Every now and then, I find myself so frustrated with the whole anti-evolution situation that I am tempted to simply wash my hands of the whole affair and walk away. After all, in the grand scheme of things, why does it really matter what kids get taught about biology. Most of them are never going to use the information when they grow up, and any creationism-induced knowledge deficits can be rectified later on in the education of those who are going to go on in fields related to the biological sciences. OK, so it’s nice to teach things that aren’t massively wrong, and all that, but is it really so important as to justify all this fuss?
Last week, I got a lesson on just exactly why all this really is so important.
Early last week, my advisor and I took some coral skeletons, a projector, a couple of PowerPoint presentations, and a couple of minutes of some cool video, and went to visit my daughter’s second grade class. After all of the time that we have spent exposed to students at the university level, what we found there came as a complete shock. These elementary school kids were actually enthusiastic and eager to learn. They were attentive, and they even asked creative, thoughtful questions.
Over the course of what was scheduled as a 30 minute presentation, and which actually lasted more like an hour, we were asked things that most of the undergrads taking intro classes don’t think to. For example, after we discussed the symbiosis between coral and the photosynthetic algae known as zooxanthellae, we were asked, “what happens if the little plants don’t want to live in the coral?” When we used the sea anemones from Finding Nemo as a basis for our description of a coral polyp, we were asked if they are so similar because they are related. Then we were asked if related meant “like family, or just kinda like each other?” The curiosity that these kids displayed was nothing short of amazing, and it reminded me of just how much of an intellectual crime we are committing if we do not reward curiosity with honest answers.
If we evade children’s questions because the answers aren’t easy to give, or because we are worried about how other adults might react to our answers, we are sending the wrong message. We are saying that our comfort level is more important than their need for an honest answer. If we avoid answering them because we are afraid of how the answer will affect their beliefs about other things, we are telling them that reality is relative. If we fail to answer their questions because we are afraid of how it will impact their understanding of other things, then we say, as Jack Nicholson so memorably put it, “You can’t handle the truth!”
None of those things is a good message to give to our children, and all of them are messages that are contained in the efforts of anti-evolutionists to dilute and distort the way we teach children about the world that they live in. But that isn’t the only reason that I drew from the second-graders. This week, we got thank you notes, and I got another reminder. Actually, I got several dozen more.
I learned that the fire coral has something inside and when you touch it it sting. Question: Where does the fire coral live and does it stay in the sunlight zone or twylight zone or darkness zone.
That note concluded with a request that we answer the question on the back and return it. (We did answer, but by email. For the record, although the fire corals are more closely related to jellyfish than to stony corals, they do normally contain zooxanthellae. This restricts them to the “sunlight zone”.) A couple of other students also thought of questions that they had forgotten to ask earlier, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we get another round of questions by email. Curiosity doesn’t always stop when the presentation does.
When I grow up, I want to have a job just like you.
I would like to know all about coral reefs and all the coral names. Maby I will do what you do at the place you work at.
Those two quotes give another reason that this is important. Children start to think about what they want to be when they grow up, and sometimes those early ideas actually result in later careers. (Of course, sometimes they don’t. I wanted to be a farmer when I was in second grade.) Interests are developed during childhood that can last a lifetime. When we show children just how awesome the world around them really is, and how much fun it can be to try and learn more about it, we might just be helping to develop the next generation of great scientists.
I guess that’s really the biggest reminder that I got from the second graders: Children matter. The students that we educate today are going to be the teachers and scientists of the future. They deserve nothing less from us than the best education that we can give them - and that means that we should encourage their curiosity, and provide honest answers to their questions. What they do not deserve is to have their education used as some sort of tool to gain leverage in a perceived “culture war”.
205 Comments
The Messenger · 10 March 2005
Mike, You said, "What they do not deserve is to have their education used as some sort of tool to gain leverage in a perceived "culture war"." I hope that you truly mean this. Wouldn't it be great if all educators stopped indoctrinating and began teaching? A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities. A true teacher knows that education is not indoctrination, but rather it is equipping a child with the skills that enable that child to learn about the world around them. Skills, methods, abilities, formulas, and the wonder of learning and growing enable a child to enjoy their childhood and reach their potential. When I hear a small group of evolutionist talk about "our" text books, it frightens me.
Prince Vegita · 10 March 2005
Beautiful story, man. Hopefully the creationists and IDists will someday figure out that the reason evolution belongs in the textbooks is precisely because through it, people of all religions and none can come together and agree on the way the natural world works. Will evolution be replaced someday? Certainly. But it will be through extensive experimentation and not appeals to ignorance, and present a marvelous opportunity to explain to our kids exactly how science works.
Jim Harrison · 10 March 2005
Sorry, Messenger, but I remember all too well what Sunday school classes were like. Pure indoctrination. I'm still proud of having been thrown out of a Lutheran congregation for noticing some of the contradictions in scripture---I was about 12. There are certainly churches that don't operate in so authoritarian a fashion, but the kind of Christians most upset about evolution are also the most determined to brainwash helpless children.
steve · 10 March 2005
Sounds like a good time, Mike. I know in my case, my early exposure to scientific explanations immunized me from things like the ID creationism nonsense. When creationist types came along later, I already had an idea of the qualities good explanations had, and easily found creationism deficient.
Ralph Jones · 10 March 2005
Messenger,
I agree children should explore all ideas. Religions should be taught in comparative religion class and biology in biology class. Students decide for themselves what makes sense.
Alex Merz · 11 March 2005
Messenger: you sound like a relativist, and an easily frightened one, at that.
Mike Dunford · 11 March 2005
Messenger:
I certainly believe that children should be provided with both the skills and the encouragement that is needed if they are going to examine and learn from the world around them. That is precisely why I am so strongly against the educational proposals being advanced by anti-evolutionists.
Ed Darrell · 11 March 2005
DonkeyKong · 11 March 2005
Its a lot easier to brainwash little kids isn't it?
Shame on you....
jeff-perado · 11 March 2005
Shame on you DonkeyKong.
What is brainwashing kids?
Telling them that there is a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, a tooth fairy, a god....
Brainwashing is indoctrination into a belief system that is not provable. And there is no more proof about god than there is about the tooth fairy.
But science is provable, and evolution, as a science, is provable, and is what should be taught.
My mother has said to me that the biggest mistake she made when raising my brother and me was telling us about Santa Claus and that he was real, for once we discovered he was a fictional person (I hope I didn't spoil it for the creationists out there) how could we believe in another person we were told was real, that being God. That makes sense. She said that god is the Santa Claus of adults, and is just as unprovable, but every bit as desirable to adults as the belief of Santa is to children. So how can children later learn to trust, when they are started out on lies, like Santa?
Thus telling children the truth always is better than selling them a fantasy. This is why telling them the truth about science should be done, and not selling them some fiction about creationism, either as YEC or its more modern, and more deceptive counterpart, ID.
Creationism and ID are the Santa Claus of science, let's tell our children the truth, and that is the facts of evolution. Our children deserve that much.
The Messenger · 11 March 2005
Jim, Are you confusing public education, government supported schools that children attend on tax payer dollars, with privately funded Sunday Schools where the first amendment allows citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice, by choice? What are you saying?!? The bias and inflammatory language of many of you seems to go right over your own heads. Sometimes we become so against what we think is radical, we fail to see our own reflections in the mirror of our hatred. Children deserve much better than what they are getting. Early elementary school children need to learn to enjoy the wonder of world around them while being taught the skills to master reading and mathematics. Instead, they have become pawns in a political fight by those who want to shape their minds.
Alon Levy · 11 March 2005
Yeah, Messenger, they're becoming pawns. Why, they're taught downright revolutioanry ideas like heliocentrism! When you understand why they teach heliocentrism without giving geocentrism equal time, you'll understand why they teach evolution without giving creationism equal time.
caerbannog · 11 March 2005
Messenger said:
A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities....
Then I take it that you are opposed to "abstinence-only" sex-ed...
The Messenger · 11 March 2005
Jeff-perado suggest telling children the truth always is better than selling them a fantasy. My question to Jeff is this. Jeff, how will you recognize truth when you see it? How long did it take "Science" to recognize the truth of the "Piltdown Man"? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and "Science" to get the teaching of Neandertals right? How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright? We need science taught and pure science will enable students to determine factual evidence around them. Students do not need commentators to interpret what they discover or what others have discovered.
The Branches of Science
The Physical Sciences
Physics: The study of matter and energy and the interactions between them. Physicists study such subjects as gravity, light, and time.
Chemistry: The science that deals with the composition, properties, reactions, and the structure of matter.
Astronomy: The study of the universe beyond the Earth's atmosphere.
The Earth Sciences
Geology: The science of the origin, history, and structure of the Earth, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that it has experienced or is experiencing.
Oceanography: The exploration and study of the ocean.
Paleontology: The science of the forms of life that existed in prehistoric or geologic periods.
Meterology: The science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena, such as weather and climate.
The Life Sciences (Biology)
Botany: The study of plants.
Zoology: The science that covers animals and animal life.
Genetics: The study of heredity.
Medicine: The science of diagnosing, treating, and preventing illness, disease, and injury.
May I be so bold as to suggest that we educate our students and give them the skills and tools necessary to continue in a lifetime of learning. With these skills and tools, they will be free to determine for themselves how they perceive the origin of matter, life, and the species. Each student should be free to determine truth as he/she perceives and experiences it. The public school teacher does not have the right to indoctrinate students. It is time for parents to wake up and become involved. Children are too precious to be used and they deserve better.
Mad Chemist · 11 March 2005
Flint · 11 March 2005
bcpmoon · 11 March 2005
The story reminds me of my nephew, who actually started me on reading on evolution (again). There is nothing so challenging to ones knowledge as a 7-year old asking question after question and you know that he is not going to go away after the first dozen.
I was browsing in a Reader's Digest Book at my sisters' when he strolled over and asked me about an illustration of evolution (you know, the kind of one-page with Sun/Earth/marine life/dinosaurs/mammals/man) and I had to try to explain. That was really difficult, because I knew little more than what I had been taught in school quite a while ago. I knew the theory to be correct because of its beauty, but at the end, I realized that I did not really, really know what the current state-of-the-art was, so I started reading on the topic. (And I wanted to make sure that I had told my nephew the truth - and not with a capital T).
Actually, I was astonished and delighted about the vast amount of data gathered, the great science being done and the refined theories discussed. It is my favourite pasttime now.
BTW: Some years ago, I traveled some 8 hours by car in company of a adept on his way becoming a priest. We discussed creation at length and I still wonder if he stayed on his chosen path, because he changed the topic after I compared the glory of the interlocking puzzle of stars/earth/life spanning over aeons of time, connecting all creatures on earth and in the heavens to, well, POOF.
The Messenger · 11 March 2005
Flint, Your words indicate that you really do not understand much of what I said at all. Learning is a lifetime process and is by no means something that will enable grade children to become so "sufficiently converstant (did you mean conversant?)" as to be able to reach top professional level in every area at once. It is rather a continuing process that begins with skills taught at each level and the wonder of learning rewarded with interesting materials and ideas presented on the child's level. Teachers do need to teach. There is a big difference in teaching and indoctrinating and most true teachers know the difference. Your deliberate twisting of my words may keep some people from understanding, but I do hope there are a few people who have enough discernment to realize what I am advocating.
I do believe that parents have a right and a need to be involved in their child's education.
When you say, "We are in fact attempting exactly what messenger recommends:", does this mean that you are an educator?
Alon Levy · 11 March 2005
I do believe that parents have a right and a need to be involved in their child’s education.
To what degree do you think this involvement should extend? If parents believe some crank theory, say that the Moon landing was faked, should they have the right to pull their children out of classes that teach the mainstream view, in this example's case that NASA really did put 12 men on the Moon?
Ken Shackleton · 11 March 2005
Messenger;
You did not say if you support the teaching of "all ideas and possibilities" in the teaching of sex-ed. What is your position on abstinence-only sex-ed?
Flint · 11 March 2005
Messenger:
OK, you need to be a little bit clearer before I understand your intent. As far as I can tell, both the content and the goal of education currently is as close a match for the ideal you describe as we can approximate. I don't see any problem with our current intent, although in some places the performance on the ground doesn't live up to that intent.
But what current education has to do with "indoctrination" I can't see. Teaching is what takes place in public schools. Indoctrination is what takes place in church and bible schools. The former is attempting to show children how to think and draw informed conclusions. The latter is intended to provide pre-packaged conclusions as 'Truth' to be memorized and taken on faith. And you are quite correct in saying that intelligent people have no problem telling the difference.
So what is your problem? We're doing what you wish, as well as we can.
Russell · 11 March 2005
Mike Walker · 11 March 2005
Mike Walker · 11 March 2005
The scary thing about Mike Dunford's original artcle is that I can imagine someone like Ken Ham writing the exact same piece apart from changing the creationism reference to evolution. That doesn't mean I think the article is bad in any way, it's just shows how important it is for our children to be taught the truth at that age, and how easy it is to manipulate kids into believing fiction.
(OK, so I can also imagine Messenger writing the same comment about Ken Ham's version of the article :-)
Ken Shackleton · 11 March 2005
Messenger.....answer the question on sex-ed please.
Andrew Wyatt · 11 March 2005
Andrew Wyatt · 11 March 2005
Christian · 11 March 2005
Flint: The answer is, we CAN NOT recognize truth when we see it.
That must be really sad walking around in the dark. Without any truth how can you trust anything? If you want to pass on how to be blind I think you need to stay away from any form of teaching.
Emanuele Oriano · 11 March 2005
John A. Davison · 11 March 2005
The most valuable thing we could do in education would be to start right off by telling our children what we do NOT know anything about. For the biological sciences I would recommend the following be included in the list about which we know absolutely nothing for certain.
1. How the universe was created.
2. How life was created
3. How many times life was created.
4. How life evolved.
Concerning matters about which there is considerable doubt I would add the following.
1. Is evolution in progress today?
2. Can sexual forms evolve?
3. Is natural selection a creative force?
4. Did Mendelian allelic mutations ever have a role in creative evolution?
By presenting these questions right up front would greatly ameliorate the conflicts that we now see afflicting the teaching of evolution in public schools.
John A. Davison
Jim Harrison · 11 March 2005
According to the Messenger, "There is a big difference in teaching and indoctrinating and most true teachers know the difference". Yep, but by that light, conservative religious education doesn't involve very bloody much teaching. There's nothing inevitable about that---to the extent that religions genuinely stand for values like truth-telling and mutual respect, they can perfectly well transmit their traditions without psychological coercion.
The real problem here is that some versions of Christianty and other religions have come decidely hostile to intellectual openness and democratic values like tolerance. Willfully embracing irrational, fantastic, and often hateful principles, they simply can't be transmitted without force and fraud. Which, of course, is a pretty good reason to reject them completely.
By the way, the notion that public schools should be regarded as instruments of tyranny because they are maintained by the government sounds pretty peculiar in the mouths of folks who are in favor of private tyranny. Obviously governments can be abusive, but at least public institutions are subject to public control. In the American situation, one of the basic functions of universal public education is to support the individual against the group.
Right-wingers and fundamentalists often accuse others of brainwashing children, but they aren't really down on brainwashing at all. What they are really demanding is a monopoly over the technique.
Timothy Sandefur · 11 March 2005
A touching post, Mr. Dunford. Spot on.
John A. Davison · 11 March 2005
While I am happy to admit to being a right-wimger, I don't care for your lumping that genre with fundamentalsts. I have always been on record as being in opposition to both the Darwimps and the Fundies. Indeed the polarization as you have stated it is preciesly the root of the problem. A public declaration of ignorance can hardly be construed as a form of brainwashing. Both factions might do well to practice that caveat.
John A. Davison
The Messenger · 11 March 2005
Dear Caerbannog, I suppose you are aware that I was speaking in the context of origins. There are many ideas and topics that are not appropriate for elementary children. We have professionals who develop curriculum and who are much better at establishing curriculum than I. Where I live and teach, we have an excellent curriculum. I understand that some areas are not so fortunate. I personally have no problem with abstinence, but that discussion is for another blog and another time. As I understand it, this blog is dedicated to evolution.
Katarina · 11 March 2005
People will teach their own children what they believe. The important thing is for the public to be educated first, especially when it comes to discerning scientific theory from belief. We need more PBS series that delve more deeply into the theory of evolution.
Public school is a place for teaching what has been well established. Though what is well established may change over time, the theory of evolution has still not been challanged for its actual content. To initiate that challange in public schools comes after pathetic failure to initiate it in the scientific community.
If anyone is guilty of using children and young adults as pawns in their political game, it is the ID movement. The children who trust them now will be in for some bitter disappointments later on.
Anti-evolutionists have failed to establish that the peer review process has rejected challenges to the theory of evolution based on bias, as opposed to lack of content.
Anti-evolutionists have failed to make a case that sticks. They have failed to come up with anything testable, or even conceptually satisfying. Why would we teach our children their position?
Yes, evolution is a powerful idea that can dazzle people. It's power is what seems to arouse fear in those who refuse to see it. The notion that small changes over time can lead to incredible complexity and beauty is not an easy one to envision. But it is not just a notion, it is our best explanation for what has been observed in many different feilds of study.
I don't mind telling children about the anti-evolution movement, in fact I think they would benefit from knowing its true nature, so that they don't confuse it with science.
Steve Reuland · 11 March 2005
Katarina · 11 March 2005
Many parents who enroll their children into private schools do so partly to avoid the teaching of evolution, because it is something they do not believe in. If many private schools reject evolution, it is partly a supply-demand equation. If the public were better educated, the demand for rejection of evolution would drop and so would the supply.
I don't blame the private schools, because they provide what people demand. But public insitutions should be doing more to educate adults. And do so in a way that is not offensive to any religious choice, including the basic idea of creationism. After all, we cannot prove evolution was not the tool of creation. Is it asking too much to concede that point?
Rilke's Grand-daughter · 11 March 2005
The Messenger · 11 March 2005
Steve's argument would make a little bit of sense if Jim had been referring to private education, but he wasn't. He was referring to a church service. The last time I checked, however, private schools still had the right to choose their own curriculum. The public has the right to choose or not to choose to send their children there.
Going way back to the beginning of this thread - why is it that none of you even acknowledged a single question that was asked of you? Did any of you note these questions?
How long did it take "Science" to recognize the truth of the "Piltdown Man"? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and "Science" to get the teaching of Neandertals right? How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright? When you are so dogmatic and believe that you have arrived at "truth" and that you have a right to censor others, should you not be held accountable for what you teach?
Ron Zeno · 11 March 2005
Please don't feed the trolls. (No offense meant, unless you are purposely trolling.)
Emanuele Oriano · 11 March 2005
neo-anti-luddite · 11 March 2005
Flint · 11 March 2005
Katarina · 11 March 2005
Messanger,
When you say, "censor others," can you be more specific about who the "others" are? I am not sure what specifically you want on the curriculum.
Also, what is censorship? It usually refers to opinion or point of view. Scientific theory is more than opinion or point of view. Which scientific theory challanges the theory of evolution?
Thank you.
~DS~ · 11 March 2005
That wa s anice post Mike, TY for sharing. Childern are natural scientists. Somewhere around Junior High School is where we start losing them in the US in terms of math and science.
I often criticize Creationists, but Creationists are not just handicapped by their underlying dislike of evolution and common descent for purely religious reasons. It's not entirely their fault or entirely their choice to be so limited.
The run of the mill creationist sympathizers are entrapped by the inadequacies of the human mind, and we all share those same propensities. They cannot consider evolution a real possibility, not merely because of fundamentalist dogma, but because they rely too much on every day common sense. To conceive of dramatic evolutionary change as plausible, you have to abandon everyday human intuition to a degree.
Think of the common creationist refrain "Why aren't monkeys evolving into people now, right now, before my very eyes?"
We-meaning those of us regs who are science buffs-chuckle at that, but they're serious when they object in that fashion! Evolution works over time scales that cannot be understood using common sense. Those of us deeply interested in science have been doing it so long, it almost feels like common sense to us at this point. We've nurtured a little intuition to help us deal with it.
I'm convinced that quite a few rank and file Creationist advocates, the laymen type, lack that; they simply do not have that facility. Human minds are shaped by our own evolutionary requirements, and those requirements are the proxy of creatures that live less than a century. The events that must transpire for evolutionary biology to work their magic, to turn a dog sized mammal into a great Blue Whale, or a bacterium into a human being, operate over time periods of millions and billions of years. Creationists are human. And being human, they intuitively put such events not in the category of 'rare' or 'time consuming' where we now understand such events properly belong; but rather they place them erroneously in the class of 'never'. And of course their religious convixtions otften seal their ignorance off from science.
Just as mankind cannot count on common sense when dealing with velocities approaching light, or objects on the scale of quarks and photons, or complex systems that iterate millions of times, we cannot truly grasp what ten-thousand years means in our gut, much less billions. We're all prey to these same weakness, because we're all human. We're equipped to memorize a few hundred plants and animals, make some abstract connections about those organisms to eek out a living, and deal with social issues in small groups of hunter gatherers. It's damn near a miracle that with that kind of limited intellect, we can imagine evolution or other counter intuitive events at all. It's a very new way of thinking for human beings, and many of us just weren't exposed to it.
The difference between ourselves and creationists, is we have managed to bridge that lack of intuitive capacity with a combination of analysis and imagination. Most of that mental framework was absorbed in our youth, when our minds were more plastic. I truly feel sorry for those who cannot or will not acquire that skill. They deprive themselves and their children of so much wonder and beauty, 'tis a pity.
Having said all that, I don't know if Messenger and his ilk here fall into the catagerory that honestly lack the prequisite sciencitifc background to overcome human intuition, or if they're just shilling for the cause, but either way, they're out of their minds iof they think we're going to just stand by quietly and let them screw up science.
Ed Darrell · 11 March 2005
Jim Harrison · 11 March 2005
Flint writes "The truth is not knowable." That may be true in a sort of a sort of way, but what really upsets many supporters of traditional religion is not the impossibility of finding things out but the horrible possibility that we've already found out too much. For example, we've discovered that the Universe is not a haunted house.
Traditional skeptics despaired of ever figuring anything out. Modern skeptics are afraid that maybe you can know a thing or two. Hence the popuarity of skeptical philosophers among Creationists. Or do you think that these guys got enthusiastic about Karl Popper after a dispassionate examination of the methodology of particle physics?
Ed Hessler · 11 March 2005
I'm glad you posted this; a reminder of how important conversations with children are. You may or may not be familiar with the Philosophy for Children program, not used much in schools anymore but the dialogues are stunning (just as the work of Harvard psychiatrist, Robert Cole has shown again and again in his work with children on issues of morals and ethics, etc.).
I have in my files the report of a teacher who spent some time with kindergarten kids talking with them about space, a way for them to experiment with words (cf Geller, April 1985, Science and Children).
The discussion grew out of work with bubbles and balloons as well as a book on the idea that things take up space. The thinking, i.e., as the author put it having "the chance to 'see' what they think by trying out ideas" is something to behold.
Fortunately, we are seeing more and more transcripts of conversations such as these. One book I especially like is "What Students Bring to Light" (Shapiro 1999, TCP)which provide windows into how students think about things, what they find interesting, what inhibits accepting some scientific explanations, what they use in learning, the kinds of questions that interest them and how they create meaning, especially in science which asks them to "step around their own meanings and personal understandings of phenomena of publicly accepted ideas." This was a longitudinal study of students over several elementary grades (the same students).
Another of these transcripts is found in a book edited by Minstrell and van Zee, "Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science" (AAAS 2000) in a paper by Kathleen Metz in which is included snippets of conversation about student research projects and revisions they made (second grade)through their work and dialogue with their teacher. It is a stimulating exploration of the science within the reach of young learners through the use of materials and conversation, in a way not too different from how a professor might interact with a graduate student or as we educators would put it scaffolding "the knowledge that supports their control over the inquiry process."
I'm glad you found this such a powerful experience.
John A. Davison · 11 March 2005
Is it an error to teach that there must have been a Creator? Just wondering.
John A. Davison
Emanuele Oriano · 11 March 2005
No, Dr. Davison, it is not an error to teach in Comparative Religion that some (not all) religions believe in a Creator.
It would be something worse than an error to falsely claim that we have reached a consensus on this.
Scott Davidson · 11 March 2005
It would depend on how Mr Davison phrased it as well.
Something like:
"I believe that there was a creator because..."
Is preferable to:
"There was a creator"
Since it's better to justify an argument, than to just make an unsupported statement.
Flint · 11 March 2005
There is also a qualitative difference between accepting the philosophical notion that there may have been a creator (as one of an infinity of unsupportable, unfalsifiable statements), and teaching that there must have been a creator. The first is an exercise in logic, the second is an exercise in brainwashing.
Is it an error to brainwash our children? Ah, now we're back into philosophy. Dr. Davison has at least been kind enough to illustrate the consequences of this decision, at length and in detail.
Steve Reuland · 11 March 2005
Katarina · 11 March 2005
Public schools teach neither that there must have, nor must NOT have been a creator. Either would be unacceptable.
steve · 11 March 2005
Rilke's Grand-daughter · 11 March 2005
steve · 11 March 2005
Here's another idea, which is implemented at /. with great success--moderators can rate the comments, anywhere from the lowest (flamebait, offtopic, trolling) to the highest (insightful, smart, funny) and then individuals can set what level of comments they want to read. In that way, no one is censored, the comments are there, and anyone who wants to is free to read them. But those of us who like our wheat with no chaff can get the good stuff.
Roadtripper · 11 March 2005
I must agree with Steve. I don't post here often, but I read every post. Lately though, it's gotten to be a chore. While I enjoy the numerous informative posts to be found here, I'm tired of wading through all the worn-out repetitive nonsense posted by the ignorant, the incompetent and/or the insane. On any other site I'd be making good use of the automatic ignore list feature. Fortunately, I'm fully capable of ignoring them manually. Maybe if the idea catches on, they'll go look for attention elsewhere....
Mike Walker · 11 March 2005
Steve, I second your suggestion that Panda's Thumb should have a more structured BBS-type organization to it, where a *little* more control can be exerted to keep certain discussions on topic.
You could keep the basic format of the PT site the same - the front page being a summary of main posts by the contributers to PT, each linked to a discussion topic. But beyond that, the Bathroom Wall would be replaced by a proper BBS with topics and sub-topics to allow a multiple debates to go on with getting all tangled up with each other (as they tend to do now). Off topic posts can then be kept off the main discussion threads.
Add a basic registration system to prevent spam, and to keep persistent offenders from ruining the forums (but not to censor debate), that would improve what is already an excellent site.
Of course, I'm not the one running things or footing the bill :-) Are there any plans in the works along this line?
steve · 11 March 2005
Yeah, I don't know what the best structural solution is. I accept that many people like to argue with creationists here. A good solution wouldn't interfere with that. But a group of us, who like the comments which aren't related to creatists, are finding it more and more tiresome to sort through those, and I spend less and less time here because of that. I think a good solution can be found which wouldn't step on the ability of people to troll, and others to feed them, but also enable some of us to get away from that and have a productive discussion about the very many interesting aspects of biology, evolution, and the creationst movement.
steve · 11 March 2005
Ken Shackleton · 11 March 2005
roger tang · 11 March 2005
Well, personally, if you had to post ratings, I'd put something "Slef Made Martyr For the Faith" as opposed to "flame bit" or anything like that....
Jeff Low · 11 March 2005
Yes, I can see it now...
Child: "If a baby gets 50% of its genes from mommy and 50% from daddy, then how does evolution occur?"
Evolutionist: Well, ummmm, uhhh........
Child: "Aren't there certain genetic patterns that we have given the term 'race' to which will continue to exist through time with no change because the same genes are simply being handed down from generation to generation, albeit in different combinations, thereby proving that evolution doesn't occur?"
Evolutionist: Well, ummmmm, uhhhhh........
RBH · 11 March 2005
Regarding the issue of how to organize PT so as to control threads of comments, as a Mod on Infidels I know that moderating contentious threads can be a bloody chore, but (usually) worth doing. I sometimes wish we could send our resident trolls there for a thrashing! PT, however, is essentially self-moderated: Each Contributor can control comments to posts he or she initiates. That produces considerable inconsistency, of course, as each of us has different notions of what appropriate modding is, different time commitments for reviewing threads, and different facility with the software. On Infidels Moderators have access to thread control tools like deletion, editing, splitting off and closing derailments, pesting users (prohibiting a user from posting in a particular Forum), banning users, and so on, to control the idiots.
Without considerable change in the software I'm not sure what can be done on PT. I'm tempted to think about a group of 'uber-Mods' who are empowered and responsible for all comment threads (AFAIK that's do-able to some extent in the software), but that's to ask still more time and effort from people who already expend a whole lot of both on the defense of science/evolution enterprise.
A significant gain would be made if our friends would simply quit feeding the trolls. Give them no feedback whatsoever. One really doesn't have to respond to every idiotic off-topic asinine remark Davison makes. Let him and the others who disdain informed conversation wither unattended. A fundamental principle of behavior management is "Water the behavior you want to grow." Attention given to trolls waters trolling behavior. Don't give it to them.
Take the comment immediately preceding this one, Jeff Low's little caricature. It's easy to blast it, ignorant as it is, but doing so merely recognizes his existence. Don't. Let him blather to an empty house so he must listen to the echoes of his own ignorance.
RBH
Rilke's Grand-daughter · 11 March 2005
Point taken, sir! I shall now cease to be a source of sustenance for trolls, and become merely a decorative room ornament who asks the occasional question.
Ed Darrell · 11 March 2005
steve · 11 March 2005
Too many people love troll feeding. My only hope is a structural solution which lets me get away from it.
Ed Darrell · 11 March 2005
Timothy Sandefur · 11 March 2005
RBH, although I sympathize, if we were to take the principle of not watering trolls seriously, we would have to shut down PT entirely, wouldn't we? The whole point of our being here is to try to engage the public, many of whom are misled by the arguments of creationists, which do make superficial sense to those who aren't familiar enough with what science really teaches. Heck, in my younger days, I considered myself a creationist. Were it not for folks like Philip Kitcher and Richard Dawkins, I wouldn't have learned that there are answers to the things the creationists say.
Heaven knows, the "trolls" are annoying. But we're here to address what they say, even when their arguments are silly and off-topic and so forth. Now, if they're abusive, or obscene or not helpful at all to our enterprise, then we can delete them or gently correct people and whatnot, but Davison's comments are not even close to being improper, from what I can tell. Few comments on PT are.
The way I see it, we've enabled comments precisely to discuss "all the worn-out repetitive nonsense posted by the ignorant, the incompetent and/or the insane." More advanced things are handled elsewhere--in the pages of professional science journals, for example. But we are here to talk about the same thing over and over again, because it's new to someone every day--someone who just doesn't know the things that we consider obvious and basic. We're here for that new person--just like the teacher who says the same thing every semester to a different classroom. If we're going to just write off the creationists as not worth addressing, then we'll all just sit around like Homer Simpson saying "Everybody's stupid except me."
steve · 11 March 2005
If Tim is right about is the entire purpose of Panda's Thumb, then no problem. Perhaps I was under the mistaken idea that it was for more than repetitive arguments with creationists. It certainly has been more than this, or i wouldn't have written what I did.
Mike Dunford · 11 March 2005
Ed:
I didn't mean to imply that all university-level students are not eager, attentative, or enthusiastic. Many are, and this becomes more apparent in the upper division classes where the majority of students in the class are interested in the material. There's just something about the level of enthusiasm seen in the elementary school kids that's different from what I see at the university level. I think it might be that not as much of the wonder has worn off for the younger kids.
As far as the questions are concerned, I'd honestly be happy if I heard similar questions from students in intro-level bio classes. I might be a bit disappointed if I heard them in upper division classes.
Russell · 11 March 2005
Two thoughts on the wonder level of grade-school vs. university (science) students.
A lot of grade school kids have not yet been hit with the "school as resumé cultivation" idea. They still think they're there more to learn than to "excel".
Secondly, a lot of university students in science classes are "pre-med". And while some of my best friends are MDs...
badger3k · 11 March 2005
Very interesting story, and one that gives me hope. I am currently looking into an accelerated Teaching course, that would make me a Biology (or Science) teacher starting in the fall. I'm not sure where I want to focus (4-8/8-12), but hearing of an interest in real science from young children is heartening.
Keanus · 11 March 2005
As an occasional reader of PT and other evolution blogs, I often find the dialogue that develops as interesting as the original posting but I have to confess that I find the presence of our resident trolls rather damaging. I don't mind those folks, ignorant of biology and evolution who are seeking to understand the two, even if they don't accept it---they are the folks I think PT is trying to reach---but I find the active presence of John Davidson, DaveScot, Floyd Lee, DonkeyKong and a few others to be repetitive and wholly unenlightening. In fact whenever they show up in a new thread, they try to dominate it, causing it to disintegrate into a rehash of the same trite nonsense, and the discourse deteriorates into a silly rhetorical exercise in who can score the most points. There is no exchange. There is no learning. There is no respect. They just co-opt PT for their own propaganda. Bah! Ethically they are the same as hijackers, taking over something that isn't theirs to take and destroying it for everyone.
When I first began reading PT, about six to ten months ago, I followed the threads into which they injected themselves, assuming they would have something original and of value that would elicit constructive dialogue between two opposing views. But I've since concluded that their only aim is to disrupt and interfere. Each is like the maladjusted kid who won't play with his or her peers by the rules but instead wants to run away with the ball or throw it over the fence and then taunt everyone else. I believe PT should respond to ID/creationists constructively when they appear, without derision or belittlement, but when they descend to the boorish behavior of the aforementioned persons (or similarly behaving supporters of evolution), we should ignore them. Inattention, which is the last thing they seek, will eventually drive them away.
Keanus · 11 March 2005
Having added my two cents on trolling and having ignored the point of the thread, I'll try to post some obervations and thoughts about education, drawn from my years as a science text book editor/publisher, later tonight or tomorrow morning, when I've got some free time to jot off some thoughts.
NelC · 11 March 2005
It's not so much that one loves to feed trolls, as feeling forced by the lameness of some of the remarks to respond. And then one gets drawn into a spiral of lameness, as dumb remark is laid on dumb remark until one gets quite dizzy and loses touch with sanity and good manners.
Really, I think the lesson is to talk to anyone until they get silly or abusive (or snide or smug or whatever) enough to annoy. And then stop. Because at that point it should be obvious that no useful communication will occur.
But it's idle to pretend that suddenly we're all going to get sensible and stop feeding the trolls when there's no mechanism in place to help us curb our instinctive reactions. The problem has become bad enough that some kind of moderation is probably going to be necessary soon.
I think you could start off with posting some simple rules. The two big problems are verbal abuse and repetitive questions. They can be dealt with fairly straight-forwardly. For repetitive questions that have been answered a zillion times already, then anybody can point the questioner at An Index of Creationist Claims, for example.
In the case of abuse, a poster who is abused could send a message to a moderator. The moderator could then ask for an apology, or in the case of persistent offenders, simply ban them. (Asking for an apology is a vital step in sorting the merely excited from the vexatious, and can also help to calm things down.)
If you have some posted rules and recognised moderators, you can also enforce rules like "Do not feed the trolls" more easily.
Yeah, it's going to require a little extra work, especially in the beginning when the vexatious will be pushing the system to see where it breaks. But you know it's going to have to be done. They aren't going to go away on their own.
BTW, have a quick read of Flaming and the Design of Social Software.
FL · 11 March 2005
Flint · 11 March 2005
FL:
Congratulations. You seem to have identified an exception. Keanus should have said "over 99% of the time" so as to permit you this space. After all, the First Church of Darwin doesn't believe in absolutes!
Henry J · 11 March 2005
Re "The notion that small changes over time can lead to incredible complexity and beauty is not an easy one to envision."
Yep.
Re "Evolution works over time scales that cannot be understood using common sense. "
Yeah, trying to directly watch it happening would be a bit like watching grass grow. Or glaciers move. Or continents drift. Or Pluto make its way around the sun (a few centuries?). Or the solar system creep around the center of the galaxy every 200 MY more or less. Well, maybe not that last one; evolution is way faster than our galactic orbit.
Henry
DonkeyKong · 11 March 2005
jeff-perado said
"Shame on you DonkeyKong.
What is brainwashing kids?
Telling them that there is a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, a tooth fairy, a god . . . .
Brainwashing is indoctrination into a belief system that is not provable. And there is no more proof about god than there is about the tooth fairy.
But science is provable, and evolution, as a science, is provable, and is what should be taught."
1) Evolution is not provable. Science doesn't prove things, it merely fails to disprove things for an extended period of time.
2) Most of modern evolution theory is modern precisely because the biogenesis predictions have proven wrong as has the survival of the fittest etc etc etc. Natural selection is defined as the thing that selects but what the selection criteria that Natural Selection uses keeps changing.
3) Evolution as a past event is no more provable than aliens comming to Earth and dropping of varied species. The alien theory is merely less attractive due to an unexplained aspect namely the aliens. It is however no less proven.
4) Evolution claims that random mutations are capable of making new species but the mechanisms are unknown. Creationists claim that God made species but the mechanism is unknown. It is only through a profound lack of understanding of the ramifications of random processes can you see one as superior to the other or vice versa.
5) Evolution fails to make detailed predictions that stand the test of time. The majority of the "Enlightened" "Scientific" "Evolution" crap of the last 50 years has been disproven. Life on Jupiter, venus, moon, mars, biogenesis, DNA, complexity of life being related to complexity of DNA secuences etc etc etc...
You are fools who try and brainwash kids on religious matters.....History has a place for you next to the guys arguing about Angels on a pin.
DonkeyKong · 11 March 2005
bcpmoon said
"I knew little more than what I had been taught in school quite a while ago. I knew the theory to be correct because of its beauty, but at the end, I realized that I did not really, really know what the current state-of-the-art was, so I started reading on the topic. (And I wanted to make sure that I had told my nephew the truth - and not with a capital T).
Actually, I was astonished and delighted about the vast amount of data gathered, the great science being done and the refined theories discussed. It is my favourite pasttime now."
Your honesty is refreshing. You know it is true but you don't know what the theory is...Trust me that is not SCIENCE its MYSTISM.
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Andrew Wyatt
Please tell me what the probability distribution is for the likely time that it too for monkeys to evolve into humans.
Base this on the mechanism of random mutation not on the fossil record.
Evolution as a mechanism, if you understood it would give you a probability distribution for how long it takes to make the transition from Ape to Human.
Your inability to PREDICT this very simple very small relatively speaking and in your opinion very uncontestable fact gives your con job away.
You don't understand evolution. Yet you claim it is fact and you try to brainwash little kids with it.
In a strict seperation of anti-church and state sence that is UN-AMERICAN.
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Katarina
The statistical evidence against evolution is immense. As a random event you are more unlikely than randomely picking one atom out of the universe letting it go shuffling the universe and then randomly picking the same atom and then releasing it and randomly picking it again.....again....again....again....
more than 21.5 million times always picking the same atom EVERY TIME.
The burden of proof is clearly on the evolution theorists and not on the sceptics.
PS the above assumed that you ONLY had bases from which to choose. In reality the odds are much much worse.
Math used (real science is done with numbers).
number of bases 4
number of bases in human genome 4300000000
odds of randomly making you out of a vat of bases 4^430000000
Number of particles in universe ~10^100
Odds of randomly making you from vat reexpressed
16^2150000000>10^2150000000
Ods of picking random partical in universe 21500000 times.
(10^100)^21500000=10^2150000000
Boronx · 12 March 2005
I'm convinced that growth of the human brain almost stops at puberty. Before that point, kids just soak everything up. Learning is the default state. Afterwords, learning is something you do with effort, or it least in more limited channels.
We absolutely must be exposing these kids to as many ideas and as much knowledge as possible. And professionals ought to spend much more time exposing *themselves* to their natural creativity.
Donkey Kong wrote:
Math used (real science is done with numbers).
Not really true, but let's talk numbers: How many non-random selections did you figure into your model, how did they effect your final result, and how come you didn'tb mention them in your post? ( real science is done with integrity )
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Boronx
I stated an assertion.
I provided numerical explaination that shows my assertion correct.
It is in your court to show a function that provides a greater likelyhood of evolution.
Evolution has theorised such a function but so far has been unable to demonstrate it in any falsifable form.
The lack of addressing this major hurdle is an indication of the lack of integrity of evolution.
Even the smallest known self replicating lifeforms would involve catching and releasing and catching and releasing the same atom 25 times or so.
Math to support
estimated size of minimum life
5000 bases
4 types of base
4^5000>10^2500>=(10^100)^25
Guys and Gals....It is exceeding unlikely that I am the only person here who knows how to use math so I shall await your rebuttal using math and explaining how you overcome these staggeringly unlikely events.
My Integrity deserves your Integrity
Marek14 · 12 March 2005
And whirlwind blowing through junkyard has about the same chance to make a functional Boeing 727.
Please, read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ before you start to use the probability argument. Honestly, did you think this is the first time someone came up with this computation? And evolutionists responded to it, and to me, it looks like the response is good.
Boronx · 12 March 2005
DonkeyKong:
You've very effectively argued against the spontaneous formation of life, but that's an argument against creationism, not against evolution. To address evolution, you need to include non-random selection in your model. That drastically changes probability calculations. And it is falsifiable: all you have to do is show that the form and function of organisms has no bearing on survivability.
Or, if you don't like proving negatives, you could simply try to invalidate classic experiments by redoing them. I hope you do that because I'm sure we'll all learn something from it.
Again, if you're not dealing with selection, you're not dealing with evolution.
As to the nature of the first lifeform, that's an area I've never studied, but your "proof by lack of imagination" is probably foolish and certainly insufficient.
There's no reason, indeed, no expectation, that the first life form needed to be a fraction as efficient as the least complex cell known today. Consequently, minimum complexity needed for competitive life today does not imply any minimum complexity at the dawn of life.
Also, there's no need to assume that the process that formed life was random.
Ian Musgrave · 12 March 2005
Ian Musgrave · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Many people are talking about evolution as though it is a proven fact.
While I am not denying that evolution is possible I am unaware of any proof that it is a fact.
By evolution I am reffering to the "all life has 1 common ancestor" version rather than "species can develop new traits over time."
The second statement I know of adequate examples to be convinced of it's soundness.
However the "all life from from 1 ancestor" is far from proven in as far as I am aware.
Personally I believe that "intelligent design" is a possibility worthy of serious consideration instead of a kneejerk reaction (either for or against).
wildlifer · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Posted by wildlifer on March 12, 2005 06:36 AM
Evolution has occured. That's the fact. It's the mechanisms for how it happened that are argued by science.
If it is a fact. Then what are the examples of evidence that all life evolved from a single common ancestor?
What exactly is the relationship between Spiders and trees (in the form of a common ancestor).
As far as I can see Neo-Darwinism may be true. I don't know it as a proven fact though.
Why give me a short sharp (hostile?) answer instead of 1 or 2 examples of scientific evidence that all life on Earth evolved from 1 simple life form?
jeff-perado · 12 March 2005
DonkeyKong:
Your "mathematical" claim is flawed, first the 4 bases are not independant, so all your calculations based on that are wrong. Second, in higher mathematics, all assumptions are stated at the outset. So all you've done is exponentiate very large numbers with very large numbers, resulting in a very large number, nothing else.
For example: I wish to prove that there is no such thing as the person who goes by DonkeyKong.
6.5*10^9*4.5*10^9=the odds that you exist. Meaning that this calculation is meaningless, and just an excercise in big number multiplication.
Do some valid math, and we will assuredly discuss it, make useless calculations, and it will be ignored.
As they say in math, "the rest is trivial."
Many people speak of gravity as though it were a proven fact....
The process of evolution, just like the process of gravity is proven fact, but many of the underlying details are still being investigated.
Since science knows less about gravity than it does about evolution; or radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing), then I suggest you rethink your views on science. (For the record, both gravity and radiation are major factors in our determination of the facts of evolution. This explains why we have some questions left to answer about evolution, because other branches of science (like gravity) are still developing.
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Posted by jeff-perado on March 12, 2005 06:59 AM
"The process of evolution, just like the process of gravity is proven fact, but many of the underlying details are still being investigated."
I thought relativity had disproved Newtonian gravity.
Although when talking about gravity most people would give examples and observations.
ie Falling objects or tidal effects, maybe planetary motion.
Two answers about evolution and not one example so far.
For all I know evolution may be true, but why no examples of how it has been proven?
jeff-perado · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliot:
Here's one example of evolution that you have to accept. Prove your ancestery all the way back to Adam and Eve, including all your grandfathers and grandmothers. As you can quickly see, even taking that task back (only) 1000 years is nearly impossible. If I added the caveat that you must provide concrete proof, bones, then it is impossible.
From that (admittedly absurd) challenge, it is easy to see that is impossible, and thus proves you don't exist, if you can't prove your entire heritage. That is precisely what you ask of evolution.
Evolution has as its primary guide (excluding human intuition) a fossil record, and the record we have proves evolution to a high degree of satisfaction.
So, in answer to your challenge, if you can't prove your heritage, including fossil record, back a mere 1,000 years, then I fail to see where your challenge to evolution to prove an unbroken chain back 3.5 billion years merits any real response. for you claim that all the work done to dig up what evidence we have to prove evolution is real is any more or less valid than your futile attempts to prove your very existence through fossil records for the last 1,000 years. If you claim evolution is not real, then I can only claim you are not real.
Now, in your freshman response to my comments on gravity, I never mentioned NEWTONIAN gravity. I was, in fact, speaking of 21st century theories of gravity. For example, is gravity merely an effect of the warping of space-time and not a force, or is it a force, with its requisite particle/wave properties. If it is a warping of space-time, is it instantaneous; if it is a particle/wave, does it interract at light speed, or slower? Science knows so little about gravity, that, by the definition of anti-evolutionists, it should not even be mentioned in science books. Prove that wrong, and win yourself a Nobel prise. Since modern science can't even decide if gravity is a force or an effect, this would guarantee your recording in the history of science if you answer that. Since evolution is much further along than gravity, I made my comments. Evolution has its fossil record to prove it, gravity only has a mathematical effect, that is explained in every freshman science book I've ever read.
Sorry for this slap down, but you need to accept science for what it is.
bcpmoon · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Jeff-Perado
Why do I need to trace my ancestry to prove I exist?
Surely the simple fact that I experiencing life should be enough.
How does the fossil record prove a single common ancestor for all life on Earth?
I am just asking for examples? Why do you seem to find that offensive?
I get the impression that you consider me to have some religious goal. Well I do not. That is not to say I refute the possibility of God. I don't do that either. As of now I am undecided.
But constantly saying evolution is proven without giving any examples does not seem a very rational way to persuade somebody.
Back to comparing evolution to gravity.
I believe in gravity because when I was being taught about it experiments and observations showed it to be a valid theory.
From what I have been told about evolution that does not hold true.
Electro magnetism is taught with the aid of showing effects as is most branches of science.
What exactly have I missed with regards to evolution?
On this whole message board I have yet to see "evolution is proven because (insert a few good observational proofs)"
You mention the fossil record. How does that "prove" evolution?
Which fossils show that all life is formed from a common ancestor?
I am not saying evolution is false. Just that I have yet to be shown anything that makes it scientifically the most likely explanation for life in it's diversity.
The Messenger · 12 March 2005
May I please answer some of the charges that I read yesterday. (I confess that I have not had time to read everything here) I did note that Jeff-perado suggested that we teach truth and Jim suggested that some are not willing to teach the truth. As for me personally, I would love to be able to teach the Truth both in Sunday School and in public schools. This is not allowed in the USA. There is nothing I would like better than to teach children that God's word is truth. I would like to be able to introduce them to the One who has changed my life. I would like to tell them of how He forgives sin and transforms lives. Because of the interpretation of the first amendment, this is illegal and I am a law abiding citizen. Some people do not agree on 'Truth'. Perhaps some of you who know the Lord, will understand my position and not be so quick to throw darts. Whatever you believe, I hope that you will understand why a person's personal agenda needs to be left behind at the school house door. Evolution has become like a religion to many of you. You repeat what you hear others say and "believe" what you think occurred millions of years ago. You seem to leave little room for error in your 'belief'. Consider this... No one is asking you to give up in any way using, applying, or teaching the scientific method of discovery. Every teacher that I know, every teacher that I have known, or that I have read uses and approves of this method. It it some of the interpretations of the data that varies. Isn't this what learning is all about? Once again I ask you to consider your own agenda.
Katarina · 12 March 2005
Donkey Kong,
Sorry I could not respond earlier but Boronx responded similarly to what I have in mind. Though I do not have a hearty interest in statistics and probabilities, it is easy to see the flaw in your (and William Dembski's) reasoning. It is that you imagine instant assembly of the chromosome.
Dembski's books sounds to me like this, and maybe I am just making a caricature, but let's at least have a chuckle:
I tossed a coin 10 x 10^67 times, and it was not always heads. This lead me to conclude that the instant assembly of genes could not even produce an ameoba, let alone a human being.
DUH!
Regarding earlier comments about troll feeding:
I don't regard FL as a troll, mostly when I tune in (perhaps not as often as many of you) he sounds reasonable. Many of the troll feeders can be abusive and insulting though. That is not a good way to win people to one's point of view. As long as we remain kind and courteous, this site will benefit everyone.
NelC · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliot, a message board is hardly the place for a complete explanation of evolutionary theory, and you know it. Stop wasting everybody's time and energy, please.
If you have a genuine desire for knowledge then I suggest some research. You can start reading here. Might I also recommend various works by one Chas. Darwin? Don't go for the controversial tomes first, start with his lighter stuff. Say, The Voyage of the Beagle first, followed by The Various Contrivances by Which Orchids are Fertilized by Insects or The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals or Coral Reefs. Get those under your belt, then maybe you'll be ready for The Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, before making a dash for The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.
Some of them are quite expensive, it's true, but you can also get hold of them through interlibrary loan, and whatever your beliefs, I think you'll find it well worth the effort to read the originals, rather than rely on hearsay.
NelC · 12 March 2005
"Whatever you believe, I hope that you will understand why a person's personal agenda needs to be left behind at the school house door."
Messenger, a quote about motes and beams comes to mind. It's because religion is so very personal that it has to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. The proper place to learn a religion is in the church or at home. Be satisfied with that.
caerbannog · 12 March 2005
Steven Elliott said:
Why give me a short sharp (hostile?) answer instead of 1 or 2 examples of scientific evidence that all life on Earth evolved from 1 simple life form?
Although I can't give you one simple piece of evidence that "proves" all life evolved from "1 simple life form", how about an example of some "smoking-gun" scientific evidence that shows that humans and other great apes evolved from a common ancestor?
That smoking-gun would be "endogenous retroviruses". The pattern of shared endogenous retroviruses seen in the genomes of great apes (humans, chmpanzees, gorillas, etc...) provides the "slam-dunk" evidence for evolution. A significant portion of our genomes consists of the "wreckage" of ancient viral infections; our (human) DNA is littered with old, "dead" viruses and virus chunks (aka endogenous retroviruses). And so is the DNA of all other great apes. And you know what? In many cases, we have the same chunks of old viral code in the same exact locations in our genomes as other apes have in their genomes. You can read more about this at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254. And of course, feel free to google up more info if you wish.
So it turns out that the same sort of DNA sequencing that has provided "smoking-gun proof" of guilt or innocence in many a murder or rape trial has also revealed patterns of shared endogenous retroviruses in ape genomes, providing scientists with what can be called with little exaggeration "smoking-gun proof" of evolution.
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Nel C
I was not asking for a complete explanation of evolutionary theory and you know that.
All I wanted was a few examples.
I am sorry if you found my questions offensive.
I would have thought less time and energy would have been required to give a couple of examples than write that list of related material.
This is the first time I have visited this site and was just asking for some information. It is suprising that a few questions would seemingly cause offense.
I have printed off your list however and will check their availability at my local library. I am sure they will order them if not in stock.
But good grief if I went to a physics site and asked for a few examples of evidence for electro magnetic theory I expect a more positive and less defensive response would have been forthcoming.
Katarina · 12 March 2005
Caerbannog,
Thank you for the "smoking gun" and the graet article link. I saved it for future use. Perhaps troll feeding is not so useless?
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Cearbannog,
Thank you for your reply and link.
I will go and read that site now.
Obviously most people do not like questions here, so wont bother to return.
Marek 14 · 12 March 2005
Well, I don't think it's some aversion to questions. It's just that people ask the same questions all over. In my time here (which is not that long), almost nothing said here against evolution could be called "original". Please, understand that people here grew accustomed to evolution deniers throwing impossible tasks on them. "Proving evolution" is one of the common ones. Either they want an absolute proof (which is not possible) or they simply won't acknowledge any proofs they get. It's a lose/lose situation.
My guess is that you got put in one bag with people like that. From what you write, it sounds like it was unjustified - but people here are wary. Don't hold it against them, please.
Ed Darrell · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Having read the link posted bt Cearbannog(a few times),
and encouraged to reply by Marek 14's post,
I have a few questions.
To Cearbannog 1st.
I found the site a bit difficult to understand as it is mainly written in specialist subject language from an area I am not conversant with.
I believe the gist of it shows that by looking at the DNA sequence of various primates certain areas can be identified to have been modified by viral infections.
By selecting several of these (now non existing) viruss' and comparing where they occur in the same place of the DNA sequence between species then going backwards in time it can be seen where various species convene.
Following the path of common infections backwards enables a tree of development/divergence to be constructed.
Unfortunately I could not read the diagrams as they apeared too small on my monitor even when expanded.
But have I got the basic idea right? It will take me some time to read and apreciate the article properly (as I said the language is unfamiliar to me).
Marek 14.
It is hardly suprising the same questions are asked repeatedly by people new to the site. Surely every subject experiences that from people trying to learn.
Is there not a faq page to where people such as myself can be refered so regular/long term users of this site do not need to constantly answer the same questions repeatedly?
As for "proof" I would not expect "incontrovertible proof" from any subject. Just an indication of most probable explanation.
Dan S. · 12 March 2005
Stephen, I would also like to apologize. Have you ever tried to talk to two people having an noisy argument only to have one of them turn to you and go "WHAT?!" to your meek "um . . .excuse me?" That's some of what happened. The same-old-questions problem is another reason.
Your definition: "By evolution I am reffering to the "all life has 1 common ancestor" version rather than "species can develop new traits over time."" is oddly restrictive (and seems a little like goalpost-moving, honestly). Indeed, all of life having one common ancestor doesn't have to be part of evolution, although that seems to a description of how things worked out. It's possible to imagine living things here on earth having entirely different origins, but we haven't found them yet (though wouldn't it be cool if some newly discovered organelle in some little studied organism turned out to be a whole different ball of wax?) We can't prove one common ancestor by fossils, as commonly understood - the last common ancestor of spiders and trees would have been pretty small, and while we may well find it (or already have!), I don't think we'll get that much useful info from its remains. However, scientists have been comparing the DNA of various organisms in order to sketch out the tree of life (with some very surprising discoveries), and that's where you want to look. Other folks on this site can point you to useful links, etc, having more knowledge of the subject than me. On top of that, the basic similarity of life strongly suggests that conclusion, but isn't a clincher by itself.
"Back to comparing evolution to gravity.
I believe in gravity because when I was being taught about it experiments and observations showed it to be a valid theory.
From what I have been told about evolution that does not hold true.
Electro magnetism is taught with the aid of showing effects as is most branches of science."
" . . .But good grief if I went to a physics site and asked for a few examples of evidence for electro magnetic theory I expect a more positive and less defensive response would have been forthcoming."
Uh-huh. That's because electromagnetic theory doesn't have to defend itself from well funded, astonishing persistent attacks resulting from fear and a very specific and limited understanding of religious doctrine.
And c'mon, everyone knows it's geology that's next! And once they reform the rest of the sciences, we can all happily reaffirm St. Augustine's wise words:
"Nor need we be afraid lest the Christian should be rather ignorant of the force and number of the elements, the motion, order and eclipses of the heavenly bodies, the form of the heavens, the kinds and natures of animals, shrubs and stones ... It is enough for the Christian to believe that the cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is none other than the goodness of the Creator, who is the one true God."
Sorry, snark attack.
But imagine dealing with folks who insist, constantly, that we should teach in public school, as science, that things fall down because they're made up of the Elements of Earth and Water, at least enough to counterbalance any contribution from Air and Fire, or that magnets work because they have a soul?
And evolution working, in the present tense is kinda hard to display for direct observation in the science classroom (though you could, to some degree) - but especially by your odd definition of evolution. I mean, you say that the main part of the theory has been proven to your satisfaction, and then quibble about the rest . . . (which has pretty good support). That's why some folks responding as if you were simply trolling, instead of asking a sincere (I would like to think) question.
Responding to the discussion about the purpose of PT - if we want to be helpful, we shouldn't expect folks to be knowledgable. Yeah, it would be great if people read a pop-science book or two easily available from local libraries and bookstores, or looked at basic FAQs, but if we let trolls condition us to respond to any question revealing a lack of understanding with a muttered "Go read an effing book, ignoramus!" it won't do us any good . . . I'm exaggerating a little, yes, but still . . .
Oh, and back to the original point of the post (what was it again?) I don't think that sort of wonder ever really dies -it just goes underground. I've always loved learning about science, and had no problem memorizing science facts, but when it came to doing science in the most rudimentary sense - being actively curious - I was useless. From science fairs to high school labs to college, nothing. Then I took a Teaching of Science class that was very much focused on discovery learning and - wow! You can explore, and test things out, and question, and wonder! They're really doing neat things with science ed. that every kid should get to experience. - Mike, it sounds like your daughter's 2nd grade teacher definitely knows that . . . .
Russell · 12 March 2005
Thoughts on troll feeding:
Let's assume that Stephen Elliott is sincere, and wants some information. Perhaps through no fault of his own, his question bears a strong resemblance to the usual request from a creationist for an excuse to repeat the same old annoying canards.
So thinking you're following the advice: "please do not feed the trolls", you ignore Stephen Elliott, and he assumes there is no response to be had.
What would actually be useful, I think, is to encourage the practice of simply responding with a link to a TO FAQ, or some such place where the issue in question has been thoughtfully and thoroughly dealt with. No name-calling or accusations necessary. If it's a sincere request, the requestor will be grateful. If it's a troll, he'll reveal himself as such when he willfully misconstrues the provided information (at which point, ignore him).
The other issue is if some troll places a bit of misinformation in a comment, say, with an authoritative looking reference (for instance, "some prokaryotes have genomes several times the size of a human's") we do a disservice by not challenging it.
But remember: if you just respond by calling the commenter a &@#!!ing *@^!**!, but provide no useful information, the trollorists have won!
FL · 12 March 2005
Ed Darrell · 12 March 2005
Russell · 12 March 2005
FL: I have spent a large fraction of my life studying viruses, including retroviruses. I will be happy to address your questions, but I'm not going to go through that huge dump in a probably futile effort to sort out what your questions actually are . If you can distill it down to something that would fit in a reasonable sized comment - preferrably in your own words rather than cutting and pasting - I'll take you up on it.
Otherwise, I just assume you're trolling.
Dan S. · 12 March 2005
"I would like to be able to introduce them to the One who has changed my life. I would like to tell them of how He forgives sin and transforms lives."
In science class?!
"Children, we have a very special guest today . . .
Of course, if you ask him questions, he might not e-mail you back like that nice fellow from last week, but instead thunder
"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
. . .
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
. . .
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
. . ..
Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?
. .
Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
Canst thou number the months that they fulfil? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
. . .
Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her's: her labour is in vain without fear;
Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding. . . "
Which is marvelous, marvelous poetry, but maybe not so great as geology, astronomy, biology . . .
" I did note that Jeff-perado suggested that we teach truth and Jim suggested that some are not willing to teach the truth. As for me personally, I would love to be able to teach the Truth"
Ah, but you see, capitals matter. I'm all for teaching the little-t truth - that's what science classes are meant to do, as far as we can see it at this moment. While teaching the truth often causes arguments, teaching the Truth, as government policy, often causes war.
And what on *earth* was that yesterday about "Early elementary school children need to learn to enjoy the wonder of world around them while being taught the skills to master reading and mathematics. Instead, they have become pawns in a political fight by those who want to shape their minds."
What are you *talking* about?? The evolution issue is mainly in high school!! What are you referring to?
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
After several google searches I found this site:-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Was nobody aware of this site?
Or were people unwilling to direct me because I was considered a troll?
I am little dissapointed and very suprised by the initial hostile reaction to my questions. I can assure you all they were not asked from malice just open curiosity.
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
Sorry people.
Just noticed that this site is listed on the link I posted.
I can imagine you would believe I arived here through talkorigins site.
I did not, my initial google search brought me here directly.
Michael Rathbun · 12 March 2005
Russell · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott:
that's the site I was referring to by "TO FAQ" in #19747. Sorry we were not more forthcoming.
Stephen Elliott · 12 March 2005
"Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 12, 2005 02:18 PM
You face a problem similar to one you might have if you were to wander into a traditional hollywood wild-west saloon during a bar fight and somebody clocks you with a bottle just as you get through those swingin' doors.
Rummage about the site a bit and you'll get a feel for the joint."
That made me laugh.
Certainly sums up how it felt from my end.
Dan S. · 12 March 2005
"That made me laugh.
Certainly sums up how it felt from my end."
Again, sorry! You showed up at a bad time in the thread - far enough down that anyone with strong feelings on the matter who was reading straight through might be ready to just start smacking people - and perhaps a bad time for PT, if what folks are saying about a troll surge is true (haven't noticed). My apologies.
I hope you find a lot of interesting information, whatever you might think of it . . . I sometimes wish we could get more consensus that everyone on either side thinks that it's a pretty amazing and wonderous word, wherever you go from there . . .
(But then again, I'd be the little guy quietly sitting in the library, far away from the bar fight, or worse, trying to get everyone to just calm down shake hands . . .. )
In terms of how living things are related, recent research has really come up with some amazing things. For example, It looks like everything that we usually think of when we think of life (trees, spiders, mold, amoebas) seems to be just one teeny branch on the tree of life. Plus, all animals seem to be bound together (by shared bits of DNA and general methods of organization far more than previously realized, - there's a nifty, very readable book about this called Chance in the House of Fate . . .
So why didn't we just tell Steve to take a look at Talk.Origins? I really think the trolls are getting to people. And I've just hit upon the perfect solution, one that doesn't involve copying slashdot or anything like that. My epiphany occurred over at Pharyngula, when I read the lines "the experiment involved making up slurries of smegma and smearing it or injecting it into folds of skin on mice . . ."
Henry J · 12 March 2005
Ed,
Re "But my views of nature are really Christian. I believe God created the Earth and the universe. Consequently, I believe the Earth, life on it, and the entire cosmos, manifests God. I believe it cannot manifest anything falsely."
Well put. In the ten years I've being paying attention to this subject, I never have figured out why some people think belief in a creator to be contrary to the notion of animals (and plants, fungi, microbes, etc.) having ancestors.
Henry
Henry J · 12 March 2005
Re "What exactly is the relationship between Spiders and trees (in the form of a common ancestor)."
In the diagram on Eukaryotes , spiders are within the topmost line, trees are in the 8th of the 9 lines on that diagram.
Henry
Gary Hurd · 12 March 2005
DaveScot · 12 March 2005
The problem with allowing neo-Darwinism to be criticized is that, as atheist Richard Dawkins put it, there is an overwhelming appearance of design in life.
Dawkins didn't say "overwhelming" just to be cute. The appearance of design is indeed so overwhelming that even a 9th grader with a modicum of intelligence is going to see it. Conversely, it takes volumes of esoteric neo-Darwinian babble to begin to dispute the overwhelming appearance of design.
Since very, very few of the students will actually go on to any further study of neo-Darwinian theory this will severly restrict the growth of atheism. I've already pointed to polls which show that 72% of AAAS member scientists positively deny the existence of God, while another 20% are merely agnostic (like me), leaving only 7% with an affirmative belief in God, so don't try to blow smoke up my a$$ saying the neo-Darwin side isn't driven by atheists.
This isn't about science. It's about two faith-based philosophies - atheism vs. theism. I condemn both for the ideologic knuckleheads that are making a mockery of science with their dogmatic beliefs. Science is agnostic. I've loved science of all kinds my entire life. I made a fortune as a computer scientist. This dogmatism in evolution disgusts the living sh!t out of me. I can understand the low-IQ types clinging to their religious fairy tales. I don't respect them but I understand their fear-borne ignorance. What I don't understand is fear and ignorance of the same nature in highly intelligent people like those that frequent this blog.
Marek14 · 12 March 2005
I don't know - it might depend on your upbringing. I know that I never, even as a kid, seen any appearance of design in nature. I still don't.
Marek14 · 12 March 2005
And my upbringing was not atheistic, but agnostic - in my whole childhood nobody ever talked about religion. I was quite old before I even realized the existence of such a concept. That might be the reason why I grew up to be, well... alienated from the very concept of belief.
Dan S. · 12 March 2005
If that quote is real (all I can find online so far are unattributed quotes on ID websites), note that Dawkins is stressing the *appearance* of design. I never saw any appearence of design in nature either; indeed, in the popular mind, these two thing are opposed. Think "natural" instead of "designed" or "manufactured." In term of aesthetics, you'll get people making things that are intended to look "natural" instead of "manmade," with a specific set of traits - rounded, "organic" form, often lack of symmetry, etc. I know this isn't what you mean, but still . . .
"so don't try to blow smoke up my a$$ saying the neo-Darwin side isn't driven by atheists."
Although one could argue it's the other way 'round. More likely it's just the general pattern re: levels of education and religious belief. And you do realize that the AAAS is about other things beside evolution, right? I guess it is all the product of evil atheists . . .
" . . . as a computer scientist. "
Ah. That explains it. Like the engineers.
NelC · 12 March 2005
Stephen Elliott, if you're not a crypto-creationist doing the "Shucks, I don't believe in God, but I've never come into contact with any evolutionary theory in my life, ever, so tell me all about it" jive that is all too common, then I heartily apologise for doubting you.
Again, I urge you to read browse the website I suggested, and check out the books I mentioned. If you find Darwin's Victorian English a little heavy going, then Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections are easier on the modern ear, and you'll find many examples of evidence for evolution of the type you were asking about.
Great White Wonder · 12 March 2005
Engineer-Poet · 12 March 2005
steve · 12 March 2005
Karl Lembke · 12 March 2005
For some reason, I can't send you a trackback ping through haloscan any more.
Oh well.
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
steve
Its the idea that popularity determines content that is at the heart of evolution.
The actual argument is weak. When you examine how unlikely the claim is in detail it becomes clear that evolutionists have a lot lot lot more work to do before their theory is even clearly testible.
But you don't want to hear that. The links to arguments that say we are not talking about how impossible A+B is we are only talking about B.
Well B is pretty much impossible too.
Oh not their is this magic Natural selection that we can't define in a manner that lends itself to testing. Is it gene competition, disease resistance, internal species arms race, fittest preditor, etc etc etc.
You can't tell me what it is that you believe and how it is less unlikely than blind chance which is very clearly amazingly stacked against you.
Science is not survivor. Voting people off your island is not how you indicate that your theory is correct.
I will repeat my challenge.......
Demonstrate with Numbers (you know 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) how likely or unlikely it is to have a Ape->man transition either in terms of years or generations. Please express this rather simple bit of data in graph form.
Surely you DO actually know this....or no?
Gary Hurd · 12 March 2005
steve · 12 March 2005
shorter Gary Hurd:
"You go to argue with the creationists you have, not the creationists you wish you had, or might have at a future time"
;-)
Russell · 12 March 2005
DonkeyDong: if no one takes you up on your challenge, most likely it's because it's totally incoherent, like most everything you post.
Were it possible to vote YOU off the site, I would. Not, mind you, for the purpose of "proving a theory"; more in the spirit I might spray the kitchen for cockroaches.
Please don't respond to this comment; just go away.
Boronx · 13 March 2005
DonkeyKong:
The arguments in favor of the notion that man is an ape are not for the most part based on probability, but fossils, genetics, physiology etc.
Now, you seem to think you've made some probability based argument *against* that notion, but reading through your posts again, you have not bothered to do so, or even to link to another's argument. Given that, why ought anyone respond seriously to your insults?
BTW, the probability that Chimps and Humans have a common anscestor is 1, since it already happened.
Stephen Elliott · 13 March 2005
Hi people,
Well I have been reading articles on the talk origin site for about 3Hours yesterday evening and 9 hours today (my eyes hurt now).
I just thought I would say that on the whole it apears a very informative site and has tended to increase the strength of the evolution case in my mind.
However I am not totaly convinced yet (will definately read more).
The pages of ID qoutes and Evolutionist answers was informative but put both sides in a bad light.
Creationists do themselves no favours by arguing that if the World is more than 4,000 years old it means that God is cruel as life has no purpose without humans.
But on the other hand an evolutionist saying there can be no ID because spider webs are multifunctional (making webs, tunnels, sensors etc). Also defies logic as ropes/threads are also multifuntional (traps, stays, fastenings etc). And ropes/threads are obviously designed.
Emanuele Oriano · 13 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 13 March 2005
Emanuele Oriano
Ropes threads are obviously designe because we know that humans designed them.
Thae reason I mentioned them was because an article in the ID statement/Evolutionist answer section stated something along the lines of.
"spider threads are obviously not designed because they perform many functions...webs, tunnels, springs, sensors." Or words to that effect.
Well many human designed things also perform many functions not just ropes/threads. Concrete, bricks, girders, wire etc also are used for many functions.
My point was that because a item can be used for multiple purposes does not mean it was not designed.
I will try to post the statement in a minute.
By the way I am not an anti evolutionist creationist, just somebody who can see merit in both ideas.
Stephen Elliott · 13 March 2005
Claim CI141.1:
Similarity of structures in different life forms reflects the fact that they were created for similar purposes. Different structures reflect different functions.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 70.
Response:
Actual known designers use similar forms for similar functions and different forms for different functions. In life, we often see different forms for similar functions (e.g., different designs for bird, bat, and pterodactyl wings) and similar forms for different functions (e.g., spider webs for trapping flying insects, reinforcing tunnels, protecting eggs, transferring sperm, ballooning, marking a trail, serving as a safety line after jumping to escape a threat, and detecting motion).
This is what I was looking for.
The natural examples given to refute design also occur in human designed aparatus.
EG Different ways to achieve "ascendency" given by the various natural methods. Also apply to fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft Ballons and kites all of which have been designed by humans.
Before you think I am decrying all evolutionist ideas, I am not.
I am simply saying this seems a bad argument to refute design in nature.
Emanuele Oriano · 13 March 2005
Stephen,
I think you are simply misunderstanding the exchange.
The creationist claim being responded to is that similarity of structures depends on similarity of purpose, and therefore reveals design.
The response dismantles the claim by showing that in nature similar functions are often achieved by different structures and different functions are often achieved by similar structures, so the very first premise of the claim is false.
The fact that human designers can do the same has no bearing on this; the response is not a counter-claim that these things rule out design, but merely a rebuttal of the claim that these things necessarily imply design.
Stephen Elliott · 13 March 2005
Emanuele,
Yes you are right.
On re-reading it makes the original creationist claim even weaker if human designed objects can disprove the design argument.
Ron Zeno · 13 March 2005
Back to the original topic:
One of the most important goals of education should be to keep alive the curiosity, fascination, and enthusiasm that young children have for their world. If we can do this, hopefully they will continue to ask questions and look for ways to answer their questions.
Unfortunately, there are schools of thought that are diametrically opposed to this. Some are political, others religous, though the difference is entirely self-designated. To them, questions are only used to attack the beliefs of others, when questions are tolerated at all. They take advantage of others' tolerance to do what they can to further their own intolerance of questions and beliefs.
To encourage and nurture our children's curiosities, we do have to protect them from those who want to take it away from them. It's the price we pay for living in a tolerant society that even tolerates the intolerant.
Stuart Weinstein · 13 March 2005
The messenger gave us this chestnut:
"Jeff-perado suggest telling children the truth always is better than selling them a fantasy. My question to Jeff is this. Jeff, how will you recognize truth when you see it? How long did it take "Science" to recognize the truth of the "Piltdown Man"? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and "Science" to get the teaching of Neandertals right? How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright?"
And who figured out those corrections?
Was it scientists or was it the creationists and Bibolators?
DonkeyKong · 13 March 2005
Russell said
"DonkeyDong: if no one takes you up on your challenge, most likely it's because it's totally incoherent, like most everything you post."
Boronx said
"BTW, the probability that Chimps and Humans have a common anscestor is 1, since it already happened."
I am asking a very simple scientific question.
Does evolution or Does evoultion not have a expected rate of mutations per generation (I happen to know it does at least for humans). And using that rate of mutation is the Ape to Human consistent with the relatively small window of time available to it in geological time scales?
Before I present evidence I want you to all understand a very clear aspect of evolutoin that is different from other science. As a sceptic I am forced to present a number for mutations and then the evolutionists will attack it. This is a basic no nothing approach, please note that I asked for a mutation rate and was willing to allow evolution to make a testible claim as opposed to me makeing a testible counter claim. Proving a counter-argument false does not increase the liklyhood of the origional claim being valid.
Example I say you stole the money, your friend says Joe stole it, I prove Joe didn't steal it, that doesn't mean you stole it.
The failure of evolution to sign up to testible claims is an indication that it is not science. Again NOT SCIENCE.
Here is a very interesting website that details just the same argument from Ape to human. This gap in logic exists in every missing link gap in the fossil record.
Here is the link (which is not mine by the way).
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html
Again I state my willingness to use your number and discuss it if you find the links numbers unsatisfactory.
But in the absence of your ability to converse in the language of science I am at a loss on how to proceed.
Numbers Evolutionists.......Numbers.
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
"One of the most important goals of education should be to keep alive the curiosity, fascination, and enthusiasm that young children have for their world. If we can do this, hopefully they will continue to ask questions and look for ways to answer their questions. "
Amen. Support good science education! This goes far beyond evolution v. id, as y'all know. It's had something of a rocky road over the last two decades or so, in terms of exciting reforms fading away in many places, or so I hear. Additionally, pressure for high scores on state-mandated tests often mean that anything besides math and reading is treated as a lower priority in testing grades. What folks will do in a little bit when kids start being tested on social studies and science as well, I can't imagine. Crack, posssibly. (I mean that as a verb, but with the additional pressure, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you get a few using it as a noun)
Stuart Weinstein · 13 March 2005
DonkeyKong gave us these pearls of wisdom..
"The statistical evidence against evolution is immense. As a random event you are more unlikely than randomely picking one atom out of the universe letting it go shuffling the universe and then randomly picking the same atom and then releasing it and randomly picking it again . . . ..again . . . .again . . . .again . . . .
more than 21.5 million times always picking the same atom EVERY TIME.
The burden of proof is clearly on the evolution theorists and not on the sceptics.
PS the above assumed that you ONLY had bases from which to choose. In reality the odds are much much worse.
Math used (real science is done with numbers).
number of bases 4
number of bases in human genome 4300000000
odds of randomly making you out of a vat of bases 4^430000000
Number of particles in universe ~10^100
Odds of randomly making you from vat reexpressed
16^2150000000>10^2150000000
Ods of picking random partical in universe 21500000 times.
(10^100)^21500000=10^2150000000"
Nice math DonkeyKong. But apparently DonkeyKong's capacity for self-deception is so great that apparently he believes he lives in a universe without any rules; no gravity, no electromagnetism, no strong or weak nuclear forces, etc...
DonkeyKong seems to be under the impression that all natural phenomena are governed by "random processes"
I'm torn between these two alternative, either DonkeyKong is the poster child for brain damage or the poster child for better science education in the public schools.
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
"I just thought I would say that on the whole it apears a very informative site and has tended to increase the strength of the evolution case in my mind.
However I am not totaly convinced yet (will definately read more)."
I'm glad you like it! (But watch out for eyestrain!)
Whether or not you're totally convinced, I think the important thing is that people know where they kind find information, with some sense of how reliable it probably is. That's why the move to teach ID in high schools bugs me so much - at very, very best it's premature, and it sends all the wrong signals. Either teachers presents unreliable info as reliable, or they presents current ID arguments as bs, which many kids would see as an attack on religious beliefs. : (
My sense has always been, the more you find out, the more amazing (if sometimes in rather odd or unpleasant ways) the world appears . .
The spiderweb argument makes more sense as an argument first against (gradualist) evolution - how on earth could spiderweb-making evolve step by step - it must have been created! (aka "What good is half an eye?"), countered by - well, you can do a lot with spidersilk; presumably ur-spiders started out using it for (some of the additional functions) and then jut ran with it over the next 100 million years or so . . . (What big eyespots you have, Granny! All the better to see you with, dear, compared to no eye at all) - arguments that, as you probably read, today get applied to such relative obscurities as flagella and blood-clotting.
Actually - anybody know up to date info about spider evolution? Now I'm curious. I remember hearing about some sort of nifty discovery over the last year or two . . .?
I don't get the folks who start yelling about an evil conspiracy of Darwinian Fundies trying to brainwash kids. I mean, reading about Victorian anxiety (the foundations of society are crumbling! We must believe, and not let doubt undermine us!!), it sounds very, very similar, especially when you read Discovery Institute dribble, but that can't be the whole story, can it?
PT should develop some sort of "useful ways to argue" manual, especially since troll-jousting isn't necessarily the best kind of practice . . .
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
What is DK talking about? His Ape->Human challenge doesn't make sense at all. Ok, you have the idea of using mutation rate to date things (what (if anything) is the consensus on the approx. dates of human-chimp-gorilla splitting nowadays?). But then he seems to think we know enough to know all the changes that would need to take place, and is asking if the two match up? Or does he think that we have good enough fossil evidence to independently date, with great accuracy) when this occurred, and wants to see if the molecular evidence matches up? Or does he think scientists are saying that a chimp turned into a person and is really completely clueless? And why am I bothering?
What I meant to say was, good science education would a) give kids an idea of how science works, so you don't have folks like messenger all pissed about Piltdown and Peking Man (what is he talking about with that? Is it the old "It's just a giant gibbon!!!" silliness?), assuming that science is/passes itself off as some sort of revealed truth (more projection) and b) give people the idea that science is something that they can do, not some distant, unconnected thing - some gut feel for it, rather than viewing it as some alien thing. I think that would give them a firm footing for this and other debates, so whatever positions they take are based on reality, rather than (or less on) confusion, lies, fear, etc.
Jared Hoag · 13 March 2005
Hey everyone. I started reading this page last night and finished it today. Wow. It's several hundred KB by this point, and probably dead as an active discussion.
Despite that, I wanted to ask the following...
Is this a good place to talk with people who know their stuff when it comes to evolutionary theory and evolution vs. creationism? I am a fairly recently deconverted Christian, and have been struggling with evolutionary theory for a long time. During my Christian days, I pretty much ignored it, because that's what Christians typically do. But now I find it impossible to ignore.
I never went to high school, and never took biology in college...so I've never had formal "training" in evolutionary theory. I've gone to the talk origins pages and read through quite a few of them. I especially found the sections on transposons/ERVs to be especially compelling. But I have a lot of my own questions, and I've been trying to find a place to discuss my questions and possible enter into some civil debate.
Is this the place? If not, is there a better place? Thank you...
PS
I'm a PhD student in mathematics at Dartmouth College, and so I can say with some authority that DonkeyKong has no idea what (s)he is talking about. That is some of the poorest math I have ever seen in my life. Shame on you, DK.
steve · 13 March 2005
I'd recommed some background reading.
What Evolution Is
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465044255/104-8083228-2473517
Evolution : The Triumph of an Idea
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060958502/qid=1110759412/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8083228-2473517
Zimmer's blog is very good too
http://www.corante.com/loom/
DonkeyKong · 13 March 2005
"Posted by Dan S. on March 13, 2005 03:35 PM
What is DK talking about? His Ape->Human challenge doesn't make sense at all. Ok, you have the idea of using mutation rate to date things (what (if anything) is the consensus on the approx. dates of human-chimp-gorilla splitting nowadays?). But then he seems to think we know enough to know all the changes that would need to take place, and is asking if the two match up? Or does he think that we have good enough fossil evidence to independently date, with great accuracy) when this occurred, and wants to see if the molecular evidence matches up? Or does he think scientists are saying that a chimp turned into a person and is really completely clueless? And why am I bothering?
What I meant to say was, good science education would a) give kids an idea of how science works, so you don't have folks like messenger all pissed about Piltdown and Peking Man (what is he talking about with that? Is it the old "It's just a giant gibbon!!!" silliness?), assuming that science is/passes itself off as some sort of revealed truth (more projection) and b) give people the idea that science is something that they can do, not some distant, unconnected thing - some gut feel for it, rather than viewing it as some alien thing. I think that would give them a firm footing for this and other debates, so whatever positions they take are based on reality, rather than (or less on) confusion, lies, fear, etc."
Dan
If it is estimated to take 1 billion years to differenciate Humans from Apes it would be a fatal blow to evolution as we know that there isn't 1 billion years available. If it is 1 generation to differentiate Humans from Apes it would also be a fatal blow to evolution as we do not see this occur today. Your side theorizes that there is a mutation rate somewhere inbetween that is non-random in some way to avoid the spontaneous assembly issue but is also both fast enough and slow enough to be possible. I merely seek information on your theory.
The fact that you are talking about fossils is very indicative of the whole evolution mindset. You see A you see Z you theorize A->B->C....->Z but when someone wants a rudimentary explaination for B...Y your reaction is questioning if we think the fossil evidence of A or Z is good enough.
You have theorized B..Y now put up or shut up. No other branch of science tolerates this kind of wishy washy assertion without TESTIBILITY.
I SEEK TO TEST.
THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS! TESTING BY ANY 3RD PARTY.
Oh why do I bother.....you aren't about science anyway.
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
DK -
what are you talking about? I mean specifically, what exactly are you asking for? Folks have estimated, based on (the presumption of) the steady accumulation of random mutations unlikely to be exposed to selection pressure, that we and our closest primate relatives last shared a common ancestor a few million years ago (which was a bit of a surprise at first, since a lot of people had thought it was longer ago than that). This figure is reasonable given what we know so far. The ancestral ape fossil record isn't great for this period - which, if these guys lived in the kind of places modern chimps & gorillas live, would make sense, since they're really crappy places for fossil preservation - but it is getting better one tiny piece at a time.
Is that what you mean?
As far as I know, the genetic distance between our closest relatives and us is rather small (although these differences seem to be very important), and not at all consistant with a 1 billion year gap, or a one year gap. Other people on this site know a lot more about this than me, but they're not talking to you all that seriously because you sound like someone arguing that . . . hmm, I don't know enough about comp sci to make a good analogy, but something that sounds as if the person doesn't really understand a lot about computers. Honestly.
"The fact that you are talking about fossils is very indicative of the whole evolution mindset."
Or possibly that we're using evidence? What are you talking about? All I said was that perhaps you thought we had good enough fossil evidence to really pinpoint the time we split off from the other guys, which as far as I know (haven't followed new discoveries for a number of years) we don't, though we're maybe getting closer.
" You see A you see Z you theorize A->B->C . . . .->Z but when someone wants a rudimentary explaination for B . . . Y your reaction is questioning if we think the fossil evidence of A or Z is good enough."
Could you give me a concrete example? What are you talking about? Since evolution has proved itself to be the best explantion so far, we do tend to assume that transitional species existed, although we're not guarenteed to find them. The fact that reality has seemed to pretty obliging in many cases is pretty impressive . . . but what is this about questioning if you think a or z fossil evidence is good enough?
I think you should read up some more about modern evolutionary theory. You raise objections that don't make much sense and contain pretty serious misunderstandings of what evolutionary theory claims. That's why people are being rude to you, especially because you repeat these things loudly and which much waving of arms, metaphorically speaking. Except for people who are really uninformed, you have no chance of convincing anyone; indeed, you undermine your own viewpoint. If just getting your voice heard and throwing out arguments makes you happy, that's great, but otherwise it's a waste. Ideally PT would also help your side refine their arguments, at least to make things interesting, but this doesn't seem to be working for you.
The bit about evolution avoiding numbers is really, really . . . .stupid. I mean, it is. There's no other way to put it. You should remember that PT, despite having some pretty well-informed people hanging around, is not a peer-reviewed journal or forum especially for detailed discussion of research, etc.
" I merely seek information on your theory."
I can't really help you much, since all I know I've read in pop science books and some basic college textbooks. However, there is a world of information out there. Perhaps you don't have a lot of free time to explore it? And why are you fixated on plain old mutation rate? You do understand that evolution sees selection as one major component of evolutionary change?
"http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html . . . "
Not to say that folks on other discliplines can't have really useful contributions, but if you had a lone biologist arguing with the overwhelming consensus of computer scientists, who would you tend to believe? This fellow's a biblical literalist who's arguing for humanity being 6000 years old, with some really weird assumptions about genetics - what next, are you going to start claiming the Grand Canyon was formed by the Flood?
sir_toejam · 14 March 2005
gees. it took me two hours to get thru all the rambling that started from such a humble first post.
never have i seen such drivel being repeated over and over again.
There are relatively few trolls here.
If the managers of this board would close it for 2 days, they could do the following:
arrange structured forums, so that arguments about creationism/vs. rational thought could go in one forum, and discussion about specific topics could go in other forums. for example, you could have a forum that covers recent advances in genetic theory, so we could look at evolutionary theory from a mechanical standpoint. Another forum might cover new anthropological discussions, etc.
In addition, stickies covering the scope of the forum, and commonly refered to links about the subject material could be placed at the top of each forum (like the ever refered to link to talkorigins).
a moderator could troll thru the forums once in while and lock down inappropriately placed threads or comments.
this is standard practice on every major tech forum or game forum i have ever been on.
It doesn't require a lot of effort, it limits trolling, is more efficient, easier to read and respond, and makes everyone much happier in the long run.
PLEASE consider doing this here. the subject material is far too interesting and important to be treated in the manner this forum currently does.
as an example, take a look at the bioware.com game forums; how they are structured and moderated. works well there, and everyone still gets their piece in.
cheers
BTW: here is some info. that i did not see refered to here that relates to the issue of the mechanism of macroevolution (speciation) that creationists love to argue against:
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0207021.htm
next time someone asks you how a lizard could become a bird, don't throw up your hands, show them this and let them know "we are hard at work answering that very question"
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
sir_toejam
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0207021.htm . . .
That was quite interesting, if a bit difficult to understand.
Could anyone direct me to a page that explains how a new species comes into existence in plain English (or at least a minimum of technical language)?
As far as I have read so far there seems to be 2 ways for new species to emerge.
1) An already existing population adapting to an environmental change.
2) An already existing organism breeding a unique new creature due to an alteration of DNA.
As far as 1) is concerned population change has been observed in Moths in industrialised Northern England, and Galapagus finches due to rising/falling water levels. However no completely new species occured (presumably due to the small timescale).
My exposure to evolutionary theory so far has been very limited to say the least. At school all I was told was along the lines of "life started many millions of years ago and gradualy evolved into more complex forms" That was about it, no questions were encouraged.
Being fair though the subject that I chose to study when I got to the grade where the sciences split was physics.
Another quick question. Am I right in assuming that the Billion refered to in these articles is the USA version of 1,000,000,000 1x10^9 rather than the British Billion of 1,000,000,000,000 1x10^12 ?
Grey Wolf · 14 March 2005
Marek14 · 14 March 2005
I had this idea about speciation and I wonder if it's correct:
1. You start with a single population of a single species.
2. Now, it's commonly said that individuals within the species can interbreed with each other. But I wonder - aren't there cases of human pairs, where both man and woman are normally fertile, but they can't have children with each other due to some genetic incompatibility? I think I've read about this somewhere... this would mean, that a typical, fertile, member of species can't interbreed with ALL other members, but only with a vast majority. Natural selection would drive this ratio up, close to 100%, but 100% is an ideal state, probably impossible to reach in practice.
3. If the population splits now, we can define two ratios for every organism - ratio of compatibility with his own group, and ratio of compatibility with the other group. However, natural selection will ONLY affect the in-group ratio, since the populations are now separate and members from different ones never meet. This means that the out-group ratio can deteriorate freely.
4. Eventually, the average out-group ratio falls low enough that both groups can be called separate species.
I think this can be done even without adaptations - all that is needed is selection pressure to preserve breeding compatibility with your own group, and absence of pressure to preserve compatibility with another group you'll never encounter.
So I wanted to ask: is this basically correct?
Grey Wolf · 14 March 2005
Marek14, that sounds correct to me - but I am not an expert, so I hope one of the regulars who are will give you the thumbs-up. I agree that there isn't a selection pressure - but there must be some kind of pressure that prevents them from reuniting (or at least exchanging members between groups) for the whole thing to work. I admit my statement above is confusing, but then you shouldn't really take my word. As I said, I'm no expert.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Grey Wolf.
As far as I know, Lions and Tigers can still cross breed.
Read an article recently saying Male lion female Tiger breed Ligras.
Aparently a Ligra is larger than Lions and Tigers.
Marek14 · 14 March 2005
Well, I kinda supposed that the populations become separate and stay that way - IIRC, there are numerous mechanisms for that...
Jan · 14 March 2005
I have a question for sir_toejam. This is what I read at the website he recommended.
act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development.
Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx -- which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, but only 15 percent in Artemia -- would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.
I need your help. I see how this suppressing of the gene that produced legs would produce a deformed fly, but I do not see how it changes a lizard to a bird. I know, you are tired so I will go ahead and call myself dumb, stupid, obtuse, ignorant, uneducated.... okay? Will you explain it to me?
Mike Dunford · 14 March 2005
Marek14:
The idea about speciation that you had is more or less right. When two populations become split by a geographic barrier of some type, they will tend to diverge from each other genetically even in the absence of a major selective pressure.
For more on the topic, you might want to look at these two pages at UC Berkeley's Evolution 101 site
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1bAllopatric.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1cPeripatric.shtml
Mike Dunford · 14 March 2005
Stephen:
The Evolution 101 site at Berkeley (part of the site that Grey Wolf recommended earlier) has a decent overview of some of the mechanisms for speciation. If you are interested in getting into the topic in a bit more depth, you'll probably be better off picking up a good book on the topic - the websites that are available can only take you so far.
Mark Ridley's textbook Evolution is relatively accessable (though a bit pricey). Several chapters in Campbell's Biology also cover the topic. (Campbell is pretty much the standard textbook used in college-level introductory biology courses.) Both books are expensive, but should be available via inter-library loan.
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Mike Dunford
I have already been looking at the site:-
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
Found it reasonably interesting so far.
The books you recomended, how expensive do you mean?
Never mind I will look price up on the internet.
Shouldn't be too difficult for me to obtain.
As I live near London I imagine I should be able to get hold of them, either by purchase or library depending on price.
Marek14 · 14 March 2005
Aren't some of the older books availaible online? I know that Origin of Species certainly is.
Mike Dunford · 14 March 2005
The first edition of Origin of Species is available from the TalkOrigins website. The British Library has made most of Darwin's work available online. I would particularly recommend that anyone interested in seeing the volume of work that Darwin put into examining variation within and between species prior to writing Origin take a glance at his enormous Barnacle Monograph.
Some other works that contributed to the early development of natural selection and evolutionary theory are also available online. Malthus' Essay on population is available, as are Lyell's Principles of Geology and Wallace's essay on natural selection.
That's just a small selection of the works that are available - I only put a few minutes into looking for those resources. It's likely that there are also a fair number of works available online that are related to the (re)discovery of genetics and the development of the modern synthesis in the early part of the 20th century.
Looking at the historical background to the subject is good, and it's something that I personally find to be very interesting and rewarding. But evolution is a dynamic subject - as any healthy science should be - and a great deal of work has been and is being done, and our understanding of the principles and processes involved has continued to develop. That's why there really is no substitute to reading a recent text if you want to understand what the best current scientific understanding of the subject is.
Martin Zeichner · 14 March 2005
Ron Zeno wrote:
"To encourage and nurture our children's curiosities, we do have to protect them from those who want to take it away from them. It's the price we pay for living in a tolerant society that even tolerates the intolerant."
Very nicely said. Something of a paradox. Do you have any others?
ej · 14 March 2005
Something I've long wondered about but have never seen discussed -- eventually at least some children raised on intelligent design or similar propaganda will discover that their parents and teachers have been lying to them. I think this will be so upsetting they will never again believe what an adult tells them.
If anyone can point me to a discussion on this topic I will be grateful.
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Why is there so much bad feeling between those who advocate ID and Evolution?
Surely a group of people with a different point of view could be welcomed. At least both groups should benefit from critical analysis.
Having to voice an argument in easier to explain language and the publicity generated need not be a bad thing.
Jan · 14 March 2005
ej,
What lie are you referring to?
Boronx · 14 March 2005
Wasn't there an experiment with fruit fruit flies where they bred them generation after generation in such a way that flies who hung out at the top of the box survived, those that hung out at the bottom also survived, but middling flies did not? Eventually, two distinct groups evolved that no longer interbred: Speciation in the lab, and speciation without geographic isolation.
Jan · 14 March 2005
steve · 14 March 2005
Well, study it for 20 more years, like some of these biologists have, and you might understanding that what they say is true.
steve · 14 March 2005
Dan S. · 14 March 2005
"Why is there so much bad feeling between those who advocate ID and Evolution?"
*Well,* in my opinion . . .
For some IDers and other creationists, I suspect it has to do with fear and self defense. They believe evolution attacks their beliefs, threatening them with the specter of a world in which we are soulless monkeys staggering around meaninglessly until we finally drop and rot. Alternately/additionally, they fear that evolution has been undermining vital moral values, leaving the world awash with divorce and promiscuity. And this is what the evil Darwinists want to teach the children!!!
For some evolutionists, self defense also is involved, largely because of the school situation. (I know that's the only reason I care all that much. Otherwise I would just shake my head a little and shrug.) People would grow up being fed nonsense instead of real science, hurting their ability to function in the modern world or appreciate the beauty of what we've discovered, and offending notions of truth. And that's what the evil Creationists want to teach our children!!! Plus, we have science on our side, as far as anyone can tell.
Basically, some IDers think we're trying to seize their means of moral reproduction (bite back smart remark), while some evolutionists think IDers are trying to seize their means of intellectual reproduction. In response to a series of posts by Nathan Newman a while back, I offered a slightly crazed analogy in which evolutionists were crabs and school-focused creationists were a kind of barnacle that parasitizes crabs, neutering them and using their organs and behaviors, in a grotesque parody of real crab reproduction, to spread their own offspring. Make of that what you will.
Ok, maybe "slightly" was an understatement . . .
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004
Previous Claim: CI191 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CI301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim CI200:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a first cause, which must have been a creator God.
Source:
Craig, W. L., 1994. Reasonable Faith: Christian truth and apologetics, Crossway Books, Wheaton IL.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 19-20.
Response:
The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Claim: CI191 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CI301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
created 1999-9-17, modified 2004-4-22
I thought that this argument might have been misquoted.
Was not the original argument
1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause,
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore the universe has a cause.
???
I have seen the ID argument:- God exists outside the universe. Time is a property of the universe. God is not restricted by time.
I have seen Evolutionist/Astrophysicist arguments. There is a universe generator (string theory, expanding/contracting universe, Multiverse, inflationary universe).
Now to me (admitedly ignorant) both arguments invoke an eternal outside influence, and both sides ridicule each other. Amazing.
Personally I am undecided. But the "fixed" people on both sides baffle me. The animosity is also a bit off putting.
Scott Davidson · 14 March 2005
Ron Zeno · 14 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Ron Zeno
I can understand why you might think I am "trolling" but I am not.
Admitedly my education on Evolution would classify me as ignorant.
However I am trying to learn both sides of the argument.
I have already admitted my knowledge of Evolution is negligble.
But I ended up here from a desire to learn not "Troll"
I have already ordered the book Biology by Campbell as recomended.
As a casual (ignorant) person I am tryig to look into a subject I know little about. If that offends you, then I am sorry but where does somebody start?
Most of my education (formal) has been in the realms of physics, specifically electronics, more specific Telecomms RF.
Outside this discipline I confess to only having read pop science "Hawkins..Brief History of Time" and "Bryson..short History of nearly everything"
Oh well, just trying to learn. If that offends you there is nothing I can do about it.
Stephen Elliott · 14 March 2005
Ron Zeno,
How am I "trolling?"
I will admit to ignorance, Biology was not a subject that I took.
I admit that I am undecided, doubt I will ever be decided.
But an ID advocate anti-evolutionist I also am not.
I have already ordered the book by Campbell called Biology and intend to read it.
Why do you automatically asume I am trolling?
This whole thread started as a glory to curiosity and questions.
Are you saying only questions that you like should be alowed?
I have probably spent more time TRYING to learn about evolution in the last few days than the rest of my life combined. Do you want to discourage that?
Ron Zeno · 14 March 2005
Stephen: No offense meant. Please read my comment again. I didn't accuse you of trolling, only that I'm not sure.
As for "facts" and "prove": These are commonly used words that are easily misapplied to similar concepts of science. The intelligent design creations are counting on your not understanding the difference. Ironically, these differences should (and usually are) taught in good science curricula.
I, and many others here at PT, are happy to help you learn. The link I gave should help. This is another: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm I can't think of one off the top of my head that explains the difference between a proof and a scientific conclusion or theory. Anyone?
Henry J · 14 March 2005
Re "I see how this suppressing of the gene that produced legs would produce a deformed fly, but I do not see how it changes a lizard to a bird."
I expect that evolution of a feathered bipedal dinosaur species into an earlier relative of archaeopteryx (which was just barely bird-like enough to call it a bird) would be rather more complicated than losing limbs from some tail segments.
Henry
Wayne Francis · 15 March 2005
Wayne Francis · 15 March 2005
wooops
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/liger.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerkrf.JPG
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerstand.JPG
DonkeyKong · 15 March 2005
Dan S
Two things.
1) I admit that evolution/ID is the most plausible of the current theories up to a point. The fossil evidence is a believable although not certain record of previous ancestors. Your admission of this deserves my admission of this. But being the best in a field of 1 is far less a claim than evolution is proven, evolution has never been wrong etc etc. ID is basically evolutoin with a different religious conclusion and that is what upsets many evolutionists.
2) When faced with a computer scientist who disagrees with a million billion scientists all of whom have won nobel prizes I will always DECIDE for MYSELF. Science isn't about democracy. The web site I linked to does a good job of showing the massive uphill battle that evolutoin has regarding the perplexing issue of how can so many mutations exist and yet we don't see enough in real time. The specifics of his arguments may be flawed or they may be perfect but the big picture he points to is accepted by the mainstream. There really is an issue and evolution doesn't have a ready answer.
There are several anti-Natural Selection mechanisms.
1) It is much much more likely that it is survival of the least fit that leads to strong evolution potential. Specifically being low on the food chain is a stronger position to survive global extinctions than being higher on the food chain. Since evolutoin is comming to the conclusion that extinctions may dominate this is important.
2) Mating acts against evolution because mates chose the strongest coice using very traditional criteria. Many species have a single breeding male in a pack which serves to eliminate diversity as the most traditionally equiped is the winner unless the mutation already has survival benifits or mating benifits. Now if you could prove that in nature the freaks breed with the freaks that would be different.
3) It is likely survial of the least fit in that the weakest are more likely to deviate from the central genetic position and thus are closer to the next species. Natural selection has a hard time justifying how the weakest are the strongest. The history of humans is the history of many million years of being the weakest and several almost extinctions. The problem is having the least able survivor survive to mate is unlikely in its own right and may even make gradual evolution less likley than spontenous evolution.
Thus the probability delima is very hard to escape in any scientific manner...
Marek14 · 15 March 2005
As for the origin of the universe, there are theories that it came from some process, cetatinly. But there are also theories that it literally didn't have a cause. I'll give you an example - think vacuum. In a complete vacuum, a particle of matter sometimes appears, together with its antiparticle, lives for a while, then quickly annihilates. Why did it appear? No reason, apart from the fact that the laws of nature allow for that. But we know that this effect is real because it has consequences we can measure.
Maybe you think that it's really not possible to compare low-energy event like that with a creation of the high-energy universe - but it turns out that the energy of the universe is really not high at all - because the potential energy of gravity fields is negative, and it counterbalances the positive energy contained in matter and energy we came to think of as "the universe".
Even with the processes that propose a creation of universe from something pre-existing, none of them requires guiding intelligence. My favorite idea is that the universes undergo a kind of natural selection for their ability to create black holes (which would be the means of their procreation) - an idea taken to extreme in Stephen Baxter's sci-fi book "Time".
And the simple truth is that I am not fond of the guiding intelligence. Why? Because if it exists, I won't get an answer to a question I am interested in, which is - How did intelligence arise? If eternal, pre-existing intelligence is required for our small, inferior one, then intelligence too has no cause. (Except if there would be a God who is not intelligent - which is a funny possibility, because what use would intelligence be to someone who already knows the answer to every problem he might encounter?)
Marek14 · 15 March 2005
Marek14 · 15 March 2005
Grey Wolf · 15 March 2005
Dan S. · 15 March 2005
"There is evidence that new "species" do arise if you qualify the term species. There are new species of fruit flies, rodents, and even birds. But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new species is still a fruit fly."
Ephermera
"I don't deny the light is fading,"
said the mayfly presently, "But
this talk of days and nights and
days again cannot be right,
I - "
Stephen Elliott · 15 March 2005
Posted by Wayne Francis on March 15, 2005 12:14 AM
wooops
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/liger.jpg . . .
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerkrf.JPG . . .
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerstand.JPG . . .
Nice pics Wayne.
Can hardly believe the size of that cat.
Stephen Elliott · 15 March 2005
Posted by Wayne Francis on March 15, 2005 12:14 AM
wooops
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/liger.jpg . . .
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerkrf.JPG . . .
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerstand.JPG . . .
Wayne those pics are pretty good.
That is 1 damn big cat.
Do you know if they can breed? Or are they "mules?"
steve · 15 March 2005
Ron:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Jay Gould
brooksfoe · 15 March 2005
DonkeyKong,
I'm sure you're a nice person. But you are not qualified to write on this issue. You don't understand the basic precepts of biology or evolution, and you don't understand certain extremely fundamental tenets of scientific thinking and why they're threatened by the "intelligent design" notion. You have to take some classes with a teacher who can explain these ideas to you before you'll be able to offer intelligent criticism of them.
On biology: you confuse fitness with position on the food chain, as a number of people have already pointed out. A lion is not in and of itself "fitter" than a gazelle; a sharper-eyed, faster lion may be fitter than a shortsighted, slower lion. Competition, as the term is used in evolutionary theory, occurs not between predator and prey, but between individuals within a given species. A lion is not fit to do what a gazelle does, and a gazelle is not fit to do what a lion does.
There are a number of erroneous presumptions in your claims about genetics and evolution which I won't go into.
More importantly, your line that "ID is basically evolution with a different conclusion" misses what's so fundamentally wrong with ID's pretensions to being a "scientific theory". A central and fundamental precept of rational scientific thought since the 18th century is the refusal to refer to supernatural powers in the face of phenomena we don't understand. Supernatural intelligence could have been evoked at any number of points in the history of science over the last 400 years: we might have thrown up our hands in the face of geological formations, of the orbits of the planets, of the failure of Newtonian physics, or of the mechanics of inheritance, and said, "It must be God doing it". But the essence of scientific thought is to restrict oneself to observable phenomena and to rules which might govern the behavior of those phenomena, and which can be refuted if the evidence fails to uphold them. What is infuriating about ID is its claims to be a "scientific" thesis, when it is in fact no more scientific than Marxism - less so: Marxism at least made refutable predictions about human behavior, which, now that they have been disproven, allow us to discard the theory. What could disprove "intelligent design"? Nothing. Obviously it's always possible that the universe's evolution has been guided by a supernatural intelligence; nothing could disprove this. That is why it is not a scientific thesis.
Evolution could be disproven if it were shown that, for example, new species sometimes spring up spontaneously and suddenly, for no reason at all. That would be evidence of an "intelligent designer" interceding in the process. When a horse gives birth to a horse with wings, I'll believe in ID.
Ron Zeno · 15 March 2005
When a horse gives birth to a horse with wings, it'll probably be the result of genetic engineering. If not by us, then by aliens or maybe Santa Claus ;)
DonkeyKong · 16 March 2005
Marek14
Please state how you would disprove Natural Selection in a lab experiment if it were indeed false.
Grey
Please improve your reading comprehension. I stated that survival of the least fit is probably dominant BOTH between species AND ALSO within a single species. In both applications it would be a suprising result for Darwin.
Also please note that I think you are an idiot, only an idiot would imagine another person would be required to change their world view when faced with your infantile tempertantrum of you are wrong you are wrong.....seriously do you even stop to think how your argument is received?
Do you imagine that I have never spoken to a presumed intelligent person in my life and when one presents themselves I will fall in line and drink the kool-aid? I am usually judicial with the word idiot but if you have any graduate education what so ever then I will stand behind it in your case. If you don't have a grad education don't take it so bad, but if you do I would advise asking for your money and time back.
brooksfoe
In all likelyhood I have spent more time conversing with phd level people in genetic sciences than have most of the people here barring the professors. I have two phds in genetics related fields in my immediate family and although you are right my personal biology chops are weaker than some , my knowledge is enough to know where they are weaker in theory than I.
Fitness: A successful species encounters a range of issues that unsucessful species do not encounter. Darwin's guess that the successful species would have more oppertunities to evolve is easy to comprehend but is probably wrong on several levels.
1) A less succesful species is likely to have more oppertunitites to be stranded and evolve in isolation over long periods of time. What are the odds of humans ever evolving into 2 seperate species now that we are the fittest species on the planet?
2) Disease functions as the inverse of success. The more succesful you are the more oppertunities to catch the killer plague that will wipe out your species. This could go either way (evolve faster or no) if it doesn't wipe out your species but the risk of total extinction would argue that it is better to not get the killer flu.
The successful individual within a species also encounters issues that unsuccesful individuals do not encounter.
1) one of the reasons that dentists kill themselves more than other professions is that they are so succesful. A dentist who is making $200,000 a year yet is unhappy finds herself in a guilded cage in that she cannot change jobs as her $200,000 loans are too much for another job to pay and she cannot find another job that pays as well.
The same is true for succesful humans. Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston will never have the oppertunity to develop the same critical reasoning skills that you and I have because when Brad Pitt wants to do something interesting he has sex with Angilina Jolie. Honestly, if I had that option do you think I would be here? Because of this Bradd Pitt and most of the beautiful people do not get the oppertunities that we have. Neccessity is the mother of invention and those without it suffer its absence.
2) Lions who are the masters of their pride have an incentive to mate with other lions that are just like them or their mother. It is the least succesful that "settle" for the mutant lioness with the stripes etc etc etc.
There is nothing unscientific about mystisism. It is only when a mystic belief conflicts with a testible thesis and the person choses the mystism over the testible result that the issue occurs. Your present definition of science is ANTI-RELIGION. Can you see why I don't want your view taugh in school beyond the points that it can predict publically and then confirm publically after than are predicted?
Science generally gives a great deal of leeway to the maker of a successful theory to explain why. But the requirement for that leeway is a theory that is very good at predicting future events. Evolution is rather poor at predicting future events. Poor enough that I am uninterested in what biologists think happened 200 million years ago. I AM interested in the fossil evidence and am willing to go where I believe the data leads. But I am unwilling to have the ANTI-RELIGION tour guides.
Marek14 · 16 March 2005
I am not a biologist, but possible experiments might be (please, correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Introducing large amount of individuals with the same harmful mutation in the population, and observing whether they will prosper or die out.
2. Applying a strong selection pressure and seeing if the population will respond.
Also, could you please state what "least fit" organisms are? The reason I'm asking is that to me, the "least fit" organisms would be organisms carrying lethal mutations - which CAN'T possibly survive.
Stephen Elliott · 16 March 2005
I can believe that about 16 Billion years ago.
Out of nothing the Big Bag happened.
Temperatures where so High that only subatomic particles existed.
After a while the temperature cooled down enough so physical forces made Helium and Hydrogen and early stars and galaxies.
Stars nuclear fusion created heavier elements then went Nova or Supernova.
The Solar system formed with Earth forming about 4 Billion years ago.
Early Earth was hit by a Mars sized object forming the moon.
500 million years later the 1st life apeared
Roughly 500 Million years ago many new life forms evolved.
A few million years ago Humans apeared.
We now have a species on Earth that can work these things out.
I am made from atoms billions of years old.
Yet I am only 43 years old.
All that I consider to be science.
Evolution is science and should be taught in science classes.
ID/Creationism belongs in religious classes.
But so does saying the whole thing is random/undirected.
BTW I admit I may have oversimplified but I am a tad drunk atm not rats'd but over driving limit
Wayne Francis · 16 March 2005
Stephen Elliott · 17 March 2005
Wayne,
When you say male ligras tend to be infertile, do you have a %?
Those Ligras are huge. Wonder what they would feed on in the wild.
Probably "anything they damn well please."
Marek14 · 17 March 2005
Well, ARE there any Ligras in the wild? Lions and tigers live in different environments, and on different continents to boot. I don't think there are many opportunities for them to meet each other without human help.
Stephen Elliott · 17 March 2005
Marek 14
Both Lions and Tigers live in India.
During Roman empire times I believe Tigers roamed in Africa.
Wayne Francis · 17 March 2005