Archive for Monday, July 21, 2008
Election may create new challenge to evolution
State Board of Education’s moderate majority at stake
July 21, 2008
Advertisement
evolution in Kansas timeline
August 1999 - State Board of Education votes 6-4 to adopt science standards that eliminate most references to evolution.
August 2000 - Republican Party primary voters oust three anti-evolution board members.
February 2001 - New board votes 7-3 for science standards that include evolution.
August 2002 - Conservatives Connie Morris of St. Francis and Iris Van Meter of Thayer defeat two moderate Republican incumbents. This produces a 5-5 split on the board.
August 2004 - Conservative Kathy Martin of Clay Center defeats moderate Bruce Wyatt of Salina in the GOP primary.
January 2005 - Martin sworn into office, giving conservatives a 6-4 majority.
November 2005 - In a 6-4 vote, board approves science standards critical of evolution.
August 2006 - Morris defeated by moderate Republican Sally Cauble of Liberal and Van Meter, who did not seek re-election, replaced by moderate Republican Jana Shaver of Independence, giving moderates a 6-4 advantage.
February 2007 - Board votes 6-4 to reverse anti-evolution science standards.
State Board of Education elections
In the State Board of Education races, simple math could start another round in the long-running fight in Kansas about evolution.
Five seats on the 10-member board are up for election this year, and of those, three are held by moderates who are not seeking re-election.
Moderates now hold a 6-4 advantage over social conservatives on the board, so flipping one of those moderate seats to a conservative would create a 5-5 tie.
Flipping two moderate seats would produce a conservative majority and could renew the battle against evolution that has brought attention to Kansas several times during the past decade.
Of course, moderates could hold on to their current seats and maybe gain one or both of the two conservative seats up for grabs. But advocates for the pro-evolution science standards and more easily accessible sex education don't think that's probable.
"I'm a little nervous about whether we will keep a moderate majority on the board," said Kathy Cook, executive director of Kansas Families for Education.
Here's the lineup for the Aug. 5 primary.
District 2
Moderate Republican Sue Gamble of Shawnee has decided to seek election to the state Senate. That has produced a race for an open seat featuring a Republican Party primary contest between Brandon Kenig and Mary Ralstin, both of Shawnee.
Kenig, a recent college graduate, has been endorsed by the conservative Kansas Republican Assembly. Ralstin, who has been involved for a number of years with the PTA, has been endorsed by the Kansas National Education Association.
Both candidates have said they support the current policy of teaching evolution in science classes.
The winner will face moderate Democrat Sue Storm, of Overland Park, in the Nov. 4 general election. Storm, a longtime House member, has also been endorsed by the KNEA.
District 4
In District 4, which includes Lawrence, another open seat race exists because moderate Democrat Bill Wagnon of Topeka will not seek re-election.
Republicans Alan Detrich of Lawrence and Robert Meissner of Topeka face each other in the Aug. 5 primary.
In 2004, Meissner almost won the same seat, while campaigning that he was willing to add intelligent design to science standards.
In response to a questionnaire from the Journal-World, Meissner wrote that he supported the teaching of evolution, but added, "As stated in the past, if the science community can come to a consensus as to the scientific credibility of alternative theories as to origin, then I would be open to, at least, discussing the possible inclusion of those scientifically credible theories."
Detrich is an artist who produces sculptures that combine religious and dinosaur themes. His Web site, www.spearofjesus.com, includes comments that say "evil-utionist=ape-iest=malarki-ologist."
Meissner has the KRA endorsement.
The winner will go against moderate Democrat Carolyn Campbell of Topeka, who has been endorsed by the KNEA.
District 6
In District 6, incumbent conservative Kathy Martin of Clay Center is seeking re-election. She faces a challenger in the GOP primary from Bill Pannbacker of Washington. Democrat Christopher Renner of Manhattan awaits the Republican winner.
Martin, a solid vote for the conservatives, has won the KRA endorsement, while Pannbacker and Renner have been recommended by the KNEA.
District 8
In District 8, another moderate Republican, Carol Rupe of Wichita, is not seeking re-election. Republican Dennis Hedke and Democrat Walt Chappell, both of Wichita, will face off in the November general election.
Recently, Hedke helped with Americans for Prosperity's tour concerning "global warming alarmism." The KRA has endorsed Hedke, while the KNEA hasn't made an endorsement in that district.
District 10
In District 10, conservative Republican Steve Abrams of Arkansas City is running for the state Senate. That has left an open seat race in the GOP primary between David Dennis and Marty Marshall, both of Wichita. But Marshall has said he has decided not to campaign and supports Dennis.
Dennis has described himself as a "very strong Catholic" but says that he supports teaching evolution. The winner faces Democrat Paul Casanova, of Andover, who also said he supported the current standards.
Marshall had the support of the KRA while the KNEA recommended both Dennis and Casanova.
Based on comments from some of candidates, it would seem that the science standards supporting evolution should be safe, at least until the next election cycle, in 2010.
But Cook said what candidates say now and what they do later could change. "The conservatives have downplayed that issue," Cook has said in recent campaign forums.
21 July 2008
at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smarty_pants (Anonymous) says…
The election won't “create a new challenge for evolution;” it might create a challenge for the teaching of evolution, however.
Just a heads up—though Sue Gamble maintained her position on the school board by being a “moderate” and supporting the teaching of evolution, she doesn't even understand the basic fundamentals of evolution. She is also abrasive and inarticulate, but behaves like a “know it all.” Anybody ever see her embarrassing interview on 60 Minutes just after Kristalka's several years ago? She actually believed that there were groups trying to get the teaching of gravity and pi out of the Kansas curriculum. She didn't even understand the sarcasm by the groups proposing those changes and she made a fool of herself on national tv.
Just because someone says they're for teaching evolution, doesn't necessarily mean they understand what they're talking about.
21 July 2008
at 7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BuffyloGal (Anonymous) says…
I don't care if a local politician understands evolution so long as the teacher at the front of my kid's classroom does!
21 July 2008
at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
problem is, Kansas will once again become a national joke, if the nuts regain control.
21 July 2008
at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eks_164 (Anonymous) says…
They need to just keep evolution in or out, because it makes it hard to have some grades that need to know it for testing and others that don't. but really evolution is one theory, you don't have to believe in evolution but the kids who take the classes may want to, and most schools let you pull the kids out of the class for which time they are learning about evolution, and really I think the choice should be up to the kids if the adults have to keep playing table tennis with the idea.
21 July 2008
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Oh for crying out loud in the mud. Again? I thought Inheirit the Wind part 3 was over. I just wish we could all evolve past this issue and get on with the 21st century.
21 July 2008
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
napoleon969 (Anonymous) says…
Don't let Meisner's words fool you. If he gets elected you'll see him working to get “intelligent design” reinstated in your child's science textbooks. And yes, once again Kansas science standards will be fodder for late-night comedians and the national press.
21 July 2008
at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
christie (Anonymous) says…
Genesis 1:20
And God Said: Let the Waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Well there it is.
Right out of the Bible.
The Waters brought forth life.
21 July 2008
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sci4all (Anonymous) says…
napoleon969, let's hope every other voter in the district is as good at deciphering Meissner's doublespeak as you are.
In 2004 “Meissner said it would be closed-minded for him to say he would automatically exclude alternate theories to evolution without first reviewing the standards recommended by the committee.
“I'm not going to say I will rubber-stamp the standards provided by the committee,” he said. “But it is worth serious consideration.” http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/oct…
In other words, he'll reject what the scientists and science teachers on the board-appointed standards writing committee say if it goes against what his church - Topeka Bible Church - teaches. Don't let him fool you - a dentist is no more a scientist than Paris Hilton is a film star. Meissner's no moderate, just a well-connected (wife Sharon is a KS Repub bigwig) neocon.
21 July 2008
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
I don't think “Intelligent Design” should be taught in a science class becaue it is not science. Although on the other hand, I don't mind teaching that macro evolution is not replicable, and isn't falsifiable (two things you need for something to really be called science).
21 July 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
Macro-evolution is not falsifiable the same way as gravity is not falsifiable. We are affected by gravity every single day, but not one scientist can artificially create gravity. How can you falsify something we can not duplicate? So, are you saying that all of the experiments we conduct based on the theory of gravity are all non-science?
All of the arguments about evolution being non-falsifiable are ridiculous. Science is the explanation of the natural world with evidence in nature. We find evidence of macro-evolution each and every single day, so our only conclusion is that it exists.
21 July 2008
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“I don't mind teaching that macro evolution is not replicable, and isn't falsifiable ” - satirical
And I don't mind teaching that religion is a cave-man philosophy that doesn't provide anything to humanity besides the ability to control, shall we say, “simple” minded people. No matter your argument against macro/micro evolution, none of them are as strong or obvious as the illegitimacy of religion to provide any meaningful insights to the human experience.
21 July 2008
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
The theory that all mass has gravity is certaily falsifiable, larger planets have greater gravitational fields. Replicable dosn't mean you have to create gravity, it means you have to do a scientific process to determine if your hypothesis is correct. This is not possible with evolution anymore than my theory that we will all evolve into giant speghetti monsters.
I don't see the problem with the realistic fact that while macro evoultion is the best theory out there, it is does nto meet the requirement many scientist have for defining what “is science”. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught, but it does mean that it can be questioned on scientific grounds.
21 July 2008
at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxousathest:
“And I don't mind teaching that religion is a cave-man philosophy that doesn't provide anything to humanity besides the ability to control, shall we say, “simple” minded people.”
This came out of left field. Who here has advocated the opposite of what you suggest? This is a discussion of politics and science. You can open up your own private school and teach whatever you want, no one is stopping you.
21 July 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“This is a discussion of politics and science” - satirical
Science isn't political…
21 July 2008
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
No, you cannot falsify that all mass has gravity. That is an observable fact. Unless the laws of physics changed recently, you can never falsify this. However, we cannot replicate why this happens. This, however, does not disprove gravity.
We observe what happens in gravity and reasonably assume that we can apply our observations to the past. For instance, we can use observations from ancient astronomers to determine that indeed, planets are moving in predicted patterns based on our theory of gravity.
Evolution is also an observable fact. We observe what you call micro-evolution each and every single day. We then apply our observations to the past, and based on fossil evidence, we confirm our observations that evolution is proceeding in predicted patterns.
21 July 2008
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
Let's get a few things sorted out. The 2004-2006 “conservative” majority were religious ideologues and extreme fundamentalists. They had no problem with protecting Connie Morris when she took her family on state-paid vacations and filed for reimbursement with bogus receipts. They had no problem paying for her husband's in and out-of-state flying time he needed for his pilot's license. They had no problem giving out pro-charter school grants to completely unqualified out-of-state applicants with no expectation of product or service. They had no problem deliberately breaking Kansas law, such as pre-planned serial meetings with Phill Kline in an attempt to evade the Open Meetings Act, when he promised to use taxpayer money to defend them if they put illegal anti-evolution stickers in textbooks.
They were not only anti-evolution, they were anti-sex education, anti-world history. They were so anxious to destroy public education via vouchers, etc., so that the taxpayers would subsidize the education of wealthy kids in private schools, that they installed Bob Corkins as Commissioner, a Koch Industries anti-tax shill with next to no educational or managerial qualifications.
They held bogus “hearings” on standards where they paid for a Turkish Muslim fundamentalist to come to Kansas to testify that they didn't like evolution taught either (they have almost, sometimes violently, stamped out its teaching in Turkey).
Iris Van Meter was the mother of KRA ranter Kris Van Meteren. They had her daughter's carpetbagger husband come to Kansas to take her seat and he dumped his teaching contract a week after getting thrashed in the 2006 primary. The aging Iris was so out of it she made Clarence Thomas seem like Chatty Cathy.
They financed this in part through the huge resources of the 501(c)3 anti-science Discovery Institute in Seattle. They had clowns such as the racist Jack Cashill on the radio shilling for them.
Sue Gamble is perhaps the brightest light on the current board. On the other hand, Martin does a convincing impression of an idiot. Watch “Flock of Dodos.” She believes books are useful for things like propping open windows and that she didn't need them in her classroom. Dennis Hedke, another Koch Industries anti-public schools clone, would help to once again enshrine scientific illiteracy on the Board of Ed. Look for the Kochs to fill his electoral coffers.
These whack jobs are very, very scary.
21 July 2008
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
livingstone (Anonymous) says…
There is no macro-evolution or micro-evolution! They're human inventions. There is only one term, evolution. Some species have short lifespan, so they evolute much faster than other species that live longer. Some species carry less genes and evolution also take place faster, than species that carry more complicated genes (like humans). Very small organisms like AIDs virus and diseases (like bird flu) have very few genes and short lifespan, but they reproduce very quickly. So they adapt faster, by modifying their genes. Even though we adjust our genes very quickly, it will take many more modifications to become obvious (to human beings).
The genetic scientists are the best people to seek advices from with regards to evolution. These doubters of evolution continue their attack on the original book on evolution observation. I don't doubt that the first book was flawed in someway, because it approaches a very complicated question using very limited scientific methods of the days. However, evolution research has gone very far since that book. Human has achieved a lot, and discovered a lot. The only problem is that if you read Darwin's book like a bible, and refuse to read on other new findings, you totally miss the points.
What's there to argue about evolution when the doubters are coming from people who only read Darwin's book and refuse to learn anything about recent scientific discoveries?
21 July 2008
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
AA:
“Science isn't political”
Apparently it is.
21 July 2008
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
Would someone please explain the theory of evolution -once and for all - clearly and succinctly so everybody else reading this can see and understand what you see and understand.
If it is true and is so clearly the case then what is holding you back from explaining it to the rest of us?
21 July 2008
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
“Let the Waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life…”
That is exactly why we got the reverse osmosis system.
21 July 2008
at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Leftfield:
“Unless the laws of physics changed recently, you can never falsify this.”
Proving something false, and something being falsifiable are two different concepts that you have obviously confused. Proving whether mass has gravity can be tested and proved false or true (falsifiable). To test it one can use scientific method and look at the gravitational power of different size objects which will prove it one way or another.
For science to be replicable one doesn't have to replicate the natural phenomenon, one must replicate the process or the experiment. Do the same experiment again to see if you get a different result.
I know how the theory of macro evolution works. My point is that it is not perfect.
21 July 2008
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“If it is true and is so clearly the case then what is holding you back from explaining it to the rest of us?” - bondmen
Oh boy “bondmen” you make it to easy…First off, what scientific theory is “easy” to understand? Explain the laws of Thermodynamics “the easy way”…The fact that you think answers are always, “clear and succinct”, is telling as to what you want to want to hear rather than what the truth is. If you want “easy” answers, why even get involved in science? Stick your head in the sand, and say “god did it”!
21 July 2008
at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
No, I haven't confused the two. I think you don't understand how facts work and what science means by falsifiable.
But here is a wiki entry on Falsifiability. Refer to the section on evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifia…
21 July 2008
at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sci4all (Anonymous) says…
Kropotkin nailed it.
The neocons who think they know more about science than the scientists themselves want to convert public school science classrooms into podiums for their own particular ideology. At the same time, their own behaviors show that they're NOT the role models Kansans want for their kids.
Public school science classrooms should teach mainstream, well-established science, period. Exactly what constitutes that science should be decided by the scientists. Pffft. Do you go to a doctor for medical advice, or to some bum on the street corner selling herbal whatever? Taking science curriculum advice from scientific illiterates is like Dr. DeBakey (RIP) getting surgical pointers from Jeffrey Dahmer.
21 July 2008
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
leftfield…
Your link proves my point. The only way to prove evolution wrong is to show nothing ever changes, which is so absurd it cannot be used to support macro-evolution anymore than that falsifiable basis can be used to support the theory that we will all evolve into giant spaghetti monsters.
21 July 2008
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
The fact that this conversation is being held is absurd. “Intelligent Design” is nothing more than religion masquerading as science. I say that as a person of faith and a person of thought.
This debate needs to be held in the realm of Philosophy and not Biology.
If Kansas diverges from the teaching of widely accepted theory it will suffer from a lesser informed student-body. Good luck bringing new 21st century higher paying jobs if we won't accept 19th century thought.
21 July 2008
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
Thank you anxiousatheist you have shown us the theory of evolution is not at all clear in your own mind; so much so you are unable to even begin to explain it. How do you expect to convince the skeptical and non believers if you are not sure about it yourself?
You are free to try again as far as I'm concerned. I'm anxiously waiting.
21 July 2008
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
Right, so you must also be of the belief that despite never finding one thing to contract the theory of gravity, it must also be absurd.
Well, I think the theory of gravity works anyway. Same as I do evolution.
21 July 2008
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
leftfield…
“Right, so you must also be of the belief that despite never finding one thing to contract the theory of gravity, it must also be absurd.”
No, gravity has been tested repeatedly with the same results. It would be contraditory to require proof the theory is false to be able to prove it is true. Macro evolution however has not and cannot be tested, and using the same data which proves it is falsifiable could also be used to say ridiculous statements are also falsifiable.
21 July 2008
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
bondmen:
Evolution is hard to explain in a sound bite, as the IDiots do with “God did it!” But don't let the complexity scare you.
Here is a link to all of your questions. It might take more reading, but it's worth it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
21 July 2008
at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
But you see, it hasn't. Gravity has been proven over and over again in a lab, but these results doesn't prove that gravity existed a thousand years ago, nor does it prove that it will continue to happen 10 minutes from now. However, we have good evidence from history that it did exist thousands of years ago, and am overwhelmingly certain it will continue to exist.
In the same way, evolution can be tested today over and over again with the same verifiable results. We can chart mutation rates with lab results and over several generations by now. We have good evidence from history that it existed thousands, millions, billions of years ago, and we are certain it will continue.
Historical evidence of gravity is untestable the same way that you think historical evidence of evolution is untestable.
21 July 2008
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
Can the school board focus on something else? This is getting old and if our schools need to be more efficient then debating this issue over and over again is not helping. Let's move on.
21 July 2008
at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
leftfield…
Finally! Your best argument so far. However, the theory of gravity doesn't seek to predict future events, and even if it did it is still distinguishable from evolution because we only observe micro evolution, not macro evolution. So while it may seem logical to conclude macro evolution exists (I am not saying it is illogical) there are still flaws. If things change every day, does that mean we will change into a flying spaghetti monsters? Micro evolution only suggests changes within the species. I would still like the missing link to show there are inter-species changes over time.
21 July 2008
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
Are you kidding? The theory of gravity absolutely predicts future events. How do you think we landed the rovers on Mars despite having launched them several years in advance? The theory has great predictive power.
Ironically, if man were to change into a flying spaghetti monster, you would have proven evolution wrong. Evolution requires gradual changes with modifications. We see this in the fossil record.
For instance, Pitdown man was discovered to be a hoax because it would have disproved evolution. It showed too drastic a change of species based on its age.
21 July 2008
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Satirical, your information is stale. There is no distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution.
You sound uninformed.
As far as Intelligent Design in school—that is a separate argument from whether or not evolution is real. Even if evolution was demonstrably false, Intelligent Design would still fail to be “science”. It has no disproveable hypothesis, and cannot be discussed within the context of the scientific method.
21 July 2008
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Would someone please explain the theory of evolution -once and for all - clearly and succinctly so everybody else reading this can see and understand what you see and understand.If it is true and is so clearly the case then what is holding you back from explaining it to the rest of us?
====
If you accept the fact that everything has a parent, you believe in evolution. Common descent with variation is how it works. We are related to everything with a head, going all the way back to jellyfish. The same genes that tell the jellyfish “this is your head” are in humans. I suggest a brilliant new book for you to read: Your Inner Fish. http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish…
21 July 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Not only do I want the Pastafarian version taught in schools, but I want the ancient Egyptian version as well. That's vital.
21 July 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
At a forum, two years ago, a Board of Ed member running for reelection said there was no evidence of “macro” evolution (the fundamentalists' term).
He was asked, “What about transitional species, Archaeopteryx, tetrapods? (This was shortly before the Tiktaalik discovery was announced.)
“Never heard of them,” our Biblical fellow pronounced, “I don't know much about biology.”
Quite evident, unfortunately.
21 July 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Bondmen, did you happen to catch that aa did NOT say evolution was clear, straight forward, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt - as have many others in the past, if not he himself?
Funny, aa cannot not only explain the theory of evolution, but I doubt could even give a definition of evolution, much less one that any other self-imagined evolutionist on this forum would agree with.
I doubt none would venture forth what it is that creationists disagree with about evolution that can be observed. It is nothing different from: we observe gravity, therefore we “conclude” the flying spaghetti monster was the result of it. Or man will change into one - given enough billions and billions and billions of years which is why it can't be observed, but must be believed - It's seen in the fossil record, you know.
21 July 2008
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Leftfield:
“The theory of gravity absolutely predicts future events”
No, the theory of gravity can be used to predict future events, but the theory itself does not predict future events. An example if that would be something like: based on the micro gravity, there will be a gigantic collision of all matter.
21 July 2008
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“the theory of gravity doesn't seek to predict future events” - Satirical
Wha? Whoops, the gig is up “Sats”, after attempting to play a “devils advocate” of sorts regarding evolution, you've gone and shown that you actually don't understand how science works! Thank “god” that we figured this out early, we could have spent all day assuming you had some sort of meaningful comprehension!
21 July 2008
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:
There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution. One deals with the changes of a species over time. The other deals with species evolving into other species over longer periods of time.
As I have stated before, I am not advocating for teaching of intelligent design, I am here to illustrate that many people oppose such teaching in science classrooms because it is not “science” but by definition evolution fails to meet that criteria as well. The bottom line is scientists determine what science is, so if they want to draw a straight line, excluding everything that is non-replicable or not falsifiable they can, but then they would also have to ditch evolution. If they want to define science using a squiggly line that includes evolution because even though it doesn't meet the criteria it comes close enough, then that is up to them. As a scientists I think one should be open to criticism.
21 July 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
I think I'll have to give up since you seem to have trouble understanding evidence. I've tried showing you, as simply as I can, how all theories are exactly the same; yet, you choose only to try and refute evolution with creationist arguments. I'll post faqs instead since they are far more through than I am.
Here is a more complete definitely of macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macro…
21 July 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
Oops, make that definition.
21 July 2008
at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution. One deals with the changes of a species over time. The other deals with species evolving into other species over longer periods of time.”
–––––—
They are the same process. Both involve slow change in the genetic structure of an organism over time due to random mutations. The point at which the change within an organism becomes so great that it can no longer be considered the same species it once was, is when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Unless you are going to try and tell me that the process of random mutation ceases to occur once an organisms genetic structure reaches a certain iteration, then you cannot distinguish micro and macro evolution.
Again, you are using outdated and incorrect terminology.
Look it up in a science journal.
21 July 2008
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Now the parsing…
“the theory of gravity can be used to predict future events, but the theory itself does not predict future events” - Satirical
So (the theory of evolution) can't predict future events, but it can be used to predict future events!?
I ask you, what is the difference?
21 July 2008
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
leftfield…
I am sorry you don't understand the difference of a theory being used to predict future events and a theory predicting future events.
21 July 2008
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
By your definition, no theory predicts in and of itself makes a prediction of future events. Name one theory that itself predicts future events.
21 July 2008
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Leftfield:
Thank you for the link it was enlightening
First, despite several individuals statements to the contrary it declares the difference between micro and macro evolution (livingstone, logicsound04)
“Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species:”
It also shows that it is ok to challenge the concept of evolution to get a better understanding of it.
“Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the “host” taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the “tree” now has “vines” that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).”
21 July 2008
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
leftfield…
“Name one theory that itself predicts future events”
You stated yourself that based on micro evolution one could conclude macro evolution.
21 July 2008
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover…
Michael Behe, “Intelligent (sic) Design's,” “foremost” proponent testified at the Dover evolution trial:
Q (U)sing your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences: Yes, astrology is in fact one, :and many other theories as well.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true:
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly:the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori ruled out that that motions in: the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, “The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.” That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A (L)et me direct your attention to the archaic definition, :the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community. Astrology — I think astronomy began in:astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world. And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A It seems like that.
Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?
A That's correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?
A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.
Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
Judge: You'd have to include me, though.
21 July 2008
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
“You stated yourself that based on micro evolution one could conclude macro evolution.”
Evolution doesn't predict future events, does it? It's the same with gravity. Based on your definition, you can certainly use the theory of gravity to determine that gravity most likely existed in the past, but in and of itself, does not predict that it did exist. Same with evolution.
21 July 2008
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
My point was that clarifying between micro and macro evolution is a bit like clarifying the diffference between a single plant's photosynthetic process and the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is cleansed of CO2 by the combined photosynthetic processes of all plants.
Yes, they are technically different, but the underlying process is the same, making any distinction between the two nothing more than an exercise in semantics.
21 July 2008
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
“Thank you for the link it was enlightening”
Great that you've learned something. However, please don't pick and choose what things to read like a creationist. Please continue on in the site to read the part that macroevolution is an extension of microevolution over long scales.
21 July 2008
at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
According to the social conservatives in Kansas, some things never change.
21 July 2008
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Leftfield:
Your theory of macro evolution: Based on changes within species (micro evolution) I predict the will be changes outside of the species, and one species will evolve into another (macro evolution).
This is like saying based on the Boston Celtics winning the NBA championship, I predict they will win the Super Bowl next year.
I am sorry that you still fail to understand the distinction between using a theory to predict future events and a theory that is not replicable or falsifiable.
21 July 2008
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04:
The distinction is more the semantics, because micro evolution doesn't necessarily prove macro evolution (see Boston Celtics reference above). While macro-e is dependent on micro-e doesn't mean there is no difference. I think the evidence is clear that micro-e occurs, I am more skeptical of macro-e because they are independent and one does not necessarily lead to the other.
21 July 2008
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
and bea, it is so friggin hot out today..makes one think of Arizona. Kansas in July can be macro hot…
21 July 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
“Satirical” wrote, cranking up his or her noodly appendage…
“This doesn't mean it (macroevolution) shouldn't be taught, but it does mean that it can be questioned on scientific grounds.”
Yes, but please note that it's pointless to question it on theological grounds or the equally applicable coffee grounds.
By the way, have LJW posters dimissed the theory of punctuated equilibrium? One could easily come to that impression. Not that that's a bad thing.
21 July 2008
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,
What is the definition of a species?
21 July 2008
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
coffee grounds is another example of why macro evolution should be questioned.
21 July 2008
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Your theory of macro evolution: Based on changes within species (micro evolution) I predict the will be changes outside of the species, and one species will evolve into another (macro evolution).
This is like saying based on the Boston Celtics winning the NBA championship, I predict they will win the Super Bowl next year.”
–––––––—
That is an absurdly inaccurate analogy.
Micro and macro evolution are the same process. The difference is the length of time.
An NBA championship and NFL championship require different processes (one the ability to play basketball, the other the ability to play football).
Here is a better analogy:
Microevolution: making a curved right turn
Macroevolution: making a circle
Left unchanged, making a curved right turn will eventually turn into a circle. Likewise, left unaltered, the inevitable result of microevolution is enough concurrent change in an organism to yield an animal that doesn't fit any existing species classifications—or macroevolution.
21 July 2008
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“I think the evidence is clear that micro-e occurs, I am more skeptical of macro-e because they are independent and one does not necessarily lead to the other.”
–––––-
They are not independent. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
Macroevolution is the direct result of the accumulation of microevolutionary changes.
I'm assuming you understand that microevolution is made possible by random mutations in the genetic code. If you do understand that, then perhaps you could explain why those mutations stop occuring at the point where the changes would be significant enough to constitute a new species. Because, as I've been trying to explain, macroevolution is simply microevolution over time.
Perhaps this analogy is better:
microevolution = shifting of tectonic plates
macroevolution = the change from Pangaea to the current incarnation of the continents
21 July 2008
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftfield (Anonymous) says…
“Your theory of macro evolution: Based on changes within species (micro evolution) I predict the will be changes outside of the species, and one species will evolve into another (macro evolution).
This is like saying based on the Boston Celtics winning the NBA championship, I predict they will win the Super Bowl next year.”
And thus you show your complete misunderstanding of macroevolution.
Let say a 400 page book was written with a 20-page foreword and this foreword was later replaced with a new completely rewritten foreword. Would you honestly say these two books have absolutely no relationship to each other?
21 July 2008
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…
I'm in favor of abolishment of the State BOE altogether. Impotent figureheads, a huge waste of taxpayer money, and when they do anything remarkable, it makes Kansas the laughingstock of the nation.
(Livingstone's use of the term “evolute”—a mathematical term—gave me the biggest laugh of the week so far! Can we conversate about things that evolute??!!??)
21 July 2008
at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,
You should pay attention to the statement of “why those mutations stop occuring at the point where the changes would be significant enough to constitute a new species”. This is the key to your ignorance. This is why Das is asking you to define “species”. Do you really think there is some magical place where all of this stops? If you agree that changes can occur within species then you have agreed that species can become different species. Look up ring species which demonstrates how 2 species will diverge even when both species have intermediate closely related neighboring populations they interbreed with. It provides direct evidence for evolution. It provides evidence from a living populations standpoint rather than relating deceased ancestral populations to living populations. As others have pointed out on here, do you really think that there is some magical barrier that species can't go across to become a different species?
21 July 2008
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
How long is it going to take these fundamentalists to get the concept that science seeks physical causes for physical phenomena?
The minute you bring divine intervention into a discussion, you have exited the realm of science!
Once you accept divine intervention as an explanation, you might as well lock the doors to the lab and go home, 'cause there is no explaining God.
21 July 2008
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marcdeveraux (Anonymous) says…
Hard to understand how backwards the majority of people in kansas are. These folks are willing to vote for small minded republicans who have shown their true colors these past 8 years. This country is going to become a third world rather than a world leader. It does not seem to matter that the economy is headed to another depression, We invade countries to steal oil and kill innocent people because they have oil that we need to poison our world.. These kansans will vote republican because they always have, Same mind set as the muslim world. What a shame kansas.
21 July 2008
at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink