Evolving textbook stickers

| 324 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Yet another school board is contemplating defacing science textbooks with warning stickers (Memphis Commercial Appeal, free reg. req.). Yet again, it's driven by religious interests rather than any desire to improve the quality of science teaching.

The same school board member who helped establish a Bible class in Shelby County Schools is pushing for a creation message on high school biology books.

County school board member Wyatt Bunker, who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God, said he's concerned that students are being taught only scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang.

I'm sure it's very nice for Wyatt Bunker that he believes in God, but that is an issue that is completely irrelevant to what should be taught in a science class. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to expect that only scientific theories would be taught in a science class. But that's already been settled in the courts, and what's interesting about this case is the way it has evolved.

It is good to note, though, that the newspaper has clearly recognized the religious motivation behind this effort, and hasn't been shy about saying it up front.

Bunker wants to slap warning stickers on the biology textbooks, and he has borrowed heavily from the stickers that were proposed in Cobb County, Georgia. The use of those stickers was struck down by the courts, which ruled that "encouraging the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." Bunker seems to think his changes to the sticker will rescue it. But do they? Look at the differences:

Cobb County, GAShelby County, TN

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

There are three changes to the three sentences of the disclaimer. They don't impress me.

  • Changing "evolution" to "scientific theories about creation." Bunker is actually trying to widen the net—he doesn't just object to evolution, he dislikes the Big Bang theory. Let's teach physics with a religious bent!
  • Mentioning "scientific and religious theories." This has the same problem the original sticker had: it muddles up the scientific definition of theory with the colloquial understanding. There are no religious theories. There are religious ideas, sure enough, but lets not confuse everything by treating them as equivalent to scientific theories.
  • Saying "all" theories, not just the theory of evolution, should be studied critically. This was empty noise in the original, and it's still empty noise. Of course we teach science critically and with an open mind.

The Shelby County board has sensibly deferred action on the proposal, and is reviewing it in light of the Cobb County decision. They are understandably reluctant to do something that will prompt expensive legal action and will probably go down in flames, anyway, and we can at least hope that they are also motivated by a desire to do what's best for their students, and this proposed sticker does not contribute to that. If anyone wants to encourage the Shelby County Schools board of education to continue to support good science teaching by rejecting Bunker's proposal, they have some contact information online, and a list of board members. Be nice, everyone, they're doing the right thing so far. But we will be keeping an eye on them.

1 TrackBack

Recent News on Evolution Disclaimers from Dispatches from the Culture Wars on February 21, 2005 12:38 PM

A couple of recent happenings concerning evolution disclaimer stickers in science textbooks. In the Cobb County case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the two sides in that dispute to meet with a mediator to see if they... Read More

324 Comments

“Yet another school board is contemplating defacing science textbooks with warning stickers.…”

And the modern pagans must protect their holy books from that?

It seems to me that if the words in the book are true, no little sticker designed to create thought will matter. However, if the words in the book are false and rely on, “Well, this is the best naturalistic explanation we currently have. It may be utterly stupid and false, but you should accept what is false because at least it is naturalistic. And well, that’s what science is!” then a sticker designed to generate thought will matter. Why will thought matter? It’s probably because thought generates intelligence, while textbooks written to inspire Nature worship only inspire proto-Nazi scientism. If you are going to put naturalistic explanation before that little issue of the truth, incessantly, then the least that should be done is to note that a textbook may have nothing to do with the truth.

Mynym

The words in a science book aren’t “true” or “false”. They are the best explanation found by scientific means for a certain phenomena. If there is something that should be done in schools is explaining this to children BEFORE they learn anything about science. In my school (I’m Spanish), they did. However, in religion class they told me that christianism was the one and only Truth. No wonder I’m an atheist…

On the other hand, these stickers are not meant to produce thought. Science encourages thought. If anyone can prove without doubt a theory to be wrong, the theory will be changed to conform to reality. These stickers are meant to produce confusion, equalling scientifically provable theories with religious faith.

The fact is that religion has a place in the life’s of people. Things like this are only an effort to extend that influence.

(I should call Godwin’s law, hehehe)

Richard Dawkins, the famous Oxford atheist zoologist, author of “The Selfish Gene” “The Blind Watchmaker”, was at least honest when he said “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. ‘Tis a pity everyone in The Church of Darwin is not as forthright.

Make no mistake, the core constituency on both sides of this brouhaha are driven by religiuous ideology. It stopped being about science a very long time ago.

Dave, that mined quote has been explained to you several times in another thread. Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strengths.

Dawkins did indeed say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

But Dawkins did NOT say that Darwin denied God. Dawkins did NOT say that evolution has evidence God doesn’t exist (though Dawkins personally finds the lack of evidence for God to be persuasive).

Nor did Dawkins say anything that should prevent faith-filled Christians from being intellectually or religiously fulfilled.

In short, Dave, your nervousness that someone else might find happiness and peace in science is no kick against evolution, but it does raise questions about what you claim as the inherent Scrooginess of Christianity.

Dickens wrote, “The stairs were dark, but darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it.”

History tells different story: Darkness is expensive, ignorance costs lives and money. Scrooge was wrong.

That shouldn’t make any Christian nervous or unhappy, and I cannot understand why anyone would be bothered by those who light candles against the darkness, even if those candles illuminate the paths of atheists.

PZ Myers Wrote:

The use of those stickers was struck down by the courts

For that you fail Current Events and Civil Justice.

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court. The ridiculous ruling handed down by Clinton appointed crony/judge Clarence Cooper is being appealed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I expect a judge at a higher pay grade will reverse Cooper’s goofy finding.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 2, byte 193 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Furrfu, time yet again for the endless “failing to have a religious opinion is itself a religious opinion” dorkitude.

The vengeance of the Fates upon me is manifest, in that I now understand entirely too well the reason for the irritation exhibited by my (few remaining) friends at my constant iteration of the “anything you believe about the world is a religious belief” mantra, back when I still held supernatural beliefs.

Why would you expect that? You didn’t point out any sort of legal flaw in the ruling that could have been grounds to overturn. I assume that once the ruling is upheld, the higher court will also be labelled as Clinton appointed cronies who don’t know how to uphold the constitution like DaveScot does?

Ed Darrell,

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That’s been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

And that’s the way it was. Deny it if you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.

It merely supports mutation/selection as one of the powerful forces of mutation. Your dogmatic position is falsified by the evidence. Your revision of history and your unfamiliarity with the evidence, fail to impress.

Darwin focuses on selection working on variation. That later findings helped understand the source of this variation is a powerful addition to Darwin’s findings. We now understand both aspects much better. A powerful paradigm became even more powerful.

Meyer’s religion IS an issue to help understand the motivations of the ID movement and to help understand why, despite a flawed scientific foundation, a position of ‘god of the gaps’, it still holds to a position that ID is the best explanation. In other words, it is an explanation for an observation that ID is scientifically vacuous and helps explain why inspite of this, ID exists as a religious/political movement. Meyer’s religion and Dawkins’ atheistic position are irrelevant to their scientific claims but it helps explain why Meyer focuses on a ‘God of the Gaps’ approach with all the logical flaws and the inevitable conclusion that ID is scientifically vacuous. Sometimes, ID seems to take the position that their religious position is used to prevent their scientific arguments from being fairly evaluated. Nothing is more wrong. It’s the poor performance of their scientific arguments, combined with their political/religious goals which are used to explain the existence of ID. Science seems to be a means to an end and suffering because of it. Meyer’s lastest paper makes for an excellent example. A limited overview of scientific knowledge of the Cambrian is combined with an ‘eliminative argument’ to infer design as ‘the best explanation’. In other words ‘a god of the gap’ argument without ANY scientifically relevant details as to how ID explains the Cambrian.

Enough

I expect it because Cooper’s decision was ridiculous. I have made my reasons clear before using relevant quotes from the decision itself. I didn’t bookmark it. If you missed it, too bad.

Here’s a nice take on the matter for your reading pleasure.

http://www.ksusentinel.com/news/200[…]841750.shtml

…and you were rebutted. If you missed it, too bad.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 314, byte 400 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

The extent of his argument seems to vary from “I don’t like this ruling, ergo it’s wrong” to “aw come on guys, it’s just a little sticker, who cares?”.

The stickers have yet to be removed, by the way. It appears the Cobb County School board is ignoring his order. I wonder if the National Guard will have to be called in with tanks and guns and such to remove the stickers? It’s highly amusing for those of us who see how preposterous the situation is.

Latest development:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/me[…]olution.html

Appeals court asks mediation on evolution stickers

By KRISTINA TORRES The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 02/18/05 The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has asked both sides in the Cobb County evolution disclaimers case to meet with a mediator March 1.

The step is an intermediate one as the county school board appeals a federal court ruling banning disclaimers on textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact.”

The court’s request surprised neither Michael Manely, who represents parents who want the disclaimers removed, nor Linwood Gunn, who represents the school board. The two lawyers don’t expect it to come to much, either.

“I’m not overly optimistic of reaching any kind of settlement,” Gunn said today.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled Jan. 13 that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered them removed immediately. The board has since requested that the order be put on hold pending the outcome of its appeal.

Wow. We agree. It really is preposterous to expect a state board of education to put a sticker on a biology textbook. Or is it preposterous for them to comply with a judges ruling, like the rest of society?

Dave Scott better hope that the theory of evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of God since that would mean that God doesn’t exist.

Dave Scott, IGC, in his enthusiasm for True Belief faults Darwin because he was not omniscient:

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That’s been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

If Dave knew anything about Biology, he would recognize that mutation/selection won because it fit the observed data better than any other alternative.

And, if Dave had read the Origin of Species with suitable background and discernment, he would have recognized that Darwin noticed some things that later became understood with the rise of genetics, including a difficulty with Lamarckian evolution/inheritance in the case of social insects:

For no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly sterile members of a communtiy could possibly have affected the structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave descendents. I am surprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck.Origin of Species, Gramercy facsimile of the 1st ed., p. 262.

This phenomenon is now easily understood in the light of Dave’s maligned mutation/selection.

So Darwin thought through the implications of his ideas, but didn’t pretend to have all the answers, nor did he speculate on mechanisms of heredity without any data. Doh.

Sounds like he was a scientist. Which the various IDC’s, YEC’s, IGC’s and CNC’s aren’t.

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

“This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

“This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

I”ve been away for some time and am just picking up this thread—about which I may have more comments tomorrow (that is about the stickers in Shelby County), but thought I would comment on DaveScot’s usual shallow nonsense. Whether it’s DaveScot or those he supports at the Discovery Institute, their arguments can best be described as wishful thinking. By the most accurate label that is simply prayer. My late mother was one to rely on prayer often, so I’ll not malign it—it has its place for believers—but it has no place in science, rational analysis, or objective assessments of any kind. DaveScot, If you don’t believe that, try it on the IRS sometime. Or on computer code, or on increasing your income, or making that old clunker in the garage cure its ailments all by itself. Doesn’t work, does it? Well the same holds for sciencce. Prayer won’t get you a resolution to your ancestry or that of any species on earth. Only hard nosed analysis of the facts. But keep praying and you’ll continue to have a measurable impact on the readers of PT, which is to say none. Nada. Zilch. So your motives must be something perverse. like masochism, perhaps?

Speaking of prayer, yesterday afternoon I was driving out from Philadelphia to my home, about an hour or so out in the country, and listening to “Science Friday” on NPR. Ira Flatow was hosting a panel at the AAAS meeting in Washington with a live audience. One of the penelists was Leon Lederman, retired head of the Fermi Lab in Illiinois. When the subject turned to creationism and evolution, Lederman, a very serious man by the way, set me to laughing out loud when he suggested a simple solution to the creation/vevolution controversy was to set up two health care systems. If you accepted evolution you went to evolutionary based hospitals where medicine based on the best science was provided. If you were a creationist or subscriber to ID, you’d go to a creationist run hospital where eight to ten people would gather round the afflicted, holding his or her hand and pray. Lederman was obviously being facetious, but with its coming from a man of his stature, it was hilarious.

Here is my suggestion for a passage that should be integrated into books that discuss evolution. It should not appear as an extraneous sticker because it is essential to understanding the philosophy of science and the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. Any textbook that omits the ideas communicated in the following passage is in my opinion incomplete and perhaps misleading.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It provides an incomplete schemata or framework for studying living organisms. One or more parts of the theory may be incorrect. As with any scientific theory, the entire theory or substantial parts of it may be shown to be false in the future. The theory may be altered or superceded as more data is gathered and as knowledge increases. One fundamental area of incompleteness concerns the mechanisms for the evolution of the first organisms. Several preliminary suggestions have been made but very little is known with even a minimal degree of certainty. Science always maintains an open and inquisitive stance when investigating phenomena. Science avoids dogmatism and acknowledges the growth, change and tentativeness of empirically based knowledge.

Trying to prevent a passage like this from appearing in a textbook on evolution would be a tendentious and egregious form of selective censorship. I hope that any scientists visiting this forum would find the passage unobjectionable.

Count yourself lucky GWW isn’t around to comment on that.

Empiricist - why single out evolution? I’m all for students getting a brief intro to some issues in philosophy of science, but since the issues highlighted in your proposed passage apply to all theories, there’s no reason at all to mention evolution.

Dan asks, “why single out evolution?” I do not think that one should single out evolution when discussing the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. Consider first year physics students who are taught Newtonian mechanics. It is important that students know that the scientific theory designated “Newtonian mechanics” was thought to be “true” for many years. Indeed, some scientists thought that physics was largely a “solved” problem and that Newtonian mechanics was a “fact”. But Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by theories such as quantum chromodynamics and general relativity. For example, the predictions generated by Newtonian mechanics are completely inaccurate for fast moving objects. There is no upper bound on the velocity of an object in Newtonian mechanics, and now scientists believe that there is an upper bound of c (the speed of light). So the “disclaimer” style discussion in a textbook covering Newtonian mechanics should mention that it is incomplete, wrong, and has been superseded.

I believe that scientists also think that the theory of quantum chromodynamics is incomplete and wrong. Researchers are working on successor theories involving, for example, “branes”, and students should be made aware of this. General relativity also breaks down I believe, i.e., the theory is known to be incomplete and wrong. If there is a physicist reading this perhaps he or she can comment.

There is no shame in stating that scientific knowledge is incomplete, changing and tentative. The passage in a textbook that discusses scientific uncertainty may vary depending on the scientific area. For example, sometimes a scientific theory that is being taught is already known to be flawed.

Empiricist, this is a very (probably too-) short take on the legal difficulties, but singling out evolution makes a big difference. We essentially look at the motives of the rulemakers to see if they had a valid secular purpose in making the rule, and/or whether they were entangling the government too closely with religion. (If you’re not familiar with the standard, it’s called the Lemon Test, and Wikipedia has a good article that sums it up rather well.)

A general science disclaimer isn’t a problem, and most people here would support it, as long as it didn’t explicitly posit ‘religious theories’ as an alternative to objective science. (That’s a pretty boneheaded move on the part of the creationists, by the way.) When the rulemakers single out evolution, though, it’s clear what their motivation is - religion in general, and creationism in particular. That implicates the Lemon standard, since the rulemaker is paying special attention to one scientific discipline for transparently religious reasons.

One way to look at it is that a rulemaker obviously can’t have a valid secular purpose for disclaiming only evolution, because evolutionary theory is an integral part of science - it’s not categorically different from, say, astronomy. Nor can a rulemaker singling out evolution pretend that he’s not doing so for religious reasons, since there’s no good non-religious reason, so he’s using the machinery of the state to support a narrow and somewhat radical religious dogma.

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court.

It’s not the first sticker to be proposed, nor is the first to be struck down. “Courts” is correct, in the plural. See Freiler v. Tangipahoa (http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9830132cv1.html) The Supreme Court declined to intervene against the decision, letting the lower courts’ rulings stand.

Oh, good grief.

DaveScot said:

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That’s been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

And that’s the way it was. Deny it if you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

1. All evidence supports mutation as a key source of the variation from which natural selection makes its choices.

2. Darwin didn’t “believe” in Lamarck’s proposed mechanism, and in fact argues against it throughout Origin of Species. You may want to check it out, Dave: http://www.literature.org/authors/d[…]-of-species/

Darwin’s general claims have never been falsified by anyone. For a guy who wrote before genes were noticed or understood, the man was incredibly prescient.

So, no, it’s not correct to claim that Darwin “believed” that acquired characteristics were passed on. That’s not Darwin’s work.

3. How would those who swim in ignorance and dogma know it if it bit them? You know the rules, Dave: Every dogma gets one bite. You need to curb yours.

Colin

When you typed that “We can.” in reply to my stating that you can’t verify evolution in any detail did you really stop to think about it?

To produce real evidence for evolution you will first need to show HOW. HOW do genes change. What changes are IMPOSSIBLE? What is the mean expected time for each mutation to occur? What factors alter than mean time? What mutations are so common that they block other mutations etc etc etc. What enviornments eliminate complex life soley by pushing the genetic mutations in the wrong direction etc. Play the game of life(simulation program called “game of life” or “life”) with different enviornments to see what I am talking about if you are missing what I am getting at.

ONLY once you know HOW can you look back in time and expect to be able to specify IF. I am not convinced that you have any clue of HOW.

Evolution is inheriently a theory that relies on statistical proof.

What is the probability that evolution is incorrect?

CAUTION THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION THAT WILL PROBABLY EMBARRASS YOU…

Name a currently accepted theory in science that doesn’t rely on statistics for its support.

Henry J

The point I was getting at is that theories that rely on sparce statistical data as does most galaxy level science all experess their uncertainty in some form or another.

The universal gravitational constant has an uncertaintly expressed in the number of significant figures. Even though the data is not sparce.

The lack of a numerical representation of anything indicates a severe lack of understanding.

The inability to express the odds of incorrectness is a symptom of a non-scientific mind set.

gravity is confirmed 100s and 1000s and 10000s of times per day. Because all of these confirmations agree with the stated theory in detail we don’t mention the odds that gravity is wrong because they are very very very small.

But in evolution this isn’t the case. Only within the areas where genetics allows exaustive testing can any significant checks be made, even here you have major issues with Monkey DNA and human DNA structure being different even though the bases and genes are very similiar. You only have greater than say 10 observations in a very small percentage of the 1000 year periods between present and the start of evolution.

Which is why evolution never mentions numbers or odds of being wrong. Its because they can’t prove similiarity in detail past the recent DNA evidence and they can’t prove cause at all.

If they could the new revelations like the bunny, the ancient modern human or the pigmy human would have been predicted ahead of time in detail. They weren’t. Because evolution was unable to predict them due to an inability to understand based on not enough evidence to form a valid numerical theory.

Predicting evolutionary results beforehand would be somewhat like predicting the weather beforehand. Too many variables. They can however predict some things about genetic comparisons before they’re performed, and some features of fossils before they’re found, and some things about geographic distributions of related species.

Similarities can be shown also in anatomy, which isn’t limited to still living creatures, although genetics is more precise where it can be used.

As for the odds of “gravity” being wrong: Newton’s description of gravity is limited to speeds low relative to that of light, and gravity fields weak relative to those of stars. Einstein’s theory is limited to densities low enough to avoid quantum effects. So when commenting about whether “gravity” is “wrong”, one needs to specify what description of gravity is being considered.

As for numerical representations, I was kind of under the impression that geneticists do have numerical analysis of gene frequencies and their changes in populations. Which makes me question the accuracy of the claim that they lack numerical analysis.

Henry

DonkeyKong, what you asking is like asking a meteorologist for a accurate forecast for Stoughton Mass on 15 March 2020 today. Surely they should know. I mean with all we know about weather patterns, fluid dynamics, solar activity, and big fat pigs flatulating surely we can predict the weather from now to the end of time.

Just as creationist warp the meaning of “Theory” you warp the meaning of “Predictive”

I just wanted to add that I agree with alot of David’s theology, some i don’t of course and enjoyed playing a little Devil’s advocate with him.

I think he is misguided on the evolution issue however.

test

icle

Wayne and Henry…

How can you say with a straight face that you know evolution occured but you can’t predict anything with it. Prediction is science, no prediction no science. Are we talking about the philosophy of evolution?

I can assure you that if the weatherman was not a better predictor of the future than me I would be on TV and not him.

Weathermen can make predictions and show that although not 100% they are much much much better than random noise.

Any multi-variable theory that is too complex for you to understand and by that I mean make meaningful predictions that are testable by a non kool-aid drinker, is not science.

The majority of the types of predictions of evolution have been proven false. It is only that within species there is an amazing similiarity and that similiar species are genetically similiar that matches. The non-genetic evidence is all rather circumstantial.

But take the monkey -> human thing in isolation.

Evolutionists laugh at the if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.

You are playing both sides of the isle. How do you explain the gaps in species? Or more importantly how do you explain the missing details?

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can’t all animals see in the dark? Was that a recent mutation because no species would have had an advantage to mutate away from that…

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions. The non-genetic evidence for evolution is rather weak and has consistently failed to deliver a strong death blow to those who argue that evoultion fails to appriciate how increadibly unlikly biogenesis is. The genetic evidence has only been applied recently and does not go back very far.

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath, they are unrelated because you consistently lose the biogenesis arguments. Otherwise one follows the other and if the IF is not a natural process than the THEN is also probably not a natural process.

This group of peole is the strongest proof of the kool-aid evolution crowd I have seen. Give someone a PHd and they forget Jr High science basics like the scientific method.

QUOTE-Evolutionists laugh at the if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.-UNQUOTE

awesome point, I shall use it in the future.

Remember, according to evolution we all come from a puddle of chemicals that was struck by lightening. The puddle came from the big bang. hmmmmmmmmmm.….… and you make fun of me for Believing in God?

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can’t all animals see in the dark?

That’s a very stong argument against intelligent design and creationism. Of course, evolutionary theory epxlains it very well; it predicts that not everything that can happen or would be useful will happen, since evolution is constrained to work only on pre-existing structures.

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions.

But there are many orders of magnitude more answered questions. The fact that not everything is known does not obviate what we know.

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath, they are unrelated because you consistently lose the biogenesis arguments. Otherwise one follows the other and if the IF is not a natural process than the THEN is also probably not a natural process.

Sorry, does not follow. The theory of evolution works even if God poofed the first life into existence billions of years ago.

I know this will be lost on DonkeyKong but I’ll embelish his questions

DonkeyKong Wrote:

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.

Here is DK’s vast ignorance. I’ll try to demonstrate what happens in evolution. I’ll work with humans as a basis and starting from today

You have a population of humans. We all live and interbreed. Some hypotheses of evolution suggest that large populations will not evolve much. This is due to mutations getting lost in the noise of the large gene pool.

200 years from now Humans have the technology to send a ship with humans to a solar systems far away. One group of humans board the ship and launch destined for System X. Another group of humans board another ship destined for system y. The 2 ship launch. The humans on the ship heading to system X we’ll call population A. The humans on the ship heading to system y We’ll call population B. Humans on earth we’ll call Population C. Populations A, B, C are isolated and start accumulating different mutations. Because of their small populations A & B are more likely to pass on mutations if they breed. Population C, us here on earth, don’t gain many mutations that take hold when compared to populations A & B because of our population size. No matter terrorist P engineered a super virus that wiped out all human life on earth 20 years after the 2 ships left. Population A gains mutations and keep breeding while they are in route Population B does the same but the mutations they gain are different. 5 million years pass by. Many mutations have occurred to both populations driving them genetically apart. They decide to visit each other but find that when they meet they are no longer genetically compatible for breading.

Where in the scenario above would you expect a “missing link”. There is a reason why they call it a tree of life. The base of the tree is a point in time. As you move up you move forward in time. The tree can split but branches always keep moving up. You may even see, occasionally 2 branches fuse back into one. But the norm is for 2 branches

Look at this

Where in that diagrams would you find a “missing link” between population A and B? There is none. There is not expected to be. This is because populations evolve not individuals. If an individual gains a mutation that mutation will get washed out or absorbed into the population.

It is hard to make a a diagram of the tree of life with genetic differences and time.

The following shows a bit more complex branch.

What you have to remember that in diagrams like these we really can’t display what is happening in 2D. The data only makes sense if you slice it right like on the green line.

Population A may or may not be genetically compatible for breeding with B. B & C are more compatible genetically then A & B. If C can’t interbreed with E then it can not breed with F.

This is assuming that the “Genetic Differences” line represents the impact of a mutation not necessarily the number of mutations.

Populations Z and B, while displaying the same “amount” of genetic differences from the base of the tree does no mean in anyway that they are the same differences. It would be easier to display this in 3D. The actual difference Between Z & B from their common route would be more along the lines of the difference between C & D

Again there is not to be expected any living “missing links” heck even the dead missing links are not really missing links. They are common ancestors. Something I’m sure DK can’t grasp the concept of.

DonkeyKong Wrote:

How do you explain the gaps in species? Or more importantly how do you explain the missing details?

You gain gaps between species by having the populations split and start accumulating different mutations from each other. The “missing details” is found by tracing back through the fossil record of both species until you find their fossils converge at a common ancestor. No living missing detail between species is really expected if you have 2 closely related species.

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds?

Obviously you’ve never seen star fish. Next questions.

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Why no species with 3 eyes?

There are a few animals with 3 eyes. Scorpions can have anywhere between 0 and 12 eyes depending on the particular species of scorpion.

Next Question.

DonkeyKong Wrote:

why can’t all animals see in the dark?

Because not all creatures evolved that ability. If they all did that would be more of an indication design because not all creatures really need to see in the dark. If we all did actual seeing wouldn’t be the answer. Something like sonar would be. But even that would have its problems. Seeing is passive. Sonar is active. So if everything used sonar you’d expect some to mutate away from using sonar. Not good for a mouse to use sonar if owls use it to. It would be like shouting “Hey owl I’m here trying to get back to my hole”

DonkeyKong Wrote:

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions.

Welcome to the real world. But you seem to equate “tons tons tons of unanswered questions” to 1 + 1 != 2 because we don’t know if PI ever has a repeating pattern or not.

There are tons of unanswered questions is physics. The more we learn the more it seems we need to learn. Hypothesises are not getting simpler. Each question we answer seems to bring up 10 new questions. I personally don’t think biology is going to be much different for a long time.

DonkeyKong Wrote:

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath

You notice abiogenesis was not brought up anywhere because it had no relevance to the questions. No more then quantum physics had a relevance to the questions at hand.

Before you grovel at DonkeyKong’s brilliance remember he can’t even regurgitate the creationist play book here … or even just any science concept properly. DK saying some dribble about the 3rd law of thermodynamics *cough* its supposed to be the 2nd Law and even that is old and proven false 1000 times over.

Or the comment just before that where he says that science tells us we live in 12 dimensions Science says no such thing. M-Theory predicts 10+1 dimensions. While M-Theory is nice mathematically it is not the only theory out there. Twister theory works in our 3+1 dimension very well too. There is even a string theory/twister theory hybrid coming out which only requires 3+1 dimensions to explain what M-Theory needs 11 for.

DonkeyKong has just once agian shown how ignorant of science he really is.

Jon Flemming

I said “There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions.”

You Said “But there are many orders of magnitude more answered questions. The fact that not everything is known does not obviate what we know.”

Sorry but your reply speaks volumes. Do you honestly believe that evolution has answered more questions than remain to be answered yet cannot explain in any detail WHAT, HOW and even WHERE and WHEN are fuzzy.

Also how many of these questions do you think were correctly answered BEFORE as opposed to AFTER then were “confirmed”

Wayne

Couple of quick things for you to think about.

1) Being able to state your theory neither makes it true or me ignorant for expecting proof that can be verified or falsified by a neutral third party.

2) In your above senario with gradual evolution of two seperate species you would expect to have a common ancestor which is todays humans which would be the missing link, or if one of the species did not change at all you would have a complete line of evolution in the fossils of the other branch. So unless your theory is that something took the missing link to another planet and then brough fully formed modern humans back then you have some explaining to do…

3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics…google it.

Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong…

“The third law of thermodynamics is usually stated as a definition: the entropy of a perfect crystal of an element at the absolute zero of temperature is zero.”

(from http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/re[…]2/p02042.htm)

This is the 3rd LoT. Please, DK, explain why you keep mentioning it as if it was of some great significance in relation to cosmogony. (We already know you don’t understand the difference between cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution, so you can skip that part).

hey DonkeyKong, you should go hang out at this website:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

That’s more for your type of person.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 2, byte 322 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

OK basic science 101.

3rd law of thermodynamics.

Basicly the entrophy(chaos) of a closed system (no energy/matter in or out) increases or remains the same over time.

In lay terms the amount of chaos increases unless energy is used to resist it. Or there is a natural statistical force pushing towards randomness unless energy is used to resist it. Big waves degenerate into little waves and not the other way around unless you have an energy source etc etc etc.

In general, 3rd law explains why complex things with low entrophy (chaos) are hard to make and require constant energy to maintain. The 3rd law is simple to state and understand and explains a large number of outcomes (by large I mean every single outcome of every test science has ever completed and bothered to look barring quantom and even there statistically it holds up). It is the single strongest scientific theory known to man and the only one Einstein believed would stand the test of time.

Evolution in general seeks to use Natural selection as a mechanism whereby entrophy can be reduce from generation to generation. In order to do this you need a mechanism that consistently favors genetic complexity over previous genetic simplicity(the generation before). This mechanism can then supply the counter chaos force.

However Evolution has failed miserably at describing how this mechanism would work without violating the 3rd law.

Simple example, White people are better genetically suited to the poles, Black people to the equator. However white people used to be black people and when mixed with black people become black people again (or darker at least). The majority of all observed mutations are like this.

Even in the Gallapogos the mutations that are observed are not static as when the enviornmental force that fights the natural chaos is removed then the mutations tend back towards the starting threshold.

This means that in order to evolve without violating the 3rd law you need a constant force pushing the genome towards greater complexity. If you remove this force organisms will evolve in the wrong direction faster than in the right direction by simple virtue of there being more wrong directions than right directions and the process being random (unless you are an ID type).

This adds massive massive massive statistical problems to evolution that evolutionists generally duck without an answer. They tend to revert to the we are here therefore it must have hapened.

Which as I have said before.…..

IS A RELIGOUS BELIEF.

OK make that 2nd law of thermodynamics

:p

I said “Being able to state your theory neither makes it true or me ignorant for expecting proof that can be verified or falsified by a neutral third party.”

You said “This gets varified ALL the time. There are tons of papers every year supporting it.”

Am I the only one who sees the Irony? Are you unfamiliar with these papers? Are you unaware that there are sermons suporting 7 day creation preached EVERY SUNDAY!!! ohh wow…

All evolution is based on fossil evidence being similiar to other fossil evidence. That explains SIMILIARITY.

We agree on SIMILARITY.

You have a RELIGIOUS belief in DESCENT.

I am agnostic regarding DESCENT.

BECAUSE I GET IT AND YOU DON’T.

you only see half the coin and feel confident that your ignorance is a shield against others who see both sides.

1) FACT: evolution has no explaination for the rapid rise of complexity and the lack of any simple genetic organisms.

2) Fact: The current simpliest organisms are STAGERINGLY more complex than can be explained by evolution unless you start from a magic pop.

3) Fact: Every gap between species involves a male and a female making compadible genetic mutations at the same time or ratchet like genetic mutations where sexual production gradually shifts which would both be dramatically more rare than normal genetic mutations. Add to that the staggering distance between most species in gene space in terms of base pairs. Humans and our closest monkey relatives are way way way different in absolute terms, that evolution step alone violates the enviornment available to all of evolution.

4) Fact: If you gave one set of people the theory of evolution and another set of people all the enviornmental evidence for earth, the solar system and the galaxy and asked them if it was likely they would say no. The requirements on the enviornment made by the evolution proponents simply does not seem to have existed in earth, sol or the galaxy’s history. It is only when you start saying we are here it MUST be possible that you squeeze the timeline into the earths timeline. Common sence screams for more time at every leg of evolution.

Please post how often you think a new base in put into the genenome of life. how many unique bases do you think there are in the whole of the life genome. Now multiply the two numbers together.……

Are you getting this yet??

Now put together a map of the tree of life with the appropriate distance in time that relates to the difference in genetic content.

Are you getting the picture yet?

There are 3 BILLION bases in the human genome. The earth has been non-molten for only 4.1 billion years. And evolution dogma states that almost all this change in complexity occured in 40 million years during the cambrian explosian.…

You call me ignorant DK?

in Comment # 16321

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #16321 Posted by DonkeyKong on February 15, 2005 11:47 AM … Do you realize that science tells us that we live in a 12 dimensional space? 3D and time is 4 D…

M-Theory requires 10+1 dimensions not 11+1

in Comment # 19010

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19010 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 5, 2005 12:05 AM … Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can’t all animals see in the dark? …

To which I provided the answers in Comment # 19038

Wayne Francis Wrote:

Comment #19038 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 5, 2005 08:49 AM I know this will be lost on DonkeyKong but I’ll embelish his questions … Obviously you’ve never seen star fish. Next questions. DonkeyKong wrote: … There are a few animals with 3 eyes. Scorpions can have anywhere between 0 and 12 eyes depending on the particular species of scorpion. Next Question. … Because not all creatures evolved that ability. If they all did that would be more of an indication design because not all creatures really need to see in the dark. …

I actually answered all your questions there.

In Comment # 16322

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #16322 Posted by DonkeyKong on February 15, 2005 12:05 PM … 1) That life and indeed the whole universe once did not exist. 2) That life and the universe now exists. 3) Therefore the transition from 1->2 must have occured and because there are no (massive) acknoledged spontaneous violations of the 3rd law of thermo then it must have been slow (well they take the opposite tact on big bang yet miss the irony). Where this theory is weak. …

to which I corrected your mistake in Comment # 19038

Wayne Francis Wrote:

Comment #19038 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 5, 2005 08:49 AM … Before you grovel at DonkeyKong’s brilliance remember he can’t even regurgitate the creationist play book here … or even just any science concept properly. DK saying some dribble about the 3rd law of thermodynamics *cough* its supposed to be the 2nd Law and even that is old and proven false 1000 times over. …

to which you replied Comment # 19257

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19257 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 7, 2005 10:32 PM … 3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics … google it. Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong …

and in Comment # 19259

Emanuele Oriano Wrote:

Comment #19259 Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 7, 2005 11:05 PM “The third law of thermodynamics is usually stated as a definition: the entropy of a perfect crystal of an element at the absolute zero of temperature is zero.” (from http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/re[…]eck/chem2/p0 … ) This is the 3rd LoT. Please, DK, explain why you keep mentioning it as if it was of some great significance in relation to cosmogony. (We already know you don’t understand the difference between cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution, so you can skip that part).

And I pointed out in Comment # 19262

Wayne Francis Wrote:

Comment #19262 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 8, 2005 12:53 AM Comment # 19257 … DonkeyKong wrote: 3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics … google it. Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong … Please show me how DonkeyKong wrote: 1) That life and indeed the whole universe once did not exist. 2) That life and the universe now exists. 3) Therefore the transition from 1->2 must have occured and because there are no (massive) acknoledged spontaneous violations of the 3rd law of thermo then it must have been slow (well they take the opposite tact on big bang yet miss the irony).

1) apply to the to the 3rd law? 2) you can say that the whole univers once did not exist? Science is still investigating this with no conclusive answers. It sure looks like you are trying to use the common creationist 2LoT arguement agianst natural formation of life here.

note “1) apply to the 3rd law?” should have been “1) applies to the 3rd law?”

to which you say in Comment # 19264

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19264 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 8, 2005 01:42 AM OK basic science 101. 3rd law of thermodynamics. Basicly the entrophy(chaos) …

then you finally realise that I was right all along as shown by you in Comment # 19265

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19265 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 8, 2005 01:44 AM OK make that 2nd law of thermodynamics :p

Surprising that you can’t even get the science you try to use for your view right. Why would we entertain the possibility that you can grasp the concepts you are arguing against. You obviously don’t. You have no idea of how evolution works, you argue and tell me to google the 3rd law when you don’t even know what it means and have to be told multiple time that you are confused. To which you still say its the 3rd law, while spouting off a definition of the 2nd law but saying its the 3rd law, even tho Emanuele Oriano already provided the definition of the 3rd law. At least the light dawns with the 2nd law now. Only problem is you still think it has an effect on biological evolution on earth when it doesn’t.

Until you can get the science that you want to use to defend your position straight don’t think anyone is going to listen to your stupid misguided false point of view of what evolution is said to be and why it can not be true.

This is just your mistakes in science in the last few days. We can go back to your first posts in the on the 11th of Feb and 14th of Feb and show more examples of your ignorance of science if you want.

OK basic science 101.

3rd law of thermodynamics.

Basicly the entrophy(chaos) of a closed system (no energy/matter in or out) increases or remains the same over time.

In lay terms…

Classic! DK’s going to break it down into lay terms for the less sophisticated among us.

Wayne: don’t waste your time. You’re certainly not going to make any headway with DK, and the rest of us need no further proof of DK’s cluelessness.

Wayne

Ignorance is defending a theory that contains no numbers with attacks on simple mistakes using 3 instead of 2 or 12 instead of 11.

You didn’t respond to what I was SAYING.

Because the CONCEPTS were too hard to face…

11 or 12 did not change the point I made and you didn’t respond to.

3rd or 2nd did not change the point I made that you still fail to appreciate.

You are ignorant at your very core of HOW science works.

Evolution has a very poor history of predicting future events based on the descent hypothesis. There is no uncontested examples of speciation. The biogensis argument has been desserted and now you all claim that it is irrelevant.

You all say silly things like even if God exists and created LUCA then evolution is still true. Even a grade school kid would understand that if God created LUCA then its just as likely if not more so that God created man rather than him evolving from Apes. There is a gap between Human and Ape its real.

Don’t hide your head in the sand.…

12 isn’t 11 therefore evolution is true. 3 isn’t 2 therefore evolution is ture. God isn’t real therefore evolution is true. Let me restate, evolution is true. You are ignorant, evolution is ture.

The ignorance in your arguments is total. You really don’t appreciate how fragile the evolution hypothesis is.

Nor do you understand that most of evolution isn’t science. Or at the very least isn’t tested science.

Claim of evolution: All life descended from LUCA.

Dependancy: LUCA must have existed. Evidence to support: Descendants of LUCA exist.

Ignorance is not seeing the circular reasoning…

Honestly did you not see this? Are you blind to the obvious flaws in the reasoning pattern?

In my time here I have brough up several real issues that true scientists would acknoledge but you all are silent.…

Here is a list for those to lazy to read

1) Evolution has proof of similiarity not proof of descent. Descent is only one of many explainations for why the similiarity exists.

2) Evolution is dependant on LUCA’s existance. This is problematic on two levels, Biogenesis seems to be astronomically^2 unlikely raising the need for another mechanism to start evolution and then somehow not interfere later. All the proof of LUCA’s existance assumes evolution is correct and is circular reasoning.

3) Gaps in evolution are problematic as they are inconsistent with small mutations accumulating over time and if small gaps are not problematic then why are larger gaps? If large gaps are not problematic then why not have all life biogenesis/be created independantly?

4) The majority of predictions made by the evolution community have been false. It is only via selective memory that one can believe otherwise. This is not a characteristic of a mature theory.

5) Within a species parents and children are similiar. There is no support for species being similiar to their parent species that does not first assume that the second species descended from the first based on similiarity. You can’t use your theory to prove your theory…

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM Wayne Ignorance is defending a theory that contains no numbers with attacks on simple mistakes using 3 instead of 2 or 12 instead of 11. You didn’t respond to what I was SAYING.

Yes I have responded to what you have been saying. So have many others. You consistantly show a lack of understanding of the science that you claim supports your position and the science that you are agrueing agianst.

For your 2nd law problems try doing a bit of googling or read The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability Claim CF001: The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible. Claim CF001.2: The entire universe is a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics dictates that within it, things are tending to break down. The second law applies universally. Claim CF005: The second law of thermodynamics applies to information theory. It follows that genetic information will become increasingly degraded as it gets repeatedly copied over time.

The 2LoT arguement is old and even when it was new it was deeply flawed.

as far as M-Theory goes M-Theory is mathimatically elegant but science does not say we live in 10+1 dimensions. M-Theory models what we see in the universe using 10+1 dimensions. There are other models out there. You need to understand the difference between models and the real world.

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … Here is a list for those to lazy to read 1) Evolution has proof of similiarity not proof of descent. Descent is only one of many explainations for why the similiarity exists.

Similiarity doesn’t help science at all. Common Descent can be used to make predictions. By the way you don’t understand predictions well. You expect us to be able to predict what will evolve in the future accurately but that is not the types of predictions that are made. An example of a prediction made by evolution is that if there is an environmental change where a population exists that change may cause that population to adapt to the new environment if mutations are present and the mutated individuals are successful at breeding that new trait into the population.

A good example is natural pesticides. Some pests may have mutations that make them resistant to the pesticide. Those resistant to the pesticide will survive in the population. Those that are not resistant will die. Those that survive will continue breeding. The mutation then become more prominate in the population. Thus said population evolves. Knowing this allows farmers to work agianst natural selection. When ever they plant GM crops they plant non GM crops along with the GM crop. This allows enough of the non resistant pests to breed that the resistant pests mutation does not get a chance to take hold on a large scale. I.e the population doesn’t evolve to be resistant. Its just a trait that some of the population holds. Crop damaged is lessened and there is less of a problem of having to keep comming up with new pest control methods.

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … 2) Evolution is dependant on LUCA’s existance. This is problematic on two levels, Biogenesis seems to be astronomically^2 unlikely raising the need for another mechanism to start evolution and then somehow not interfere later. All the proof of LUCA’s existance assumes evolution is correct and is circular reasoning. …

Evolution is NOT dependant on LUCA. It just happens that LUCA and Evolution are both supported by the evidence. If there was 1, 10 or 1,000,000 abiogenesis events evolution could work as long as the organisms where not perfect in their ability to copy their genetic code.

Read What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … 3) Gaps in evolution are problematic as they are inconsistent with small mutations accumulating over time and if small gaps are not problematic then why are larger gaps? If large gaps are not problematic then why not have all life biogenesis/be created independantly? …

define “Gaps”. A mutation may cause anything from no change to drastic change. Add to that the fact that most mutations would not leave any trace in the fossil record. So you are confusing “Gaps” in the fossil record with “Gaps” in evolution. Just because we don’t have a fossilised intermediate does not mean there isn’t one and just because there is a mutation doesn’t mean that it should have left a trace.

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … 4) The majority of predictions made by the evolution community have been false. It is only via selective memory that one can believe otherwise. This is not a characteristic of a mature theory. …

Please provide examples of the predictions made by the evolution community so we might address them. I’m sure many predictions that have been made have turned out to be false. That is part of the scientific process. Many predictions made by scientist in all disciplines of science have turned out false. But many more have turned out to be true and backed up with scientific testing.

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … 5) Within a species parents and children are similiar. There is no support for species being similiar to their parent species that does not first assume that the second species descended from the first based on similiarity. You can’t use your theory to prove your theory …

I have read this OVER and OVER and it still reads very weird. Do you want the “Dog gives birth to a Cat” situation to happen to prove evolution? Once again you seem to lack the basic understanding of the concepts being presented in evolution.

There I’ve addressed ALL of your points. Just as I’ve addressed your statement that there are no animals with an odd number of legs or 3 eyes.

Comment # 19440

DonkeyKong Wrote:

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM … Don’t hide your head in the sand . … 12 isn’t 11 therefore evolution is true. 3 isn’t 2 therefore evolution is ture. God isn’t real therefore evolution is true. Let me restate, evolution is true. You are ignorant, evolution is ture…

I’ve never said anything like that. What we say is evolution is the best-fit theory to all the data we see. I’ve never said that evolution is true because of the number of dimensions in our universe. You try to argue that science is wrong because one of the models that can help describe phenomena in our universe needs 10+1 dimensions to work. That doesn’t really mean there has to be 10+1 dimensions. I’ve never said the 3rd law of thermo isn’t the 2nd law of thermo so evolution is true. I said you are mixing the 2LoT and the 2LoT is not applicable to biology and provided you with links. You are the one that is saying “3LoT therefore evolution is false” when you don’t even understand the laws of thermodynamics and what they actually apply to. I’ve never said God isn’t real therefore evolution is true. You say “God is real the bible is fact therefore evolution is false”. I say if there is a God it appears that God created the universe(s) so that things like “Life” would arise by laws that God has the universe governed by.

I’ve never said “You are ignorant, evolution is true” The first part has nothing to do with the second. You being ignorant is just a fact by you consistently showing your lack of understanding of concepts you try to use.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on February 19, 2005 11:13 AM.

Good News From Georgia was the previous entry in this blog.

Science journalism panel is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter