Evolution? How?

Will they have a copy of Darwin's grandpa's book on evolution as part of the display? I'd kinda like to see that.

neo, Im sure you have an encyclopedic knowledge in what is your chosen line. I do this for a living, so why shouldnt I know this stuff. I equally take umbrage at you, and others, who are untrained and (it shows) yet that doesnt stop you from insinuating that I am somehow involved in a profesion that chases rainbows and falsities.

farmerman wrote:

TR

KINGDOM
PHYLUM
CLASS
ORDER
FAMILY
GENUS
SPECIES

Now, try to focus on the above Linnean hierarchy. If a new FAMILY is evolved then obviously, by definition a new species is evolved. I think youre using a term (micro evolution) and dont have any appreciation of its meaning.

Any system of classification is, by it's own definition, subjective. So categorizing any creature as a new species or part of a new genus, etc is simply a function of the taxonomist's desire to call it so.

It's just a matter of where someone decides to draw a line and what traits will and won't make one creature 'different enough' from another to call it something else.

In the case of the cichlids, the fish are still fish, if I recall. This remains so, whether you classify them as new species , etc....... or not.

If a new taxonomical system is adopted, with more levels of gradation , say 12 instead of the 7 you listed, then no doubt taxonomy will be given much more emphasis in the classroom in order to solidify in young skulls full of mush the idea that great changes from "A level" all the way to "E level" have taken place among the cichlids, and can't we now plainly see that evolution has taken place since these many classificational barriers have been traversed by this famous critter?

(No really! The pea DID move from under that cup to under this one! )

Guys,

Should we have a minute of silence for all the kids in Kansas who wanted to study science?

Doubtful, but they do have a fine exhibit on the Evolution of God showing the development process between GoddeusPissius and GoddeusLoveusUseusAlleus.

Quote:

Doubtful, but they do have a fine exhibit on the Evolution of God showing the development process between GoddeusPissius and GoddeusLoveusUseusAlleus.

No evolution here, just two diffent sides of nature shown... he judges, but he also forgives. Your cynical interpretation is obscuring any kind of valid view of the bible.

An important note about Kansas:

The new state science standards do not take effect until 2007. Kansas will have an election for new state board members in 2006. It is very possible that the new science policy will be reversed before it goes into effect.

Hardly. I have a rather valid view of the bible. My cynical interpretation is as easilly open to debate as any of the other portions of the bible that Christianity currently enjoys bickering about.

RL,

The Kansas Board of Education limited their changes to the single topic of evolution. My general disagreement is that evolution is being unfairly singled out. Also, students will be given the false impression that there is serious disagreement among scientists about evolutionary theory. The disagreement is not among scientists but rather among politicians.

Posted: 10th November 2005, 7:24 pm Post: 1664364 -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wandeljw wrote:
RL,

The Kansas Board of Education limited their changes to the single topic of evolution. My general disagreement is that evolution is being unfairly singled out. Also, students will be given the false impression that there is serious disagreement among scientists about evolutionary theory. The disagreement is not among scientists but rather among politicians.

Actually the disagreement is between scientists who think that purely naturalistic mechanisms can account for the variety of living organisms that we see, human origin, etc. and scientists who do not think that naturalistic explanations alone are sufficient to account for these things.

According to stats posted by one of the (pro-evolution) participants here on A2K, 55% of scientists surveyed were in the first category, while 40% were in the second. That's a pretty serious disagreement among scientists.

wandeljw wrote:

RL,

The Kansas Board of Education limited their changes to the single topic of evolution. My general disagreement is that evolution is being unfairly singled out. Also, students will be given the false impression that there is serious disagreement among scientists about evolutionary theory. The disagreement is not among scientists but rather among politicians.

Actually the disagreement is between scientists who think that purely naturalistic mechanisms can account for the variety of living organisms that we see, human origin, etc. and scientists who do not think that naturalistic explanations alone are sufficient to account for these things.

According to stats posted by one of the (pro-evolution) participants here on A2K, 55% of scientists surveyed were in the first category, while 40% were in the second. That's a pretty serious disagreement among scientists.