61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 03:29 pm
The actual source:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html

I do subscribe but cannot cut-and-paste the entire article which is quite lengthy. I'm only about 25% into it now.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:14 pm
@Lightwizard,
Its too bad, (This finding), since the footprints are without context or linneage to connect them to a series of parent species. The story of Tiktaalik is certainly more robust in that it uses the predictive sense of paleo .
This specimen will have to do as an EIfilian member of a heretofore unrecognized bunch of already evolved (and qppqrently more advanced) amphibians.
It must be remembered that the Frasnian appearnaces of amphibians were more of an artifact due to some serious global orogenies and splitting of continents that were going on. The inter European basins of the eifilian period just preced atime of major glaciation as (IMHO) sea channels changed as continents changed in position within Gondwana.

I actually have to say that. finding this specimen , amkes the story of tetrapod evolution come back to a more gradual time line, rather than a"high speed" evo track that the Tiktaalik find would have reinforced.

No matter what, the detail of micro stratigraphy has prevailed in determining the timeline in which this foot print was found.

TOO bad they kept their mouths shut while the Tiktaalik story was being reported by all the pop science sections of newspapers.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi Ted and Neil
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:27 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
I do subscribe


Ah ah!! A vested interest eh? A member of an exclusive club which has to be prestigious because Wiz wouldn't suscribe to anything less. It logically follows that its content is important and is only scoffed at by ignorant trolls like me.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:29 pm
@farmerman,
Thanks fm-- I'll pass that on to my mates in the pub.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:45 pm
@Lightwizard,
Im sure that GEOLOGY will have an expose article in a few years. See, the science journalists who write for SCIENCE, are more interested in "the SCoop" than getting it 100% correct. The journals will sort out the real story in a few monthe=s to years.

I HATE 24 hour science news cycles, so lets reserve all opinions about this until its been reviewed for QA.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 05:45 pm
@farmerman,
If you knew your Veblen fm you would know just how ridiculous all this is.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 05:55 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The classics, and their position of prerogative in the
scheme of education to which the higher seminaries of learning
cling with such a fond predilection, serve to shape the
intellectual attitude and lower the economic efficiency of the
new learned generation. They do this not only by holding up an
archaic ideal of manhood, but also by the discrimination which
they inculcate with respect to the reputable and the disreputable
in knowledge. This result is accomplished in two ways: (1) by
inspiring an habitual aversion to what is merely useful, as
contrasted with what is merely honorific in learning, and so
shaping the tastes of the novice that he comes in good faith to
find gratification of his tastes solely, or almost solely, in
such exercise of the intellect as normally results in no
industrial or social gain; and (2) by consuming the learner's
time and effort in acquiring knowledge which is of no use,except
in so far as this learning has by convention become incorporated
into the sum of learning required of the scholar, and has thereby
affected the terminology and diction employed in the useful
branches of knowledge. Except for this terminological difficulty
-- which is itself a consequence of the vogue of the classics of
the past -- a knowledge of the ancient languages, for instance,
would have no practical bearing for any scientist or any scholar
not engaged on work primarily of a linguistic character. Of
course, all this has nothing to say as to the cultural value of
the classics, nor is there any intention to disparage the
discipline of the classics or the bent which their study gives to
the student. That bent seems to be of an economically
disserviceable kind, but this fact -- somewhat notorious indeed
-- need disturb no one who has the good fortune to find comfort
and strength in the classical lore. The fact that classical
learning acts to derange the learner's workmanlike attitudes
should fall lightly upon the apprehension of those who hold
workmanship of small account in comparison with the cultivation
of decorous ideals: Iam fides et pax et honos pudorque Priscus
et neglecta redire virtus Audet.


How can you not giggle?

Would you say that NFL upholds an ideal of archaic manhood?

When the brides know all that crap and can't boil an egg the decorous ideals have gone out of the window.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 06:58 pm
@farmerman,
The original article in Nature isn't written by journalist -- it's the actual scientific paper. I've finished reading it and it's in the details. It's a pretty good case.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 09:12 am
@Lightwizard,
And one insulated from being disputed.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:07 pm
Scientific papers not read cannot be disputed except in the imagination.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:29 pm
@Lightwizard,
There's no real science in sight Wiz. Take away the big unusual words and a kid could follow it. It's Once Upon a Time stuff.

Its futility is its meaning. It acts to lower the industrial efficiency of society by diverting human energy and resources deriving from industry into wasteful activity and avoids the taint of having any connection with industrial processes which are, as everybody knows, odious.

It's an incantation for snobs.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:41 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You really don't have any basic understanding of science, economics, and politics, do you?

"Lower industrial efficiency?"

What do you think robotics and the computers have done to increase production?

Do you still write your checks on parchment paper, spendi?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:41 pm
Quote:
Creationists don't understand fossils
(by Josh Rosenau, ScienceBlogs.com, January 8, 2010)

This headline is hardly news, but still noteworthy. A few days ago, Todd Wood (a young earth creationist from Bryan College, in Dayton, TN) noted an article in ICR's Acts & Facts on trilobite tracks by his predecessor at Bryan, creationist Kurt Wise:
"Why would dozens of feet of rock have tracks but not the animals that made them?" asks Wise. He proposes that the Flood uniquely solves this dilemma.
He quotes Wise:
"What if, when the 'fountains of the great deep were broken up' (Genesis 7:11), the spreading waters surprised the trilobites living on the ocean bottom? As the water became muddy, trilobites scurried about in terror, leaving their tracks behind them. Then as a layer of mud covered their tracks, they climbed through the mud and left tracks on the next layer - repeating this process until they finally succumbed in exhaustion and were themselves buried and preserved."


Wood then notes a paper in Nature describing tetrapod trackways millions of years older than the earliest known tetrapod fossils, adding "Hmmm.... That sounds familiar!"

Mere hours later, Disco. dancer Casey Luskin wrote an ID version of the same post, referring to Tiktaalik as "an alleged transitional fossil," arguing that "if this transition ever took place it seems to have occurred millions of years before Tiktaalik" (emphasis added), but offering no suggestion of what he thinks would explain the pattern of morphological and molecular similarity among living and fossil animals if there were never such a transition. In this regard, young earth creationism is far superior to ID creationism. At least they can straightforwardly suggest that tetrapods were magically poofed into existence in a way that leaves no evidence, rather than just insisting " a la IDC " that we don't know anything because nothing is knowable.

Luskin closes with an endorsement of Doubting Thomas in both a theological and scientific contexts. But remember that Thomas was chastised in that story, told "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." That's the theology, and it's exactly opposite to the theology ID would advocate. Scientifically, doubt is essential, but so is the ability to accept evidence conditionally. I've held the actual Tiktaalik fossils, I've seen the ways their bones relate to those of fish and of tetrapods, and I'm confident that it represents a transitional form.

This doesn't mean that Tiktaalik is your great-great-great-…-great-grandparent, but it is a close descendant of that ancestor. Even if that ancestor lived 18 million years earlier than Tiktaalik, the transitional state of that ancestor is preserved in its descendants. Casey cites various news articles which mess up this distinction, but never points to the scientific literature where these points are clarified. But as the Disco. blog tagline explains: "The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site."
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
With a quill pen full of De Sade venom.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:10 pm
@Lightwizard,
The ole Marquis was in fact a superb writer - if entirely insane - so I'm not sure "venom" would apply to his screeds. Happy 2010 to you.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:10 pm
@wandeljw,
It's quite simple -- they are so indefensibly ignorant they like to wear it on their sleeve. It's a badge of twisted honor. They never mention their grades in biology or any science but I doubt any of them ever reached a C-. It's no difference than those I've been unfortunately exposed to who have nothing but a passing interest in art and are "investing in fine art." Goes along with the "art consultants" in mall galleries who ruthlessly take advantage of their ignorance.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I said "lower the industrial efficiency". Not "lower industrial efficiency".

The researchers of what crawled out of the sea 395 million years ago could help in hospitals and clearing snow.

What are you talking about.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:31 pm
@High Seas,
I certainly have not seen any in his writings..
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:33 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
With a quill pen full of De Sade venom.


When you mention the great leader of anti-ID and republicanism Wiz you should do it more respectfully than that. He, with La Mettrie, is a prominent martyr in your cause. A hero of anti-ID whose arguments you might be advised to use instead of the fatuities you do.

I'll admit he was probably taking the piss.

High Seas--he was not at all insane.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 03:36 pm
@spendius,
spendi wrote:
Quote:
I said "lower the industrial efficiency". Not "lower industrial efficiency".


And the proper response is "huh?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 01:14:33