Evolution? How?

It's not even so much significant as the develoment of breathing apparatus. (Some of the gill slits do become adult structures in "higher" vertebrates, though -- ears, for instance.) Rather, in a fish, each gill is supplied by a well developed vessel -- five or six, in the end, depending on the fish. During development, all other vertebrates at some point develop each of these arches, though not at the same time. Because development begins rostrally (at the head), the rostral vessels develop first. Most do not last into adulthood, but some do. These vessels (or aortic arches) connect the truncus arteriosus to the left and right dorsal aortas (aortae?).

In humans, the right and left branches of the truncus arteriosus become the common and external carotid arteries (the ones that run up your neck). The third aortic arch and the rostral portion of the right and left dorsal aortas become the internal carotid arteries.

The left fourth aortic arch becomes the arch of the aorta, which connects to the rest of the aorta, which is formed from the caudal portion of the right and common dorsal aortas (common dorsal aorta may be my own term). The remainder of the dorsal aorta system degenerates, along with the first, second, fifth, and right sixth aortic arch. The right fourth becomes the right subclavian artery in many animals (including primates and carnivores), but not in others (ruminants, for example).

The sixth aortic arches become the pulmonary arteries.

(I'm cribbing this from the Gilbert textbook on Dev. Biol., though I'm a little leery of their timetable, which has all aortic arches present at 29 days of gestation. I think this may be a bit of artistic license, which is irksome.)

(...and now I think to go find a prette pick-sure that is worth all those words up there and then some...)

http://pediatriccardiology.uchicago.edu/MP/embryology/aortic%20arches.GIF

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
The evidence remains unchanged. Whether it supports evolutionary theory is another matter.

Evolutionary theory is derived from the evidence, not the other way around.
Evolution is the only naturalistic explanation for the evidence we see, and until such time as some piece of evidence is found which doesn't fit the theory (which hasn't happened yes), all evidence will support the theory or modify it.

If you, or anyone else has a better scientific (naturalistic) theory to explain the evidence we see, then let's hear it.

Otherwise, the evidence supports Evolution because there are no other theories, and on conficting evidence. Period.

I think the question still is then, why do evolutionists feel the need to leave bogus info in the textbooks?

Sniffing that it is 'unfortunate' is hardly sufficient to explain why something disproved over 100 years ago is still referred to as evidence for evolution by evolutionists themselves in the textbooks that they author and approve.

0 Replies

real life, As there are many priests who cannot be trusted, there are also scientists who cannot be trusted. You can't discredit evolution on the basis of one book or one scientist - or several. You must learn to evaluate what is true science and what is bogus science. They are all part of our lives, and we must learn to separate the wheat from the chaf. Some people may call themselves "christians," but you know as well as everyone that not all who claim to be christians are christians. If you don't understand these simple concepts, you have much larger problems of understand the world in which we live.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life, As there are many priests who cannot be trusted, there are also scientists who cannot be trusted. You can't discredit evolution on the basis of one book or one scientist - or several. You must learn to evaluate what is true science and what is bogus science. They are all part of our lives, and we must learn to separate the wheat from the chaf. Some people may call themselves "christians," but you know as well as everyone that not all who claim to be christians are christians. If you don't understand these simple concepts, you have much larger problems of understand the world in which we live.

The problem with that, CI, is that it takes a lot more than one scientist - or even several to author, review, print , distribute and teach from a series of science textbooks.

In fact, textbooks like this are used by THOUSANDS of science teachers across the country every day. These 'leaders of young scholars' were themselves taught Evolution during their upbringing.

How is it that these teachers all pass along the same error without a whimper? It is because it is the same error that they were taught, and so forth back for 100 years.

We are not talking about 1 or 2 ill informed odd balls. The whole body is sick, not just the little toe.

The 'eminent scientists' who author and review the textbook before printing are either ignorant or devious.

You pick.

I don't care except to say that either one should disqualify them from their task.

But it hasn't . And it won't. And I am disgusted with excuses that are made for it. It is so 'unfortunate' that known falsehoods are there. Sigh.

Why aren't evolutionists disgusted with it? Why aren't they screaming their head off about it and using their positions of power to change it? It's not a secret that evolution has a virtual lock on public schools. You can't blame creationists for obstruction on this, I don't think.

Well, we don't want to give anybody the idea that anything in the textbook is to be questioned now, do we?

As long as the kids grow up believing in evolution, it doesn't seem to matter that they accept it based on false information. Just so they believe it, right?

Learning to distinguish the true science from the bogus, as you say, is a great idea. To do that, they need to hear the true, don't they?

0 Replies

Evolution
Simple to understand really if you have a good teacher. It can be confusing when you just hear this and that.

Read a book by Dr Richard Dawkins called "Climbing Mount Improbable" it is not too tough a read and will have "believers" (in evolution) out of you in no time

Barnoonan

0 Replies

textbook authors are usually lazy. ( I have xome experience in helping edit) They can be relied upon to use graphics that are already in the public domain, or some piece of crap that is computer generated. New textbooks in some fields are loaded with "clip art" that has been saved and resized so that the drawings are scrucnched or pulled in one direction.

I can see some school district textbook committee having the responsiblity to pick next years texts while being full court pressed by publisher reps and teachesr who all want their own pet stuff to be contained.
Until we demand that teachesr of sciences are trained as much in their science as they are in "teaching theory" we wont have any higher level of text.
I suppose that real life would rather use "of Pandas and people" which clearly sticks out as a book with a religious POV that cannot be accomodated within a world of science that demands a bit more.
"Of Pandas and People" is going to be used as an exhibit in the upcoming Dover trial,therefore getting the court to provide the same direction to the School District that governs other forms of Creationism, should be easy from a non-subjective view.

The IDers want to "Not lose" by such lower court directives or starting a chain of appeals until the USSC can be a guaranteed "fix".

0 Replies

hey barnoonan, welcome to A2K.Most of us have read DAwkins "popular" books and many of us have read more technical work in this discussion. I dont think that any of DAwkins books can be discounted in afashion that you describe.
His last work, which recounts the fossilrecord and genetic record of animal orders as they enter the taxa stream.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
The evidence remains unchanged. Whether it supports evolutionary theory is another matter.

Evolutionary theory is derived from the evidence, not the other way around.
Evolution is the only naturalistic explanation for the evidence we see, and until such time as some piece of evidence is found which doesn't fit the theory (which hasn't happened yes), all evidence will support the theory or modify it.

If you, or anyone else has a better scientific (naturalistic) theory to explain the evidence we see, then let's hear it.

Otherwise, the evidence supports Evolution because there are no other theories, and on conficting evidence. Period.

I think the question still is then, why do evolutionists feel the need to leave bogus info in the textbooks?

Ya know, I made a very good point in the quote you selected above RL, and I made it very clearly so that nobody could miss it. And yet somehow, you found a way to completely ignore the functional aspects of this conversation and instead, divert it onto a completely different issue (the accuracy of text books), of which we don't even have a disagreement (and of which you attempt to label us with). I hope Duane Gish is taking notes, because you're putting on quite a show.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
The evidence remains unchanged. Whether it supports evolutionary theory is another matter.

Evolutionary theory is derived from the evidence, not the other way around.
Evolution is the only naturalistic explanation for the evidence we see, and until such time as some piece of evidence is found which doesn't fit the theory (which hasn't happened yes), all evidence will support the theory or modify it.

If you, or anyone else has a better scientific (naturalistic) theory to explain the evidence we see, then let's hear it.

Otherwise, the evidence supports Evolution because there are no other theories, and on conficting evidence. Period.

I think the question still is then, why do evolutionists feel the need to leave bogus info in the textbooks?

Ya know, I made a very good point in the quote you selected above RL, and I made it very clearly so that nobody could miss it. And yet somehow, you found a way to completely ignore the functional aspects of this conversation and instead, divert it onto a completely different issue (the accuracy of text books), of which we don't even have a disagreement (and of which you attempt to label us with). I hope Duane Gish is taking notes, because you're putting on quite a show.

I understand your point completely. However, when we look at the reality of the situation, you could be perceived as a tad idealistic or even naive.

You say that science proceeds from evidence to theory. And in a perfect world you would be right.

In reality, the evolution sales force is pushing theory, evidence or not, and even false 'evidence' if need be.

So when you set aside the ros colored glasses and view what's really happening, I think your earlier response that this is 'unfortunate' is wholly inadequate and amounts to a passive, do-nothing response.

------------------

But I certainly did not fail to see the point you attempted to make. You would like to disqualify all theories that are not naturalistic from consideration. Yes, we know you would.

Let me ask you, if you were teaching a class in evolution, to name some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory that you would tell your students about.

If you respond that there are none, then you do not have an open mind on the subject at all, obviously.

If you can list some, but wouldn't discuss them with your class, what does that tell us?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

In reality, the evolution sales force is pushing theory, evidence or not, and even false 'evidence' if need be.

There is no "evolution sales force" RL. You are sounding paranoid. Evolution is simply the only scientific theory which explains the evidence in sufficient detail to be accepted as scientific fact. So we explain it to kids in science class. Pretty weird huh?

real life wrote:

But I certainly did not fail to see the point you attempted to make.

And I thank you for finally addressing it.

real life wrote:

You would like to disqualify all theories that are not naturalistic from consideration. Yes, we know you would.

It's not up to me to disqualify non-naturalistic theories from science RL. It's simply the way science is defined. And for very good reason.

If you're hangup is with naturalism, then let's talk about that (start another thread). But you can't go whining about naturalism when playing in the ballfield of science. That's like complaining about having to hit a ball with a bat when playing baseball... it's the rules.

real life wrote:

Let me ask you, if you were teaching a class in evolution, to name some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory that you would tell your students about.

I would tell my students honestly that the theory of evolution, as with all theories, is constantly being refined and challenged as new evidence is discovered. This is the strength of theories which survive, and the strength of science itself.

But I would also tell them honestly that even though many details of the evolutionary process are not agreed upon, that the basic tenets of the theory are not in question at all. There is no scientific doubt that descent with modification is occuring and has occurred. Likewise, there is no doubt that life on this planet has evolved through common ancestry.

real life wrote:

If you respond that there are none, then you do not have an open mind on the subject at all, obviously.

Well, I just said that there are "weaknesses" in evolutionary theory, but that they are all just weaknesses in our understanding of the details.

Since you were nice enough to pre-judge my response, I'll follow suit and assume that you will not be happy with the fact that I will admit no fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, and must sadly conclude therefor, that I am closed minded on the subject.

real life wrote:

If you can list some, but wouldn't discuss them with your class, what does that tell us?

Everything that is relevant should be discussed with the class. In science class, that means that it should be science which is discussed, not voodoo or astrology or alchemy or ID.

0 Replies

"...in a perfect world, you would be right..." What exactly are you trying to imply with this statement?

0 Replies

real life has attempted to bring up some areas that he felt are weaknesses in evolutionary thinking. Hoewever, nothing has stood any scrutiny. I read an article in this AMs NYT about how the "Creation Goon Squads" come into museums and tryto intimidate the docents. One of the
museum docents had the observation that "you can talk to theCreationists but its as if they just arent listening"

Fits real life. Im seeing bits of his questions that answered and reanswered, hes still saying what isnt true. The Haeckel Drawings that exist in a science text are often confused with the Strickelberger drawings that show embryonic gill arches in a number of genera.
I thinketh that real life is tring to make an issue where none really exists. Yet he fails to acknowledge the very Creationist "bunko artists' who, in the last year alone have tried to pass off fake molds depicting contemporaneity of dinosaurs and man or are still trying to convince the public of the "cataclysmic " formation of the Grand Canyon in soft sediment form.
AS Eugenie Scott has said, which Creationism do the Creationists want taught in schools? There are at least 5 distinct schools of Creationist thought, each of whome wants their say and day in court. Thats why the Dover Case is quickly becoming a Waterloo for the IDers and Old Earth Creationists

Nope no hypocrisy here either.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life has attempted to bring up some areas that he felt are weaknesses in evolutionary thinking. Hoewever, nothing has stood any scrutiny. I read an article in this AMs NYT about how the "Creation Goon Squads" come into museums and tryto intimidate the docents. One of them had the observation that "you can talk to them but they just arent listening"

Fits real life. Im seeing bits of his questions that answered and reanswered, hes still saying what isnt true. The Haeckel Drawings that exist in a science text are often confused with the Strickelberger drawings that show embryonic gill arches in a number of genera.
I thinketh that real life is tring to make an issue where none really exists. Yet he fails to acknowledge the very Creationist "bunko artists' who, in the last year alone have tried to pass off fake molds depicting contemporaneity of dinosaurs and man or are still trying to convince the public of the "cataclysmic " formation of the Grand Canyon in soft sediment form.
AS Eugenie Scott has said, which Creationism do the Creationists want taught in schools? There are at least 5 distinct schools of Creationist thought, each of whome wants their say and day in court. Thats why the Dover Case is quickly becoming a Waterloo for the IDers and Old Earth Creationists

Nope no hypocrisy here either.

Oh my. Creationists go to museums and attempt to CONVERSE !! This is more serious than I thought. Has the FBI been notified? Maybe RICO laws can be used to stop them. It has been successful in shutting up the abortion protesters. We can't be having any of that dissent. No No No.

-------------

I have only disgust for any, creationist or evolutionist, who try to manufacture or massage the evidence. (Would you like to discuss Piltdown Man?)

The difference between 'bunko artists' who try to pass off fake molds as individuals, and public school districts (and the textbook corporations which they support) using public money and the force of law to indoctrinate children using patently false information while stamping their PhD's on the front cover for emphasis should be fairly obvious. If it's not, let me know. I'll explain using small words.

---------------------

As to 'which school of creationist thought' one could as easily answer 'which school of evolutionary thought' since sometimes it seems that about the only thing evolutionists agree on is that it MUST have happened.

----------------------

Farmerman, are you seriously trying to defend derivations of Haeckel's theory. The supposed 'gill slits' are anything but, as you also admitted earlier that they had NOTHING to do with breathing.

They are neither gills, nor slits. They may be folds of flesh or possibly other structures in an early stage, but they have no link to a fish gill whatsoever. Why then do you and others persist in naming them 'gill slits' unless your purpose is to create a false impression?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
In reality, the evolution sales force is pushing theory, evidence or not, and even false 'evidence' if need be.

There is no "evolution sales force" RL. You are sounding paranoid.

You mean they give out those textbooks for free?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

It's not up to me to disqualify non-naturalistic theories from science RL. It's simply the way science is defined. And for very good reason.

If you're hangup is with naturalism, then let's talk about that (start another thread). But you can't go whining about naturalism when playing in the ballfield of science. That's like complaining about having to hit a ball with a bat when playing baseball... it's the rules.

It's perfectly natural that science should be pursued within the limits of what can be observed. That's why it is a glaring contradiction when 'science' is invoked to try to explain what has not been observed.

Both of us have positions that bring with them statements about what occurred long ago with no human observation.

I am upfront about it and recognize it as limiting the 'scientific' basis of creation theory. Scientific evidence can yield circumstantial evidence, but not direct evidence to support creation, because it wasn't and can't be observed.

You have not acknowledged the same because you crave credibility for your position. Seientific evidence may yield circumstantial evidence for the idea of evolution. However we recognize that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted a number of different ways.

The inferred relationships between the species are a good example. Evolutionists postulate that creatures have similar features because they were derived from one another. Creationists postulate that creatures sharing a common environment, including common sources of food and common dangers such as predators and weather might reasonably be equipped with similar features to help them survive and thrive.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Let me ask you, if you were teaching a class in evolution, to name some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory that you would tell your students about.

.......But I would also tell them honestly that even though many details of the evolutionary process are not agreed upon, that the basic tenets of the theory are not in question at all. There is no scientific doubt that descent with modification is occuring and has occurred. Likewise, there is no doubt that life on this planet has evolved through common ancestry.

That's classic humor. 'We don't know how, but we're very sure it happened.'

It's like the algebra teacher who told her students, "I can't explain how to work the problem but the answer has to be 14 because I wrote it in pen on the answer key and it's too late to change it now."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

It's not up to me to disqualify non-naturalistic theories from science RL. It's simply the way science is defined. And for very good reason.

If you're hangup is with naturalism, then let's talk about that (start another thread). But you can't go whining about naturalism when playing in the ballfield of science. That's like complaining about having to hit a ball with a bat when playing baseball... it's the rules.

It's perfectly natural that science should be pursued within the limits of what can be observed. That's why it is a glaring contradiction when 'science' is invoked to try to explain what has not been observed.

Science requires that evidence be observable and testible, but we're still allowed to use our heads to make deductions based on the evidence.

We don't need to observe a redwood growing from a seed to know that it did. We've covered this point already. Try to keep up.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The inferred relationships between the species are a good example. Evolutionists postulate that creatures have similar features because they were derived from one another. Creationists postulate that creatures sharing a common environment, including common sources of food and common dangers such as predators and weather might reasonably be equipped with similar features to help them survive and thrive.

I have acknowledged many times that multiple theories can explain the evidence, but not multiple "scientific" theories.

I have no objection to creationim as a theory any more than I do the magic elf theory or super-aliens. But none of them are scientific theories.

Again, we've covered this stuff before. Please come up with something new, or address the previous answer. Don't just backslide over and over again.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

.......But I would also tell them honestly that even though many details of the evolutionary process are not agreed upon, that the basic tenets of the theory are not in question at all. There is no scientific doubt that descent with modification is occuring and has occurred. Likewise, there is no doubt that life on this planet has evolved through common ancestry.

That's classic humor. 'We don't know how, but we're very sure it happened.'

Read it again, "even though many details of the evolutionary process are not agreed upon, the basic tenets of the theory are not in question at all".

Get used to it. Because that's the reality of the world, whether you can understand it or not.

0 Replies

rosborne, farmerman, et al; Unfortunately, the majority of adults in this country believe we should teach creationism in our schools. That's what happens when religion gets involved with our political and educational system. I'm afraid there's no turning back; the IDers are gonna win.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

I am upfront about it and recognize it as limiting the 'scientific' basis of creation theory. Scientific evidence can yield circumstantial evidence, but not direct evidence to support creation, because it wasn't and can't be observed.

What exactly is the "scientific" basis of creation theory?

P

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know