that is in the universe spontaneously happened in the beginning. there is no proof otherwise, for either argument, so people make up there mind based on religion.

30 May 2006
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“There is debate on the subject because the logical inferences of evolution, like the logical inferences of the discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe, pose a challenge to the authority of scripture.”

However, discovery of the heliocentric was possible. Finding observable and repeatable sense-data is not possible. It's outside of science.

30 May 2006
at 12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“If you can't win an intellectual argument on another thread, ”

There was nothing to “win” or lose. I couldn't get you to intelligently converse.

“In other words, if carbon dating reports that jawbone is millions of years old, then the Bible is more than a little wrong on the timeline of creation.”

Try this one. Carbon dating does not report anything is millions of years old. I state that as a fact. Do you disagree? If so, please explain.

30 May 2006
at 12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“It's statements like the above that prompt me to encourage you to enroll in some science classes.”

Because I shouldn't get such stuff from you? Look above. You said it yourself. Unless you are taking it out of context, agaaaain.

30 May 2006
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Carbon dating is currently only accurate to 60,000 years.”

Carbon dating will never say that something is 60,000 years nor 6,000 years. It only shows carbon 14 to 12 ratios. People make conclusions based on the ratios.

“I'm not being paid to educate you in basic science.

What I'm telling you is very simple basic stuff that any junior high science student can confirm.”

So, now you're saying your following statement is now no longer true?

“There were no observers at the beginning of time. Hence no sense-data reported from the beginning of time. Therefore, no science.”

Good night, ailing ale.

30 May 2006
at 2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

Das_Ubermime: “Just because a question has been examined scientifically does not mean that the answer which was found is true.”

what? you keep preaching science, and that i (we) all need science lessons - you mean spend time pursuing answers that may or may not be true? i do understand science (much more than you give me credit for), and i know that there is much conjecture involved, to differing degrees.

i state this from a neutral viewpoint - most people lump the beginning of the universe in with evolution when it comes to discussion surrounding evolution vs. creationism. it's not too far a stretch to think that if nature or a higher power can create the universe, that “it” can turn around and manipulate the beginning of life, and that the same forces caused each to occur. but, for those people that believe in a higher power and have to choose between a religion they strongly live by or the conjecture of a darwin wannabe, obviously they will choose what is logical to them.

science can prove that organisms change over time and that evolution is valid. but science can't prove the beginning and thus leaves room for doubt. you say that “ID cannot be considered science because it employs the supernatural as the mechanism”, and they say that some things didn't happen because of science. what really happened? you don't know-i don't know-we'll never know.

30 May 2006
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

holygrailale:

i understand your comments completely. don't we all wish everything was totally apparent and black and white? oh well. thanks for the response.

30 May 2006
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Valid opinions:

“…science can prove that organisms change over time and that evolution is valid. but science can't prove the beginning and thus leaves room for doubt.”

That yes that is right evolution is about changes over time. very good! But, it is not about the “Begining” or “origin” of life. So you strawman falls apart again. You are arguing about nothing, and proving yourself wrong and having an inability tounderstand what “science” and evolutionis and you do it at the same time. Very efficient!

30 May 2006
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“gr:

Hey, you cruised over to the article on Awbrey and started shooting your mouth off.

You know me better than to think I was not going to put your BS into context for the readers.”

30 May 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

Das:

i guess i'm not seeing where i said that creationism=science. i guess my use of the word theory does not necessarily always correlate to science. i'm not trying to shoot down science or hold up creationism ideals. i'm just saying that no one knows for sure that things weren't created and science isn't all knowing either. i suppose i'm just not making my point very well. i guess my main point (which asbestos completely skipped over and then ripped me for) is that beliefs regarding evolution and the beginning of time could easily be linked although they are different topics. if someone could prove the driving force behind either one, the second could probably naturally be assumed.

Asbestos:

first, don't very good me. re-read the second paragraph in my post and you will see that i said (before you rudely tried to pat yourself on the back and point out) that i realize that the origin of life isn't the same thing as evolution. if you want to waste my time be replying before digesting what you read, please don't. i don't post a lot of invalid comments here just to see my thoughts on the screen, so don't strawman me. on the other hand, you come into the thread and attack unprovoked. talk about “efficient” - way to go. i'll know not to read anything you post anymore. that will save me some time - i.e. more efficient.

30 May 2006
at 5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Graileale said:
“You don't buy drug resistance in microorganisms as an example of evolutionary change???

That is just wrong. Unbelievably wrong.”

And asbestos said regarding my suggested testing:
“Well that is exactly what drug companies do every day!! They address the all those varibles you have just stated and it is utilized in drug manufacture everyday, and it is applied evolutionary principal. Just as you use APplied Physics to determine stress and strain. How can you be so blinded by narrow point of view and mind? As for 2 many $, as I said Glaxo/Welcome do it everyday, that is why drugs cost so much, LOTS of research on just those varibles.”

You guys are rich. Taken together you
a) have nothing to say except this is just wrong. Now there is a cogent argument for ya. Full of erudite and incisive rhetoric.
b) didn't recognize that all my parameters to test, except organism type are biochemistry. Organism type is, of course biology (i.e. stamp collecting). All the others are biochemistry.

You know biochemistry don't ya guys. It is a branch of chemistry, which is a branch of physics.

Yes, asbestos, these tests are conducted by the pharmaceuticals every day. Because they yield information (for a definition of information look up Claude Shannon). This information allows the biochemical companies to taylor chemicals to attack the changed organism.

Lets see, temp, press, chemicals, Electromagnetism, sounds like physics to me. Now what are you going to tell me, that because they are applied to a changed organism, this is physics applied to the proof of evolution?

I will now substitute Murphy's law for the term evolution. My Murphy's law is a little broader than the usual: anything that can go wrong does. Or feces happens.

I find this unnecessarily pejorative.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can possibly happen has, is, or will.

What can happen? Anything that is physically possible. What is physically possible?

Well, little fish can't eat big fish.
Chemical reactions can't violate conservation of energy.

I'm getting weary, maybe you guys could come up with some examples of how simple laws of physics (along with Murphy's Law) can explain why stuff is the way it is.

If you are blindfolded and you approach a mule. You feel it all over and anounce that it is a zebra. Well, maybe the less exotic choice would be better.

From now on, I will refer to my alternative to evolution as Murphy's Physics (MP for short).

30 May 2006
at 5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos wrote: “thank you!! That is NOT what evolution is about. It is not about the origin of life, but you keep arguing that point.”

No, thank you. My earlier, muddled point was that in my totally unlearned (because I am not a scientist and am not religious) viewpoint, when you remove from the argument the question of how life begins, all sides appear to agree on the process of how life forms change over time. I think even the Board of Education standards require that this process be taught, and that it be called evolution.

Since no one can at this point in time prove how life began, why argue, unless philosophically, about that one point? Let everyone believe what they want to believe about that one thing, and then get on with your research about what you do not know, and teaching about what you know to be true.

30 May 2006
at 5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

I just read the sad story of a young boy who has two left arms. He has a fully functioning right arm, and two fully developed, but only partially functional left arms.

Do you look at this as evidence of evolution?
I look at it as MP.

30 May 2006
at 6:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Hey asbestos, if abiogenesis is separate from evolution, MP brings them back together. See my earlier post.

Murphy's Physics applied to primordial chemicals caused them to eventually come together into some kinda life-form. How? Dunno yet but if we through enough stuff against the wall, maybe we can reproduce it. MP.

Next, the primordial chemicals that accidently came together morphed again. They changed into a higher organism that survived because they could. More MP.

It's a continuum of random, wacky Murphy's law implementations, followed by the rules of physics. Thus the evolutionary and beginning of life arguments converge to give evidence of MP.

Hey, this is fun, isn't it? It isn't science, but now I know why you guys love it so.

30 May 2006
at 6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“You know biochemistry don't ya guys. It is a branch of chemistry, which is a branch of physics.”

I am pretty sure a biochemist would disagree with you on that as I do Rocket man.

“Well, little fish can't eat big fish.”

Sure can if there is enough of the little guys. You don't know biology very well. You shoulc stop commenting physics boy.

Godot:

“Since no one can at this point in time prove how life began, why argue, unless philosophically, about that one point?”

Then why do you equate evolution with the origin of life and as devobrun does? You guys don't/can't win the argement, so you spin larger circles. For a couple of guys who take pains to show that they are both NOT religious AND not a biologist, you illustrate just why your kind should not determine what is taught in a public school in a science class.

Thanks for the marshmallows fellows but I am full now, and need some “red meat” for nourishment after all these low calorie snacks.

30 May 2006
at 7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Quantum mechanics applied to Maxwell's equations gives rise to Quantum Electrodynamics (see Richard Feynman). The term QED is used for good reason. It is probably the most complete and tested theory in all of physics.

From QED we get the forces and energy equations which describe the interaction of electrons and nuclei. Also, in a more probabalistic model, QED describes the forces and energy situation between atoms.

This is called physical chemistry. When physical chemistry is applied to special organic chemicals, it is called biochemistry.

Can every physical or bio chemistry situation be taken back to first principles? No because of the complexity, but at least from a general point of reference, it works.

I could use Maxwell's equations to describe all the operations of a computer, but it's one helluva job.

You haven't seen this?

My wife, the physician, majored in microbiology. We can talk about the application of physics to biochemistry .

What is with the personal attacks, like drunk, Bob Jones?
Ok, just use MP as an internal (working) model.

Publicly we'll call it Chaotic Physical Biology, CPB. We'll publish papers complete with Mendelbrot spaces, statistical mechanics, and the origin of various lifeforms.

First, we must mask the whole thing as an extension of Darwin. We must pray to our fore fathers. This will be tricky, but doable if we can get ambitious young and old biologists to come along. They must be thrown bones in sufficient quantity to keep them happy. There will be lots of politics, but if we manage the naysayers by bringing them into the money trough, we'll succeed.

After a while evolution will be an old term, supplanted by the more sophisticated CPB. We will build a branch of biology in our own image. We will be the president of powerfull societies within the bio communty.

We will write books, travel the world and lecture, appear on TV. Skies the limit if you have the guts to do it.

I don't think you guys do. I think you are sheep. Maybe I'm wrong, but yer personal attacks suggest to me that you can't engage in a fair fight. So I'll just keep pluggin' away with examples of the absurd culture that is evolutionary biology.

30 May 2006
at 9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>As Ernest Rutherford said about 100 years ago: so far physics is the only science, everything else is just stamp collecting.

Devo: Trying to use this statement as a way to discredit Biology or Evolution is like trying to use a Yogi Berra quote to win a legal debate–funny but ultimately pointless. While the area of study in Biology may seem like stamp collecting to you and Ernst, the methods Biology uses to prove or disprove hypotheses is exactly the same as Physics: take quantifiable observations, do statistics on them, and compare the results with what you expected to find. Just because the observations are made in the wild, or in a petri dish instead of in a physics lab doesn't make them any less “scientific” or any less true.

As for evolution, I think your only response seems to be willful disregard of the facts. Humans share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees. This is a fact, and there are thousands of other just like them in biochemistry, palentology, and biology. Evolution is, so far, the only scientific idea that can explain these phenomena as natural occurances. And contrary to whatever those experts you mentioned have to say, willful scepticism in the face of factual data is not a valid scientific argument. It's just boorish stubborn stupidity.

>Maybe I'm wrong, but yer personal attacks suggest to me that you can't engage in a fair fight.

Or maybe you just tend to bring that out in people.

30 May 2006
at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

Devo:

I love how you use Karl Popper in your critique of evolution when his entire explanation of scientific discovery is based on an analogy of natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Moreover, I have yet to see how you've demonstrated that Physics and Biology, both of which use the same hypothesis-testing methodology to prove or disprove a theory have empirically different levels of falsifiability. Evolution is just as falsefiable (i.e. “testable”) as any other scientific theory. For example, if we were to find fossils of modern humans in a strata from an earlier period, then evolution would be entirely discredited. You seem to have the same problem as ID'ers or creationists: if you can't find physical evidence, you resort to tricks of logic to try to disprove evolution.

30 May 2006
at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TJ_in_Lawrence (Anonymous) says…

“Evolution is fact, not theory”, says xenophonschild

Most scientists disagree.

30 May 2006
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

So, MyName,

No where in your comparison of physical science and biological science did you refer to the word or concept of test. A consistent pattern is emerging from the bio community. You can't tell the difference between evidence and test.

I have asked other folks on the blog this question and I haven't seen a difference. So, quantifiable observation, deduction, induction, compare. Sounds like a game of Clue.

Humans and chimps share 99% genes? This is but one of thousands of facts?

Physics only has about 5 facts. Could it be that you have a problem with your science as indicated by an overabundance of facts? Too quick to call theory fact, maybe?

You are people? I thought you were scientists. Could this be a discussion of feelings? I believe your judgements are based upon your humanity. (A great book called Descartes Dream, The World According to Mathematics by Davis and Hersh discusses the relationship between the cold world of Cartesian philosophy and the fact that it is people that actually do the math and science, thus subject to questioning)

If so, then the test of Bernoulli's law when you climb on an airplane is a very human-feeling type of test. You are risking your life on this physics principle because lab tests were followed by wind tunnel tests, followed by flight tests. And here you are, climbing on board a big aluminum tube with plates sticking out of it. Giving it the ultimate test.

Next time you fly, check your feelings versus the test (?) that showed that chimps and chumps share 99% of their DNA.

“Evolution is, so far, the only scientific idea that can explain these phenomena as natural”. Unless, of course, evolution is not science. In which case, we are left with “I dunno” as the most rational explanation.

But “I dunno” reveals that either you are ignorant of something which can be knowable (there's a cartesian statement for ya), Or you don't wanna know, or are uninterested. This is a violation of the prime directive of science, curiosity.

While lack of curiosity attracts ridicule, determining that most of evolution is a scientifically unknowable entity is simply unaccecptable. Pack up yer spreadsheet and go home. Devastating.

I attract name-calling because I show the evos that not all in the world is knowable by science. “I think, therefore I am” is incomplete. There are things in this world that don't lend themselves to cartesian philosophy. Questions like “where did we come from?” fall into this category. I offer no religious alternative. I frustrate the evos. They think I'm crazy because I don't just accept the socially polite thing to do. They are intent on converting me. I'm just trying to tell them that they should be quiet 'cause they don't know what they are talking about.

30 May 2006
at 11:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Grailale,

You simply must stop assigning things to me that you invent. You know nothing about my scientific career.

Regarding the basis of biochemistry being physics, Schrodinger is precisely on message. Very good.

“you are placing science in the same category as creationism”. No sir, I am placing your science (evolution) in that category. I know, it's gettin' late.

“All we've heard from you is how no science is the equal of engineering.” No, no science is yet the equal of physics.

Actually, the rest of yer message confuses physics with engineering and evolution with science. I think you slipped a cog. The misalignment is confusing. Go to bed.

30 May 2006
at 11:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>No where in your comparison of physical science and biological science did you refer to the word or concept of test.

Hello? To quote myself:

“Moreover, I have yet to see how you've demonstrated that Physics and Biology, both of which use the same hypothesis-*testing* methodology to prove or disprove a theory have empirically different levels of falsifiability.”

Not only did you fail to answer my criticism, you're now trying to convince me that I didn't make the criticism. If you can explain HOW biology has a lower level of falsifiability than physics even though they both employ the same hypothesis-testing method, than you have a point, otherwise all you have is empty rhetoric. And I'm not even in the “bio community”, I'm just a working stiff with a good education.

>While lack of curiosity attracts ridicule, determining that most of evolution is a scientifically unknowable entity is simply unaccecptable. Pack up yer spreadsheet and go home. Devastating.

Once again, you make the claim that most of evolution is “scientifically unknowable” and have no facts or evidence to back that up. Evolution offers an explaination for why chimps and humans share a large percentage of their DNA. Or why you won't find human bones in a strata from a certain period of time. You offer nothing, and you claim that this position is both good science and that this automatically makes evolution poor science, and that's a load of BS.

There are thousands of facts that support the science of evolution. Just as there are thousands of facts that support physics. Everytime a new design for an airplane takes off, or a planet moves in exactly the way we've predicted we have a new experimental fact that supports the principals of physics.

> I offer no religious alternative.

You claim to offer no alternative, religious or otherwise. That's okay, but you can't claim that it is science. To quote myself (again):

“willful scepticism in the face of factual data is not a valid scientific argument. It's just boorish stubborn stupidity.”

30 May 2006
at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

MyName,

Uh, Wikipedia is uh, oh my, how to say this?

My jaw dropped. Wikipedia is notorious.

Just google Karl Popper. Go to the Karl Popper Society web site. Or order Conjecture and Refutation, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, or The Open Society and it Enemies on Amazon.

Popper is so prolific, and he worked for so many decades that it is real easy to characterize him in modern contexts to suit modern appetites.

You guys sure test my patience. I say something and it comes back as not what I said (like switching science where evolution belongs). I refer to somebody and I get back a Wiki-rendering (Popper).

At some point, every teacher must move on to students that really want to learn somethng new. I think I'm done with ya fellas. You just don't seem to wanna question yourselves using a different perspective.

I feel like I've been trying to teach Beavis and Butthead that Mozart is better than AC/DC.

So long.

31 May 2006
at 12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

1) Wikipedia is not notorious for being innacurate, if that is what you're implying.

2) That still doesn't change the fact that Popper's explanation of scientific discovery is based on an analogy of natural selection

3) You still haven't answered any of my very valid criticisms of your very sketchy ideas about scientific philosophy.

>I feel like I've been trying to teach Beavis and Butthead that Mozart is better than AC/DC.

I'm sorry you feel like you've been trying to “teach”. I feel like all you're doing is trying to tell everyone that “black is white” and “white is black” and then wondering why people think you're full of BS.

31 May 2006
at 1:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>Popper is so prolific, and he worked for so many decades that it is real easy to characterize him in modern contexts to suit modern appetites.

I have no problem with Popper, by the way, I think you're just misinterpreting and/or misusing his ideas. When “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” was published in 1934, Evolution had been around for 75 years, and you seem to think I'm reaching to say Popper may have been influenced by Natural Selection? Moreover, there are scientists who don't think that Darwin and Popper are incompatible. I mean GÃ¼nter WÃ¤chtershÃ¤user made his name by thinking about the origins of life and he thought Popper was brilliant. http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

31 May 2006
at 6:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

Reminds me of a history teacher in highschool i had……He used his own special “viewpoint” of history as testable material……The same goes for a notorius civics teacher at lhs…..but i believe he is gone now.

31 May 2006
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

MyName: “For example, if we were to find fossils of modern humans in a strata from an earlier period, then evolution would be entirely discredited.”

Really?!! Do any scientists agree with you?

31 May 2006
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

House Trained? Heck, sounds like the poor schmuck hasn't even been potty trained in public relations.

1 June 2006
at 8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ale,

We both know asking what you think has proved useless in the past.

Why do you find it interesting that I ask others what scientists think? Are there any scientists on this forum? Notice, my question could be seen as asking them directly. Surely, as lecturer of literature as yourself, you would have seen the dual possibility in that construct. Notice, if there were scientists on this forum, they did not reply. While technically, it could be seen as asking what scientists think, I actually asked what MyName thought about whether scientists “agreed” with him.

How about you? Would you be so kind as to state whether you agree with MyName on the part, “if we were to find fossils of modern humans in a strata from an earlier period, then evolution would be entirely discredited.”

1 June 2006
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Funny, I've referred you to numerous classes and you refuse to listen. Could it be your response is your subconscience attempting to instruct you?

“Evolution would not be discredited by the discovery of modern humans in a strata from an earlier period.”

Ah, glad to hear you thought my question was relevent!

––––

“As far as asking what I think, you have done that but you don't like what you hear.”

I must have missed it. What was your response to my question of what do you think God (fictional character in fictional literature class, if you wish) should have done? Put another way, suppose God went on a revengeful human type of spree when they killed His son and slaughtered all those in charge. Would that fit in with a loving God? But, if you take it to the limits, why did His son get in such a situation in the first place? In fact, why was there evil in the garden of eden? Why didn't God destroy evil (those who dared question Him) at the first sign?

1 June 2006
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Your statement that you directed me to take classes is hilarious and disingenuous but I bet it sounds nice to you to pretend to teach me.”

And who died and made you drama queen? You think to teach me?! You have failed miserably! Maybe because there was no instruction to be found.

I was not the one needing the aformentioned answer from a scientist. Maybe you should seek and find one before spouting off before thinking through the rhetorical question.

============

“That's the Problem of Evil. What do you think???”

I hear they try to teach social skills in pre-kindergarten classes. You REALLY should enroll in some so you know when to answer questions and when to ask them. Your “answer” is no different than before - not an answer.

As I posted before,
Which comes back to you refusing to answer the ongoing question. If you think God did such a bad job, how should He have done it? Once you explore that…. You probably are afraid to.

right before you made some lame claim to the effect that you don't believe and therefore can't think.

1 June 2006
at 2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…

das-ubermime: “For instance, it is not illogical to say that while life could arise from inorganic processes, a creator was necessary to bring the universe and laws governing it into existance.”

so, for the sake of argument, let's assume a creator is in existence in some form and struck the match that created the universe. is it really logical to think that they would go to the trouble of making the universe and then be hands off with everything since? if the universe was created and then life was subsequently formed and evolved, it must have ultimately evolved out of something that was created along with the universe. unless maybe the creator knows how to create a universe with all of it's wonders but couldn't figure out how to bring a small organism to life.

1 June 2006
at 2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ale, here is a quote attributed to Martin Luther King:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

1 June 2006
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Valid Opinions,

Good point. That's why it is illogical to merge the two.

1 June 2006
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ale: “So now you're implying that I'm violent and evil just because I can apply logic…….”

Are you having too much to drink or what!

Where do you come up with this stuff? I in no way was saying anything about you being violent. It is interesting that you feel so defensive. In fact, I wasn't even implying anything about you. I only supposed, at a great stretch of the imagination, that your, “What do you think???”, may, with the ever slightest possibility, have been a question.

“When I said I published, that means that I have “done” science, enough for the data to have been printed in a publication. Therefore, you are having this discussion with a scientist.”

Therefore, we conclude, all people who “publish” are scientists. Thpppppppt.

1 June 2006
at 5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

What would be the point of the creator? Just to get that spark started? That does settle some problems with evolutionary origins of life. Of course, that creator could be aliens inoculating earth to see what happens.

1 June 2006
at 6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Kudos to all who responded to Devo,

Devo needs to be retired from his teaching job. I was reading his statement of

“At some point, every teacher must move on to students that really want to learn somethng new. I think I'm done with ya fellas. You just don't seem to wanna question yourselves using a different perspective.”

I am appalled by your lack professionalism, your narrowmindedness and your arrogance Devo. Always with you is this superiority complex of yours and that somehow you are carrying this banner of rationality and logic that 99 plus percent of the world's scientists simply cannot fathom. You let me know when you get your book published in that area Devo.

You also could use a dose of maturity. Coming onto an annonymous blog calling people “your students” is simply idiotic and then turning around to insult them again by telling them they can't learn anything new and are narrowminded shows us what a poor teacher you must make. Most teachers don't pick and choose who they will teach. Both of my parents were teachers in the KC school district and students were always clamoring to get into their classrooms. They were teachers because they loved children and loved the whole learning process. Students wanted to take their classes because they were good teachers who respected many different perspectives especially when it came to learning.

The only other comment I have for Devo is regarding his statement of “Popper is so prolific, and he worked for so many decades that it is real easy to characterize him in modern contexts to suit modern appetites.” I find that statement to be very odd coming from you Devo, especially since you seem to have no problems with using Popper for your own contexts to suit your own appetites. As we have talked about before, Popper would disagree with how you are using his earlier writings and thoughts especially when you consider his later writings. Of course your claim that he was going senile later in life cannot be proven false so I guess we won't be able to test that will we?

1 June 2006
at 7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

gr:

I haven't bothered to answer your question, because it doesn't seem relevant, and I haven't had the time to bother with worthless hypothetical questions.

However, I think a more complete answer would be “It depends upon the circumstances of how and where the fossils were found.” That being said, evolution depends upon the idea that life forms were more simpler in the past than they are today and concrete evidence of a complex form of life existing in the past would definitely be a blow to the theory. Richard Dawkins, whose book you should read, would agree with me too.

1 June 2006
at 11:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8mate (Anonymous) says…

I read Dawkins book mate. The guy is a nutter 4 sure. A little kid could c through his pretend science. Like did u read his crazy evolution program. Is that guy missing something or is he the latest missing link - like still at the monkey (chimp 4 the pedantic guys) end of the imaginary progression. Ahhhh well I used to believe that evolution bulldust more than all my peers once. I was a real chump. (thats a pun 4 u pedantic ones) U know something…….. even when I was an ardent evolutionist I could never get my head around most of it when I tried to think about it in depth.
Believing the evolution lie nearly cost me eternity in agony and regret. I must admit I was happy believing that stuff though - cos I was able to get rid of God from my thoughts and that way I could live as I pleased. Of course when I found out that evolution was bulldust I still didn't know who the God was. (The creator - not the evolver ………….durrr… how ridiculous evolution seems now).
Yes it did turn out to be the christian god - not because of some emotional crap but because of evidence and reason. You know something………….. even knowing that evolution was bulldust and that the bible (66 book one) bore god's watermark (numerical seal) in every part didn't make me a christian. It just gave me a faith that I'd be going to hell forever if I didn't go to Jesus and get forgiven and become his. I tell you …….. getting faith was the hardest bit - I just didn't know how I could have faith and yet you had to have faith to get right with God according to what he said. Obviously one day I took him at his word. I finally believed him which, trust me, has been really cool, even in the middle of troubles. Like, having faith in something unreasonable like evolution is madness when your eternity is hanging in the balance. Having faith in Jesus to forgive and forget and give u a gr8 life here and forever is highly reasonable given all we know about this stuff.
I wouldn't be wanting to be anything but a follower of Jesus when it comes to the end of my life. Just read the dying words of people like Voltaire or Thomas Paine or heaps of people who hated or were indifferent to Jesus. U get a gr8 perspective when u view life from the border of this life and eternity.

2 June 2006
at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

MyName,

I guess I find it hard that evolutionary theory would be done away with if human fossils were found in the lower layer. However, I would agree with your last statement, it would be a blow to it. There have been other cases where fossils aren't found where they were supposed to be and then other suggestions were put forward to explain it. I believe if human fossils were found in the lower layers, there would be explanations given for it. Belief in evolution wouldn't instantly disappear.

======

gr8mate: “I'd be going to hell forever if I didn't go to Jesus and get forgiven and become his.”

At least a couple of things wrong with that statement if I could understand what you wrote. One is, I wouldn't want to be involved with a god who operates as you imply - burning disenters forever. Not a very loving god. Another is you won't find the 66 books of the Bible supporting that idea.

2 June 2006
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Why do creators create? I guess you could say people make cars to get money. But, some create for pure enjoyment. Just ask some painters and writers.

As far as evolution goes, wouldn't you agree your definition is not what is commonly meant by the term nor what MyName means nor what is being argued in schools?

2 June 2006
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“I wouldn't want to be involved with a god who operates as you imply - burning disenters forever.”

My guess is that won't be a problem for you.

” Not a very loving god. Another is you won't find the 66 books of the Bible supporting that idea.”

Where did you get that idea? Completely misguided - He is a loving God, but also holy and just God. Very difficult for people to grasp that idea, apparently.

2 June 2006
at 6:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, that is commonly said. But, where's free will if He's gonna burn you if you step out of line?

As I was trying respond to Ale, who seems disconnected from one sentence to another, if God kills someone who dares question them, how is that any different from not having a free will at all? That's like telling a class, you can choose to take a test or not - your choice. Do the students really think they have a choice?

There are several texts in the Bible which say the wicked will be no more. Others say they will be ashes. And, true, some say “forever”. But, keep in mind, the ways of God are not the ways of man. Also, what is the definition of forever? One needs to find those definitions in the Bible rather than a dictionary.

Remember where it says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel?” In Romans, it says the similar thing. God gives people up after they refuse to come to Him. He doesn't burn them forever and torture or punish them. Punishment is to result in correction. What is hoped to be corrected from those who want Him out of their lives? When people are given up and have no more source of life, they perish - forever, final.

3 June 2006
at 12:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

Das_Ubermine:

I'm not sure what you mean by a “logic trap.” If you're referring to gr's hypothetical question about human fossils being found, I'd say you're wrong. I'm sure that there are many hypothetical ways to disprove evolution besides the ones you refer to. One of them would be for God to send out a telepathic broadcast to the world and and say “hey, I exist and I didn't use Evolution, I just went around burying fossils 'cause I thought it'd be cool.” Not likely to happen, but neither are we likely to find human fossils in the wrong period.

If you're refering to the earlier discussion with Devo, I'm still not sure what you mean. His line of reasoning fell apart because he has no explanation for why Biology and Physics have different levels of provability when they both use the same Scientific method.

At it's heart, the theory of evolution is an explanation for how life can become complex from simple origins (i.e. through the mechanism of mutation and natural selection). While you are right when you say that the mechanism by which evolution works would not be disproven except by the ways you listed, I think evolution's claim to have only mechanism that such change can occur would be undermined by the previous hypothetical example of finding a complex organism where it should not be.

5 June 2006
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

MyName,

I'm curious as to what you are calling “gr's hypothetical question about human fossils being found”.

You had made the statement:

“For example, if we were to find fossils of modern humans in a strata from an earlier period, then evolution would be entirely discredited.”

which I responded by saying:

“Really?!! Do any scientists agree with you?”

Asking, “really?” doesn't seem hypothetical, but I'm not sure why asking if any scientists would agree with you would be considered “a worthless hypothetical question”. You did make the statement, so one would assume you would think it was backed up by scientists. Is that incorrect? What am I missing here?

5 June 2006
at 6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

gr,

So, I left this blog at the end of last month. Today I returned to see if you were still battling with Holygraileale.

Wow, during the month of June, gr, you have:

Been told repeatedly to go to school.
You have no science friends
No avenues to uncover answers for yourself
You are uninterested in learning
Not a biblical scholar
Ale knows more about your religion than you do
Been called a moron twice
And finally you're f dumb

Top notch rhetoric, that's all there is to it.

gr, I suggest that you find another blog, there are many out their.

These guys, especially aileale, are showing no interest in having a converstion that might reach some denoument.

I think that I really pissed 'em off. Now your catching the arrows. I doubt that you'll get much more than epithets from this bunch for a while. The hornets are buzzin', better to leave 'em alone for a while.

5 June 2006
at 9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

It's hypothetical, because no such fossils have been found. It's worthless because it's much closer to rhetoric than an actual search for knowledge.

Some scientists would agree (including some who have written books on the subject), other's wouldn't (including others who may have posted here). If you actually wanted to know the percentages you'd have asked Gallup instead of posting the worthless hypothetical question in this thread.

6 June 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

MyName, YOU posted it.

7 June 2006
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

devobrun,

Actually, there is no battle with ale. It's very difficult to even have a converstation with someone who is disconnected from one sentence to the next. It reminds me of those simple artificial intelligence programs which you ask a question, the program says it doesn't understand a word, you explain it, and then it's wondering what you are trying to say about it.

I think ale is suffering from the little man-woman syndrome. He's a wannabe scientist or think he knows enough to not need any more science. It'd be my guess, his two “publications” were requirements/results for a degree and now he's working in an area quite unrelated. If he were to actually engage in a conversation, it would show what he really doesn't know. So, what better way to avoid discovery than to call everyone a name, disconnect the topic, and pretend he knows more. You might notice, I have lately filtered out the ailing ale's comments.

Do you have any other forum suggestions where the participants don't have to disguise their lack of knowledge by name calling?

7 June 2006
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Your statement of “Do you have any other forum suggestions where the participants don't have to disguise their lack of knowledge by name calling?” is also somewhat curious when you consider the contents of your own post.

For example you tell us that Holy is “suffering from the little man-woman syndrome”, called him a “wannabe scientist” and essentially said that he was stupid (lack of knowledge etc.) I guess I see little difference between what you are trying to accuse others of and what you are doing in your own posts. If you really wanted to truly understand what another one is saying then you would actually ask the questions and attempt to understand the answers. Of course some people may not want to use about 200 postings to get to a place where they do have an understanding but that is probably another story, right?

As far as Devo is concerned, I'm afraid I have to agree with Holy. Devo is supposed to be a high school teacher who certainly leaves something to be desired for from a maturity standpoint. You can't get anymore condescending than to call annonymous bloggers on a newspaper discussion forum “his students” and then turn around and essentially tell them they are so ignorant that they can't be “taught”. I don't know about you Gr but I certainly would not want any of my kids to take any classes from him. There is more to teaching than just having knowledge (which by the way apparently extends no further than electrical engineering in the case of Devo).

I am challenging you Gr to learn more about evolution and the biological sciences by taking some of those classes at KU. There are some excellent professors who could give you a much broader understanding and insights into these disciplines than I or Holy ever could. I think you would do well by concentrating on what you do best, by forcing people to explain their answers and challenging the establishment. After all, that is what we scientists do Gr.

8 June 2006
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

You are correct in that a similar message is being given. And you may be a little defensive from our past relations. However, don't you think describing someone's response, that their thinking is flawed, that someone needs more education is a little different than just saying, “You're a moron”? Saying “wannabe scientist”, yes, I suppose that's the same, except I was talking to devo. But, you're right on that one.

As far as understanding, even though it was quite difficult and lengthy, didn't we finally understand at least part of what the other was saying? Didn't you “want” to find out what I was saying? Now, as a recent example, see how ale related to what my response to his accusation about MLKJ was about, besides his original accusation on it, though he may legitimately not have followed it. Then, see how he avoids all discussion whenever I or anyone else tries to pinpoint what he is saying. Would you honestly say he is trying to understand what the other is saying or just shooting off his mouth? Yes, after conversing with you, I had hope for understanding him. But, can you point to more than a few, if any, where he answered any questions? How can one attempt to understand the answers when there are none?

Here's another example. I said carbon dating doesn't report the age of anything. Ale said it is accurate to 60,000 years (interesting in itself). I explained that carbon dating only showed the ratios of C14 to C12 and that people conclude ages from that. Ale responded back that it was too bad I don't accept carbon dating with no further explanation. Honestly, could you conclude from those statements that I DON'T accept carbon dating?

Yes, devo may have irked some on that one - not unlike ale calling himself a scientist (speaking of arrogance!). However, now that I'm looking back, could devo be relating the world to his profession as is a common practice? For example, suppose he was a carpenter. How would it come across if he said: “At some point every carpenter must move on to a new board willing to be cut. I feel like I've been trying to build a chair out of balsa.”? I don't know if that's how he meant it, but couldn't it be a possibility?

Ale uses “take classes” in a derogatory type of way with the sole purpose to iratate. How do you use it? Oh great advisor, what classes do you recommend I take? What would you expect me to learn? Without having a goal, there's no point in taking a class. As you well know, even reading a single article, I see things different than you. Interesting, you are implying you are a scientist (hopefully not in the way ale thinks), but yet you cannot explain some of these basic “questions” you say I have? Do you think any others at KU could explain it to me?

8 June 2006
at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

When I say I am a scientist, I am saying that is what I do for a living. However I am not in a field of evolution or even the biological sciences. So when you say you have basic questions I am assuming you are referring to questions within the evolutionary or biological fields. I have taken a few biology courses at different schools including KU. If you are serious about taking those courses Gr you can go and look at the schedule of classes for the fall of 2006 at KU. For example, there is a course called BIOL 412 Evolutionary Biology But it does have 2 prerequisite: BIOL 152 and BIOL 350, or consent of the instructor. I think the 153 course is a begining cellular and molecular biology course and the 350 course is a introduction to genetics. I think these would be good courses to take and probably give you a lot more detailed information than you can get through here.

As far as your conversations with Holy, I really don't have much to say. As you said, everyone sees things differently and I can certainly appreciate that. I think the process of confronting the establishment and seeking a true understanding of what others are saying is a good thing.

As far as Devo is concerned, I am just very disappointed in his behavior on here. I guess I expected more from him being a teacher and I have found him to be condescending and somewhat immature in our conversations and seeing some of his replies to others.

8 June 2006
at 12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I was also puzzled by your MLK quote to Holy. Since you did not say anything in that post besides the quote, it was hard to understand what you were trying to say with it. I agree with Holy that you were suggesting something about him regarding violence, hate and murder. Then after that you never really clarified what you were trying to say with it. All you say is that you were not trying to imply that Holy was violent. But you never explain what the purpose of the quote is in the first place other than to pose a “What do you think” question. To me that seems to be unclear and disconnected. Maybe you were trying to connect the statement to the problem of evil somehow. Again you never state that though so it does seem to be a puzzling comment.

8 June 2006
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

The quote, “What do you think???”, came from ale. Go back and find that and it should make sense. It's clear to me because I know what I think. :-) I didn't feel there was any point in additionally detailing to him as it appeared he was wanting to conflict rather than understand or more likely saw it as an opportunity to grasp at crying unfair. Keep in mind, several messages were passing each other.

As far as classes, I've taken courses such as cell physiology, genetics and speciation, Reading the synopsis of 412 looks like most would be covered except for the part about “how discovering evolutionary mechanisms at one level of organization can help to explicate general processes in the natural world.” Which, I guess, maybe is the problem you are saying.

8 June 2006
at 2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Well you are going to have to explain this to me like a 3-year-old. I think somehow you are trying to connect that MLK statement back to your original statement about evil and God and the problem of evil. But for some reason I can't seem to make the connection between those statements. It almost is like you are saying that God is evil but I am pretty sure that is not what you want to convey.

I am not sure what you mean by the statement of “Which, I guess, maybe is the problem you are saying.”

8 June 2006
at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

I am not sure what you mean by the statement of “Which, I guess, maybe is the problem you are saying.”

I took the description to mean, if certain facts about evolution are true at one level, then we can extrapolate those for those at a higher level. I'm not sure logic would allow that, but don't really know what the course is saying so am open to understand what it says.

––-

Sigh. The attempted conversation was going as to why God allowed His son to be killed without doing anything about it; without taking revenge. Ale said that was the problem with evil, “What do you think???”. I responded with the MLK quote which outlines what happens when evil is repaid with evil - it doesn't do away with evil, but only makes it worse.

Was I that unclear? If God slaughtered those who killed His Son, that would accomplish nothing, but prove the devil's point. And, think not that Jesus could have stopped the process. (Ever hear of the song that goes, “He could have called ten thousand angels…”) He was willing, as was outlined in the texts before the cross. You have to ask, why? That is the answer that Jesus came to demonstrate. I thought the MLK quote summed it up nicely.

8 June 2006
at 6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Well I have to tell you that what you are saying about the MLK quote really has nothing to do with the Problem of Evil. Saying that God doesn't want to use evil to counter against evil doesn't make any sense from a logical argument standpoint because it doesn't say anything about the original question which as to do with the problem of evil itself. It doesn't say anything about why evil exists in the first place. Of course, all of these types of arguments depend on agreed upon definitions or understandings of what God is, what is meant by evil or good, what is meant by morality etc etc etc. I would probably take a guess that at least with you and Holy that you are both coming at it from a differnt base and probably do not agree on many of those types of definitions. No need for me to elaborate any further on this matter.

It sounds like that you should be able to take that evolutionary course Gr. Go for it let me know how it comes out. Don't let any of those course descriptions stop you Gr. You go girl….

9 June 2006
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

Actually, I wasn't referring to “the Problem of Evil”, but addressing ale's complaint of why God didn't seek retaliation for them killing His Son. He was talking to others about the Problem of Evil, which I was not a part of. I only was addressing his point of complaint about God not seeking revenge. The original problem of evil is found in the Bible. Why there was a possibility for it coming up has to do with free will. Nothing to do with MLK.

9 June 2006
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Ah well not much more to be said there. I think it is kind of a mute point to deal with religious or spiritual matters since most people are coming at it from many different angles. It has nothing to with evolution and the biological sciences. I think when discussions of creationism vs evolution come up ultimately they always lead to the question of proving or disproving the existence of a creator or God. Whether that is relevant or not is pointless with me.

Creationism does not come from looking at the natural world and relies only on a historical belief system whereas evolution is the best and only theory we have that explains what we see in the natural world. There is nothing else out there. The amount evidence over the last 200 years that support theory of evolution is overwhelming and new evidence is being discovered everyday that continues to strengthen this theory.

You can also try to shift to a scientific philosophy without bringing up religion such as the way Devo tries to but ultimately that also brings you to a point where if you object to the evidence of evolution then you have to question what really is real or what can we prove if anything. At which point, such a discussion becomes pointless again. As Noname has pointed out,
Devo cannot explain how biology has a lower level of falsifiability than physics even though they both employ the same hypothesis-testing method and that willful sKepticism in the face of factual data is not a valid scientific argument. Devo never does or never will deal with the actual evidence that supports evolution.

Please let me know if you decide to take that Gr. I am actually considering doing that myself just to refresh my understanding of evolution.

Your Buddy Kodiac

9 June 2006
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Hey Kodiac,

I've been away. Holygraileale was (and apparently still is) no fun to argue with since he resorts to namecalling and other invectives. So, I left. Don't bother to reply HGA.

However, you have proven to be a person who discusses things.

Putting words in my mouth is not a good way to argue your points. “Devo never does or never will deal with the actual evidence that supports evolution.” See my theory of MCP above.

1) Murphy's Law says that anything that can possibly happen will happen.
2) Chaos Theory says that the world is not always linear, time invariant, stationary, or well behaved at all. There are some things for which math does a lousy job..
3) Physics is the determining factor for the 'what can happen' stage above. Stuff like conservation of energy.
4) The result of the above is that there are things in this world that cannot be well defined by science. Loosening the definition of science to include that which doesn't lend itself to science is sophistry.
There, I've dealt with your evidence.

It is my theory.

It is not science.

Nor is it religion.

9 June 2006
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hey Devo,

I am with Holy on this one.

Give me a break….”There, I've dealt with your evidence.” - Devo

First of all it isn't “my evidence” and second of all how does 3 or 4 philosophical statements deal with the evidence supporting evolution. You got to be kidding me. You haven't dealt with anything at all. Again I implore you to retire from teaching. You truly are the antithesis of a teacher. You live in some kind of fantasy world Devo who has said nothing and I really mean nothing about the real world or the natural world. My parents were both teachers and you would never find them on a hometown newspaper blog arguing about science with a bunch of noname users (sorry Noname but I couldn't resist saying it). You need to grow up Devo. Find a different hobby. Especially one that does not include the teaching of children. I can imagine we would still be living in the Stone age if we depended on teachers like you to teach our children.

You don't even need to bring up religion anymore Devo. Your philosophy is idiotic period. It doesn't matter where you are coming from or what your hidden agendas are. Your statements are simply meaningless and useless. Noname said it best Devo, you are just full of BS.

12 June 2006
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “evolution is the best and only theory we have that explains what we see in the natural world. There is nothing else out there.”

I've been thinking about this. Here is what I hear you saying. Evolution is the only thing we have to explain the natural world without using the supernatural. It may not explain everything, but it's all we've got.

This concept sounds so much how doctors treat advanced cancer patients with radiation and chemotherapy. They know it doesn't work, and most likely is harmful to the patient, but it's all they've got. You've got to do something and that's all there is available. Medicinally, that is. There are ways to prevent cancer. There are ways to cure cancer, except possibly at the advanced stages. But, it doesn't follow the rules of medicine. It's the same ways to prevent obesity and a number of other diseases. But, it's a simple concept, and not medicine. Very few are willing to try it because it's not “blessed” by the keepers of the potions.

––––-

There are paintings, where people are introduced to them and everyone's reaction is that it is a very beautiful painting. Statistics can show significance of people's vote for it. But, it is outside of science to show that it is beautiful. However, everyone you ask, would say it is true that it is beautiful. Truth isn't only found through science.

Many intelligent design folks believe they know Who it was who designed life. But, they allow, their belief may be wrong, but there still is enough evidence to show design. And, of course, there are some who promote intelligent design who say that it absolutely means that Jesus created them. Suppose all these “Jesus freaks” are wrong about creation. Suppose it's found out that some other entity created life on earth - aliens, martians before their planet got too cold, whatever. That doesn't remove the truth of intelligent design.

To say that origins of life can only be explained through naturalistic science, doesn't sound much as exploring all possibilities. It is very limiting. Perhaps, origins are outside of science. Using science to explain that which is outside of it is misapplication of science. Actually, I think someone on these forums said something much like that.

12 June 2006
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

I believe it genetic heritablity. I believe selection pressures. I believe in population change over time. Which is, I believe in the general term, adaptability. All these things can be established as scientific fact. But, the conclusions is what I, and others have a problem with. To say, because butterflies change color is a “fact” that tadpoles turned into man, doesn't fit.

The evolutionist takes these same facts, and say therefore, organisms build up, because, he looks, and behold, there are simple organisms who “evolve” and there are complex organisms, therefore they've become more complex. The creationist, (not the same as the definition of intelligent design), looks at these same facts. He believes God created all these groups of organisms. Then, through these same facts, have segregated out. Not as totally different organisms, but similar ones. For instance, take Darwin's finches. The creationist has no problem with it. All the genes and variability could very well be in the original birds which came to the islands. As selection pressure was applied to them, the different genetics are segregated out - they adapted. The finches didn't become turtles, lizards, or even some other type of bird - they were still classified as finches. This fits fully with facts and is only a different conclusion from the same set of scientific facts.

Supporting evidence would be to take an organism and apply differing selection pressures and see how far apart in differences one can separate out the genetics. The variability was in the starting pair. (And yes, as you have pointed out, there are mutations. However, any impact this would have would be minimal in an observable program - color change, metabolic activity - we know simple organisms have this potential, huh?) I believe this has been done in various breeding programs. Likewise, taking an organism and trying to create a “higher” one would be supporting evidence on the other side. One happens quickly, and I don't believe the other has been observed at all.

Don't think that I think I've proved anything to you, because I don't and can't. I'm only asking you to keep an open mind as some things may be true, but are outside of certain lines of discipline. Just like giving chemotherapy to advanced cancer patients is using the wrong tool. And, it is my opinion that giving poison, whether chemotherapy or mercury, is the wrong tool for any stage of cancer or health concern.

12 June 2006
at 11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I don't really have time to deal with all of your comments but I would say overall that many of the terms you are using are not defined. For example when I say that evolution is the only theory out there and then there is nothing else, I am saying that from an empirical standpoint. I was not talking about naturalism or the supernatural. Until you can point to some kind of “empirical” evidence for anything else, the only theory we have that can be empirically supported is evolution. That does not mean I am “ruling” out everything else including a designer. I am just saying right now, we have nothing else that explains the natural world. Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience. There is no empirical evidence in the field of biology that can be used to support intelligent design. Intelligent Design cannot be tested, it can't be use to make predictions, and it simply is not science. It is not a matter of keeping an open mind, it is a matter of what science is and how you define it. That is all I have time for. I will have to write more later.

14 June 2006
at 6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Your statements regarding how the medical field is like the theory of evolution doesn't make any sense at all. In fact I would say most of what you wrote is completely useless and has nothing to do with how you define science. I think it is you who is close-minded especially when it comes to understanding what you mean by most of your terms such as “naturalistic science”. Most of what you seem to be talking about is a “philosophical naturalism” which you try to conflate with scientific or methodical naturalism.

Think about it Gr. You call ID science but there are no evidences from an empirical standpoint. In fact ID is completely useless as a theory. You can't test it, it relies on entities (God or Aliens) whose nature that science cannot investigate or learn anything about. ID has not led science anywhere Name me one scientific value of ID like what advances in medicine, agriculture, electronics, materials science that have been made with ID. With ID, science cannot conclude that any of those explanations are wrong. But from a scientific standpoint, they are worse than wrong; they are useless. Explain to me how you are “exploring the possibilities” if you include ID as a theory with evolution. How do you explore it Gr? What kind of information will it give us so that it will allow us to make advances in the other fields of science? All it says, is that life was designed by an entity. Ok, now what?

Methodical naturalism (as opposed to philosophical naturalism) gets associated with science because natural explanations have such a good track record for explaining observed phenomena. To date, natural explanations have been determined for very, very many previously unknown areas, and supernatural explanations have been determined for none. When exploring another unknown area, the possibility of a natural explanation is the way to bet.

I am not sure why you think by equating ID with evolution will mean that somehow I have “an open mind”. I have no problems with the supernatural and have beliefs that have supernatural causes. I believe in miracles. I see a lot of truth and beauty within and outside of science. I have even reported on certain designs when observing certain types of natural phenomenon. I say it is you who is close-minded Gr. Evolution does not preclude a creator. By saying that it does means that it is you that is doing the restriciting and trying to impose your own belief system on someone else.

Let's keep it simple Gr, To date there are no objective, empirical evidence for ID.

15 June 2006
at 11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“In fact I would say most of what you wrote is completely useless and has nothing to do with how you define science.”

Kodiac, this seems to be a reoccurring thing with you. I was in no way defining science in my post. Unless you mean defining what it is not. Why, I don't know, can you not see analogies. I was only making a comparison of seeking truth. I may be stretching the analogy, but only to show the problems with seeking truth with the wrong tools. I was only comparing the logic used and not “defining science” nor evolution.

“You call ID science”

I must have forgotten where I called it that. I might be mistaken. Maybe you could show me. As far as natural…..whatever. I used the term as I saw it used before. Substitute in “natural means”. I don't want to get into semantics on it.

“In fact ID is completely useless as a theory. You can't test it, it relies on entities (God or Aliens) whose nature that science cannot investigate or learn anything about. ID has not led science anywhere”

The same thing can be said about evolution, as most people define it (that's a qualifier, Kodiac). Intelligent Design belief can lead to advances in breeding programs, medicine, crop protection… And, that follows with what I said before about assuming the variability exists versus having to wait billions of years. In fact, I've read about a plant breeder who made greater success with the assumption he was a Creationist. Not proof, but he had a different pre-assumed premise.

As far as entities, are not archeology and anthropology fields of science studying artifacts made by those in the distant past which we “cannot investigate or learn anything about”? or are they?

Show how evolution has led scientific advances. Not to be confused with genetic heritability, selection pressures, mutations, or population change over time. Any empirical evidences for evolution (excluding genetic heritability,….)?

I don't know where you got I was wanting ID taught AS science. As I've said before, “beliefs” should not be in the science room. But, if someone thinks evolution (as most define it) should be included, other belief systems should too. And, I should say, I have no problem with genetic heritability,… being taught.

I was not asking you to equate ID with evolution. I was only asking you to consider that origins of life may be outside of the tools of science. While ID may also be outside the tools of science, you can't conclude they're equal any more than equating both equal to a pretty painting, which is also outside the tools of science. Attempting to make the concept of evolution account for origins may be like what you say about finding empirical evidence of creation.

I find you interesting in what you put forth as your beliefs. I would like to hear your thoughts on why death existed before sin. Or, do you believe there is sin. Was death a tool of the Creator?

15 June 2006
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Explain specifically how ID belief can lead to advances in breeding programs, medicine, crop protection. You need to show what specifically what experimentally done according ID that translated into “advances”. I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to address this because it has never been done.

Evolution is not a belief system. Evolution describes a phenomenon of life just as Newton's theory of universal gravitation describes a phenomenon of matter. When you talk about genetic heritability, selection pressures, mutations, or population change over time you are talking about evolution.

To be continued

15 June 2006
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

The following is reprinted from TalkOrigins site regarding the usefulness of evolutionary theory:

Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

15 June 2006
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

This also from the same site:

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Directed evolution allows the “breeding” of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

15 June 2006
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

And even more fun stuff:

Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).

Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.

Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.

15 June 2006
at 4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Well, I guess that answered my thought of why you thought evolution (as is commonly defined) should be taught in school….

“When you talk about genetic heritability, selection pressures, mutations, or population change over time you are talking about evolution.”

Is that what you say evolution being taught in school is? Nothing more, nothing less? I wouldn't see what the fuss is, then.

––––

Take herbicide development/application. If one believed no plant had ever been exposed to the new herbicide X, and you calculated any mutations that would build up for resistance wouldn't happen till time T, then one would see no problem in attempting to get a complete kill. In fact, it would be recommended for attempted kill of all plants in contact with the herbicide. If not exposed (for partial contact), can't build immunity.

However, if one believed that while herbicide X is “new”, there may be any number of unknown compounds that are similar, as is in hormone simulators, and therefore mutating into resistance to the herbicide is not the issue. The important issue would be the risk of eliminating all but those with resistance. Then, resistance “build up” would happen rapidly. If one believed that way, then the herbicide program would involve stacking different mechanisms into the product.

Why are farmers urged to not attempt 100% control and have, (I can't remember the term), reserve areas?

Do you have an on-line reference to the Bull and Wichman article?

15 June 2006
at 6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

I haven't found a free online reference to their paper but have found the summary below…

Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217

applied evolution

J. J. Bull1 and Â-H. A. Wichman2Â-
1Section of Integrative Biology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712-1023; e-mail: bull@bull.biosci.utexas.edu

2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-3051; e-mail: hwichman@uidaho.edu

Evolutionary biology is widely perceived as a discipline with relevance that lies purely in academia. Until recently, that perception was largely true, except for the often neglected role of evolutionary biology in the improvement of agricultural crops and animals. In the past two decades, however, evolutionary biology has assumed a broad relevance extending far outside its original bounds. Phylogenetics, the study of Darwin's theory of “descent with modification,” is now the foundation of disease tracking and of the identification of species in medical, pharmacological, or conservation settings. It further underlies bioinformatics approaches to the analysis of genomes. Darwin's “evolution by natural selection” is being used in many contexts, from the design of biotechnology protocols to create new drugs and industrial enzymes, to the avoidance of resistant pests and microbes, to the development of new computer technologies. These examples present opportunities for education of the public and for nontraditional career paths in evolutionary biology. They also provide new research material for people trained in classical approaches.

15 June 2006
at 7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Not sure what you are trying to say in your other paragraphs regarding the herbicides. “I am pretty sure that 100% control in most herbicide programs is not a realistic goal and cannot be done but that is simply based on my thinking and not anything tangible. I would have to do a little research there. Other than that what is your point.

Kodiac

15 June 2006
at 7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

I disagree vehemently with HGA on other issues, however on this issue I agree and support:

“Gr:

Gotta agree with Kodiac. Many of your “explanations” reveal a significant ignorance of science. Your definitions are vague, sometimes they are just flat wrong.

======

“There are ways to prevent cancer. There are ways to cure cancer, except possibly at the advanced stages. But, it doesn't follow the rules of medicine.” –- gr

======

What are you proposing??? Laetrile?? Faith healing??

You're still proselytizing. The “open mind” you are imploring us to have is the gullibility to accept your religion, a religion that asks us to accept non-empirical theories.

Can't do that and include the non-empirical theory of your religion into science.

Wouldn't be truth.”

16 June 2006
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

100% control, at least in the past, has been quite a debated issue, pro and con. Preassumed mindset would influence the path chosen.

==========

Asbestos,

What are you agreeing with?

16 June 2006
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

You did say that there were “evidences” supporting ID. Your statement was “but there still is enough evidence to show design”. So when you say “evidences” that is not defined at all and I have to make some kind of guess as to what you were referring to there. Then later on you say “That doesn't remove the truth of intelligent design.” Again you are blurring the lines there with the word “truth”. Truth as in empirical observable data and testing of hypothesis in the natural world or are you talking about from a spiritual standpoint or what. I don't know. Again it comes down to the definitions or semantics if you will. Maybe you are doing that on purpose so that you can remain vague on a lot of these issues. I just feel like you are trying to mix the two or blur the lines between science and beliefs which becomes useless in terms of discussing actual evolutionary concepts, their evidences, and their applications.

16 June 2006
at 4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah thank-you Das_Ubermime,

I had forgotten about the idea of how mutations occur and I knew there was a strategy with having the refuge on farmland. Actually both Gr and I should know better because we really delved into a paper that actually shows clear evidence that mutations are a result of randomness and being selected for and are not created in response to a particular environment or substrate. Thank-you for your well-worded and informative response.

21 June 2006
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Das_Ubermime,

I think you explained that pretty good. However, I'm not sure why you thought I didn't already know most of it. Principals of genetics covered it pretty well. The 412 class may or may not explain it in more detail, but not sure what you are hoping I'd pick up differently. If it was me specifically asking about “100%” control, surely you picked up on it was a rhetorical question as further evidenced by my successive response. Now, maybe you didn't think I understood it correctly. And one part of your response, “Now this mutation does not have to confer immunity, so long as it allows differential reproductive success that favors the plants resistant to the herbicide. For this reason, there are no herbicides which are 100% effective.”, I didn't fully understand. I'm not sure how a mutation could favor reproductive success of resistant plants without conferring “immunity” in some sense. Nor, why it would indicate no herbicides are 100% effective. Maybe you didn't know I was making a reference to the TalkOrigin's claim about “exposure”, so that may have something to do with it. You clearly stated that mutations don't occur in response to selection, which Kodiac and I went on for length before concluding we both agreed with it!

==========

Kodiac,

Sometimes, I think you are like ale, seeking for any “loopholes” which you may attack purely for the sake of attack. Other times, I wonder if you are a highschool (or gradeschool) student (who's not being taught science but all this religious stuff!). Then, sometimes I think you are an intelligent professor.

This is one of those times which are not of the latter.

You are attempting to make it sound like I'm misleading on my use of the word “truth”. Did you miss where I introduced the paragraph you have in question? I spoke of paintings being beautiful and everyone agreeing it is “true” and then saying truth isn't only found through science. Was I that unclear for you to say I'm “blurring the lines”? Do you understand what “abstraction” is? I thought I had fully defined how I was using the word and in no way attempting to deceive you or “pull one over on you”. Please, tell me how I could have been any clearer. I was explicitly and intentionally saying truth can be more than “empirical observable data”.

In case you missed the main point (which was after the paragraph you had in question), here it is again. Maybe origins is outside of science. Maybe it is outside of “empirical observable data”. But, just like the painting, some things can be “true” without having “empirical observable data”.

–––—

“When you talk about genetic heritability, selection pressures, mutations, or population change over time you are talking about evolution.”

Is that what you say evolution being taught in school is? Nothing more, nothing less? I wouldn't see what the fuss is, then.

21 June 2006
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

So essentially what you are saying Gr is that you agree with that evolution (the theory of common descent of species which includes genetic heritability, selection pressures, mutations, or population change over time, etc) is science which should be taught in the science classroom. That intelligent design is not science, is outside the field of science and should never be taught in the science classroom. Glad we cleared that up…

Kodiac

21 June 2006
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac, do you not remember my comments in the past about Intelligent Design should not be taught in the classroom; the same as evolution (as is commonly defined) should not be? Neither one has proof, but if one type of conclusion is going to be taught, both should be - or even more.

But, is the above definition what really is being taught, or are conclusions and conjectures being made from it? I don't really know what is currently taught, but when I went to school, they didn't stop at “empirical observable data” which are established as facts. Maybe times have changed.

I just have been hoping that there would be some who are opposed to what's being taught could give examples. If you remember, I have numerous times asked for one's definition of evolution, but everyone wants to hide behind vagueness. Then, some referred me to the dictionary which somehow makes them feel better about themselves without doing anything to make their definition known.

21 June 2006
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

xeno said this:
“BTW, evolution is fact, not theory. Humans evolved from primates, and all the way back to single-cell organisms in an amino-acid soup.

Don't take my word for it; read a high-school freshman's biology text.”

For what his word is worth, sounds like he thinks it's taught in schools.

21 June 2006
at 6:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

This is from a highschool biology text regarding evolution.

“The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”

I'm sure there are differences among biology teachers about the way they approach this subject or how much delve into it. I don't think the text above really says it is a theory nor does it say it is a fact. It just tells you what evolution is. Evolution should be taught in the classroom just as Newton's theory of gravitation is taught in physics. They are both scientific theories. Evolution is considered to be better supported than gravitational theory because at least with evolution there is a plausible mechanism (heritable variation with natural selection) which can be tested. Gravitational theory cannot be empirically tested from a mass concept standpoint. Yet you do not see everyone running around trying to get gravitational theory banned from the science classes. Why do you suppose that is Gr?

Your statement is “Neither one has proof, but if one type of conclusion is going to be taught, both should be - or even more.” clearly shows your bias Gr. You object to evolution for religious reasons. You have no scientific basis for your arguments. Again you are not defining “proof”. If you object to evolution, then you object to all scientific related theories which means that you are advocating the elimination of science altogether.

22 June 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Through the process of descent …. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”“

And that is where “empirical observable data” does not exist. Sure, one may observe raindrops on a window pane and see them run down. They then see greater collection of raindrops flow across the ground. One may “conclude” that all these raindrops flowing downhill must gather in enormous amounts at a lowest point. But, without actually observing the ocean, it is only conjecture. It may be true, or it may not be. Unknown to the “conjecturist”, there may be sandy soil which absorbs the water, there may be hot lava flows which vaporize the water, or it may fall off the edge of the earth and run down the turtle's backs.

You can't conclude there is an ocean based upon raindrops on a window pane. It's a conjecture as much as seeing heritable variation with natural selection and then inventing a “plausible mechanism” that all life came from a common ancestor.

Your quote from the textbook shows that evolution is more than what you are trying to say is “fact”. Let me ask you, have you been trying to mislead me by saying the “components” are fact and that's only what evolution is? Do we agree that what is the common definition of evolution is what you mean by it and which is, all life descended from a common ancestor?

“Evolution is considered to be better supported than gravitational …. Gravitational theory cannot be empirically tested from a mass concept standpoint.”

However, gravity is observable (or effects if you want to get technical). And, if by mass concept, you mean all objects attract each other, sure it may be difficult with small objects, but I thought they had done experiments in space where there were detectable measurements. I also thought they had done experiments in determining the photons were both wave and particle. It can be observed on large objects as was how you were pointing out about the moon and tides.

By the way, you aren't suggesting that if one can't come up with a theory on the mechanism, observation isn't valid, are you?

“Your statement … clearly shows your bias Gr. You object to evolution for religious reasons. You have no scientific basis for your arguments. Again you are not defining “proof”.

And you object to creation for religious reasons. You have no scientific basis either. Especially, when I believe it was you who said that evolution couldn't be disproved. Proof = “empirical observable data” - not conclusions from other data.

“If you object to evolution, then you object to all scientific related theories which means that you are advocating the elimination of science altogether.”

And that is conjecture on your part.

'If you don't believe a mushroom is a plant without chlorophyll, then you object to all plants which means you object to life altogether'.

22 June 2006
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Again you are definitionally challenged. You really need to think about the term “empirical observable data”.

This from the talkorigins site is directly applicable to what you are objecting to…

“All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth (Sacks 1995). To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.

Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things as the following:
certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations;
many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere;
bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time;
flies share some traits that other insects do not;
and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.

The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.

However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories. (Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known, but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.) The millions of facts referred to above fit this criterion, so they qualify as evidence for evolution.

The interpretation on which creationism depends, in contrast, is based only on highly questionable and subjective ideas that do not fit together into a coherent whole.”

Sorry out of time Gr. Your redeucation will have to continue at a later time….

22 June 2006
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

em*pir*i*cal

1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Were you choosing #2 and substituting in “practical beliefs”, or some other definition?

“However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories.”

So, what you are saying is that there are facts, then there's interpretation. However, somewhere, the believers of evolution seem to think their interpretation trumps creationists. The creationists looks at the geological column and sees that it fits with aggregate sorting and organisms of the sea being buried before those which can run from the flood. They predict that a flood would not necessarily bury food plants where the animals are found and that is what is found in places.

But, the evolutionists says, that is not science (as if evolution is), and therefore evolution is all we got to go on.

Fact: balls bounce.
Fact: balls bounce more than once.
Interpretation: balls will continue bouncing and given enough time (billions of years), they will reach the moon.

Fact: butterflies change color.
Fact: mutations occur.
Interpretation: all bacteria came from one and given enough time (billions of years), they will become man.

22 June 2006
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

You are wasting my time. Go read a book or take a class.

The geological column material that you are citing is an old creationist claim that has been shown to be false. You are now citing material that is a lie. It amazes me that a group of people who promote themselves as having christian values will sit there and knowingly lie to promote their belief systems. I imagine they sit there thinking the ends justify the means so it is ok to do it.

As I said, Gr, you are wasting time here….

22 June 2006
at 6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Why is it that pterosaurs fell victim to the flooding before birds or even bats did? ”

Aren't birds and bats better fliers than pterosaurs?

“The presence of plant rich, animal poor deposits is likely to have much more to do with the mode of preservation than any 'aggregate sorting' of organisms as they got buried.”

Actually, I was saying the opposite - animal rich deposits. Though you'd say the same.

“Evolution, on the other hand, does offer such comprehensive explanations which have been validated repeatedly for over 200 years and does not make such an appeal.”

But Das, evolution cannot be validated. No one was there to observe it, nor has it been repeated. It CAN be speculated. But that's not really factual science, is it?

22 June 2006
at 6:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “You are wasting my time. Go read a book or take a class.”

Does saying that make you feel better?

“You are now citing material that is a lie.”

Actually, I wasn't citing anything. I checked on a site to see if you were lying and I found articles on sorting from 1998, then found more references in 97, 96, the 80's, the 70's…

By the way, wasn't Darwin's idea quite older than those? And some of Darwin's ideas have been shown to be false. And you continue to believe and promote the beliefs of a liar?

(Hey, you're right, such tactics does make one “feel good in their own insecurities”! - not really, I'm lying - about feeling good, that is)

22 June 2006
at 8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Das: “As far as I know of, there is no solid information available to support such a statement.”

I believe evolution states that as species become more modern, they become more efficient.

“As far as I know of, there is no solid information available to support such a statement.”

When I look out in a pail of water left out overnight, I see all kinds of flying insects in it.

Das, I'm not doing any research or finding citations or even using much thought on those statements. I'm just making them up as I go to give the similarity to how evolution comes about. In my perusal of the geological column, I came about reference on finding pollen in the Precambrian. I found one site which disputed it, but then I found this site which should address the disputes http://www.rae.org/pollen.html

If it was suggested to an evolutionist to look for pollen in the Precambrian, I would imagine most would say, there's no point because there isn't any - it's a fact. If someone did find some, they would say, must be contamination. Then proceed to make up all kinds of ideas to explain it. Don't get me wrong. It's important to be critical or one would be finding bacteria on rocks from Mars.

But, to keep clinging to a theory which cannot be disproved is no different from believing in creation. Your “independently supporting evidence” can also explain creation. Advances cannot be made unless someone imagines and makes up an explanation, but to call it “fact” is when it leaves the scientific realm.

23 June 2006
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

“Das, I'm not doing any research or finding citations or even using much thought on those statements. I'm just making them up as I go to give the similarity to how evolution comes about. ”

That has to be the most accurate statement you have ever given us Gr. You are indeed not putting much thought into these statements and even more apparent, you making things up as you go along. There is another name for that. Maybe lying is too strong of a word, but you definitely confirmed the idea you are wasting my time.

Actually it didn't make me feel good to say what I said Gr but I guess I am getting tired of reading yoiur made-up statements and reciting old creationist claims. Oh by the way, I did not “lie” about the geologic column arguments. If you look-up a guy by the name of Morris (your favorite reference whether you know it or not) he made similar claims regarding the geologic column back in the 60s which have all been dealt with scientifically. I guess I am somewhat frustrated and sometimes puzzled over some of your assertions and/or claims because many of them original come out of the creationists claims and they have been dismissed to my satisfaction from a scientific standpoint. For example the thing you brought up about the distance between the moon and earth was clearly wrong for which you finally agreed that it was wrong due to a simple calculation. Many of the other things you have brought up like the geologic column may not be as simple to dismiss as the moon example is but they still have a vast amount of scientific evidence that do show them to be false claims. So when I said you need to read a book or take a class, it wasn't to make me feel good. That is based on what you write and your own ideas. You really confirmed that statement for me by saying you have not put much thought or research into this matter. In my opinion, that is obvious.

23 June 2006
at 12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Continued from above for Gr

Gr says…”By the way, wasn't Darwin's idea quite older than those? And some of Darwin's ideas have been shown to be false. And you continue to believe and promote the beliefs of a liar?”

Ah yes, yet another wait a minute drum roll please, creationsit claim. Come on Gr. I know you are smarter than that. Of course Darwin was wrong about some things. Does that make him liar? Only if he were to keep repeating his claims knowing that they were false or had been proven false scientifically. I guarantee it Darwin would be hard-pressed to recognize many parts of modern evolutionary theory. The fact that creationists or IDists keep calling modern evolutionary theory Darwinism is a testament to the propaganda machine they have tried to use to discredit this theory. You do understand the Darwin proposed his theory long before genetics or many of our current scientific fields were around. So of course some of his own ideas will be outdated or simply wrong but this doesn't make him liar does it Gr? It is one thing to make a hypothesis or claim that turns out to be false at a later time due to some type of hard evidence, but quite another thing when such claims or hypothesis are still being promoted as being new or having no evidence against it when indeed there are clear evidences against such a claim.

As far as calling evolution a religion, it just demonstrates to me your lack of understanding of what evolution is. You effectively have rendered the term religion to be meaningless by using it that way. Evolution never has been nor will it ever be a “religion” to me. It represents to me an explanation of our natural world. To claim that I am using it as some kind of deity worship illustrates how desperate you have become and how little you know me.

23 June 2006
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac, June 21st: “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

Finally, a statement from one of you guys that defines evo.

Now, judge the statement in a scientific format that is a test for refutation, please.

Ok, lemme help you. You must show that there is some life on this planet that came from elsewhere.

How you gonna do that?

Well, the only effort currently underway is the mission to Mars. The main goal of this exploration is search for life.
Ok, maybe the efforts to combine chemicals in a lab to create proto-life and beyond. So far, they haven't gotten very far.

Look for life on this planet that isn't carbon-based? Look for DNA sequences that are 100% decorrelated from all other forms of life?

So far, none of these “tests” are really any more than searches. SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) was a program started by NASA. Its great fun and I'm all for it. NASA had to beg off when it was shown that this “search” is not science.

Fortunately, William Hewlett, of H-P fame, jumped in with a lot of $. It continues.

Again, SETI is great fun, so is evo. They aren't science. Because they both make statements that are not properly refutable.

Until you reproduce the evo of common ancestor…lotsoftime……you, ya ain't testing the hypothesis.

23 June 2006
at 9:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Oh wait, I almost forgot. You test fruit flies and bacteria. Right. To the extent that these tests are attempts to refute the statement of the previous post, I agree that science is being done.

To the extent that these tests are an incredibly small part of the statement made by Kodiac (share a common ancestor), I find lousy science.

That is, statements are often made by evos that cannot be refuted (like the Kodiac statement). This has been the basis of my objection beginning with my entry to these boards last October.

So, DNA isn't the whole story. RNA is more important than previously thought. Gene switches, junk DNA. Watch out guys, your science is diverging, not converging. This is a sure sign that you have a lot of work to do. And what if the amount of work left is 10,000,000 time that which you have presently accomplished?

I think you guys should engage in biology. I'm all for it. Stop making big statements about big science.

“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.” To an engineer, physics, math guy, this is a non-scientific conjecture.

Oh, one last thing. Fellas we are all students in this world. Your reaction to my use of this term earlier might indicate that you have no intention of trying to learn here.

If this is the case, then I can only hope to learn from you. However, I find it difficult to follow your logic.

I come here from engineering, physics, mathematics. I appear to be too pragmatic, logical, straightforward to attempt the sophisticated world of biology.

When all else fails, sophisticate. Sophisticate, sophisticate, sophisticate until obfuscation is total.

24 June 2006
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun,

Oh my goodness Devo, are you teaching your “students” here? Yes yes hear ye, hear ye, the most honorable, pragmatic, logical brilliant teacher here to teach us what science really means. Oh my look how smart you are Devo. Let's see here, have you written any books lately on this topic? Do you have some major publications in this area Devo? What no. hmmm. Must be some kind of oversight. What is the matter these people. They should be taking down every word you say as the gospel truth. You are out there trying to educate the world with your overwhelmingly insightful views.

I am surprised Bishop Seabury hasn't fired you or forced you into retirement David. The fact that you keep coming on here trying to claim that biology isn't science shows your lack of qualificaqtions to be a teacher. Tell me David why is it you only attack those who support evolution and you never criticize any of the creationists on here. If anything you encourage them. Even if you claim to be on the side of “science”, your responses on here clearly show your religious motivations. You can't even read the above postings to understand that the definition of evolution was out of a high school textbook.

You attack the theory of evolution as not being valid because according to you it can't be refuted. If this were a real objection, you would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

David you are the one who is trying to sophisicate these issues in hopes you can obfuscate your own weak arguments against the theory of evolution and your failure as a scientist. If you don't believe that, then tell me why are you on a newspaper blog arguing with a bunch of annonymous posters most of who probably don't really have any careers in the field of biology such as evolution. Even here, your idiotic ramblings are recognized as being useless and religiously motivated.

26 June 2006
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Das: “You have refused to explain why “all animals come from a common ancestor” is an invalid statement, but “rain water eventually collects in the ocean” is valid.”

It's most likely can be said to be invalid, but not testable. Rainwater collecting in the ocean is testable.

“You make statements such as:

“I believe evolution states that as species become more modern, they become more efficient.”

Which is not only completely wrong, but uses evolution as a defense for creationism. I cannot even fathom why you would use a mutually exclusive idea to back up your own argument.”

Are you saying that as species become more modern, they become LESS efficient? I don't recall my “basic 8th grade science class” saying as such! You disagreed with me saying that birds and bats are better fliers. Why do you have a problem with me using your own belief system to show support?

“My favorite, though, has to be:

“When I look out in a pail of water left out overnight, I see all kinds of flying insects in it.”

That was my mistake. Good ol' copying and pasting didn't work that time as evident by the same statement twice. It was supposed to be in response to your statement:
“Which reminds me that you still did not answer how creationism's views can reconcile why flying insects would be found before burrowing animals.”

“How you regard a result which cannot be duplicated to be valid scientific evidence is beyond me.”

Wow! Now isn't that special! To put it back in your terms, you're using my statements against me? Seriously, I find it interesting that you call into question whether something is science if it can't be duplicated! Do you understand what I'm saying - Do I have to spell it out for you?

Did you skim enough of the article to see why one couldn't duplicate it? And then to find out others DID duplicate it? Did you also miss the statement, “He failed to mention that fungal structures, plant stems and lycopods were also detected”?

“”If someone did find some, they would say, must be contamination.”

That is a completely unsupported statement and another instance of you just 'making them up as you go'.”

Do you happen to suppose that maybe I got such an idea from the articles such as, “Later S stated that Burdick took no precautions against contamination”? By the way, did you happen to notice that some creationists are also attacking them because of their preconceived ideas just like the evolutionists? They're not saying what it means. Only that they are finding pollen.

“You have failed to come up with a single valid reason why evolution is not science”

I submit your statement, “How you regard a result which cannot be duplicated to be valid scientific evidence is beyond me.”

26 June 2006
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “I guess I am getting tired of reading yoiur made-up statements”

And I guess I am of yours when you do your best to lead me down the trail and then suddenly do the bait-and-switch with the evolutionary made-up statements.

“I guess I am somewhat frustrated and sometimes puzzled over some of your assertions and/or claims because many of them original come out of the creationists claims and they have been dismissed to my satisfaction from a scientific standpoint.”

Yeah, so why is even recent research still being done on them? I suppose you would say they aren't “real” scientists. Then, when I go and search for “real” scientists, then you would say I was using evolution to prove creation. So, what can I use? I couldn't find Morris was on the list I was looking at. Maybe you could tell me what specifically you are objecting to as there is the possibility that we are talking about completely different things.

Likewise, you are using the foundation of Darwin and many of his ideas have been proven false. Evolutionists claims “have been dismissed to my satisfaction from a scientific standpoint.” Should I then say you are lying? “Only if he were to keep repeating his claims knowing that they were false or had been proven false scientifically.” I don't know that the claims I'm repeating to be false. 80's and 90's doesn't seem like old science to me. In case you didn't catch it, I didn't believe Darwin to be a liar. But, Darwin played a major role in this evolutionary belief. Then when certain claims are proven false, new ideas are “made up”.

“For example the thing you brought up about the distance between the moon and earth was clearly wrong for which you finally agreed that it was wrong due to a simple calculation.”

It's been a long time and I don't recall it all, but I seem to remember doing the calculation as you explained and came near to what was given. The point I was agreeing with was what you said that the tides could have an affect on the rate - that there were multiple things going on so it was not a simple process of calculation.

“You really confirmed that statement for me by saying you have not put much thought or research into this matter.”

Kodiac, do I have to explicitly bring your attention every time I make a qualifier? “those statements”.

“To claim that I am using it as some kind of deity worship illustrates how desperate you have become and how little you know me.”

Religion is faith in something that cannot be proven. You have been unable to substantiate how evolution can be proved or disproved. It is outside of science. I have tried to know more of you, but you have avoided it. For instance, I would like to know your thoughts on why death occurred before sin.

26 June 2006
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Devobrun,

The worms squirm when exposed.

“Ok, maybe the efforts to combine chemicals in a lab to create proto-life and beyond. So far, they haven't gotten very far.”

Not sure if you're saying what it sounded like. The central idea of biological evolution is a common ancestor. If someone creates life in a lab, then that disproves the “central idea” while at the same time showing it's possible? I love it! A true (Kodiac, I probably DON'T need a qualifier here) scientist would say something is wrong with the “central idea”.

––––––––—

Kodiac,

Instead of attacking Devo how about answering some of the objections he raised. I don't know much about him, but his last post raised some good points that I think anything of a science nature should be able to answer. However, when you make personal attacks against him, that seems to give weight to what he says. You accuse him of attacking, but I found nothing of the sort in his last two posts other than disagreeing and asking for support of statements. You attack his person. You say he claims biology isn't science, but I wonder if that's like how you turn what I say around when I say “evolution” isn't science. He distinctly said that testing fruit flies IS science.

You bring up the gravity idea again and I've already answered that. But, then you say, “Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.” The “phenomenon”?! And what do you suggest is the phenomenon of evolution - “we're here”?

“then tell me why are you on a newspaper blog arguing with a bunch of annonymous posters ”

(You may want to compare the definition of blog with forum)

So, Kodiac, are you telling me that whatever you or anyone else says here is not really worth anything? That everyone here doesn't really know anything and any “real” person wouldn't be reading nor writing here?

26 June 2006
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Looky what I found! Kodiac, this should answer your moon questions. I didn't know this site existed. Now I do. ;-)

http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp

26 June 2006
at 5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Of course, the part of the email which I answered you “water pail hypothesis” was completely left out of your post….The insects you find in your water bucket are not first flying insects in the fossil record. In fact, you will never find the closest relatives of the earliest flying insects in water buckets.”

I didn't respond to it since you were responding to what you ….never mind…. I clarified that in the last post to you. What does current insects have to do with past insects with your question? Read YOUR post and my clarification again.

Unless….. You are trying to say that past flying insects are worse/better than prairie dogs in avoiding floods.

“by an actual palynologist”

Sorry, guess I missed that. Botanists don't count? Only Palynologist can see pollen? Would you venture to say only biologists can make statements about biology?

“Great! You at least attempted to answer my statement in its original form! Now tell me how the morphological, anatomical, physiological, microbiological, genetic, biogeographical, or paleontological evidence for evolution cannot be duplicated.”

Who's construing what! Those may be components (some argue small components) of evolution, but they are not evolution. Don't try to kid me as Kodiac did.

You asked before… Genetics is a component of and supports Biblical creation: Gen 1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

27 June 2006
at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah here we go Gr.

Where is Devo when you need him. Gr says that genetics supports biblical creation. Devo Devo where are you. Do you suppose there are any test of refutability here Devo?

Sorry Gr I don't have much time this week but I do plan on responding to the bulk of your postings. I just don't have time to do it justice right now. But don't worry your pretty little head. As Arnold says “I'll be back”

27 June 2006
at 12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “Do you suppose there are any test of refutability here”.

Have you caught on yet?!!! Are you following? I said that in response showing that “facts” can be used for conclusions either way. Neither one can be refuted nor proved.

Did you ask for Devo because he said this?
“That is, statements are often made by evos that cannot be refuted (like the Kodiac statement). This has been the basis of my objection beginning with my entry to these boards last October.”

What is the test for refuting that all life has descended from one ancestor?

=============

Das: “I have a problem with people using a theory which they are ridiculing to support their beliefs. It makes no logical sense to ridicule it on one hand, then use it to support your contrary ideas on the other.”

“by an actual palynologist”

Isn't that what you've effectively done? You are saying saying that these scientists are invalid (which some say supports creation, others say don't).

27 June 2006
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Evolution has supporting data and can be tested. Creationism cannot be. Creationism is useless as a theory. It is a belief system. Evolution is not and can be used to make predictions about the real world. Creationsim cannot be used that way. Creationism does not have genetics, molecular biology, the fossil record, geology, morphology, anatomy, physiology, microbiology, biogeography, and paleontology. Evolution does. Name me one example where creationism has been used to make a prediction in the real world that has been published by a recognized scientific journal. Creationism is about a belief in God. This is not science. The theory of evolution has broader tangible concrete suppport than gravitational theory.

28 June 2006
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

“Evolution has supporting data and can be tested.”

You've never answered Devo's question of HOW can it be tested.

“Do you suppose there are any test of refutability here”.

No, because evolution is a religion - an extremist religion that is above questioning, that to question it is to condemn oneself, “all unacceptable facts cease to exist”.

“Name me one example where creationism has been used to make a prediction in the real world that has been published by a recognized scientific journal.”

Why, so you can accuse me of using an evolutionary journal to support creation? “evolution/creation journal”, that's what you really mean, isn't it? Name me one creation journal which predicts evolution.

28 June 2006
at 4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

What do you think of the following statement attributed to Scott Todd from K-State?

'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.'

Yes, I realize it is a letter to the editor, but skip over that criticism. What are YOUR views relating to just that statement?

28 June 2006
at 7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Well Gr,

What do you think of these statements:

From the creation research society we have….
“The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation.”

The Institute for Creation Research suggests that you, “Do use the Word of God (The Bible indicates that most of the fossils must have been buried in one year - the year of the Flood).” to determine the age of fossils.

Hmmm. Lets see here, here is what I observe…is that in the bible?……No?….ok then this is false…we can't use that because it is not in the bible…

And you Gr are calling this “science”?

Basically I think Scott Todd is saying you cannot test for an Intelligent designer. It is not testable from what we see in the natural world.

Here is a question for you Gr, if you do agree with the idea that evolution does happen albeit on a small scale (e.g. nylon-eating bacteria or the hawthorne fly - a new species eat apples now and not hawthorn fruits) then you are agreeing in principle with modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution does get tested all of the time. Many fields such as molecular biology, paleontology, morphology has been providing an incredible amount of evidence that does support evolutionary theory. I have noticed that people like Devo will totally ignore such evidences and only look at the idea that you can't actually observe the process. There are many things that we can't directly observe, but we still treat them as fact. Take gravity and Newtonian physics for example. Now here is a theory that is readily accepted by Devo yet you really cannot directly observe gravity. In fact the theory of gravity for the longest time was only a descriptive theory with no proposed underlying mechanisms. Such mechanisms have been only recently proposed which has come out of quantum physics. Quantum physics must be really hard for Devo to deal with because almost everthing in it is based on inferences. At least with evolution, you can actually see the mechanism of natural selection and genetic variation and directly test for that. In fact quantum physics can actually show the presence of a single light particle in 2 different places at the same time. We can't explain why that happens but we can certainly see it happen.

28 June 2006
at 7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Continued for Gr

What about on a much grander scale. Your friend Malcolm (the moon guy) actually supports and tries to provide evidence for a geocentric universe (that is everything revolves around the earth). He has defended the Tachy model of geocentrism saying it is the only thing that can explain our universe. He seems to ignore completely the fact that the Tachy model of geocentrism cannot and will not give you actual working real world predictions and/or information needed to be able to do even the most basic tasks in space such as getting a probe to a planet or how to look at the universe such as where to point radio telescopes. He has some convuloted complex explanations of why things appear as they do instead of simply using the Corpenecian model of a heliocentric universe. He does this because he uses the bible as the basis of his “science”. If the bible doesn't support it or disagrees with it, then it can't be right. And this is the guy you are trying to say has actual evidence that the moon and earth are much younger than we think they are.

I have read some creation journals and every article I have read, everyone of them uses the bible as their basis for their research. The whole basis of Creationism rests on an article of faith. It can't be tested, it can't falsified, and it doesn't matter if there is an incredible amount of evidence against creationism. This isn't science Gr. This is not the scientific method.

Evolution is based entirely on the natural world. It fits all known bilogical and genetic evidence which is backed by the fossil record. Evolution undergoes rigorous testing all of the time in many different fields. You cannot do that for Creationism. It would never stand-up to the scientific method. I am not sure why you are saying things about the journals but I really did mean recognize “scientific” journals. There are many non-evolution” scientific journals that provide support for evolution. Creationism by definition cannot be a recognized scientific journal because they do not practice the scientific method. If they did, then they would be going against the bible which they cannot do. Remember it is the basis for everything. You can't practice valid science if your whole basis of science rests on an article of faith.

That is all I have time for now. Have a good one Gr and next time you go outside and watch the sunset or sunrise for that matter or how about the stars, sit there ponder how can Malcolm (your moon friend) say that the earth is standing still and not rotating on its axis and that everthing else is rotating around the earth. Kind of just blows you mind doesn't it….ah yes its in the bible isn't it…..

29 June 2006
at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “Hmmm. Lets see here, here is what I observe…is that in the bible?……No?….ok then this is false…we can't use that because it is not in the bible…”

I see you got my point about evolution loud and clear. I wasn't saying creation can be proved any better.

“Basically I think Scott Todd is saying you cannot test for an Intelligent designer. It is not testable from what we see in the natural world.”

But what about you? If all data pointed and supported an intelligent designer, would you accept it, or throw it out because it's not “science”? What about archeology - is it science? Why?

“the hawthorne fly - a new species eat apples now and not hawthorn fruits”

Kodiac, what are you trying to pull? Hawthorn, crabapple, apple… What's the difference. Many diseases make use all of these. That's because there is no difference. They are apples. Of the Rosaceae family. (Were you aware that raspberries and strawberries can be crossed?) But, I'll accept your general idea that plants and animals have the ability to adapt to changing environments. I don't know why you have to search for uncommon examples when dog breeds is something anyone can relate to. However, to say because these things can be observed “proves”, “indicates”, or fully supports the idea that ALL life descended from one organism is a great fallacy. That's not science - that's “historical reconstruction”. I suppose much in the same way a whole animal, including its fleshy parts, is “reconstructed” from a couple of skull fragments (fossil hunter's whale fiasco).

You are mixing up observing gravity with understanding the mechanism of gravity. Just because Mendel didn't understand how DNA works, didn't mean he couldn't observe genetics. (Mendel was a creationist, by the way, which “lead to advances” in agriculture)

I don't follow about Malcolm and the Tachy model of geocentrism. I didn't find that. Are you referring to other papers he wrote? You are right, someone's credibility in supporting a geocentric universe would be suspect. I find it hard to believe that someone in 2000 would believe that.

Where in the Bible does it support a geocentric universe? Just saying the sun went down or moved back won't work - we say the same thing today.

29 June 2006
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“I have read some creation journals and every article I have read, everyone of them uses the bible as their basis for their research. The whole basis of Creationism rests on an article of faith. It can't be tested, it can't falsified, and it doesn't matter if there is an incredible amount of evidence against creationism. This isn't science Gr. This is not the scientific method.”

What would you expect to be the basis of a creation journal? And evolution journals throw out anything that may even hint of God because it doesn't match their beliefs. The one about pollen was printed in a creation journal even though some creationists were offended by it. Creation may not be able to be tested, but neither can evolution. But, things which support creation, which is what their research involves, can be tested in the same way as things which support evolution.

“Evolution is based entirely on the natural world. It fits all known bilogical and genetic evidence which is backed by the fossil record.”

You should be careful about saying “fits all” or you will be eating crow. The abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil record better fits with a creation viewpoint. And evolutionists can only call Wollemi Pines, a mystery.

“Creationism by definition cannot be a recognized scientific journal because they do not practice the scientific method.”

Please provide evidence - or explain what you mean.

If you mean the act of creation cannot be proved, true. The act of all life descended from one organism cannot be proved likewise. But, if you mean creation scientists do not practice the scientific method, do provide evidence.

29 June 2006
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“But, if you mean creation scientists do not practice the scientific method, do provide evidence”

I don't have to provide evidence Gr. Look at the statements I found for Creation Research sites. They are absolutely clear that they use the bible to determine how they practice their science. There is nothing scientific about that. There is no method there. Why do I even need to show “evidence” when you have statements like “Do use the Word of God to determine the age of fossils” or how about “The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation”. What more evidence do you need to understand that this is not the scientific method by definition.

This from the wikipedia….
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.”

How can you be objective when you are making statements that already determine the end result of an experiement?

30 June 2006
at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

So, you find statement on anti-creation sites which susposedly refer to a statement in a museum for common people made by unknown sources (maybe museum people?) and yet how do evolutionists determine ages of fossils? Why, by the age of rocks they're found in. And how are the ages the rocks determined? Why of course, by the age of fossils found in them!

So, you take a statement made by who knows who (but even assuming a scientist), and then declare they do not practice the scientific method. There is no reason to demonstrate evidence since they have been determined to be heretics. Off with their heads without a trial. That type of logic is what is the whole problem with this issue.

Using similar logic of evolution, the following could be said: Creation, the Word of God, says that animals reproduce after their kind. Using genetics, we indeed find that to be true. Therefore, using the scientific method, we have proven creation is a FACT! (We both know that is silly - why using almost the exact same thing, you then think all life descended from a common ancestor?)

“How can you be objective when you are making statements that already determine the end result of an experiement?”

And blatantly, stubbornly, and blindly assuming that life was not created is not very objective, either. Evolution belief system is beyond refutation - there is no reason to look for nor even consider creation. As you have not yet had time to address - how does it fit with the above definition of the scientific method:

Kodiac: “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

“Evolution has supporting data and can be tested.”

You've never answered Devo's question of HOW can it be tested:

“Do you suppose there are any test of refutability here”.

30 June 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Are you kidding me. I mean you keep citing these creation journals all over the place but I wonder if you have ever read them. I mean the hypocrisy is so apparent in those creation journals that I shouldn't even have to say anything about this. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record” (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.

Therein lies the difference between the majority of scientists that work in science. The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them. Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions.

You know Gr you claim that I have no idea who made these statements and whether they are real scientists. I am just looking for sites that consider themselves as creation scientists including the the Discovery Institute, AIG. I mean I don't know who is legitimate and who is not Gr. But I do know that every one and I mean every one the ones I have seen interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions. They state this preconception right from the start. They make no attempt to hide it. I think the onus of proof is on you Gr. You claim that there is an assumption (made presumbably by most scientists; I don't know you never say who) that life was not created but I can pretty much guarantee you the most of the world's scientist are religious and have some belief in being created in some way. I don't presume to know how anyone else's practice their religion but I think what you are implying is that most scientists are not religious which simply isn't true. If it is prove it. If you are going to make statements like that you need to show proof of it in legitimate scientific literature in any of the sciences that say we some kind of preconception, like “we assume life was not created”. I am betting man and I bet you won't find one.

Regarding your fossil:rock example, uh I think you need to give a more specific example of what you are talking about like maybe a paper. You weren't making any sense with the example and I am skeptical that you actually understand what you are saying or how you are representing it.

30 June 2006
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Regarding the evidence for evolution and how it is tested, this is from the talkorigins site…enjoy. Have a great weekend Gr and a good 4th of July.

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

30 June 2006
at 1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Continued for Gr:

Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution — heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection — are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

30 June 2006
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Regarding the hawthorn fly and apple maggot fly, I found the following…

Rhagoletis pomonella is significant evolutionarily in that the race of this species that feeds on apples spontaneously emerged from the hawthorn feeding race in the 1800 - 1850 AD time frame after apples were introduced into North America. The apple feeding race does not now normally feed on hawthorns and the hawthorn feeding race does not now normally feed on apples. This constitutes a possible example of an early step towards the emergence of a new species by the mechanism of sympatric speciation [1].

In other words, the hawthorne fly in the United States fed exclusively on hawthorns before the apple tree was introduced by early Europeans. Now you have 2 distinct species that have different emergence patterns, different feeding patterns and different life histroy patterns. Both of these species are known to have common descent. Evidence for evolution.

3 July 2006
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Here's a quote for the day for you:

Nobel laureate James Watson remarked rather bluntly: “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”

========

Das criticizes me for using evolution sites and you criticize me for referencing creation sites. What do you want? Or is that part of the plot - 'your support is invalid and don't you dare criticize ours'.

“Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith”

Do you understand what a “Statement of Faith” is? Just because they have a “Statement of Faith”, does that mean you don't have to give evidence whether their scientific methods are correct? At least they admit their biases. It IS a “creation” site.

“Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions.”

Are you serious?!!! Maybe you meant, some. Maybe you meant some attempt - or at least remove the blatant influences. Or maybe you mean “real” science, with real determined by you? Consider the witch-doctor scientists of Big Pharmacy - you surely understand they don't make deliberate efforts to “remove subjective influences” or they don't get paid. And, seems like in the last few months there was an issue of scientists only looking at one aspect since that's what their grant covered.

Would you go out on a limb and claim that any scientists with presuppositions mean they automatically do bad science? Don't you think even if scientists believe in the tooth fairy, they could still use the scientific method correctly?

“like “we assume life was not created”. I am betting man and I bet you won't find one.”

Well, you are probably right. No one is going to explicitly say that. However, what do you think of the statement, 'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.' at it's face value?

But, I would be surprised if you found in a peer reviewed journal, “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.” Evolution scientists may believe it, they may write a letter to the editor, National Geographic may say such, but it probably won't be found in a journal article.

So, as bad off as National Geographic is when it comes to science http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp , why would science textbooks, which would be assumed much worse off, be allowed to make wildhaired claims of origins in educating our youth? Wouldn't it be better to stick with true science?

Your talkorgins stuff talked about tests in support of evolution, but I didn't find anything about how it could be refuted. How would one refute “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

4 July 2006
at 9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Whaqt would you consider as proof against creationism?

5 July 2006
at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Am I understanding correctly that you believe both are equivalent in their ability to be/not be refuted?

5 July 2006
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Nah just thought I would ask the question since there are all kinds of way to disprove evolution none of which has appeared anywhere in the natural world to date. I am just asking you Gr, what kind of evidence would you need to disprove creationism. If creationism is a valid theory, then you should be able to list possible evidences that would disprove it. It is a simple question, if creationism is a true theory like evolution, then you should be able to list proofs which falsify creationism. So I ask the question Gr, what kind of evidence would prove creationism to be wrong?

6 July 2006
at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Very clever. However, you were the one who said creation is not valid science but evolution is. All I've ever said was that if evolution is taught, creation and other ideas should be too.

Why are you squirming around in avoiding answering something which should be so easy if it was really science? 'It is a simple question, if evolutionism is a true theory, then you should be able to list proofs which falsify evolutionism.'

How would one refute “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

6 July 2006
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Again, I ask the question. What kind of proof would show creationism to be wrong? Kind of interesting that you avoid answering it….

6 July 2006
at 10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Some possible evidences against evolution would be…..
a static fossil record;
true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.

6 July 2006
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Some more tests…some repeated from above but with more details….

true chimera (centaurs, mermaids), combinations from different lineages. An Intelligent Designer could put a human torso on a horse. Why not? Sure would have been awesome cavalry in the old days. But the process of evolution doesn't permit a “mix-and-match” approach. Maybe a centaur seems silly, but there are billions of non-silly combinations that MIGHT have occurred. None have. Find one and you have falsified evolution. (Any commenter stupid enough to suggest that convergent evolution is the same thing, “bats are mammals with wings,” wins today's booby prize.)

evidence of not enough time. Evolution has occurred over hundreds of millions, even two billion, years. If there were evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or only 100,000 years old, or even only 100 million years old, that would falsify evolution. In fact, all the geological evidence indicates a 4 billion year age of the earth.

No means of passing information from parent to offspring. Since beneficial adaptations must be passed down through the generations, evolution depends on a mechanism to do so. (It's important to note here that Darwin proposed evolutionary theory long before DNA was identified. That's called the “predictive” power of a scientific theory.) An Intelligent Designer has no need for DNA. He could just “make it so.”

Evidence of whales and humans and kangaroos and horseshoe crabs coming into existence at the same time.

Absence of hominid fossils. When Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859, there were no pre-human fossil remains. If none had ever been found, that would have falsified evolution (or human evolution, at least).
Lack of transitional fossils. If we had dug up millions of fossils and not found transitional forms (dinosaurs to birds, equines, whales, bears, hominids, etc.), that would falsify evolution. Evolutionary theory predicts that when we dig up fossils, we will see development and change of forms over time. If we didn't find transitional forms, that would falsify evolution. In fact, we have found thousands and thousands of transitional forms, documented here. In a stunning display of the “Big Lie” technique, Creationists love to insist that no transitional forms have been found.

6 July 2006
at 1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

And yet some more info on falsibility…..

The evolution model could be falsified in any number of ways—a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere, for instance. On a more realistic level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics variation, heritability or selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next). The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian period of earth's history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth. Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data which has been collected has tended to confirm the validity of evolution.

And how does creation “science” fare when put to this test? The central tenet of creation “science” is that God created the universe out of nothing, by Divine fiat. This “model” is, however, completely unfalsifiable. There is no test or experiment which can conclusively show that God does not exist, or that creation did not occur. Since, by definition, God is capable of doing or accomplishing anything, there is nothing that can be pointed to that God cannot have done, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable. Any potential problem with the “creation model” can be (and very many times has been) explained away with a wave of the hand, with the simple assertion, “God did it that way.” Because the tenets of scientific creationism cannot be tested, investigated or falsified, and because they invoke supernatural entities as explanatory mechanisms, they cannot be considered to be a scientific model.

6 July 2006
at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“observations of organisms being created.”

I loved that one! Until it dawned on me it wasn't an original “Kodiac Statement”. So, you may or may not subscribe to it. But, it's interesting how evolution cannot be observed because generation of life happened along time ago and so with faith, believe it occurred. However, the only way to refute evolution is to observe that which is it's basis!

I would ask you what “a static fossil record” could possibly mean to you, but it probably means nothing since you copied it from Talk Origins. It's ok to say you don't know.

Since you don't like me referencing creation sites, how about Talk Origins:

“We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it. ”

Besides the begging question of why not can supernatural not be observed, (people of witchcraft believe so), this gets back to how can evolution possibly be refuted when alternatives are eliminated. Then it goes on to say,

“If we do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless. ”

That sounds kind of like your curt dismissal of whether it's of importance of creation scientists using the scientific method.”

I don't know about scientists, but Talk Origins keep coming to conclusions without worrying about any facts.

I think what is the main jest is the evolutionist will never believe creation because “man” can't duplicate it. However, he is free to believe evolution even though he can't duplicate it. Talk Origins sure sounds like it's coming from a viewpoint of their religion is being threatened and therefore more forceful promoting of its dogma.

“On a more realistic level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics variation, heritability or selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid”

How can that be? Created life has that as it's basis. It's an alternative to evolution. Does that statement suggest both are falsified? (if so, there's your answer) Be realistic - if Martians put several organisms which evolved independently from the “billions-of-years-god” how could it possibly be said that by failing to falsify “variation, heritability, selection” “all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother”?

6 July 2006
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

(yawn.) I'm gonna take a nap. Wake me when you folks get this settled.

7 July 2006
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr

“But, it's interesting how evolution cannot be observed because generation of life happened along time ago and so with faith, believe it occurred. However, the only way to refute evolution is to observe that which is it's basis!”

Evolution is observed Gr. What exactly do you expect to be observed. We see it all the time in many different organisms. We see it in the fossil record. We see it on the molecular level. We see it in biogeography. We see it in our genetic history. We see it in morphology, anatomy, and in our DNA. What exactly are you looking for here? You don't need faith Gr. You only need to open your eyes. You seem like you readily accept gravitational theory but you do understand that we have never ever observed this directly. Any evidence we have for a gravitational force is all by indirect observations. Same thing for atomic theory and theory of limits (calculus). In fact evolution has broader support than any other theory in existence mainly because the mechanisms for how it happens can be seen directly. None of the other theories including Devo's beloved gravitational theory has actual mechanisms that show how it happens or why it happens.

“I would ask you what “a static fossil record” could possibly mean to you, but it probably means nothing since you copied it from Talk Origins. It's ok to say you don't know”

Yes you are right I did get this from Talk Origins because I really don't have time to sit here and go through everything step by step. It is there Gr, again you just have to open your eyes. We have transitional forms. We have extinct species that cannot be found anywhere in the world except in the fossil record. The diversity of the fossil record speaks for itself Gr. There is nothing static about the fossil record. There exist an incredible diversity of different kinds of organisms distributed in many areas of the world, each area has its own unique kinds of organisms (it is rare for species to be widely distributed), and species in one area often show similarity relationships to species in a a distant area rther than species in geographically closer areas. Biogeography is one of the main evidences for evolution and I just don't have time to sit here and explain this to you so that you can understand what this means. You need to do the research. Creationists have a really tough time dealing with this issue alone and generally will do everything they can to avoid talking about this specific issue.

7 July 2006
at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Continued for Gr's benefit….A life that needs to be saved….

“How can that be? Created life has that as it's basis. It's an alternative to evolution. Does that statement suggest both are falsified?”

Creationism does not have that as its basis. Think about what you are saying Gr. The basis of creationism is that we were created. It has nothing to do with heritibility, selection or variation. This is not an alternative theory Gr. Heritibility, variation and selection is evolution. You can't claim those concepts as part of creationism because they are not part of creationism. Those terms define evolution. So if you agree with those terms or if creationists use those terms then they are saying that evolution is the mechanism that God used to create us. So thats ok by me if that is what you want to claim. Otherwise, I suggest you cease to refer to those terms which explicitly define evolution.

Again and again you avoid answering the question. What is the question of the day. Well the question here Gr is what kind of proof would show creationism to be wrong?

7 July 2006
at 4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“I think what is the main jest is the evolutionist will never believe creation because “man” can't duplicate it. However, he is free to believe evolution even though he can't duplicate it. Talk Origins sure sounds like it's coming from a viewpoint of their religion is being threatened and therefore more forceful promoting of its dogma.”

You know Gr, it would be folly for evolutionists to claim that they have a complete and accurate understanding of the histroy of life and of the processes the produced that history. They should consider alternatives and they should consider the idea that they could be wrong about certain aspects of evolutionary thought. In fact the creationists have in the past and continue to exploit many of the debates that occur within the evolutionary fields among scientists to make it look like that evolutionary theory on the whole is being questioned. I believe or accept the idea that the creationists are doing this knowing that those debates really is not over the validity of the whole concept but rather parts of the theory. This theory has undergone a tremondous amount of change since Darwin's first proposed hypothesis and I do expect that to keep changing as we uncover more and more data. That kind of history and mechanism would never work from a creationism standpoint. Creationism relies specifically and totally on faith of a religious doctrine. It claims to know everything already. It just a matter of trying to figure out how all the pieces fit into the document. The problem with this of course is even with all of the things we do not understand, there are some basic aspects of evolution that are so close to being just simple observations and measurements that evolutionists can claim to be right. For example geologic dating. Your attempts or I guess the young earth creationist attempts to say that what we know about geologic dating is incorrect is like trying to claim the earth is flat or that the sun is only 10,000 miles from the earth. This is as basic as it gets Gr. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is at least 20 billion years old. This is not in dispute. The fossil record is not in dispute. You can “directly” see the process of change in the biological make-up of earth's life history and that is exactly what evolution predicts. Certainly there are things that we are extrapolating here from the population level to the species level and beyond. But even if some aspects of this type of extrapolation is wrong, it would not shift that paradigm toward creationism. Creationists would like to make you think there are only 2 models to consider here which is just so completely wrong that we shouldn't have to even point this out. Evolutionary biology contains a host of biological models which are being evaluated and tested in many research projects. Creationsim cannot be a viable testable model. Again the question Gr is what proof do you need to show that creationism is wrong.

10 July 2006
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Evolution is observed Gr. What exactly do you expect to be observed.”

(That was a good switch, Kodiac, but I'll let it slide)
Well, how about, “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.” You know, the pagan belief such as Anaximander 7th century BC?

I think you've said yourself that central idea can't be observed because it happened a long time ago. This says it better. Additionally, you'll find reference about “assuming life wasn't created” = “and both reject this alternative.”
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php…

“We have transitional forms.” Yeah? Any specific one you had in mind? Be sure to read the above link before copying talkorigins. Also, see http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.as…

“We have extinct species that cannot be found anywhere in the world except in the fossil record. ”

You mean like the Wollemi Pine? I'm surprised talkorigins hasn't put a spin on it yet. From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…, “Scientists are being forced to rethink genetic theory as a consequence.” Hmmm.

“Think about what you are saying Gr. The basis of creationism is that we were created. It has nothing to do with heritibility, selection or variation.”

Gen 1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

And don't forget to read Gen 31:10-13 in rebuke to Abraham's poor understanding of genetics in the previous chapter.

Any questions?

“Well the question here Gr is what kind of proof would show creationism to be wrong?”

Kodiac, you said creation isn't science. I believe I have said creation isn't science (though, now I'm starting believe I was wrong). You have said evolution IS science. Wouldn't it follow that you would need to show the ability for it to be Falsifiable? Without answering, you switched the question around to me (for some reason…) When I press, you give the lame talkorigins site…. Do you really want me to use the same type of reasoning for falsifying creation - I'll just leave that as an exercise for you to do. I mean, come on - mermaids?! (Be sure to read about “platypus” from the first link) “Translation: no matter what, even in the face of little real evidence, but with a lot of imagination evolution must be true. It just must be! Mustn't it?”

I liked this part. The whole premise of mutations accumulating has provided a mechanism to help prevent mutations from accumulating. The billions-of-years-god must be one interesting creator.

“The earth is 4.5 billion years old.” Can't say I really know about that.

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

10 July 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

When God created life on this earth, the earth already was in existence. How long, the Bible doesn't say nor imply.

“The universe is at least 20 billion years old. This is not in dispute.”

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Supposedly, the universe existed along with the earth before God created life.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

God always existed which is hard for us to understand. If He always existed, it would be foolish to think He sat around for eons without creating anything until creating life on earth. Who knows how long the universe has existed….eternally? But the Bible indicates it existed before God created life on earth.

“The fossil record is not in dispute.”

Now that's funny.

=============

Don't you find it interesting that creationists see the debate as a two sided coin, but evolutionists see it as one sided? Creationists use empirical data to criticize evolution, but evolutionists just flat out refuse creation? From the first link.
“Evolutionism and the theory of evolution isn't so much about scientific falsification, but about a person's adherence to what they believe in. However, that is not to say that creationism is so different and that it is purely scientific. Both systems require faith. Both models have aspects that are falsifiable and aspects that are not. The main body of both stories/models are not falsifiable, but they can make predictions that are. But should these predictions fail the test, the model will not necessarily come tumbling down in the mind of the person that holds it.”

As far as what is falsifiable? Here's a link. Be sure to look at the section, “What then is the Theory of Creation?” with close attention to what is falsifiable with what has been falsified.
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

And about talkorigins, http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deceptio…

“Few would argue with the notion that 'things change.' But to take the step from 'things change' to 'and therefore, that's how it all got here' is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling.”

“Essentially then, TO is a propaganda machine for philosophical naturalism using the more acceptable and palatable cover of methodological naturalism. Evolution theory is nothing but the scientific operational model to support this metaphysical position.”

If evolution was eliminated, what would you have left? That's why it MUST be sustained at all costs? Even “metaphysical transfigurations”? Never question if it's wrong, but keep conjecturing new explanations?

10 July 2006
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Yeah Gr, you really have it figured out don't you. I read your web references and have seen this material over and over again. Guess what. It has been shown to be wrong again and again. This has been going on before evolution was even thought of. I have looked at all of that material you are citing before Gr and I don't have to keep looking at it to tell you it is simply a smear campaign by fundamental christians who want to shove their religion down your throat. There is nothing scientific about those sites and they are deceiving you from the truth. If you really wanted to know the truth, you would read more than just those creation sites. I suggest you read everything including any rebuttals to such sites as the ones you are giving. Read them all and then make your decision then based on all of the evidence and opinions. You really need to do a little a research on Henry Morris, the number one reference they have listed on most of the sites. He is a known liar and has been shown to lie in many of his books. This is not in dispute. You can actually take Morris's books and compare them to the actual record of what people said or wrote and he has intentionally left out certain words and even presented quotes that make it look like they are talking about what he is talking about but actually they are not at all if you read them in their own context. In fact, I would say that Henry Morris alone has destroyed any credibilty with those sites that mention him.

As for your own “thinking” about this subject matter, you have demonstrated complete ignorance about many of things inside of evolution and with science overall. You have shown exactly what you are about. If it is not in the bible, then it can't be true. That is your science Gr.

10 July 2006
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Man I am getting a kick out of reading this moronic drivel.

Get this earlier in the article they are comparing evolution to creationism and they insist that evolution has a - a priori of discounting religion and that creationism is only based on “Citation of empirical data”. Then later on in the article they define what their a priori is which is based on the bible. Pretty confusing isn't it Gr. First you claim you don't have any biases then later on you talk about how using the bible as they are doing is a bias.

Maybe we should just pick a subject Gr and start talking about it. We can take turns shall we. I'll go first. Let's talk about Geology. What do you say.

10 July 2006
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hey Gr,

They even lie about definitions. I looked up the word theory in 10 different dictionaries. The most common one was this:

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

And then here is the true origins definiton that claims to be ca common one. Notice how they include observed and something about verification.

theo*ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Notice how they are trying to redefine and redirect you into thinking their way. What is even more funny is even by that by definition, creationism could never be considered to be a “theory”. You can't observe the creator which they actually tell you within their own site that we as the created objects aren't “allowed” to see the creator. Pretty freaking hilarious.

10 July 2006
at 5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

GR:

“Don't you find it interesting that creationists see the debate as a two sided coin, but evolutionists see it as one sided?”

YOu gotta be kidding. You guys are the most closed minded group EVER…and you don't knmow jack about science.

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

“Creationists use empirical data to criticize evolution, but evolutionists just flat out refuse creation?”

No you Don't, you use obfusification and lying and intentional misrepresentation. (Great bunch of Christians you are), yu have no experiments on which to generate data or emperical evidence!!!!

What a complete Jack@55!!! Is that what you really think Science is?? IF so please, please, if you have another thought….just let it go!

PLease have that mold removed from your brain!

10 July 2006
at 5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“There is nothing scientific about those sites”

You give me a laugh! And talkorigins IS scientific?!

“read more than just those creation sites”

Interesting that I seem to have listed several of them. You have only / or usually just listed one. So, if “those sites” and talkorigins are intentionally deceiving, which sites do you suggest? I seem to be in a quandry. You don't want me looking at creation sites. You don't want me looking at evolution sites, saying I'm misusing them. You don't want me to look at generic science sites. Are you saying I just need to “recant and believe”?

“he has intentionally left out certain words”

I did notice his name as one you referred to earlier. However, there were more references than just him. And it seems as talkorigins is intentionally leaving out certain words. Don't know which one you are referring to, but did you see the rebuttal's rebuttal? http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp Someone's lying somewhere. What guidelines should determine who?

“If it is not in the bible, then it can't be true.”

You mean me showing how “heritibility, selection or variation” fits with the Bible?

I would have thought you would have attempted to confront the Wollemi Pine. That was from National Geographic (Suppose you don't want me looking at that, either). Or Psilotum, or any of the others.

Does the Wollemi Pine present a problem for you?

10 July 2006
at 5:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Oh come on Gr

You got to be kidding me. I read this statement and almost fell out of my chair laughing….

“The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator's ways or means. It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal. ”

Think about it Gr. It says that we cannot know what the Creator is doing and yet it makes a claim to what the creator is doing. And so the Creator has chosen to reveal somehow that we can only know no more about what he chooses to reveal. Whew man how fun it is. This hilarious stuff Gr.

Oh Yeah you have got us beat haven't you. You have mentioned more than one site and yadda yadda. Good Grief Gr. You can't be that dumb.

Let me go look up the famous Wollemi Pine and get back to you. I am sorry, I am still laughing.

10 July 2006
at 6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Well gr,

I read about the Wollemi Pine and Found nothing of any significance to talk about. I guess your argument that somehow it is supposed to show something against evolution? but not sure I quite follow why you are saying this. All it demonstrates to me that there was low genetic variability with this particular species due to reproductive isolation, genetic bottlenecks, and a tendency toward clonality. This can be found with other species such as cheetahs and elephant seals. I notice the article in question was written in 1994 for which little was known about this particualar species. It is 2006 now so you might to read more current research than just a natinal geographic magazine Gr.

10 July 2006
at 7:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Do I have to separate you two?

11 July 2006
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Whoops my mistake,

The article in question was written in 2003 but it doesn't change anything. We are talking about The National Geopgraphic Magazine which is written to entertain the masses and will use sensationalism to help sell their magazine. A case in point the author of the article says “Scientists are being forced to rethink genetic theory as a consequence. ” The author doesn't say what it is they are rethinking and he certainly does not say that it somehow disproves evolution. What the article does not reveal that you can go into scientific research to find out more details that there are actually 3 species of the Wollemi Pine and this literature does not say “genetically identical” as the magazine is saying but it does refer to these species as having low genetic diversity. As you well know Gr, when statements get taken from scientific research and rewritten say for the general public in popular magazines or newspapers, there can be a misrepresentation of what was actually said or implied. You need to open your eyes Gr and stop being manipulated by your creation buddies. I see that you have tried to go on some of the other articles/comment section to recite some of your half statements and were rebuffed when shown that you were not giving the full statements or taking things out of context. That is lying Gr. Shameful that a christian person would do that….

11 July 2006
at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

1994 is not considered current? The article I read and linked to was written in 2005. I don't suppose that is considered current either?

Whatever, the important thing is this tree exists TODAY. You made the statement, “There is nothing static about the fossil record.” While there is evidence of this tree hundred-of-million-of-years ago in the fossil record and then no more, seeing a living specimen today seems “static” to me.

The authors seem to disaggree with you - “a condition previously unknown among sexually reproducing organisms.”

Doesn't it seem odd to you that with all these mutation accumulations that cause changes over time that these trees still exist? Well, you must be the odd one as everyone else sees it as highly unusual. Why are people wanting to go get a normal plant? Why do they call it an extinct tree, a Living “Dinosaur”? Why is there a $130,000 fine? Most people see something of great significance here.

11 July 2006
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

You got to be kidding me. Let see here how about the Horseshoe Crab or how about crocodiles. It was written in 2003 and not 2005 which is beside the point. So you are saying that this one specific species makes the fossil record static huh. That is what you are implying anyway. You have millions and millions of examples of diversity and change but you are ready to throw that all out the door for one species that has been found to have low genetic diversity. By the way the “authors” you refer to write for a popular magazine written for entertainment purposes and you are trying to assign some kind of scientifically profound statement to them. I can think of more than one “living fossil” but you don't see sensationalistic news media running around calling them “living dinosaurs” do you? As I have said before, YOU need to go and read the actual research regarding the species of Wollemi Pine instead of relying on a sensationalized account put out by a popular magazine. From your statements, it is excrutiatingly obvious that you have not. A 130,000 dollar fine? and that means what in terms of evolution…you are losing me there Gr. Who cares if the tree exists today. There are other species that have low genetic diversity that exist “TODAY” but that doesn't somehow disprove evolution. Also the authors say “a condition previously unknown among sexually reproducing organisms.” If you go into the actual research Gr then you would find out that

The species is clonal. The original miniscule population (39 individuals) represents the descendents of a single tree - the ultimate in population bottlenecks.

The species propagates by coppicing - roots grow out from the main tree, then send up shoots. It isn't a sexually reproducing organism in the WILD. Interestingly enough, it was discovered during planning for conservation of this unique species that it DOES produce viable seeds like other conifers. Why it clones itself in the wild is unknown at this time.

The entire family Araucariaceae, of which W. Pine is a member, shows low genetic variability.

Uh what was that. “Most people see something of great significance here” Yeah well you let me know when you actually come up with something “significant” Gr.

11 July 2006
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“Doesn't it seem odd to you that with all these mutation accumulations that cause changes over time that these trees still exist? Well, you must be the odd one as everyone else sees it as highly unusual”

Kind of a taunting statement wouldn't you say Gr. I must be the odd one huh. I guess I would rather be called odd than stupid. So tell who is “everyone else”. Certainly not the actual researchers working on this species. If you delve into the research at all you will find quite a different story than what you are trying to present here. I see the most of your so-called “original ideas” come from the creationist web sites. Let's see, you were saying they presented 2 sides of the coin right. Yet when you read their material, they do seem to leave out quite a bit of information that is relevant to having a clear understanding of the actual subject matter. For example I have noticed that they are really hyping up that no genetic variability with sexual reproduction regarding the Wobelli Pine. However they don't tell you that all of the original members found were clones from a single tree and leave out any discussion of genetic bottlenecks. Funny how they leave that particular information out isn't it. That sure is giving the reader “2 sides of the coin” right. Riiiiigghhhttt.

12 July 2006
at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“1994 is not considered current? The article I read and linked to was written in 2005. I don't suppose that is considered current either?”

Actually Gr, the word “current” means up to date research. For example they are still researching the Wollemi Pine and might come out with some new concept, new observations or some kind of new idea they haven't thought of before. The point here is doesn't really matter if something came out in 1994, 2003, 2005 or yesterday. If there is something that comes out today that renders all of the previous data or information mute or just provides broader support for their initial observations or just expands upon what they have already determined then that by definition is the most “current” research. I am not sure why you are harping on this. My original contention was that research is ongoing and you are citing things that are already outdated. I have been reading some more of the creationist sites specifically regarding the Wollemi Pine and I guess it doesn't really surprise me how they are about trying to change the meaning of statements and put out false statements. For example, the idea that this species is a member of sexually reproducing organisms, but that is only because it is capable of producing viable seeds. They leave out completely the idea that for this particular group has not been doing that. They also completely leave out any discussion of genetic bottlenecks. This is a well-established and well-documented phenonmenon that does create low genetic variabilty among a population. A prime example of this type of process is seen with cheetahs. I find it puzzling that the creations sites don't bring up cheetahs as example of low genetic variabilty. Every cheetah in the wild can be traced to just a few individuals as evident by their nearly identical genetic make-up. The problem with trying to use this as an example iof course s that we do know that this species went through a genetic bottleneck which explains their low genetic variability. Same thing with Muskox.

I have also noticed that some of the creation sites have referred to the DNA of the Wollemi Pine as being “invariable” presumbably because this species has been found to have low genetic diversity. But can you understand that “invariable DNA” and “low genetic diversity” are not the same thing. Not even close. That to me represents a clear example of the creation sites trying to manipulate scientific statements. There is no way they can make a statement of “invariable DNA” without knowing exactly what DNA they are referring to, what that DNA contains and would need experiments to show that no possible variation can come about from a particular defined DNA. All the actual research says is that there is with these individuals low genetic variation. They are not making a statement that the DNA itself can't vary, only that the present individuals have low variation between them. Do you understand the difference?

12 July 2006
at 8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Continued for Gr's benefit, a soul worth saving…

This research is ongoing of course and as I have said there are many things they don't quite understand yet about this species. I think that is very exciting. I think it is wonderful that they have discovered this particular species and are studying and trying to understand its history. I found out today that I was wrong about there being 3 different species, they actually discovered 3 distinct stands of these trees which may represent only 3 individuals of this particular species since all of the trees within the stand were clones of one single tree through coppicing. They don't even know if the three stands are actually connected or not to each other and are only making guesses that they aren't because of their distance from each other. Apparently they are trying to be very careful with studying this tree since it is the only one of its kind in the entire world. I look forward to hearing more about what they discover. I certainly don't expect anything to come out of this research which shows evolution to be false. If anything it will just demonstrate a well-understood phenomenon of genetic bottlenecks. Of course I have been known to be wrong about certain things so you just never know do you…..

13 July 2006
at 5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Well, after some time, you do seem a little more calmed down. Your last post was rather decent. Thank you. My response may not be. But after the first part, hopefully it'll get better. I don't suppose you rethought your statement about, “I see that you have tried to go on some of the other articles/comment section to recite some of your half statements and were rebuffed when shown that you were not giving the full statements or taking things out of context.”

If you were referring to asbestos' response - he for some reason took what I quoted from Darwin and separated it from my response. It could be said he didn't understand how I conversed. I believe he didn't care and saw a chance to attack. Kind of like a caustic ale. But, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. I expected more of you. I quote, then I make a response. The two were connected - not separate. Even though a partial quote (No use quoting paragraphs - takes up your 3000 characters), the intent was his whole statement as evident in the response. There was no misleading. You can go back and check yourself. However, let's not get sidetracked - there is enough fodder here for you to criticize me on.

============

About theory. Dr. Frank, at the University of Missouri-Rolla, has the same definition on his web page as quoted from Websters Unabridged Dictionary as you objected to from TrueOrigins. http://web.umr.edu/~rfrank/Evolution/… Maybe it's an outdated definition (evolution is self correcting?), but many university (didn't recognize many) links and others use it. So I don't think you could say they added to it or say they were misleading.

“We are talking about The National Geopgraphic Magazine which is written to entertain the masses and will use sensationalism to help sell their magazine.”

If you notice, I had said, “was from National Geographic (Suppose you don't want me looking at that, either). Or Psilotum, or any of the others.” “Or any of the others” - missed that too, huh?

13 July 2006
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

My point being, if the masses read National Geographic (NG), and both it and the masses think there is something marvelous, odd, and call it a “living dinosaur”, the question one needs to ask is “why”?
I'm suggesting that everything the masses has been taught about evolution gives them a double take when things like this pine are discovered living. Whether it is based on actual facts doesn't remove from how the masses relate to it. So, given your low respect for NG, which is highly respected by the masses (if you like that circular reasoning!) and supposedly is the masses' portal to science, how could you possibly suggest teaching about origins from a textbook is of any use? Textbooks, which aren't peer reviewed and cater to sales. Textbooks which teach creation based on the current political climate. So, wouldn't it be better to teach real science than origins of either kind which cannot be observed since it has already happened without anyone being there (unless you count Adam ;-)

“It is 2006 now so you might to read more current research than just a natinal geographic magazine Gr.”
“Actually Gr, the word “current” means up to date research.”
“The point here is doesn't really matter if something came out in 1994, 2003, 2005 or yesterday. If there is something that comes out today that renders all of the previous data or information mute or just provides broader support for their initial observations or just expands upon what they have already determined then that by definition is the most “current” research. I am not sure why you are harping on this.”

Didn't know I was “harping” on it. I'm just trying to figure out how I am supposed to read more current research on something “that comes out today” - especially if I don't know about it. If the “current” research is 1980, how would I know there wasn't more recent information? Maybe presumptuous, but when I see 2005, I think it's current. When I see 1960, I think it isn't. However, it's quite possible I'd be wrong in both instances. Would you be saying that National Geographic “for the masses” would not have a link to a more recent article?

“My original contention was that research is ongoing and you are citing things that are already outdated. ”

How so? How is it outdated? What new things did they discover about the trees?

About “everyone else” thinking this is a significant find? Well, maybe that is a little too inclusive. I guess I was referring to the majority in Australia. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na…
“Even scientists studying them are blindfolded as they are flown in by helicopter to the site.”

13 July 2006
at 5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Hmmm. Blindfolded. Now maybe it's a political or power move by the park service, but why do you suppose they wouldn't let scientists know where it's at? Do they not trust them? Do they think they may be bribed? The masses, for some reason, don't think: 'Find a tree that only appears long ago in the fossil record? No problem. Evolution predicts it.' They may have been educated about evolution wrong in the classroom, but they think there's something very unusual here. Or…, yes, that's a news site for the masses - do you think they are lying about the blindfolds?

You started with the low genetic variability. I don't recall mentioning it. I think I got a little clouded with what I was saying about static and being mislead by the article implying millions of years relating to genetically identical. But, you seem extra defensive about it. While I did come across the tree on a creation site, I tried to avoid them as I expected criticism from you. Now I get criticized for what those sites said. Imagine that.

I didn't find anything that explicitly said all the trees were clones. (scratch that, I just looked back and found it said they were clones - 160 stems of one individual) Other than tracing their roots, is there any way to determine if they are clones or if homozygous plants reproduced by seeds? Maybe cellular DNA from the maternal cell? (can't remember what it's called)

My main issue was that the tree exists. One of the sites said there were three groups of trees. I'm not sure if I re-found the same site, but found one with the same article. It did speak about no variability detected in the first two sites. But there was some in the third site. They also used eight adult trees and four. Didn't say how old the juvenile ones were or if they thought they came from seed. I don't know about you, but I would expect a 5,000 square meter area of the trees not to be all physically connected. True, some trees sprout from roots and cover large areas, but from the article, this tree is implied to sprout from stumps/trunk. The second group was a kilometer away. However, you were trying to make some issue out of genetic variability which I didn't even mention in this context. I hope that's not a switch tactic from the main issue that the tree exists.

13 July 2006
at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

As far as, “Scientists are being forced to rethink genetic theory as a consequence”, I guess I didn't explain it well. No, I don't think it disproved evolution in their mind. That statement was in response to your, “We have extinct species that cannot be found anywhere in the world except in the fossil record.” What I'm saying is evolutionists come up with certain ideas, then facts don't fit them, so they have to rethink those ideas rather than admit maybe there's some other ideas. (yes, I know. That's the beauty of science, yada, yada) What if they found a living T-Rex in one of those 200 creeks unexplored by man? Would evolutionists, would you, say that maybe life is much younger than thought? No. You would come up with all kind of explanations of how T-Rex could survive billions of years, unchanged. Think about it. There's nothing that could possibly be discovered to make you change your mind about evolution nor creation. Not even if God Himself came to earth…

Am I right?

13 July 2006
at 6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hmmm hard to know where to start Gr,

Thought maybe you grew tired of this and decided to drop it. I can give you the references for several scientific articles regarding the Wobelli Pine if you were interested in getting into the actual research. I think my statement of being outdated has more to do with the idea that this tree was recently discovered (1994) and access to this species has been severely restricted. This just means that there are many things they don't quite understand about this tree and to make a statement like “scientists are having to rethink genetic theory” is most definitely a sensationalistic statement. I didn't mean to imply or say I had a low opinion of the National Geographic Magazine. I read it all of the time. But I do recognize that it is a popular magazine designed for entertainment. Quoting statements made in this magazine to support some kind of scientific argument or using it to show that “everyone else” thinks it is significant carrys no weight with me whatsoever. I mean is like using the Journal World to support the idea that a measuring device for radiation can be turned into some type of “dirty” (nuclear) bomb (this actually happened by the way). You have to take these type of publications with a grain of salt understanding that they would never be used to define what is actually being said or researched. I know you said it was the National Geographic but you were using it to show something of significance such as “the questioning of genetic theory”. In fact you used the word significant several time throughout you whole spiel about the Wollemi Pine. And as far as “avoiding creation sites” I am pretty sure that TrueOrigins qualifies as a creation site since they call themselves creationists within this site. You have used this site over and over again and I guess I am not quite sure what you mean about “avoiding creation sites”.

You know I am running out of time here Gr. I suppose if God comes to me in the form of George Burns and makes it rain in my car or has me go to a nonexistent floor in a building or maybe disappears in front of my eyes and then he says “David I created all living things through evolution” then I guess I would be inclined to believe Him. Wouldn't you? See ya later Gr……

17 July 2006
at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Using your example, if the Journal World suggests that a measuring device of radiation can be turned into a dirty bomb, my point is that somehow, the writers for the newspaper and the readers who believed it have been educated in such a way to make it believable. No matter what the truth is, the masses have been directed in such a way to make it believable. (and not from just because of the one article, either).

Sure, if you found some REAL research on the pine, I'm always wanting to learn more information. When I said I was avoiding creation sites, I qualified it with regards to the pine. I'm trying to learn you'll criticize me if I quote from them. That's why I tried to use other sites at a general level. I still lost to criticism, but I believe my point is valid regarding the masses.

––––––-

As far as George Burns — No. No, I would not believe. Based upon what I saw of the previews, the character did not match the character of God. And in addition, with Matthew 24:24 in mind, I would find him suspect.

I think you were being part sarcastic, but also part serious. Based upon your statements as they stand, does that sound open-minded to you? What is it you dislike about God?

17 July 2006
at 2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Some Scientific research for you…

Hogbin PM, Peakall R, Sydes MA, 2000. Achieving practical outcomes from genetic studies of rare Australian plants, Aust. J. Bot. 48, 375?382

Peakall R. 1998. Exceptionally low genetic diversity in an ancient relic, the Wollemi pine: implications for conservation theory and practice. 45th Annual meeting of the Genetics Society of Australia. Abstracts 86

R Peakall, D Ebert, LJ Scott, PF Meagher, CA : - Molecular Ecology, 2003 - Blackwell Synergy
… Comparative genetic study confirms exceptionally low genetic variation in the ancient
and endangered relictual conifer, Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae). …

And as for my own spiritual beliefs, I respectfully decline to discuss them here in this forum. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic Gr, just trying to be funny. No disrespect intended here.

Your friend Kodiac

17 July 2006
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Thanks for the references. I'll have to look into them.

Sarcastic / Funny. I guess I was meaning the same. Just another communication barrier. ;-) I figured you were being funny, but thought there was a serious side, too.

24 July 2006
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

In searching through the references, I came across the reason I believe you went on lengthy about lack of variation, which I hardly mentioned. Take a look at the following link. It looks like Quetzal on 10-23-2002 04:09 AM copied your idea, unless he got it from somewhere else.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cg…

;-)

24 July 2006
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

But the reason why you do not mention it is because it gives a naturalistic reason for why there is low genetic variability. Something you left out mainly because you are citing creationists sites that talk about how the Wollemi pine disproves evolution which I assume they got from you right….. :-)

24 July 2006
at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Of course you don't have to read Quetzal's comments because you do have the actual research in your possesion so you can go check it for yourself. These articles can be found in the Science Library on KU's campus or you can go to Linda Hall Library if you have trouble finding them on the internet.

24 July 2006
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

The following is abstract from the 2003 article…

“The Wollemi pine, Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), was discovered in 1994 as the only extant member of the genus, previously known only from the fossil record. With fewer than 100 trees known from an inaccessible canyon in southeastern Australia, it is one of the most endangered tree species in the world. We conducted a comparative population genetic survey at allozyme, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) loci in W. nobilis, Araucaria cunninghamii and Agathis robusta - representatives of the two sister genera. No polymorphism was detected at 13 allozyme loci, more than 800 AFLP loci or the 20 SSR loci screened in W. nobilis. In Ag. robusta only one of 12 allozyme loci, five of 800 AFLP loci and none of the 15 SSR loci were variable. For A. cunninghamii, 10 of > 800 AFLP loci and five of 20 SSR loci were variable. Thus low genetic diversity characterizes all three species. While not ruling out the existence of genetic variation, we conclude that genetic diversity is exceptionally low in the Wollemi pine. To our knowledge this is the most extreme case known in plants. We conclude that the combination of small population effects, clonality and below-average genetic variation in the family are probable contributing factors to the low diversity. The exceptionally low genetic diversity of the Wollemi pine, combined with its known susceptibility to exotic fungal pathogens, reinforces current management policies of strict control of access to the pines and secrecy of the pine locations.”

The creationists sites that obviously got these ideas from you fail to mention anything about clonality, below-average genetic variation in the family, and genetic bottlenecks which as you can see are all naturalistic explanations for this particular species. I guess the whole point here is Gr, are they really “rethinking genetic theory” or is a magazine was trying to sell their product to the masses…..

24 July 2006
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac, I did come across the pine on a creation site. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does exist. That is the problem I am having with it. The lack of variability may also be a problem. I haven't got into thinking through that.

With or without variability, the tree still exists. It exists in the fossil record. Do you suggest the lack of variability is why the tree survived for millions of years? Do you suggest that some organisms change, some don't, some live only in the past, and some live in the past and today?

Interesting.

24 July 2006
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Well, at least you two took a week off.

24 July 2006
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Interesting. So Gr you said “Do you suggest that some organisms change, some don't, some live only in the past, and some live in the past and today?” Sure I can say I that. How far back are going? When you said past, how is that defined? Millions of years? 100s of millions of years, a 1000 millions of years. Oh wait a minute I forgot. According to you, the earth is only 6 thousand years old. No wait you just said millions of years. Which is it Gr. Is it milliions of years or is it thousands of years? Are you really wanting to know or are you trying to be cute? Do you really want to know?

Interesting…..

24 July 2006
at 2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Come on, Kodiac. You know full well what I mean. And since you had nothing you could find to copy and paste (yet), you feign ignorance of what I mean. Then you attempt to throw in confusion. Were we not talking about the specific pine trees as we have been talking about for the last who knows how many posts and mentioned in my last post?

Maybe Wilbur is right. Maybe we should take a few weeks off.

24 July 2006
at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I wasn't trying to be confusing Gr, I was trying to pin you down from a definitional standpoint. I am sorry if it bothers you that I cut and paste from other websites. My goal has always been to get as much information as I probably can. I don't limit to say just “oh geez look the Wollemi Pine, that does it it disproves evolution. I know that is what you want me to do but you know me I love to dig. I am sorry you don't like playing in the mud. Me I love making mud pies. I don't mind mucking around all over the place. I guess from an analogy standpoint I can picture you and I standing on the tip of a proverbial iceberg and you got your electron microscope out and you are trying to point out to me some infinitesimally small hairline fracture claiming that this is going to cause us to sink. And I am standing there looking all around saying good grief girl we are standing on a freaking iceberg.

24 July 2006
at 7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Yeah I know enough of the analogies Kodiac. Lets see where were we. Ah yes the Wobelli Pine. The statement in question about species existing in the past refers to the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion and in those 4.5 billion years, 98% of those species that has existed in the past no longer exist now. You want specific things, well how about the dinosaurs, the pterosaurs, and the ammononites. Of course those entire orders and not just species so that list is quite substancial in of it self. Or maybe you wanted to deal with the 5 major extinctions that have occurred in earth's history. We could go through each one of those if you wanted to. Or maybe we should just stick those that go back to just 1 million years. Do you want to do that. Probably not because I assure the list is quite substancial. So do you think that this in not enough evidence that there indeed exist organisms in the past (not really defined here but I think you get the general idea) that do not exist now? So that statement is true right? Then how about species that exist now that do not exist in the past. Well now that is a pretty general statement isn't it because it all depends on how far you want to go back. For example let just take the whole order of Mammilia. I can pretty much guarantee you that you will not find any mammals that we have today that is more than 65 million years old. Why? because they don't exist past 65 milli0n years ago. How about humans? good ol Homo Sapiens. Sorry nothing past 100 thousand years for the Sapiens. The Homo family only extends back to 6 million years. I mean we can sit here all day and cut and paste if we really wanted to but the key thing here is yes Virginia there are species here today that did not exist in the past. Then of course the other part about things in the past that exist now is true as well. Again it is all about definitions.

What does it all mean. Well for some reason you are just so hung up on Wollemi Pine. You should be all hung up on the Coelacanth and some old plants as well. But evolutionary theory doesn't say they can't survive even if they have low variability. Think about Gr. What if you have a niche where you are extremely successful and you have the ability to avoid major catastrophic events because you have one hell of a tough nut to crack. How does evolution say that would not happen? Does that make evolution false? You tell me Gr specifically how that makes it false. Lets just say in your words and I am sorry saying because that is the way it is just won't cut it Gr. Natural Selection is all about being able to survive to reproduce so if you can clone yourself and create highly resistant seeds and grow in well protected areas, you could live for a long time. You might not be very variable but hey you are still here right.

Sorry Gr out of time gotta go Think about it…

25 July 2006
at 3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I am not sure why you are getting so hung up on the cutting and pasting Gr. I mean really almost everything we talk about is somebody else's research, something we have both cut and pasted from someplace else. I am not sure why you said “And since you had nothing you could find to copy and paste (yet), you feign ignorance of what I mean”. What the heck are you talking about. You made a statement about the Wollemi Pine “It exists in the fossil record. Do you suggest the lack of variability is why the tree survived for millions of years” and I don't think you really understand what you are asking or saying. For some reason you have decided that evolution can't be possible if we find one thing that has low genetic variability that lives now which can be found maybe 90 millions years ago or 1 million years ago (they actually don't know if it is the same species). Now I want you to explain to me exactly how that shows evolution to be false. Explain to me specifically how that has made scientists “rethink genetic theory”. It hasn't of course. In fact scientists have been fascinated with the Wollemi Pine and are conducting extensive research on this particular species. Have you seen any research that these guys have put out that says see Evolution is false or how about Genetic theory will have to be changed because of this species. In fact the only people you see talking about this in this way are creationists. How can you feign ignorance if there is nothing to be ignorant about. You are simply being manipulated by creationists Gr. Do the creationist talk about clonality, or genetic bottlenecks, or even genetic history or how about simply the nature of the current research which is very clear about still trying to learn what this species actually is or what it represents. Nope they sure don't because they are simply trying to manipulate you. Why not present everything that is out there instead of leaving out information. Why not present information as it is being put out instead of trying to sensationalize it or changing it to fit their viewpoint of the natural world.

25 July 2006
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

You know you should be more concerned with the Coelecanth fish rather than the Wollemi Pine. It appears that the pine tree's pollen is similar to pollen they found something in the 90 million year range. But even here the researchers are cautioning that such comparisons are still being researched and that the jury is still out for this species. Yet all of these creationist are all out there touting this to be the smoking gun against evolution just like the Coelecanth fish. I have noticed that some creationist sites still talk about this fish but most have dropped this issue which I find somewhat puzzling. There is still alot of unknowns with what is known as the oldest known species fish with this family and genera reaching back to 390 million years. Seems like you should be yelling about this one as well Gr.

I guess the whole point here is Gr is that I don't think you really want to know. I truly don't. I don't think you like to dig or find something that might upset your little worldview. That is alright if you want to stick your head in the sand or put on blinders but don't go around screaming at me about hey you copied that from someplace else so somehow that makes it irrelevant or not count. Don't tell me I am being ignorant or using confusion to throw people off. I think you need to start broadening your horizons Gr. And if you want to use Wilbur as an excuse not to talk to me anymore, then that is fine. I am perfectly content to stay here and just keep digging away.

27 July 2006
at 11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“What if you have a niche where you are extremely successful and you have the ability to avoid major catastrophic events because you have one hell of a tough nut to crack. How does evolution say that would not happen? Does that make evolution false? You tell me Gr specifically how that makes it false. Lets just say in your words and I am sorry saying because that is the way it is just won't cut it Gr. Natural Selection is all about being able to survive to reproduce so if you can clone yourself and create highly resistant seeds and grow in well protected areas, you could live for a long time. You might not be very variable but hey you are still here right.”

Kodiac, those words make it sound like you don't understand evolution, nor the pine.

First, doesn't evolution rely on variability? How does “extremely” successful account for low variability, but more importantly, these Wollemi pines? According to your post, there is great concern of introducing pathogens as they have been found susceptible. Doesn't sound very “successful” to me. That's saying it's “below-average genetic variation” is a factor which would make it unsuccessful. Sounds rather vulnerable residing in a sheltered and isolated area. Which, of itself, doesn't seem very probable of there being a static environment for 100 million years.

27 July 2006
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac, when I first started on this forum, I thought I was talking to people of high intellect - possibly even real scientists. (You have called me gullible, yourself.) I thought people were thinkers and even though I disagreed with them, thought they were thinking out and using their own words. Then, I come to the conclusion that I'm like winging it, while others are reading from a pre-written script.

Even after continually confronting you about it, you keep trying to pass off other's words for your own - not to be confused with thoughts. I can only conclude you are either lazy (which I doubt many would believe since you paste post after post, and you do have a few original words - at least I think they are. You could put a simple quotes around your paste to indicate someone else's words.) or you are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes. You have intended to educate me, and that you have. You don't get away with near what you did at the beginning.

You so readily call everyone else liars (yes, I realize 'it's in the script'), but I'm wondering if what they say is true. That those who participate in something are quick to blame others for that same behavior. You paste word for word pretending it is your own, and then accuse me for being dishonest for failing to include ALL information on a subject, including that which was nonrelevant (because it was in your script?) to the point being made. Two sets of standards, huh.

I use the Wollemi pine because it was something recent compared to the Coelacanth. I didn't want to be re-accused of referring to something old. Actually, you even criticized me on not using recent research on the pine. So, you want me to mention the fish so you can attack me on obsolete research. I kind of like the pine. You can only stretch the claim of dishonesty, in me being dishonest in failing to admit cruelty of seeing you squirm when you have no script to read from.

27 July 2006
at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I never made a claim that I somehow am some brilliant scientist. You made that assumption. I also am not trying to pass someone's else work as my own thoughts. I thought that would be obvious. I guess not. You see I see you doing the same thing Gr. You have not stated anything original on here. In fact everything that you have brought up has already been around usually from the 1960s and usually from Henry Morris's work with ICR (creation research). I never claimed to be some brilliant mind Gr. In fact if you haven't figured it out by now, I am not really a scientist. Just your average layperson who had a parent that was a science teacher hence my interest in the subject. I think it is funny that you think I squirm. I actually find these explorations of ours to be very helpful in learning more about evolution. I think it is curious you keep referring to a “script” It is true that sometimes I just copy whole paragraphs off of the internet but only because I think it directly answers what you are trying to ask questions about. The Wollemi Pine might be a new species but the IDEA is an old creationist tactic. If you don't believe that then go back and look at the arguments surrounding the coelacanth fish and the other organisms from the deeper past. I can read it and comprehend but most of the time I am too busy or too lazy to go back and reword it in my own words. The dishonesty stuff is something that I have encountered alot and I apologize that I am so sensitive about it. It really bothers me sometimes because I feel like it is a form of manipulation and I think it is unethical. Whether you know it or not, at least in the past you have referred to some of those types of dishonesty that has been clearly shown to be dishonest. You also refer to arguments that have originated with people or persons who have been known to use this tactic and in my view it makes anything that say to be suspect. I am not trying to pull any wool over your eyes Gr. I had hoped that I was opening your eyes to a much broader truth and or facts about this field.

I disagree that you are “winging” it Gr. I think you are using things you have read probably off of other creation sites and trying to rephrase in your own words. I do not imagine that you are coming up with anything original and that the “winging” you refer to is simply trying to put it in your own words. That is what I think. Call me the squimy worm.

27 July 2006
at 6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ok back to the Pine. I don't think you understand that the hows and processes of evolution is still be fought over but that it did happen is an established fact. Just like noone questions heliocentrism or gravitaional theory anymore, no one questions that evolution happened. O don't think you understand that Gr. But they sure fight over the mechanisms and what is actually going on in those fields. The pine is simply something to add to the hows of evolution. Variability is the main way to be able to adapt. But that is not what I was trying to talk about when I was talking about the pine. Do you understand that just because something is not variable doesn't mean that the genetics itself is there to be able to withstand extreme conditions. For example, they have found that this tree can survive in temperatures from 5 to 120 Â° C. Now that is a hell of genetic advantage and something I wouldn't to lose. Also they suspect that the Adult trees live for a long time maybe even thousands of years. Can you imagine that Gr? What you need to be able to survive thousands of years. You would need a genetic make-up that would allow you to withstand extreme conditions. They doesn't necessarily mean that the genetics have to be variable, only that it is coded to create individuals that do survive those type of conditions. Also something else to think about, this tree was found on an island continent. Islands are very interesting places from an evolutionary standpoint because many times you find species that would never make it in the rest of the world, something that you might call less fit from an evolutionary standpoint. The Marsupials on Australia really illustrate this point. Early placental organisms or mammals did not evolve on Australia. There are more different types of marsupials found in Australia than any other place in the world because mammals (considered to be much more evolutionaryly fit) could not cross the ocean or spread to these areas.

27 July 2006
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

So evolution isn't just about variability. It also about probabilities and being able to survive to reproduce. Think about it Gr. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and primates occupy a microscopic portion of that entire history. Just because you have variability doesn't mean you going to get everything all the time. In fact there are no mammals that occur past 65 million years. We are indeed very lucky to be here. You should read Wonderful Life by SJ Gould. So all I was trying to say if you have a successful genetic package that enables you to survive, then you are going to see that package over and over again. Plus it helps if you get to a place where your are effectively isolated from the rest of the world. You understand that the reason why they are so worried about exposing the pines to exotic life forms such as pathogens is because they weren't there in the first place. If something over there evolved then other things could evolve with it. Sometimes species perish and sometimes they adapt with it. But the exotics don't have to wait for evolution, humans are bringing them in so there is no way adaptations can take place or something can evolve or adapt to it. It is like we are bypassing this step so we end up being nature's public enemy number one. It doesn't have to do with the idea something is genetically weak, but rather about what the genetic history has been for that species. The fungus they are worried about was brought over by us and it has wiped out many pine trees. But see we brought that over, it wasn't there before.

You might want to start saying 2 million years rather than 100 million years. That does make a good case for why these particular pines disappeared from the fossil record in most places in the world because they could not survive against other organisms or conditions that came about in most places. Being on the island and isolated though made it possible to survive though. Obviously since they are here.

Now let me ask you something Gr. What are you suggesting is the alternative for the Wollemi Pine?

LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, May 26, 2006

Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman

Evolution

Evolution in Kansas

More like this

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Today's lunch specials

See all specials · Get lunch specials e-mail
Topeka lunch specials

LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, May 26, 2006

Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman

Evolution

Evolution in Kansas

More like this

Discussion

Post a comment

Post a blog entry

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Today's lunch specials

See all specials · Get lunch specials e-mail Topeka lunch specials

See all specials · Get lunch specials e-mail
Topeka lunch specials