61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 04:31 pm
@spendius,
ros wrote-

Quote:
Evolution is not only mathematically probable, it's mathematically inevitable.


Can anybody explain what it means without descending into primary school triviality where being able to add up whole double digit numbers is called mathematics in order that everybody can imagine themselves geniuses.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 04:44 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I can't understand how people deal with you guys in the flesh. You just mouth platitudes, assertions and bullshit and one assumes your companions are too polite to snigger in your presence or are completely stupid.
ROFLMAO !! Ah, Spendi...never change.... Very Happy
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:04 pm
@Ionus,
Well Io--what do you make of it?

Some pompous twit comes on here and says--

Quote:
Evolution is not only mathematically probable, it's mathematically inevitable.


I'm nonplussed by the statement and as the site is known as Ask an Expert I request an explanation and fm comes on to tell me to do the maths and the reason for my being nonplussed was that I didn't know what maths were involved other than adding one generation to another which is "sums" or "arithmetic" at posh schools like wot I went too.

Can you explain what ros meant or why fm answered as he did without falling back on them just braying bullshit and claiming the right to have a say in the education of 50 million kids when they can't be bothered or can't manage to educate me on such a simple matter. ROTFLYAO is a cop out.

No wonder they can't explain lingerie being a manifestation of Christian cultural thinking despite all the pics in the papers, in advertising, in catalogues (sent under plain cover) and the real thing in racks in all the stores and, presumably, being worn by tens of millions of women and possibly a few chaps as well.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:00 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Quote:
Evolution is not only mathematically probable, it's mathematically inevitable.
I'm nonplussed by the statement and as the site is known as Ask an Expert I request an explanation and fm comes on to tell me to do the maths and the reason for my being nonplussed was that I didn't know what maths were involved other than adding one generation to another which is "sums" or "arithmetic" at posh schools like wot I went too.
I too would have thought they could have shown it rather than insisting you believe them.
Quote:
ROTFLYAO is a cop out.
Not really. I enjoy your humour and I am still here, I just took time out to have a good laugh at their expense which I assume was the purpose of that post.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:12 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
This is exactly what the intermediate "reptile to bird" bauplans show.The only real intermediate we have is archeopteryx since it lived near swampy areas it had the basic environment available to become a fossil. Archeopteryx has 21 reptilean features , not the least of which is teeth. The researchers today are able to turn the corporal genes off and on in chickens and other "CAprimulgiform" birds to show how teeth were a process taht with the right genic makeup, can be reiinitiated .

Also, what kind of flight feathers and wing structure do you need.? We do have significant HOX gene data that shows how genes were turned off and on for different genera that occupied different environments. MAking it a strong argument for adaptation as the mechanism for evolution

Quote:
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening,
Successive steps in evolution are not probablistic, they are adaptive and by being so, your concept of game theory is all bullshit.

Quote:
because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends

PE is NOT a new thing, maybe to you, who only gets his information from Creationist websites that are run by preachers of Evangelism. PE is only a hypothesis based upon decidedly saltation appearance in the fossil record. Its been studied, analyzed and work done by folks more informed and educated than you try to sound. Of course weve gone over that several times before so I can only assume that youre tryin g these worn out chops for the benefit of the new folks. I think youll find that they are skeptics of your Fred Hoyle hypotheses also.

Quote:
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

This is a version of saltation, not PE. At least get your phrases correct

Quote:

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching,
"Gamblers Ruin" is a very good example of how evolution favors genera with multiple species rather than a single species representing a genera. CF Dave RAups excellent little book "EXTINCTION, bad luck or bad genes". Its an oldie (1983) but that is still 20 years ahead of anything you are attempting to understand

Quote:
They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"
. I guess you missed Goulds last book , which was pretty much a driving mechanism for PE.
Ohh I know, you only read websites that are run by the Creation Museum of Kentucky.



0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 09:13 am
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 09:56 am
@wandeljw,
Those poor kids are reciting the standard propaganda from Creationist sites which was been debunked for years. And their teacher is reciting the same bullshit. Very sad.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 10:11 am
@Ionus,
Look at all this stuff with gunga Io. fm loves gunga. gunga provides him with a nice pair of water wings to paddle around the shallow end with and show off a very limited knowledge of an extremely narrow section of the scientific field which he fondly believes demonstrates his scientific excellence, which is non-existent, before an audience which knows nothing about his carefully selected subjects which are based upon books he has read which he chose to help him justify his attitude to the Catholic Church's strictures on sexual irregularities.

What it has to do with challenges to the teaching of evolution I cannot imagine. It is trolling for the purpose of preening.

Challenges to the teaching of evolution are based upon one idea only: viz. that such teaching is dangerous to the organising principles of modern western society. What else could such an organised challenge be based upon?

fm has been challenged numerous times to explain why the teaching of evolution is not dangerous or admit that he promotes teaching the subject without knowing whether it is dangerous or not. He has consistently ducked this challenge and, as that is the topic of the thread, he proves that he is not here to discuss it and therefore he must have the motives I have suggested. He's trolling. It is basically a devious form of Ignore. It looks like he is participating in this debate to some people but he is actually hiding away behind a smokescreen.

He has refused to discuss the social consequences of his viewpoints for six years. Which is a pity because such a discussion is not only very interesting but also very entertaining whereas the response to gunga wouldn't entertain anybody and as A2K is in the entertainment business he is a drawback to its prosperity.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 09:49 am
ros wrote-

Quote:
Evolution is not only mathematically probable, it's mathematically inevitable.


It is 48 hours since I asked for an explanation of what that meant. Neither ros nor fm has offered an explanation so it is fair to assume that they can't explain it which boils down to them not knowing what it means.

Thus the statement can only belong to that category of discourse known as word-bullying. That is where an audience is either so cowed by the sound of importance and scientific credibilty that it stands in awe or it has a quiet snigger depending on how much practice it has had in identifying bullshit which is not much in the case of those under 10 at whom the statement is self-evidently directed.

I wonder if other anti-IDers worry about being in the same party as these two bozos are constantly promoting.

The state of anti-IDers is the only logically reason I know to be an IDer. The thought of the whole population becoming anti-IDers is enough to give me the collywobbles.

PS--wande--you can't take a camera into a classroom and expect the recording to represent anything significant about classrooms.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 10:22 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Challenges to the teaching of evolution are based upon one idea only: viz. that such teaching is dangerous to the organising principles of modern western society. What else could such an organised challenge be based upon?


Is it your thesis that teaching the theory of natural selection and evolutionary biology undermines the concept of a Judeo-Christian God and its socio-economic derivatives, and is therefore a danger to Western civilization? Or is simply a description of what you see in others?

btw I want you to explain, in detail, what you mean by
Quote:
the organising principles of modern western society.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 11:01 am
@kuvasz,
Quote:
Is it your thesis that teaching the theory of natural selection and evolutionary biology undermines the concept of a Judeo-Christian God and its socio-economic derivatives, and is therefore a danger to Western civilization?


More or less but I have no objection to the teaching of the theory to specialists in related matters and by responsible instructors. I see it in schools as opening the door for extreme atheistic Marxists and closing the door on Christians. It seems to me that that is the very purpose of the promotion of the theory and the science of it, such as there is, is merely a useful tool.

I also think that the promotion of the theory will not succeed and that all this hot air is a distraction from teaching kids more important things and allows far too much talking about teaching rather than teaching itself.

I don't think the theory itself undermines the Christian God but in the hands of some teachers I feel sure it will be used for that and to undermine the Church's teaching on things like divorce, birth control, adultery, homosexuality, eugenics, euthenasia and a few other important matters which are more difficult to explain.

I have personal experience of seeing, and hearing about, a Nazi teaching geography and he missed no opportunity to promote his Hobby Horse.

Quote:
btw I want you to explain, in detail, what you mean by
the organising principles of modern western society.


Monogamy, suburbia, democracy, science, tradition, table manners, festivals and alcoholic beverages. Detailed explanations can be found, to a limited extent, by anyone who has the time and the inclination to read all my posts including those in the Trivia section.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:26 pm
UPDATE ON ICR ACCREDITATION LAWSUIT
Quote:
Court rules against creationism degree
(By Melissa Ludwig - San Antonio Express-News - 06/22/2010)

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a creationism think tank and school that attempted to force the state of Texas to allow it to offer master's degrees in science education.

In 2008, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board rejected the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research's application to offer master's degrees, which taught science from a Biblical perspective. The institute's graduate school sued in 2009, claiming the board violated its constitutional right to free speech and religion.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks found no merit in the ICR's claims and criticized its legal documents as “overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.”

In an e-mailed statement, ICR representatives said they were reviewing the decision and may appeal.

The National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based non-profit that defends the teaching of evolution, cheered the decision.

“The Coordinating Board made a principled decision the first place, and it is good to see it was upheld in a court of law,” said Glenn Branch, the center's deputy director.

The ICR's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees in that state since 1981, according to its Web site. Aimed at aspiring Christian schoolteachers, the curriculum critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation.

In California, the school is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, an agency that is not recognized in Texas.

To operate its graduate school in Texas, the institute needed preliminary approval from the Coordinating Board and accreditation from a regional body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

The ICR never got past its first hurdle. After heated meetings packed with public speakers, board members voted to deny the application.

“Religious belief is not science,” Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said at the time. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:49 pm
@wandeljw,
applause . . .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 07:00 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

UPDATE ON ICR ACCREDITATION LAWSUIT
Quote:
Court rules against creationism degree
(By Melissa Ludwig - San Antonio Express-News - 06/22/2010)

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks found no merit in the ICR's claims and criticized its legal documents as “overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.

He only said that because "Breathtaking Inanity" was already taken. Either that or he was commenting on one of Spendi's posts.

wandeljw wrote:

UPDATE ON ICR ACCREDITATION LAWSUIT
Quote:
Court rules against creationism degree
(By Melissa Ludwig - San Antonio Express-News - 06/22/2010)

“Religious belief is not science,” Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said at the time. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.

Well said.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 07:56 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne wrote:
He only said that because "Breathtaking Inanity" was already taken.


For constitutional challenges involving creationism, federal judges now use a Breathtaking Inanity Test rather than the Lemon Test. Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 08:13 pm
@wandeljw,
Just maundering about and saw the denial of accrediitation for a Masters in "Creation Science"

NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK. Where oh where shall we get the great minds of Creation "science"?.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:17 am
@farmerman,
I just hope we dont have to get the great minds of morality from scientists. They have a bad track record when it comes to self restraint.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:30 am
@Ionus,
Hmmmm. I guess Id risk a little over- enthusiasm as long as my kids get some accurate information in biology .
Question: WHat does an advanced degree in Creation SCience actually prepare the recipient for?? Is there actually some societal need for such degrees?

I think its kind of funny to have some kids whove scored 750's or better on their GRE's to wish to enroll in a Creation SCience program for a Masters. Then the kid can get a PhD in with a dissertation that investigates the stratigraphy of "Eden"
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 06:06 am
What's this about a judge whose decision on the drilling moratorium is being challenged by the President.

It is reported that the judge in question has investments in offshore drilling companies.

According to you lot these judges are the authority on high. Have any of the ones you quote got interests we don't know about? The words are easy to find if the interest exists.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 05:35:56