Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

So does the aircondioning in my Dodge Charger and my Ford F-150. Both are systems (my car and the environment it responds to and the evolution of biological organism as they respond to the environment) programmed with artificial intelligence. One was programmed in 2017 and is not living, the other is living and was programmed in some prehistoric time by somebody with greater abilities than any biologist around today otherwise that biologist would be doing it.

If it doesn’t require intelligence then we should observe nature doing it somewhere today.

Like the quote from wiki where it looks like intelligent design but it isn’t even though biologists use “teleological” language to describe it.

You know wordsmithing is a prerequisite for an evolutionary biologist. Look up “teleogical”. That is another word invented by biologists to replace intelligently guided. But, as any good wordsmither that is creating new words to change the meaning of the evidence would do, biologists are changing now “teleonomy”.

In the end if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck even if you refuse to call it a duck but instead wordsmith something like” it is a living decoy with the physical, mechanical and behavioral characteristics that are exactly like a duck that attracts ducks, but it really isn’t a duck”.

Though, that could provide a good way for an evolutionary biologist to get away with bagging more than the legal limit of ducks if a game warden stops him and checks how many ducks he has killed.

**** you.

Better now?

First and foremost, "wiki" is a common noun meaning a web site which accommodates collaborative editing of the material on display. For that very reason, Wikipedia is a not altogether reliable source, which is why you need to link your source so that people can decide for themselves if the material is reliable.

Second, your obsession with references to information, to algorithms and now artificial intelligence is a dodge which allows you to avoid the implications of natural selection and its implications for biological evolution. Yes, it's random, and you act as though the word random were some sort of blasphemy. You display more ignorance by talking about information being introduced. In many cases, genes already exist when, in response to environmental influences, major changes in an organism might result in speciation. I have already, more than once, provided the examples of the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros. I am not going to be required, tediously, to repeat myself every time you feel like parading your ignorance while making false statements from authority.

Your statements from authority are false because you possess no authority on any of these subjects, which is what you do consistently demonstrate. Mutation can result in alleles which do nothing, and are therefore neutral and can be retained. Mutations can also cause alleles which are harmful to the reproductive success of the organism, and therefore quickly dispose of the defective individuals. Those mutations which cause alleles having a beneficial influence on reproductive success will be retained and become the genetic norm for a species. This is the source of the dreaded macroevolution about which you are happy to continually trumpet your skepticism, as though your credulity have any value as evidence--it certainly does not. Once again, a beneficial allele can become a detrimental allele when environmental conditions change, and that is why I often (too often) refer to the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros--something which doesn't sink in with you since you only take notice of the silly BS you create to justify your credulity.

All these months, all these thousands of words, and you might have educated yourself, you might have come to understand the totally fortuitous nature of selection. Instead, because you insist of "seeing" a design where none exists (look up the word fortuitous), because you want to drag your imaginary friend, your magic sky daddy into the discussion, we just go 'round and 'round with you, and probably will for as long as you blight this discussion.

it was nit coined by biologists. It was coined in a time before "scientist" as a term of vocation didnt even exist. Anyway the originator was a philosopher and had training in applied math , as well as other crafts of the day.

As far as the rest I think set said it quite well.
Mutations provide the genic variation, Each mutation may have several alleles (like eye color or melanin level).Natural selection, draws out the one that allows for most successful reproduction for that time and environment. It all done by simple bio-chemistry ,the secrets of which we have been understanding in an increasing fashion within the last 40 years
To make an assertion that theres some big fight over theistic evolution or not. Im gonna say that its mostly "NOT THERE".



PS, your duck tale was kinda funny but insipient.

This page is from One Day a Dot: The Story of You, The Universe, and Everything.


They start brainwashing them earlier all the time.

It is absolutely ludicrous to see a religious type whining about children being brainwashed.

Jeebus loves me this i know
'Kuz the bobble tells me so . . .

the really funny thing is he probably feels that youre unfairly and incorrectly characterizing him.

Yeah, really . . . after all, just @ssholes and opinions, ever'body's got their own superstition, right?

It is strange how yourself and others label themselves as non-religious.
(I used to do this too)
What does this even mean right?
No one knows it all...

Thing is, take Leadfoots Dot photo above as an example of the Faith it takes to believe in evolutionism, to believe that life started in a chemical soup mixture.

I just put my faith in the knowledge that it takes intelligence to build ‘microscopic machines’ like bacteria. Much more realistic.

Today, being Father’s Day, I am glad to know that my Heavenly Father does love humanity, just as I love my kids. Happy Father’s Day to you guys, you are more than just Big Dots

That was my main objection to that children’s book. To start teaching science by telling a lie, saying that we actually know the facts of how life started and developed; it's abhorrent.

Once you get them to believe one lie, the rest is easy.

Q far as I know, the entire publishing industry is being floated by prayer books and all sorts of Jesus crap we can provide plenty evidence against.

Ever read Morris's "The Biblical Flood"...Y wanna read some pile of horse ****, there it is. Anything by "Answers in Genesis" reads like these guys are selling aluminum siding to Yurt Dwellers.

Beleive as you wish, just remember that, next time you fill up yer tank, thank an "evolutionary paleontologist and a stratigrapher from Penn State and U of Texas for turning what was a crap shoot industry into hard science and engineering.

As a matter of fact, our son went to the University of Texas in Austin for his graduate degree, and now works for the university. I looked it up, and UoT is pretty high up in the quality ratings.

These jokers just can't let go of their "abiogenesis" crap. To repeat myself, tediously, evolution is not about how life started--it can only refer to what happened once life was present.

True. However, scientists have provided some opinions on how life could have started. Here's a good documentary on the "origins of life." http://naturedocumentaries.org/3023/origin-life-pbs-2011/

Biological Evolution by randomly introduced information is a system of information accumulation and replication that works only is a system that is very time dependent.

At one moment it started replicating. A moment before that it wasn’t but organic molecules were chemically evolving in a way that lead to reproduction. How that happened should be part of the discussion about how the information that constructs the system we are observing evolved.

I reject your silly vocabulary of "information." But more than that, I reject your continued habit of speaking as though from authority when there is no reason to believe that you possess any authority on any topic relevant to evolutionary biology. Most of all I reject your attempt to get your god superstition inserted into the discussion by attempting to suggest that one cannot discuss evolution without discussing the origins of life.

The possible origins of life, whenever it doesn't involve someone's preferred superstitions, can be very interesting. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread. This thread is about evolution, which can only take place once life has arisen, and therefore the possible origins of life are not germane.

Everything in the universe is information. Everyone's mind recognizes it as such, that's why we can and are discussing it and comparing interpretations of the information.

You have the authority to reject a nearly universal acceptance of the fact that reality is made up of information. You don't like the use of the word because information implies the need for intelligence.



Ok but this is a thread about the "latest challenges to the teaching of evolution." I am challenging a small part of natural evolution. (the gaps, and how new information is introduced for paradigm shifts in biological organisms)

I don't reject your use of words. But, I will point out what they are saying to me or where I think your reasoning is wrong.

NO, you dont understand the evidence as it i presented, and therefore deny its existence. Thats a big difference. Its like Leadfoots belief that "The same evidence supports ID", and that , of course is lazy thinking. Investigation into evidence does take discipline and a bit of continued learning, not higgeldy piggeldy finding a word, then looking it up and then posting some POS from a biblical site that is also guilty of lazy thinking.

Don't try to tell me what everyone recognizes, and don't take a didactic tone with me. You have nothing to teach me, and your "information" bullshit is just an attempt to set up your imaginary friend, your "goddidit" thesis. I resent your tone and reject your thesis.

This thread is not about the origin of life. As you candidly admit, you're just trying to set up a condition which calls for your intelligence. You fail to understand the fortuitous nature of natural selection, and therefore have no business trying to dictate here.