Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Before you can call something false, shouldnt you perhaps understand it. When you make really ignorant misrepresentations of why medicine and bio research are based upon neo Darwinian evo/devo, I dont think Im capable of breaking through your wall of obtuse Christianity.

Keep yer day job.Do you serve the fries or make the fries?

cheer up and worry not , theres so much to learn that we are havin a ball. No one on this side feels smug and certain about the world and its creatures as are you. We celebrate ignorance because it provides us room to dig harder and deeper. ere we all as certain as you there would be nothing to research and wed all be watching people die from "evil spirits" and "Baaad ass humours"

Do you ever have doubts that you really understand what you think you do?

no, you INVENT reasons and deny rality because your entire worldview is evidence -gfree. You can call me bigoted for whatever tangled reasons you emit, but meth naturalism is really the only way that research can be done When you start adding **** like creators or intelligences you are forced to think in a package that dos NOT allow things like creativity or even "multiple hypotheses"

yeh for once you earn your fee, we start going up at about 1000 m not 10K. And its about another 1000 m + to the site at Machu Picchu .My baad.

Not going to knock you for a typo (I didn’t think you were brag'n or lying)..
The other guys don’t get a pass though.

Explain why.

. How did ID Become the philosophy police? I thought you claimed that job already?

I thought ID “IS” just another hypothesis isn’t it? I never said it was “THE” hypothesis. You are the one saying it’s against the rules to suggest it “MIGHT” be the hypothesis and random introduction of information into the universe has to be “THE” only hypothesis.

How is it that, meth naturalism “only” is considered allow ing creativity while, allowing “all” methods (including naive realism and subjective idealism) as possible alternatives is considered not allowing creativity? Please explain.

Yet another paper published in Nature delivers a major challenge to the existing
view of evolution.

Here is the abstract and a link to the complete paper.

think about it. What reserch is actually going on with an ID basis If any were planned, youd be serching foor evidence that supports your belief and the resarch would "ignore" thaise areas that refute ID. SOrt of when nat selection can be seen to be related to cataclysms or environmental changes. the relationship of such changes are what? Part of your algorithm fantasy. How is this accomplished?? And if it is why isnt anyon out there looking for the algorithm??
Saying something and evidencing something are two different things. meth naturalism omits having to pay "dues" to some sponsoring god.

when you begin claiming that an "intelligence" is behind everything , then you go out for coffee because you dont want to discuss how you know all these things. Every argument you claim as evidence surrounds some Biblical reference so far. "Intelligent Design is so because the Bible tells me so"???. at everything???

As far as the rest and the "cant you see that this is how a n ID would work"...Thats meaningless ipsedixitismic prattle.

In this thread, the point has been , and remains "AFAIC'd" the challenges to keep religious teaching of science OUT of chool curricula. I keep having to draw you guys back into the fray because you wander all over the sty with some lame arguments about how "Science is a religion", or "ID is visible all over", among some of my favorite listenings.

The courts have so far, rebuffed such scholastic advances that the Creationists (and their IDer descendents) have been trying to make ever since Scopes. Its not over by a long shot, since, right now, in the Florida legislature there are 3 bills (interconnected in their web, so that if one fails, it has enough clausal separation from the other two). These bills are a "honed down" fine tuned series of laws that allow individual suits . In one case, the ACLU has had to take the side of the IDers because their case has become a state constitutional thing and the IDers dont really preach the merits of ID. They are really a bunch of well crafted pieces of legislation and have dropped much of the ID crap so its not an issue of science v religion and "establihment clause". Its a matter of oppressive govt on the "Free expression " clause. I believe itll be lost incourt because the IDers will have to explain the reasons for why they are being oppressed (Which, if Im still not too dumb, means that they WILL have to admit that ID is a religion, because why would you need to be prtected under the free expression clause if theres nothing religious in there).

I think itll be interesting but, as Ive said before, a total waste of our money. (Course Florida only has immigrants and old farts and I dont work in the mines anymore)> So we shall see.

is a fanciful label for science, except it has no meaning. One must assume those who tag science as a religion doesn't understand the definition of words. If science is a religion, who is the supreme being of science? How many worship this supreme being?

Ya know, Lynn Margulis had been saying this about capturing entire protista genomes for years.
Also, I thinkk the work was only looking at protein coding genes not the 55% of the bag

I read that post knowing what FM meant to convey. I skimmed the numbers and have nothing to answer to you for.

You see, Yourself making comments like’ don’t quit your day job serving fries’ says a lot about your sinful nature, or just that you are living out what evolutionism teaches....and that is that people are merely modified bacteria which crawled off a rock, and fish, so treat them as so.
My heart is saddened that our culture teaches our kids this stuff.
But there is hope!

Ya gotta admit that you are a challenge to a science teacher. Besides our best or worst students, we always remember the very few, like you, who ya wonder about " what the hell is going on upstairs?"

so you dont actually MAKE the fries?

well, I can say that Im doing what I must and you are probably doing what you can.
I asked you a question earlier, which you deftly ignored. So I knew then that I wasnt dealing with an honest debator.

You were not doing what you must, you were doing what is natural. We are naturally born sinners, and you are Consistently behaving like one To many people.

What is this question you asked? Whether I make or serve the fries?

forget it.

Forget about it.

I ignore no evidence. It all has to fit always. All the gaps in the evidence that you fill with your imagination I leave in the fossil record. I assume the evidence is what it is.

I believe natural selection guided design by killing what doesn’t work sometimes requiring a paradigm shift which required intelligent input of new information into the DNA to facilitate the paradigm shift.



People who study information technology are studying it and understand it is an algorithm.

Understanding and developing information technology requires the use of naive realism and subjective idealism to understand the algorithms. Discussing that aspect of evolution has been scrubbed from academia by a small group of people like you because it requires philosophies you accept and use everywhere else in your life as you interpret information but refuse to use in certain fields of research. I am fighting that narrow mindedness.



I will start quoting Sumerian writings then since the first books of genesis were derived from them. I am not referring to them for religious reasons it’s because they are some of the oldest historical documentation we have of man’s understanding of the history of the designer and how it happened.



That sounds like you are quoting yourself when explaining how random introduction of information can perform the paradigm shifts in information to perform macroevolution. When I ask for information you provide the fossil record with its gaps, the biological system with its layers of embedded and synergistic complexity, with no explanation of how individualy derived random pieces of information can build an algorithm that has AI planning built into it. The only other algorithms we observe with that capability men have written.

The courts are picking and choosing which philosophies are acceptable at which time. Our founding fathers used all three (naturalism, naive realism, and subjective idealism) at all times and I suspect they thought they protected everyone’s right to do the same in the constitution.

are you aware of the interactive roles that evidence from many diiplines play?? Look some up nd try to scape some of the consistencies that seem to strongly show that nothing i optimized , or conveniently "appearing" when needed, or is even related to any other features of sister species. o pehaps your go "dos play dice"

God has free will and initiated the system. He was more than likely not the only intelligence involved in the paradigm shifts.

I don’t do things the same everyday. I listen to different music, paint my house a different color etc. . . Variety is the spice of life. What’s your point?