Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@north,

Do you have reading comprehension problems, or just an appallingly short memory? The question was what you meant by "deprivity" . . . you know, as in a definition?

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

Quote:

No, just couldn't be arsed.

Just a little though eh? Nothing requiring any effort.

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

a bad thing in principle

Fair enough.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
a bad thing in principle

Fair enough.

to not teach evolution is a bad thing in principle , just to be clear

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

Quote:

I'm not getting into a pointless argument

This is the internet...all arguments are pointless.

Thank you for the extended asnwer, I am sure it was helpful to many.

Quote:

In 1951, the American Miller succeeded to form organic matter

Just for info, he found about 20 but his original experimental results have since been re-examined with modern equipment and about 30 have been found. The amount of oxygen is a problem. It has since had its amount and effect revised upward, and if this continues it bides bad times for the experiment. But it interests me for other reasons.....is this the start of evolution ? The natural selection of which chemicals will survive ?

May I assume that the answer to my question of when did evolution start is before the start of life ? By evolution I mean the process of natural slection.....

Quote:

After that, the evolution progressed faster and faster.

??? Natural selection is now faster than it was ?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

the book will not fall if you let it go while in an airplane following a specific parabolic flight path

Oh yes it will....but to the observer in the plane it appears to not fall....and that is only temporary. As for in orbit, I am dropping a book in my study, not in an orbit.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I'm not getting into a pointless argument

Did I not make myself clear.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

A fact is simple and can be replicated. Evolution theory may very well be based on facts, but it is not a fact. It can not be reproduced in experiments. It is not demonstrable. It is too complex to be thought of as a fact.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
fact - noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
■ (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report.

■ chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

to not teach evolution is a bad thing in principle , just to be clear.

That wasn't the question you were asked and you know it. Or you should do.

Why are you now singling out evolution as one specific area where kids should not be deprived of a knowledge of and are now allowing other areas of knowledge are to be kept hidden from them which your devious words tacitly admit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory.

These are facts.

Quote:

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution

This is extrapolating...it reveals nothing except what you want it to reveal. This is why both sides think it proves their point.

Quote:

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record.

These are facts.

Evolution theory is based on facts. It is too complex and has too many areas not fully understood to be considered a fact. It is factual, but it has areas that might still be changed and a fact does not change.

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

Spendi has been arguing here for years and the response of some has been to ignore him.. I think it is understandable if he gets a little cranky.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

and it is really hilariously ironic for you to preach about a lack of knowledge.

Coming from you......very ironic. Will you be telling North they are inferior because of a lack of English knowledge ? I bet you are white.....will they let you wear your KKK outfit at AA ?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I'm beginning to think the K in A2K stands for Kranky.
I'm tired, I'm going to my leaba.
Slan leat.

g.night

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I'm havin' a good day .

Of course you are having a good day.....you are attempting to bully someone.....it doesnt get any better than that does it ?

Quote:

. . howzaboutyou, Mon Vieux?

And now you are kissing the arse of a frenchman.

Lucky you are stupid or you might realise some cold hard facts about yourself.

0 Replies

@spendius,

north wrote:

to not teach evolution is a bad thing in principle , just to be clear.

Quote:

That wasn't the question you were asked and you know it. Or you should do.

I wasn't tempting to answer a question , just the quote above my response was a little short

Quote:

Why are you now singling out evolution as one specific area where kids should not be deprived of a knowledge of and are now allowing other areas of knowledge are to be kept hidden from them which your devious words tacitly admit.

eh...?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

If you can pile up all thos little facts that support evolution (a complex derivation) you will see that that evolution is both fact and theory.

Pick a component fact that does NOT support evolution. We try to assist our kids understand and construct on thier own.

You arent really getting into anything on a deeper level of understanding with that base, becasue you dont seem to think out how any fact does or does not fit. You engage in quote mining and your knowledge seems to take a break at that point.

Quote:

It is factual, but it has areas that might still be changed and a fact does not change.

This is speculation. However, the difference between "factual" and "fact" is minor in this case. You seem to be trying to have it many ways in your "argument".
Youve got what Stephen Gould wrote, I think its rather compelling (although long winded). The fact that "Facts can change" doesnt make them durable facts. They are also mere speciulations subject to verification,no big deal. When Goldscmidt posed his neo Darwinian thinking, several facts were ignored that were only known as we understood genetics better after the 1950's. SO weve disposed of "Neo darwinian" thinking as old hat. FACTS came to bear to change both the theory and the facts.

FACTs ,too can be revised as we understand things better. In the 1950s, we had the "facts" of "Vertical deformation " of rock mecahnical bodies. Today , new and better FACTS have developed the fact and theory of plate tectonics. AS we can measure plates separating , we can also measure evolution rates by several ways.

2 Replies

Quote:

Youve got what Stephen Gould wrote, I think its rather compelling (although long winded). The fact that "Facts can change" doesnt make them durable facts. They are mere speciulations. When Goldscmidt posed his neo Darwinian thinking, several facts were ignored that were only known as we understood genetics. SO weve disposed of "Neo darwinian" thinking as old hat. FACTS came to bear.

durable facts they are though , adaptability is all over the place , in life

from the Antarctic to the Arctic

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

you will see that that evolution is both fact and theory.

Evolution will never be a fact. It is too complex and humans are too prone to error. How many "minor" adjustments are made in a theory as our knowledge expands ? I cant think of a theory that hasnt been amended, and some quite drastically.

It is not that I think it is wrong, it is just I disagree with the sheer enthusiasm of Atheists that here is the be all and end all of understanding how life developed.

Quote:

You engage in quote mining and your knowledge seems to take a break at that point.

I quoted from the main points in your reference. That is not quote mining. I used that reference to show my opinion was different. That is not quote mining.

Quote:

FACTS came to bear to change both the theory and the facts.

Exactly. So before we race off and declare a theory to be proven, we should bare in maind that whilst it is possible for a theory to be sound and basically correct, new facts can not by their very nature be determined before hand. You say a theory is an iron clad fact at some peril. Time hates statements of human knowledge being facts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
you will see that that evolution is both fact and theory.Evolution will never be a fact. It is too complex and humans are too prone to error. How many "minor" adjustments are made in a theory as our knowledge expands ? I cant think of a theory that hasnt been amended, and some quite drastically.

adjustments go on all the time , for evolution

hence evolution

Quote:

It is not that I think it is wrong, it is just I disagree with the sheer enthusiasm of Atheists that here is the be all and end all of understanding how life developed.

evolution is the foundation of the progress of life

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Pick a component fact that does NOT support evolution.

Isn't it a fact that biology throws up a wide range of "sports" and it is the physical environment that determines the "fittest". Thus it is geography and not biology that is the real subject.

In the human world, and schools are embedded in that, a communist government will declare fittest (most likely to mate) those who adhere to the communist curriculum in their exams. But are they the fittest actually? What is your criteria for fittest? Could it be, as it is suspected it was with Darwin, the criteria that raises self esteem and thus prone to being asserted?

With humans more and more creating the environment survival of species is more and more dependent upon human choices. Chickens, for example, exist in far larger numbers than they could ever do in the wild because tastiness and capacity to put on flesh is now more important than teeth and claw. And looking cute is a factor. Or other uses to humans as with racehorses. We have designer bacon. Somebody once bragged he could have "Made in Denmark" written in your bacon in red on a white background or vice versa.

The protection of endangered species is another case in point. Why are they not allowed to become extinct? a student might well ask a teacher. What answer would you give?

What did the immigration into north America do for the buffalo? In 200 years, a blink of the eye in evolution time, they were replaced by cows and sheep which would have had no chance without human intervention even if some had found their way there.

Evolution is passe. Geography, ecology and politics are the new determinants and, if all goes well, will dominate the future. Evolutionists are the new flat earthers.

What's your argument for not eradicating elephants? Whales are eating fish we could be eating. Only whale meat eaters have a scientific interest in a healthy whale population. For the rest of us such an interest is an affectation and nothing to do with science which, as you know, is emotionless.

2 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know