Intelligent design taught in schools

[Dre89]

But if there is a scientific aspect to it, it does seem to deserve some time in the classroom, considering we're happy to teach other non-factual theories in science.

 

[Reaver197]

Just to save some time, there is no scientific aspect to Intelligent Design, because they don't even have a working method of showing that something is "intelligently designed". Without even an approach to allow it to be tested, it is patently not scientific.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/behe-admits-he-has-no-theory/

 

[Dre89]

I'm not really an expert on ID, all I know is that apparently some astrophysicists say say that any slight tweak to the universe would make life impossible and stuff like that.

Also, it seems that when physicalist evolution theory is really pushed, they generally revert to multi-universialism, and William Lane Craig will then argue that by use of Ockham's Razor (although OR is not a unvierally accepted principle), an intelligent designer is more plausible than multiple universes.

So let me get this straight, there is a distinction between creationism and ID. Creationism is predominantly theological, and argues that the world is only 6000 years old. ID accepts that the world is billions of years old, and evolution, just that it was initiated by an intelligent designer. Is that correct?

 

[rvkevin]

Creationism is predominantly theological, and argues that the world is only 6000 years old.

That would be young Earth Creationism. There are other forms of creationism where they believe that God created life, or God specially created just humans, both within the framework of an old universe. Only 14% of Americans accept the theory of evolution as most biologists see it. The other 84% believe in some form of creation (Gallup). The difference between ID and creationism is only for legal purposes. When creationism was exiled from the courts for being religious in nature, ID was formed.

 

[Dre89]

That would be young Earth Creationism. There are other forms of creationism where they believe that God created life, or God specially created just humans, both within the framework of an old universe. Only 14% of Americans accept the theory of evolution as most biologists see it. The other 84% believe in some form of creation (Gallup). The difference between ID and creationism is only for legal purposes. When creationism was exiled from the courts for being religious in nature, ID was formed.

That's pretty interesting.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that there are legitimate scientific and philosophical claims for the necessity of an intelligent designer. Whether they're true or not is debateable.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That's pretty interesting.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that there are legitimate scientific and philosophical claims for the necessity of an intelligent designer. Whether they're true or not is debateable.

Well, they're not accepted be a consensus of scientists. And for various reasons, the idea of an intelligent designer is actually unscientific. It's unfalsifiable, it doesn't make any predictions, it has very little natural evidence in its favour, etc.

So, it's not very scientific, I'd say those claims are more philosophical and metaphysical than scientific.

 

[UberMario]

To be quite honest, I don't believe EITHER should be taught in schools, I believe that should be solely up to the relatives and parents of the children in question. If a religious subject is taught in schools, people in other religions [and aethiests] will/may complain, and they hav the right to, however the same could be said about evolution. Ok, so-and-so evolved from so-and-so XXXXXXXXXX years ago, is that really imporant? Will my life change because of this? Is it as relevant [and especially as justifiable] as the history of your home [or current] country? Will you be using that info in everyday life like language, grammar, morals, mathematics, common sense, geographic information, excercise, diet, or the arts and music? More-than-likely the answer is no, and most people probably discard that information anyway. [Except ones popular in culture, media, and imagination, such as the great dinosuar extinction]

So my answer is no, even as a heavily religious person I don't think it should be taught in schools, but nor should the concept of evolution [or global warming]. [Yes I know, intelligent design and evolution can co-exist, but both have religious connotations and shouldn't be enforced in schools]

It's unfalsifiable, it doesn't make any predictions, it has very little natural evidence in its favour, etc.

I would say Müllerian mimicry would be a good basis, aswell as most cases of "convergence in plan", such as that between the unrelated Mantis and Mantis Fly.

 

[blazedaces]

To be quite honest, I don't believe EITHER should be taught in schools, I believe that should be solely up to the relatives and parents of the children in question. If a religious subject is taught in schools, people in other religions [and aethiests] will/may complain, and they hav the right to, however the same could be said about evolution. Ok, so-and-so evolved from so-and-so XXXXXXXXXX years ago, is that really imporant? Will my life change because of this? Is it as relevant [and especially as justifiable] as the history of your home [or current] country? Will you be using that info in everyday life like language, grammar, morals, mathematics, common sense, geographic information, excercise, diet, or the arts and music? More-than-likely the answer is no, and most people probably discard that information anyway. [Except ones popular in culture, media, and imagination, such as the great dinosuar extinction]

So my answer is no, even as a heavily religious person I don't think it should be taught in schools, but nor should the concept of evolution [or global warming]. [Yes I know, intelligent design and evolution can co-exist, but both have religious connotations and shouldn't be enforced in schools]

First of all, how does evolution have a religious connotation? Are you honestly telling me we shouldn't teach scientific facts in school that you might possibly not use throughout your lifetime? What about anyone in the field of biology, forensics, anthropology, sociology, doctors, nurses, any bio/medical engineering, etc.? I could sit here naming field after field where knowing the basics at least is probably not enough.

Plus, where is the line drawn? Why are we considering removing something from our curriculum because it upsets religious people? What next? Math? Not everyone needs it... art and music... well... most people never use it? This is a horrible argument for removing something from a school curriculum.

I would say Müllerian mimicry would be a good basis, aswell as most cases of "convergence in plan", such as that between the unrelated Mantis and Mantis Fly.

Pointing to things that sound like they support your theory is not falsifiability. You need to propose a test, which if failed would prove intelligent design to be false. Does this make sense to you or not? None of the examples you proposed do that.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

In terms of scientific aspects of ID, apparently the idea that the slightest tweak to the universe would remove the possibility of life has scientific grounding.

 

[UberMario]

First of all, how does evolution have a religious connotation? Are you honestly telling me we shouldn't teach scientific facts in school that you might possibly not use throughout your lifetime?

There are many categories of science that we use at least slightly frequently, like Geography, and Astronomy, those are far more important.

What about anyone in the field of biology, forensics, anthropology, sociology, doctors, nurses, any bio/medical engineering, etc.? I could sit here naming field after field where knowing the basics at least is probably not enough.

But how many schools [not colleges/universities] teach medical? Biology could easily be taught without evolution being a part of it, even anatomy.

Plus, where is the line drawn? Why are we considering removing something from our curriculum because it upsets religious people?

Because [some] nonreligious people were upset when religious ideas were included, so modifications such as the change of "AD" to "CE" and "BC" to "BCE" were made in most new school textbooks.

What next? Math? Not everyone needs it...

You're using mathematics as an example? Really? Mathematics are needed for important, every-day tasks, including money related, vehicles, cooking, sorting . . . the list goes on.

art and music... well... most people never use it? This is a horrible argument for removing something from a school curriculum.

Radios, stereos, photography, videos [homemade or purchased/rented], and gardening involve music and art. Sure it's not as important as mathematics, but it's not like they can be disproven.

Pointing to things that sound like they support your theory is not falsifiability. You need to propose a test, which if failed would prove intelligent design to be false. Does this make sense to you or not? None of the examples you proposed do that.

-blazed

This was more specifically aimed at his "it has very little natural evidence in its favour" statement, not the unfalsifiable part.

 

[blazedaces]

There are many categories of science that we use at least slightly frequently, like Geography, and Astronomy, those are far more important.

How is astronomy more important than evolution? Why are we even talking about this? They are both important, we aren't removing either from a school's curriculum.

But how many schools [not colleges/universities] teach medical? Biology could easily be taught without evolution being a part of it, even anatomy.

That would be a horrible method of teaching biology... we could also teach cooking without a stove or an oven... but we don't.

Because [some] nonreligious people were upset when religious ideas were included, so modifications such as the change of "AD" to "CE" and "BC" to "BCE" were made in most new school textbooks.

Basis for removing religious symbols/ideas from a school's curriculum: separation of church and state. Basis for including them: none.

You're using mathematics as an example? Really? Mathematics are needed for important, every-day tasks, including money related, vehicles, cooking, sorting . . . the list goes on.

I'm trying to compare the two. Your shock at suggesting mathematics be removed from our school's curriculum is equivalent to my shock at your suggestion of removing evolution...

Radios, stereos, photography, videos [homemade or purchased/rented], and gardening involve music and art. Sure it's not as important as mathematics, but it's not like they can be disproven.

Evolution can be disproven?

This was more specifically aimed at his "it has very little natural evidence in its favour" statement, not the unfalsifiable part.

Falsifiability is required for something to be considered scientific. You can't just make stuff up and then point to things you see which help support it in some vague way. Can you quantify the evidence? Can you tell me what evidence needs to exist so that if we found it intelligent design would be considered false or at least requiring some kind of modification to explain this contradictory evidence? No, you can't.

And Dre, I like how you didn't provide a source for your so-called "scientific" support. Tweaked in what way? In the way YOU decided?

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

And Dre, I like how you didn't provide a source for your so-called "scientific" support. Tweaked in what way? In the way YOU decided?

Just a heads up, watch out for the wording. Many times, it is said that if one of the constants were changed in, for example, one part in something like 10^20, the implication is that it was designed to be so. The formulation of the numbers is usually left out, and for good reason.

Let's say we want to say that Kobe Bryant was designed to play basketball. Had he been one meter taller, he would have suffered from gigantism and the accompanying health implications would prevent him from sports, had he been one meter shorter, he would not have been able to compete. Therefore, we can conclude that if we change his height by one part in 10^16, then he would not have been able to play basketball, the implication being that he was designed. Similarly, had his fingers had been tweaked by one part in 10^16, he would not be able to play basketball. Now, what are the chances that both of these parameters would be so finely tuned?

How do we come to such a conclusion? Use a unit of measurement that is not normal to the object being measured. I used light years for measuring a persons height and hand length. Similarly, you can get weird results by measuring electrons with a unit that is orders of magnitude greater than the object being measured by using something like grams or kilograms. But the units are never mentioned, why the lack of transparency?

 

[Dre89]

I've got the source but it won't help, because it's pretty much some guy basically saying what I said. I don't really know what the scientific evidence is, just that apparently they're claiming there is some.

 

[UncleSam]

There are many categories of science that we use at least slightly frequently, like Geography, and Astronomy, those are far more important.

We use other forms of science and mathematics to develop on subjects like these. if you teach one without the other you aren't getting a complete understanding.

But how many schools [not colleges/universities] teach medical? Biology could easily be taught without evolution being a part of it, even anatomy.

if you taught biology without evolution you wouldn't be teaching biology. Biology is the study of life, if you teach life without the basis, then what's the point?

Because [some] nonreligious people were upset when religious ideas were included, so modifications such as the change of "AD" to "CE" and "BC" to "BCE" were made in most new school textbooks.

blaze already answered this.

You're using mathematics as an example? Really? Mathematics are needed for important, every-day tasks, including money related, vehicles, cooking, sorting . . . the list goes on.

yes, like in chemistry and physics quantitative works, not qualitative works.

Radios, stereos, photography, videos [homemade or purchased/rented], and gardening involve music and art. Sure it's not as important as mathematics, but it's not like they can be disproven.

ask yourself how those objects were made.

Just a heads up, watch out for the wording. Many times, it is said that if one of the constants were changed in, for example, one part in something like 10^20, the implication is that it was designed to be so. The formulation of the numbers is usually left out, and for good reason.

Let's say we want to say that Kobe Bryant was designed to play basketball. Had he been one meter taller, he would have suffered from gigantism and the accompanying health implications would prevent him from sports, had he been one meter shorter, he would not have been able to compete. Therefore, we can conclude that if we change his height by one part in 10^16, then he would not have been able to play basketball, the implication being that he was designed. Similarly, had his fingers had been tweaked by one part in 10^16, he would not be able to play basketball. Now, what are the chances that both of these parameters would be so finely tuned?

How do we come to such a conclusion? Use a unit of measurement that is not normal to the object being measured. I used light years for measuring a persons height and hand length. Similarly, you can get weird results by measuring electrons with a unit that is orders of magnitude greater than the object being measured by using something like grams or kilograms. But the units are never mentioned, why the lack of transparency?

First thing I hear is: "lets take a persons mental actions, and consider them pre-determined."

second thing I hear is: "Irreducible Complexity"

Here's the thing, if there was a removal of a piece it would not work correct? Well there are these things called Vestigial organs that were once part of an animal but were reduced and eventually disappeared. Ever had your appendix removed? It's a vestigial organ, it's absolutely useless now, yet we still work right?

That's one of the things that bugged me on the Dover case, The people who supported intelligent design only brought up one single point to defend its case with.

Since a public school is basically a public facility it applies to the separation of church and state, leave it up to the board of education to determine what should be taught.

 

[UberMario]

We use other forms of science and mathematics to develop on subjects like these. if you teach one without the other you aren't getting a complete understanding.

I never disagreed with that, I don't consider evolution a science however since it can not be confirmed anytime soon, the main reason [or flaw] I find in evolution is that, in effect, order is coming out of chaos, with genetic errors somehow benefiting a group of animals in such numbers that over time these errors can be spread throughout the whole "community". In order to have these errors come up in such large numbers to sway a whole population's genetic matchup, then transitional forms should vastly outnumber "true" forms, most notably on the reptile-amphibian, amphibian-fish, and reptile-mammal lines.

if you taught biology without evolution you wouldn't be teaching biology. Biology is the study of life, if you teach life without the basis, then what's the point?

Without the PRESUMED basis, none of us living today [or in the last few millenia] were there when life started.

ask yourself how those objects were made.

I'm not sure where you're going with this . . . . .

Here's the thing, if there was a removal of a piece it would not work correct? Well there are these things called Vestigial organs that were once part of an animal but were reduced and eventually disappeared. Ever had your appendix removed? It's a vestigial organ, it's absolutely useless now, yet we still work right?

You can live with none of your fingers, toes, eyes, any of your limbs, any teeth, no nose, have a chopped off tongue, cut off ears, be . . . . . neutered, have a kidney removed, remove and replace portions of major arteries, [surgically] remove sections and reconnect the rest of your intestines, have a lung removed, and still (miserably) function, does that mean those are vestigal too? Of course not. The purpose of the human appendix is not known, but it's role in animals is not properly known either. One of the major beliefs is that it's a reservoir for beneficial bacteria and a non-100%-vital role in the immune system (since it's made of lymphatic tissue).

 

[blazedaces]

I never disagreed with that, I don't consider evolution a science however since it can not be confirmed anytime soon, the main reason [or flaw] I find in evolution is that, in effect, order is coming out of chaos, with genetic errors somehow benefiting a group of animals in such numbers that over time these errors can be spread throughout the whole "community". In order to have these errors come up in such large numbers to sway a whole population's genetic matchup, then transitional forms should vastly outnumber "true" forms, most notably on the reptile-amphibian, amphibian-fish, and reptile-mammal lines.

First of all, evolution has been confirmed time and time again. There's almost too much evidence for it (I dare you to ask me for some)...

Second of all, your explanation of evolution is completely wrong. Who taught you the concept of evolution like this? Evolution makes sense even on a statistical level. Over time, those most suited to survive will... guess what... survive. It's really that simple. All you have to do now is admit that kids aren't the same as their parents and viola, you have evolution for the most part.

Without the PRESUMED basis, none of us living today [or in the last few millenia] were there when life started.

You're sort of taking his words of out context. The basis of life did not imply abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is actually not part of the theory of evolution, though I agree it's certainly something that should be in our curriculum as well. Regardless, why would people being alive be required for something to be true?

You can live with none of your fingers, toes, eyes, any of your limbs, any teeth, no nose, have a chopped off tongue, cut off ears, be . . . . . neutered, have a kidney removed, remove and replace portions of major arteries, [surgically] remove sections and reconnect the rest of your intestines, have a lung removed, and still (miserably) function, does that mean those are vestigal too? Of course not. The purpose of the human appendix is not known, but it's role in animals is not properly known either. One of the major beliefs is that it's a reservoir for beneficial bacteria and a non-100%-vital role in the immune system (since it's made of lymphatic tissue).

Please provide evidence for this. It would support your argument. Right now we have to take your word for it.

-blazed

 

[UberMario]

First of all, evolution has been confirmed time and time again. There's almost too much evidence for it (I dare you to ask me for some)...

I'd like to see what you're evidence is, I'm not saying that what you use won't be evidence [or compelling], but I've yet to see something according to evolution that can't be explained some other way.

Second of all, your explanation of evolution is completely wrong. Who taught you the concept of evolution like this? Evolution makes sense even on a statistical level. Over time, those most suited to survive will... guess what... survive. It's really that simple. All you have to do now is admit that kids aren't the same as their parents and viola, you have evolution for the most part.

Except if it was just "survival of the fittest", there would be point that an animal could not change any further due to the genes available, there would need to be genetic corruption to go beyond that.

The basis of life did not imply abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is actually not part of the theory of evolution, though I agree it's certainly something that should be in our curriculum as well. Regardless, why would people being alive be required for something to be true?

If it is considered to not be designed by a creator, that automatically means that abiogenesis had to have occured, and for the second part, because a truthful witness, or said witness' information passed on through time, would be enough to confirm something. (Except at that point, it would probably be distorted into oblivion, but it would still be of use)

Please provide evidence for this. It would support your argument. Right now we have to take your word for it.

-blazed

Here's a diagram showing the possible role of the appendix (like I said, it's role in animals is mostly unknown aswell), also, here's a source, though quite a few websites are saying this could be the role.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To be quite honest, I don't believe EITHER should be taught in schools, I believe that should be solely up to the relatives and parents of the children in question. If a religious subject is taught in schools, people in other religions [and aethiests] will/may complain, and they hav the right to, however the same could be said about evolution. Ok, so-and-so evolved from so-and-so XXXXXXXXXX years ago, is that really imporant? Will my life change because of this? Is it as relevant [and especially as justifiable] as the history of your home [or current] country? Will you be using that info in everyday life like language, grammar, morals, mathematics, common sense, geographic information, excercise, diet, or the arts and music? More-than-likely the answer is no, and most people probably discard that information anyway. [Except ones popular in culture, media, and imagination, such as the great dinosuar extinction]

So my answer is no, even as a heavily religious person I don't think it should be taught in schools, but nor should the concept of evolution [or global warming]. [Yes I know, intelligent design and evolution can co-exist, but both have religious connotations and shouldn't be enforced in schools]

Evolution is relevant. For those who are interested in biology in any form, it is relevant. Modern Medicine is greatly helped by it, anthropology is greatly helped by it, sociology, biology, zoology, taxonomy, studying animal behaviours, pretty much anything to do with life is greatly assisted by the theory of evolution. It is quite important.

I would say Müllerian mimicry would be a good basis, aswell as most cases of "convergence in plan", such as that between the unrelated Mantis and Mantis Fly.

I'm sorry, just because a few things look to you, as if they may not have evolved, doesn't mean they were designed. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. In fact that's all that intelligent design is. It's "you may not be able to explain how something evolved, so it obviously didn't".

And furthermore, there are plenty of examples of unrelated species displaying similar outward appearances. Dolphins and sharks, wolves and the Tasmanian Tiger, etc. This poses no problem to evolution. Why? Because such species likely live in similar environments where similar characteristics are rewarded.

Mullerian mimicry is different however, where both species are noxious to predators and they both mimic each other. The evolutionary explanation to this is, that both species benefit from being confused as another noxious species. So through selective pressures, they evolve to appear similar.

I never disagreed with that, I don't consider evolution a science however since it can not be confirmed anytime soon, the main reason [or flaw] I find in evolution is that, in effect, order is coming out of chaos, with genetic errors somehow benefiting a group of animals in such numbers that over time these errors can be spread throughout the whole "community". In order to have these errors come up in such large numbers to sway a whole population's genetic matchup, then transitional forms should vastly outnumber "true" forms, most notably on the reptile-amphibian, amphibian-fish, and reptile-mammal lines.

Wow... That's a lot of misconceptions. Genetic mutations can be beneficial, but most aren't in that they don't do anything and some are harmful. Organisms that contain such beneficial mutations will be more likely to pass on their DNA, while the ones with harmful mutations aren't. So, over time, successful groups of organisms will accrue beneficial mutations, because it is such beneficial mutations that make such organisms successful.

Guess what? There are plenty of transitional forms. Have a look at a few of these links. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

Without the PRESUMED basis, none of us living today [or in the last few millenia] were there when life started.

So? Eye-witness evidence is rubbish. We have fossils and genetic evidence for evolution, we don't need eye-witness evidence.

You can live with none of your fingers, toes, eyes, any of your limbs, any teeth, no nose, have a chopped off tongue, cut off ears, be . . . . . neutered, have a kidney removed, remove and replace portions of major arteries, [surgically] remove sections and reconnect the rest of your intestines, have a lung removed, and still (miserably) function, does that mean those are vestigal too? Of course not. The purpose of the human appendix is not known, but it's role in animals is not properly known either. One of the major beliefs is that it's a reservoir for beneficial bacteria and a non-100%-vital role in the immune system (since it's made of lymphatic tissue).

I'm sorry, I don't think that we'd be able to survive very long with out many of those features in the wild. Vestigial organs have no role at all. The Appendix has no role at all, we can remove it, very little is changed.

I'd like to see what you're evidence is, I'm not saying that what you use won't be evidence [or compelling], but I've yet to see something according to evolution that can't be explained some other way.

Well, of course it can be explained in some other way, "God designed it to look like it had evolved". It's just very unlikely that, that actually happened. But anyway, I'll have a shot at giving you some evidence of evolution, Nylon-Eating bacteria, Drug Resistance in Pathogens, HIV resistance, Plenty of Observed Instances of Speciation, and those transitional forms I've shown you earlier.

Except if it was just "survival of the fittest", there would be point that an animal could not change any further due to the genes available, there would need to be genetic corruption to go beyond that.

What do you mean by that? That's wrong. Evolution acts on the genome, and there is no "limit" to how much an organism can change. It just becomes unlikely that it happens very quickly.

If it is considered to not be designed by a creator, that automatically means that abiogenesis had to have occured, and for the second part, because a truthful witness, or said witness' information passed on through time, would be enough to confirm something. (Except at that point, it would probably be distorted into oblivion, but it would still be of use)

Eyewitness evidence is overrated. Honestly there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurred, without eyewitness testimony. In science, we don't need to eyewitness testimony to prove that something occurred, if there is other forms of evidence around. Fossils and genetic evidence, are enough to largely confirm that evolution occurred.

Here's a diagram showing the possible role of the appendix (like I said, it's role in animals is mostly unknown aswell), also, here's a source, though quite a few websites are saying this could be the role.

However, this hasn't been entirely proven though.

 

[UberMario]

[collapse=Really long post]

I'm sorry, just because a few things look to you, as if they may not have evolved, doesn't mean they were designed. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. In fact that's all that intelligent design is. It's "you may not be able to explain how something evolved, so it obviously didn't".

And furthermore, there are plenty of examples of unrelated species displaying similar outward appearances. Dolphins and sharks, wolves and the Tasmanian Tiger, etc. This poses no problem to evolution. Why? Because such species likely live in similar environments where similar characteristics are rewarded.

True, but does it not seem odd that all these animals that are [at least slightly] unrelated end up with the same body plan [again]?

For example, dolphins and icthyosaurs have unusually similar body plans, also the (all extinct) Nimravid, Barbourofelis, Smilodon, and Thylacosmile (a marsupial), all have uncannily similar skull designs, in a similar fashion, the Jerboa of Africa, the Kangaroo Rat of North America, and the Hopping Mouse of Australia also developed independently. Heck, even looking at something like Wikipedia lists a lot of odd convergences. Even claiming that some species of bats evolved echolocation independently from each other, and that Old World and New World vultures are unrelated.

Mullerian mimicry is different however, where both species are noxious to predators and they both mimic each other. The evolutionary explanation to this is, that both species benefit from being confused as another noxious species. So through selective pressures, they evolve to appear similar.

Yes, but there's a point where it's not necessary for them to look any similar than they already do (because they could both be identified as similar, even with insectivores with poor eyesight), yet the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) and Viceroy (Limenitis archippus) are near identical (except for a few things, such as the wingtips, etc. but even more interesting, is that one of the Viceroy's closest (to the point where they are in the same genus ) relatives resembles a TOTALLY different noxious species. Compare the Palamedes Swallowtail (Papilio palamedes) (Open)(Closed) and the White Admiral (one with closed wings and one wit open) and consider how both the Viceroy and the Admiral have near perfect mimicry of two totally unrelated (and far from similar-looking) species.

Wow... That's a lot of misconceptions. Genetic mutations can be beneficial, but most aren't in that they don't do anything and some are harmful.

But the bad mutations will still be far more common than the good.

Organisms that contain such beneficial mutations will be more likely to pass on their DNA, while the ones with harmful mutations aren't.

This would imply that the very low (1 in 10, 000 individuals would be pushing it) amount of good mutants could all sway a large population into developing the same characteristics without these new charactersitics being "dissolved" in the immensely huge "boiling pot" of genes, and that's not even considering how the "good mutants" would need to basically mutate in the same direction, rather than in random areas like would actually happen (plus the physical distance that would occur between the individuals) which would result in the genes having even more time to be "blended away".

So, over time, successful groups of organisms will accrue beneficial mutations, because it is such beneficial mutations that make such organisms successful.

But the changes would need to be so gradual due to how minor these mutatons [presumably were per generation], that they would not be superior and 90% of good genes would have no effect or would even be phased out unless they became the majoriy rapidly after these mutations came into existance.

Guess what? There are plenty of transitional forms. Have a look at a few of these links.

Alright.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Panderichthys is a lobe-finned fish, currently living lobe-finned fish (Coelacanth) have fins that can not support their own weight out of land due to the muscle and bone structure, and even if it did have amphibian-like features, it could also be parallelism, like how Mudskippers facial features resemble those of ampibians, but are still 100% fish.

And also, I'm surprised such an animal (and this isn't the first time I've looked that up online) does not have any good skeletal/fossil shots available, it's all concept art . . . . .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

"Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods"

"Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks."

I don't see how those help your argument.

And looking at some of their examples, the proto-frog does not necessarily indicate a transitional form, it could just be a type of frog that retains some of it's tail from the tadpole stage, and several species of frogs today are not muscularly built to be good at jumping. "Proto-sharks" could have just been another lineage of the cartilage-skeleton fish, like how sharks and rays both are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

Amphibians-to-Reptiles . . . . while salamanders and lizards have similar body plans, how come there has been no satisfactory answer to the drastic change from the amphibian egg (which requires being wet and is soft) to the reptilian egg (which requires being dry and is hard)? Or how come scales "returned" to the reptiles? (Or why no gilled reptiles exist in any form?)

Pareiasaurs [shellless tortoiselike reptiles] could very well be related to turtles, but then where did THEY originate from?

"Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions."

So . . . . turtles developed two independent ways to retract their head? That's an interesting "coincidence".

"GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. "

And unless I missed something, it does not explain why theropods had small front limbs, even in the earliest known examples, I consider birds to be dinosaurs [and synapsids to be mammals], and it's not like theropods were that different from birds in body plan, so animals resembling both are totally possible, like how bears and felines are similar.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

"GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. "

How inconvenient . . . . .

"GAP: One of the least understood groups of modern mammals -- there are no known bat fossils from the entire Paleocene. The first known fossil bat, Icaronycteris, is from the (later) Eocene, and it was already a fully flying animal very similar to modern bats. It did still have a few "primitive" features, though (unfused & unkeeled sternum, several teeth that modern bats have lost, etc.) "

IMO the Bat transition has always been one of the biggest issues with evolution. If the webbing came first, the shrews they [possibly] evolved from would not be able to dig burrows, and if the fingers grew first (the rods in a bats wings are actually their fingers), they would be easy prey due to their clumsiness (but could probably still dig). If both evolved together, not only could it not dig or fly, it woul not be able to grab it's prey or escape predators. The Shrew/Rodent-Bat transition would be one of the worst body plans in [pre]history.

"GAP: few miacoid skulls are known from the rest of the Eocene -- a real pity because for early carnivore relationships, skulls (particularly the skull floor and ear capsule) are more useful than teeth. There are some later skulls from the early Oligocene, which are already distinguishable as canids, viverrids, mustelids, & felids"





http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
[/Quote]

15 million years from Land to Whale? That seems too quick, especially compared to other animals like primates, rodents, and the like, and why would the nostrils migrate to the top of the head? Wouldn't it be more efficient to keep them at the end of the snout (since with a pointed face that would be the first part to break the surface)?

"GAP: The ancestors of sirenians [manatees] are not known. No sirenian-like fossils are known from before the Eocene. "

In all it was a good read . . . but I'm curious why he/she left out the origin of fish or any invertebrate lineages period.

I'm sorry, I don't think that we'd be able to survive very long with out many of those features in the wild. Vestigial organs have no role at all. The Appendix has no role at all, we can remove it, very little is changed.

We could survive without toes in the wild just fine, a second kdney has no role at all, since when we remove it, our body naturally doubles the strength and size of the remaining one without us really being able to tell.

Well, of course it can be explained in some other way, "God designed it to look like it had evolved". It's just very unlikely that, that actually happened. But anyway, I'll have a shot at giving you some evidence of evolution

K.

Nylon-Eating bacteria

Is there any evidence that these bacteria weren't there to begin with and just flourished when a food source not readily consumed by the competition was available?

Drug Resistance in Pathogens

, HIV resistance,

I don't know why people equate resistance to evolution. If 20 flies are experimented upon and 4 are immune already, what happens when the 16 that were not immune to a spray/whatever die? The 4 take over the population with their children, was there any proof that the genes for resitiveness WEREN'T there to begin with? No, in fact, they had to be there already in order for any individuals to have survived period.

Plenty of Observed Instances of Speciation, and those transitional forms I've shown you earlier.

Newly discovered (emphasis on discovered) species =/= different kind, do we consider dog breeds to be evolution? (Well some might but not the point) The genes were already there, but the dogs with the genes that breeders wanted were used more than the ones that didn't, making certain genes become more prominent.

What do you mean by that? That's wrong. Evolution acts on the genome, and there is no "limit" to how much an organism can change. It just becomes unlikely that it happens very quickly.

Read it again, you were using survival of the fittest as an example and I said if it were JUST survival of the fitest, then there would be a limit in the changes possible, it requires mutation to go beyond that, assuming that the mutations come in such a bombardment that they could change an animal "so rapidly".

However, this hasn't been entirely proven though.

On the same note, it hasn't been entirely proven that it's useless, for example, people that never required the removal of their tonsils have slightly stronger immune systems due to the tonsils being "large" lymphatic organs, being near the equivalent of "super lymph nodes".[/collapse]

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Here is my response.

Spoiler

True, but does it not seem odd that all these animals that are [at least slightly] unrelated end up with the same body plan [again]?

For example, dolphins and icthyosaurs have unusually similar body plans, also the (all extinct) Nimravid, Barbourofelis, Smilodon, and Thylacosmile (a marsupial), all have uncannily similar skull designs, in a similar fashion, the Jerboa of Africa, the Kangaroo Rat of North America, and the Hopping Mouse of Australia also developed independently. Heck, even looking at something like Wikipedia lists a lot of odd convergences. Even claiming that some species of bats evolved echolocation independently from each other, and that Old World and New World vultures are unrelated.

No. Like I said, if similar characteristics are rewarded, they will develop. It is no coincidence, and poses no problem to evolution. In fact, it is expected. Why? Because similar selective pressures yield similar results.

Yes, but there's a point where it's not necessary for them to look any similar than they already do (because they could both be identified as similar, even with insectivores with poor eyesight), yet the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) and Viceroy (Limenitis archippus) are near identical (except for a few things, such as the wingtips, etc. but even more interesting, is that one of the Viceroy's closest (to the point where they are in the same genus ) relatives resembles a TOTALLY different noxious species. Compare the Palamedes Swallowtail (Papilio palamedes) (Open)(Closed) and the White Admiral (one with closed wings and one wit open) and consider how both the Viceroy and the Admiral have near perfect mimicry of two totally unrelated (and far from similar-looking) species.

This is interesting, however, it doesn't in any way invalidate the claims of evolution. The fact that the Monarch and the Viceroy Butterflies look near identical, is so that the insectivores cannot tell the difference between them, hence the drive to look almost exactly the same. The fact that the Viceroy's close relative mimics another different noxious species doesn't invalidate evolution, it suggests that came from a common ancestor that had various sections of the population mimicking different species.

But the bad mutations will still be far more common than the good.

However, the carriers of such bad mutations would breed less than the carriers of good mutations.

This would imply that the very low (1 in 10, 000 individuals would be pushing it) amount of good mutants could all sway a large population into developing the same characteristics without these new charactersitics being "dissolved" in the immensely huge "boiling pot" of genes, and that's not even considering how the "good mutants" would need to basically mutate in the same direction, rather than in random areas like would actually happen (plus the physical distance that would occur between the individuals) which would result in the genes having even more time to be "blended away".

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. Evolution doesn't suggest that such mutations all occur at once. Nor do genes "dissolve". They're there, or they aren't and they aren't watered down. It's very simple. Genetics is not like mixing paints, the genes are not mixed, they are contrasted. A gene red colouration and a gene for blue colouration stay as they are, until a mutation hits them. Have you learn't about Mendelian Inheritance? Because, it doesn't look like you have.

But the changes would need to be so gradual due to how minor these mutatons [presumably were per generation], that they would not be superior and 90% of good genes would have no effect or would even be phased out unless they became the majoriy rapidly after these mutations came into existance.

What? That doesn't follow. Evolution is gradual, but beneficial mutations are beneficial. And they do not get "phased out". They get phased in. Why? Because organisms that have such mutations become more successful, and more successful organisms have more offspring. And some of those offspring are likely to have such beneficial mutations. As they're more successful than the rest of the population, the percentage of organisms that carry such mutations increase within the population. This occurs until the whole population has such a mutation.

Panderichthys is a lobe-finned fish, currently living lobe-finned fish (Coelacanth) have fins that can not support their own weight out of land due to the muscle and bone structure, and even if it did have amphibian-like features, it could also be parallelism, like how Mudskippers facial features resemble those of ampibians, but are still 100% fish.

And also, I'm surprised such an animal (and this isn't the first time I've looked that up online) does not have any good skeletal/fossil shots available, it's all concept art . . . . .

Yeah, look the Coelacanth is living today, in the ocean. It doesn't need fins that support its own weight, and so it wouldn't have them.

Also Pandericthys had lungs, it also had a skull that resembled that of tetrapods, along with tetrapod teeth. To me, it looks like a transitional fossil. Fish --> Tetrapod (and hence amphibian)

The last paragraph, what exactly are you alluding to?

"Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods"

"Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks."

I don't see how those help your argument.

Well, that doesn't. But it doesn't help yours.

And looking at some of their examples, the proto-frog does not necessarily indicate a transitional form, it could just be a type of frog that retains some of it's tail from the tadpole stage, and several species of frogs today are not muscularly built to be good at jumping. "Proto-sharks" could have just been another lineage of the cartilage-skeleton fish, like how sharks and rays both are.

Well, not really. Most of these examples appear as if they're between taxonomic groups, suggesting that evolution occurred, to create different taxonomic groups.

Amphibians-to-Reptiles . . . . while salamanders and lizards have similar body plans, how come there has been no satisfactory answer to the drastic change from the amphibian egg (which requires being wet and is soft) to the reptilian egg (which requires being dry and is hard)? Or how come scales "returned" to the reptiles? (Or why no gilled reptiles exist in any form?)

Maybe, there hasn't been enough research into the change between the eggs. But wait, you overlooked this:

"Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles."

To be honest, at the moment, people aren't sure about how scales in reptiles developed. But there is hypothesising about it. Basically, biologists know that they don't know everything, but they are still are proponents of evolution.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16007997

Basically... I'm not really sure what that means... I'm not a biologist.

But it could be a case of evolutionary reversion, but that is unlikely.

Also, it doesn't matter that we cannot explain how something evolved. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean that God did it.

Pareiasaurs [shellless tortoiselike reptiles] could very well be related to turtles, but then where did THEY originate from?

I'm not sure to be honest. But this article, may shed some light on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle#Systematics_and_evolution

"Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions."

So . . . . turtles developed two independent ways to retract their head? That's an interesting "coincidence".

Yeah, parallel evolution does occur. The fact that there are two different solutions suggest that evolution actually occurred. It shows that there is no overall plan for these animals, they just evolve, and if a solution works, it stays. Why would a designer design it twice, when he already has one working?

"GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. "

And unless I missed something, it does not explain why theropods had small front limbs, even in the earliest known examples, I consider birds to be dinosaurs [and synapsids to be mammals], and it's not like theropods were that different from birds in body plan, so animals resembling both are totally possible, like how bears and felines are similar.

Uh... That doesn't make any sense. Birds are dinosaurs in the same way humans are primates. But the thing is, though theropods are very similar to birds, and the transitions between them have defining characteristics of both. So, they're not just similar, to both of them, they're actually in the process of evolving between them.

"GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. "

How inconvenient . . . . .

"GAP: One of the least understood groups of modern mammals -- there are no known bat fossils from the entire Paleocene. The first known fossil bat, Icaronycteris, is from the (later) Eocene, and it was already a fully flying animal very similar to modern bats. It did still have a few "primitive" features, though (unfused & unkeeled sternum, several teeth that modern bats have lost, etc.) "

IMO the Bat transition has always been one of the biggest issues with evolution. If the webbing came first, the shrews they [possibly] evolved from would not be able to dig burrows, and if the fingers grew first (the rods in a bats wings are actually their fingers), they would be easy prey due to their clumsiness (but could probably still dig). If both evolved together, not only could it not dig or fly, it woul not be able to grab it's prey or escape predators. The Shrew/Rodent-Bat transition would be one of the worst body plans in [pre]history.

When I look at this, I understand you're issue. It seems rather strange, but the fact that we don't know how something evolved, is in no way a problem for evolution. It just shows, that we haven't found the fossils, or we haven't done the research. In fact that argument there is actually an argument from incredulity.

And it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, but that doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. To say say such a thing would be an argument from ignorance.

Both arguments from ignorance and incredulity are logical fallacies, and are not valid arguments.

15 million years from Land to Whale? That seems too quick, especially compared to other animals like primates, rodents, and the like, and why would the nostrils migrate to the top of the head? Wouldn't it be more efficient to keep them at the end of the snout (since with a pointed face that would be the first part to break the surface)?

The nostrils might migrate to the top of the head, to allow the whale to swim horizontally just below the surface and breath at the same time? I'm not sure, but that seems fairly valid. It also allows the eyes and the ears to exist below the water at the same time, so it can see and hear underwater.

"GAP: The ancestors of sirenians [manatees] are not known. No sirenian-like fossils are known from before the Eocene. "

In all it was a good read . . . but I'm curious why he/she left out the origin of fish or any invertebrate lineages period.

Well, I'm not sure. I couldn't really find too much on the evolution of invertebrates. Some of these things don't fossilise too well and we haven't found the fossils, and so there's not really much evidence to base our conclusions on how those things evolved.

We could survive without toes in the wild just fine, a second kdney has no role at all, since when we remove it, our body naturally doubles the strength and size of the remaining one without us really being able to tell.

If one kidney fails? We have a second one for back up... And eyes? Yeah eyes.

Is there any evidence that these bacteria weren't there to begin with and just flourished when a food source not readily consumed by the competition was available?

"In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts."

So, basically this occurred from a mutation that occurred after nylon was invented and gave the Flavobacterium a new food source. These bacteria multiplied, and took advantage of the mutation. This is a pretty good example of evolution.

HIV resistance,

I don't know why people equate resistance to evolution. If 20 flies are experimented upon and 4 are immune already, what happens when the 16 that were not immune to a spray/whatever die? The 4 take over the population with their children, was there any proof that the genes for resitiveness WEREN'T there to begin with? No, in fact, they had to be there already in order for any individuals to have survived period.

However, the example you've listed there is evolution. It's just that such a gene for being resistant to the drug/disease would have occurred in a mutation in the past. It would only then become useful and then the whole population would have it.

Newly discovered (emphasis on discovered) species =/= different kind, do we consider dog breeds to be evolution? (Well some might but not the point) The genes were already there, but the dogs with the genes that breeders wanted were used more than the ones that didn't, making certain genes become more prominent.

Define kind. And these species are new species. Never existed before. They occurred because a mutation occurred which made a group within the population no longer able or willing to breed with those outside the group. And I'm pretty sure that during the domestication of dogs, mutations have occurred.

Read it again, you were using survival of the fittest as an example and I said if it were JUST survival of the fitest, then there would be a limit in the changes possible, it requires mutation to go beyond that, assuming that the mutations come in such a bombardment that they could change an animal "so rapidly".

That would be the case, if there were no mutations. IF. But there are. And there are numerous examples beneficial mutations. The mutations come quite rapidly, but the majority of them are benign (neither good nor bad), some are detrimental, but only a few a beneficial. The detrimental ones are weeded out by natural selection, but the beneficial ones are favoured, and spread.

On the same note, it hasn't been entirely proven that it's useless, for example, people that never required the removal of their tonsils have slightly stronger immune systems due to the tonsils being "large" lymphatic organs, being near the equivalent of "super lymph nodes".

That's true, but people don't have any problems due not having an appendix. So, it has a very limited function at best.

 

[freeman123]

I apologize in advance if I say anything that's already been said. I don't have time to read every response.

Intelligent design is just creationism repackaged to look like science. It's exactly the same thing. Teaching creationism along with evolution would be like teaching astrology along with astronomy.

What creationists are really asking for is that evolution stop being taught in schools. They want equal time given to creationism. So if a teacher talks about evolution for 20 minutes, they have to talk about creationism for 20 minutes. The problem is that there isn't 20 minutes worth of stuff you can say about creationism, since there's absolutely no scientific basis for it. So they would have to cut back on teaching evolution. Eventually, since teachers would be limited on how much they could talk about evolution, it would just be dropped altogether to give more time to other things that they aren't limited on teaching.

With that being said, I'm against public schools entirely. In a free market, there would be schools that teach creationism, schools that teach science, and schools that teach both, and parents could decide which they wanted to send their children to. It's not fair to force people to pay for something they don't agree with.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

With that being said, I'm against public schools entirely. In a free market, there would be schools that teach creationism, schools that teach science, and schools that teach both, and parents could decide which they wanted to send their children to. It's not fair to force people to pay for something they don't agree with.

This is a terrible idea. If there is one thing where you need a well-informed aristocracy, it's schooling. Look at places like Texas, where they're revising the civil war history, or Kentucky, where they are teaching creationism. When it comes to teaching our children, we can't gamble. We need the best of the best figuring out what the actual truth is. We can't regress back to where whatever we wanted to let be the current truth was true. There has to be a unified curriculum, and you must keep religion out of it. Now imagine if parents in regions like Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, etc., the really evangelical/baptist/etc. areas, could send their kids to a baptist christian school where they learn everything they need for life, and that the bible is absolute truth. HMM, I WONDER HOW THAT WOULD TURN OUT.

Seriously, opening up schooling to the open market is the very worst thing we can do. You'd have fast food companies sponsoring health classes that would flat-out lie, religious institutions preaching **** like creationism, and various other consumer industries just flat-out going in their best interest. We can't afford that for our children.

 

[ballin4life]

Uh, private schools already exist, including religious schools that teach creationism. Also, you don't think that the parents are going to be teaching their children their beliefs anyway? Yet you think that YOU ALONE should be able to decide what is right for EVERYONE to learn?

While I personally agree that evolution is more appropriate for schools than creationism, I don't agree that I should be able to force my educational system on everyone. Note that this also applies to many other educational debates. For example, students can be very diverse in their preferred learning styles. One student may be content to sit in a lecture and take notes, whereas another needs to be in a seminar environment, another needs to do hands on work, and so on. Public schools mandate a one size fits all solution for all problems, whereas a market of competing schools could offer different choices for different students.

Public schools tend to do a much worse job of educating than private schools do as well. Many, many studies back this up. One factor in this is that public schools crowd out cheap private schools, so that only the elite ones remain. But public schools also are less effective because of the lack of competition. They don't have to be good schools to get students and money.

Ever wonder why the US has such a good college system, but such a poor public school system? I think a good deal of this can be traced to competition. Colleges try to compete and better themselves in order to attract students and money, whereas public schools do not have to.

 

[freeman123]

Budget Player Cadet_
This is a terrible idea. If there is one thing where you need a well-informed aristocracy, it's schooling. Look at places like Texas, where they're revising the civil war history, or Kentucky, where they are teaching creationism.

That's exactly why the government shouldn't be in charge of education.

Budget Player Cadet_
We need the best of the best figuring out what the actual truth is.

You don't get the best of the best by allowing the government to have a monopoly over education that everyone is forced to pay for. You get the best of the best from competition.

Budget Player Cadet_
We can't regress back to where whatever we wanted to let be the current truth was true. There has to be a unified curriculum

What happens if the unified curriculum is wrong?

Budget Player Cadet_
Now imagine if parents in regions like Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, etc., the really evangelical/baptist/etc. areas, could send their kids to a baptist christian school where they learn everything they need for life, and that the bible is absolute truth. HMM, I WONDER HOW THAT WOULD TURN OUT.

Imagine if those same parents controlled public education and everyone had to pay for it; like what's already happening in some places.

Budget Player Cadet_
Seriously, opening up schooling to the open market is the very worst thing we can do. You'd have fast food companies sponsoring health classes that would flat-out lie, religious institutions preaching **** like creationism, and various other consumer industries just flat-out going in their best interest. We can't afford that for our children.

You wouldn't have to send you kid to a school that taught religion or was sponsored by a fast food company if you didn't want to. You have to pay for government schools no matter what they teach.

It sounds like your main problem with eliminating public education is that you wouldn't get to force other peoples' children to learn what you think they should learn. Well, if that's the sort of system you want, you can't be surprised when those people use the system to force your children to learn what they think they should learn.

The government is like a gun that people are constantly fighting over, because each person wants to point it at the rest of society and force everyone to do what they think is right. As long as you want to play that game, there are always going to be times when someone else gets the gun and points it at you, and uses it to do things like force your children to learn about creationism.

 

[Nicholas1024]

My answer is: It depends. If we're talking about private schools here, it's completely the school's choice and I see no reason to change whatever the school might decide.

However, if we're talking about public schools here, Intelligent Design NEEDS to be taught. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Here's my points against it.

1): The universe itself. There are dozens of fundamental constants governing our universe (c,h, masses and charges of elementary particles, etc.), and if any of those were to be changed even a fraction of a percentage, the universe as we know it could not exist.

(WARNING: The following paragraph is a bit technical, so please bear with me here.)For example, suppose we were to change the mass or charge of the electron a bit. Well, this in turn would change the distance from which it orbits around the nucleus of an atom. There are two types of ways that atoms form molecules. There's Ionic Compounds, where an atom with an extra electron sends it to one missing an electron, or Covalent compounds, where two atoms "share" electrons. Both are necessary to sustain life. Well, if the distance between atoms and their electrons were to increase, making atom's hold on electrons become "looser", then Covalent compounds would become easier to form, but Ionic compounds would cease to exist. Similarly, if the distance between atoms and electrons were to decrease (making the hold "tighter"), then Ionic compounds would become easier to create, but Covalent compounds would cease to exist. And that's just one of many examples of the fragile framework of our universe.

Now, to blow apart the "infinitely many universes" thing... ever heard of Occam's Razor? We should always take the simplest solution available, instead of grasping at straws. There is no evidence for infinitely many universes, so why go there? Also: Suppose you were in a card game, and the dealer kept dealing himself 4 aces time after time, saying "Hey, infinitely many universes, it was bound to happen sometime." Would you accept that, or would you call the guy out on his cheating?

2) Life starting up. Alright, let's suppose for the sake of argument that we somehow lucked in to a universe that can sustain life. And let's suppose that we found a planet with the right conditions to create life. (This one isn't that big of a stretch, considering how many planets there are.) So, the question is, how does life start up? Well, it the odds of life starting up without outside help (AKA: God) are something like 10^-50 (Sorry, I don't remember the exact details. It's been a while since I studied it, and the book I got the info from I don't have any more.) To put that number in perspective, the chances of winning a lottery that everyone on the planet enters would be about 10^-10. So you'd have a better chance of winning 5 of those straight than for life to have started up.

3) Irreducible complexity. There are some features of creatures today that just couldn't be developed by the small random improvements of natural selection. Take ourselves, in fact. There are 16 different factors needed to make blood clot, and even a small defect in any of those would keep the clot from forming. In fact, there's a deadly genetic disease out there caused from a defect in one of those factors. So, how did natural selection create this feature of the human body? Because without it, we wouldn't have had any ancestors, they all would have bled to death.

 

[rvkevin]

1. Irrelevant to the bio-diversification of life.
2. Irrelevant to the bio-diversification of life.
3. This has been shown to be false: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My answer is: It depends. If we're talking about private schools here, it's completely the school's choice and I see no reason to change whatever the school might decide.

However, if we're talking about public schools here, Intelligent Design NEEDS to be taught. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Here's my points against it.

To quote futurama: "Evolution is theory, just like the laws of gravitation or the shape of the earth". Science has this odd way of calling "facts" "theories". As said, various other things that are "just theories" are grasped by us as everyday facts. How electricity works? A theory. The overall size and shape of the earth? A theory. The fact that if you drop a normal glass jar from 100 feet on a concrete floor, it will break? A theory based on other theories. Don't call evolution a theory if you don't connotate what exactly being a "scientific theory" entails.

1): The universe itself. There are dozens of fundamental constants governing our universe (c,h, masses and charges of elementary particles, etc.), and if any of those were to be changed even a fraction of a percentage, the universe as we know it could not exist.

(WARNING: The following paragraph is a bit technical, so please bear with me here.)For example, suppose we were to change the mass or charge of the electron a bit. Well, this in turn would change the distance from which it orbits around the nucleus of an atom. There are two types of ways that atoms form molecules. There's Ionic Compounds, where an atom with an extra electron sends it to one missing an electron, or Covalent compounds, where two atoms "share" electrons. Both are necessary to sustain life. Well, if the distance between atoms and their electrons were to increase, making atom's hold on electrons become "looser", then Covalent compounds would become easier to form, but Ionic compounds would cease to exist. Similarly, if the distance between atoms and electrons were to decrease (making the hold "tighter"), then Ionic compounds would become easier to create, but Covalent compounds would cease to exist. And that's just one of many examples of the fragile framework of our universe.

Now, to blow apart the "infinitely many universes" thing... ever heard of Occam's Razor? We should always take the simplest solution available, instead of grasping at straws. There is no evidence for infinitely many universes, so why go there? Also: Suppose you were in a card game, and the dealer kept dealing himself 4 aces time after time, saying "Hey, infinitely many universes, it was bound to happen sometime." Would you accept that, or would you call the guy out on his cheating?

All right. Now here's a question-if it hadn't been that way, would we be here to talk about it? Also, you're mangling evolution again-Abiogenesis, which I'm sure people who are smarter than me in this forum will gladly support, is not a premise of evolution. If you want to devaluate abiogenesis in favor of deism (again, you're going to find smarter people who will oppose you on this; abiogenesis is not my strong point), be my guest, but that does not in the slightest weaken evolution.

2) Life starting up. Alright, let's suppose for the sake of argument that we somehow lucked in to a universe that can sustain life. And let's suppose that we found a planet with the right conditions to create life. (This one isn't that big of a stretch, considering how many planets there are.) So, the question is, how does life start up? Well, it the odds of life starting up without outside help (AKA: God) are something like 10^-50 (Sorry, I don't remember the exact details. It's been a while since I studied it, and the book I got the info from I don't have any more.) To put that number in perspective, the chances of winning a lottery that everyone on the planet enters would be about 10^-10. So you'd have a better chance of winning 5 of those straight than for life to have started up.

In what time frame? Like, for life to start at all? Furthermore, let's not forget that for each planet where life is possible, this chance repeats itself. So essentially, you have trillions upon trillions of opportunities for something like this to happen. Doesn't seem so tiny now, does it? Furthermore, arguing "that was so ****ing unlikely" after the fact is ridiculous.
AND AGAIN! This has nothing to do with evolution as a whole. Abiogenesis is another "theory" altogether.

3) Irreducible complexity. There are some features of creatures today that just couldn't be developed by the small random improvements of natural selection. Take ourselves, in fact. There are 16 different factors needed to make blood clot, and even a small defect in any of those would keep the clot from forming. In fact, there's a deadly genetic disease out there caused from a defect in one of those factors. So, how did natural selection create this feature of the human body? Because without it, we wouldn't have had any ancestors, they all would have bled to death.

Will someone smarter than me counter this argument? Because it's ridiculously cookie-cutter, has been presented a thousand times, and I'm 100% sure that they have been answered (otherwise, you know, evolution wouldn't be a theory).

EDIT: Dammit Rkevin, you **** ninja.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Your point about the theory thing? The flat earth is a theory. The whole FSM thing is a theory. The point is that evolution does not have enough evidence behind it to be taught in the same class as gravity and a round earth.

In addition, my first two points still stand. First off, there is a limited time frame. The steady state universe has been disproven, there is plenty of evidence that the universe has a beginning. It might be billions of years back, but even accounting for that and the trillions of planets...

1 billion = 10^9
1 trillion = 10^12

So, you've improved your chances from 10^-50 to 10^-29. Not bad, but it's still easier to win a global lottery three times in a row than to find intelligent life.

Also, although it's true that no intelligent life means we wouldn't be here, don't you find it odd that we won out in said 1 in 10^29th shot? Aren't you just somewhat curious, or are you just willing to accept at face value that we happen to be astronomically lucky.

In response to the whole abogenisis thing... the signs all point to a guiding hand in the whole process, that there is a God. That's the point I'm trying to drive home here. Evolution, abogenesis, whatever. I'm sick of atheists telling the masses that they have the intellectual high ground when in fact, they don't.(Okay, maybe it's not that explicit, but when it's their viewpoint being taught in public schools, what does that imply?)

And to your response to my third point...

People will believe and do the most ******** things. Regardless of how much evidence is brought up against viewpoint X, you'll still find people that cling to it.

@youtube blood clotting video.
He doesn't actually prove anything. So what if there are animals that have altered blood clotting systems? Let's compare the whole thing to something that's obviously intelligently designed... the mousetrap.

Now, an ordinary mousetrap has 5 parts, and if any of those are faulty, it won't work.

Similarly, our ordinary blood clotting system has 16 parts, and if any of those are faulty, it won't work.

However, his argument is that there's another blood clotting system with different parts, therefore it isn't intelligently designed.

My counterpoint is the following: Since one can easily design another mousetrap with different parts, does that imply that the mousetrap came about via evolution? You might as well argue that cars came about by evolution since they all have slightly different engines and tires.

 

[rvkevin]

The point of irreducible complexity is if the intermediate stages are not present, then the present form could not have evolved. However, if those intermediate stages serve a different purpose that infers a selective advantage, then changes upon those stages can lead to the present forms. If you can find intermediate forms that partial forms of the system that serve an evolutionary purpose, then it shows how the system could have developed in sequential steps, which doesn't require any additional explanation. As it stands, your point about the blood clotting system does not display a flaw in evolutionary theory.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The point of irreducible complexity is if the intermediate stages are not present, then the present form could not have evolved. However, if those intermediate stages serve a different purpose that infers a selective advantage, then changes upon those stages can lead to the present forms. If you can find intermediate forms that partial forms of the system that serve an evolutionary purpose, then it shows how the system could have developed in sequential steps, which doesn't require any additional explanation. As it stands, your point about the blood clotting system does not display a flaw in evolutionary theory.

My question is, why is the present system so fragile? Had it evolved that way, you'd think that each part would be compatible with a great range of other parts, because that is what would work the best via natural selection. However, as it is a tiny modification would cause the whole thing to collapse. This works via intelligent design, because each part is intended to work only within specific combinations, but it doesn't make sense with evolution.

Also, what's our blood clotting system's advantage over the others? If dolphins and whales less advanced blood clotting system works perfectly fine, why would ours have bothered to evolve?

 

[ballin4life]

I also don't understand what needs to be "taught" about intelligent design.

It seems the lecture should be "God did it. The End."

I also don't get people who insist that evolution is wrong, despite all the evidence, because of God. Ya know, God's all omnipresent and everything, he could have been guiding evolution, or set evolution in motion, or whatever.

 

[freeman123]

I also don't get people who insist that evolution is wrong, despite all the evidence, because of God. Ya know, God's all omnipresent and everything, he could have been guiding evolution, or set evolution in motion, or whatever.

Actually, if someone was guiding evolution, they did a terrible job. Almost every species that has ever lived has gone extinct because they weren't able to adapt to their surroundings. Evolution is basically just nature throwing a bunch of spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Evolution is not just selective breeding, like a lot of people think. It's a combination of selective breeding and random mutations of genetics. The species lucky enough to have genetic mutations that help them adapt to their environments are the ones that survive; while all the rest go extinct.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

However, if we're talking about public schools here, Intelligent Design NEEDS to be taught. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Here's my points against it.

Two things:

1. And ID isn't just a theory?
2. Explain Lucy, Neaderthals, and Homo Erectuses for me.

1): The universe itself. There are dozens of fundamental constants governing our universe (c,h, masses and charges of elementary particles, etc.), and if any of those were to be changed even a fraction of a percentage, the universe as we know it could not exist.

Bookworm *coughcough*Dre*coughcoughcough* used that same argument.

How does that mean that god created the universe? Care to explain?

(WARNING: The following paragraph is a bit technical, so please bear with me here.)For example, suppose we were to change the mass or charge of the electron a bit. Well, this in turn would change the distance from which it orbits around the nucleus of an atom. There are two types of ways that atoms form molecules. There's Ionic Compounds, where an atom with an extra electron sends it to one missing an electron, or Covalent compounds, where two atoms "share" electrons. Both are necessary to sustain life. Well, if the distance between atoms and their electrons were to increase, making atom's hold on electrons become "looser", then Covalent compounds would become easier to form, but Ionic compounds would cease to exist. Similarly, if the distance between atoms and electrons were to decrease (making the hold "tighter"), then Ionic compounds would become easier to create, but Covalent compounds would cease to exist. And that's just one of many examples of the fragile framework of our universe.

How would that make covalent ones cease to exist?

Now, to blow apart the "infinitely many universes" thing... ever heard of Occam's Razor? We should always take the simplest solution available, instead of grasping at straws. There is no evidence for infinitely many universes, so why go there? Also: Suppose you were in a card game, and the dealer kept dealing himself 4 aces time after time, saying "Hey, infinitely many universes, it was bound to happen sometime." Would you accept that, or would you call the guy out on his cheating?

Tell me, is Occam's razor usually right?

I could break a window with a baseball bat, and I can either:
1. Blame it on the dog (lying)
2. Fix it

Which one is better?

2) Life starting up. Alright, let's suppose for the sake of argument that we somehow lucked in to a universe that can sustain life. And let's suppose that we found a planet with the right conditions to create life. (This one isn't that big of a stretch, considering how many planets there are.) So, the question is, how does life start up? Well, it the odds of life starting up without outside help (AKA: God) are something like 10^-50 (Sorry, I don't remember the exact details. It's been a while since I studied it, and the book I got the info from I don't have any more.) To put that number in perspective, the chances of winning a lottery that everyone on the planet enters would be about 10^-10. So you'd have a better chance of winning 5 of those straight than for life to have started up.

You're treating those odds like they're impossible. Remember, the universe has existed for 15 billion years. Lots of stuff can happen in that time.

3) Irreducible complexity. There are some features of creatures today that just couldn't be developed by the small random improvements of natural selection. Take ourselves, in fact. There are 16 different factors needed to make blood clot, and even a small defect in any of those would keep the clot from forming. In fact, there's a deadly genetic disease out there caused from a defect in one of those factors. So, how did natural selection create this feature of the human body? Because without it, we wouldn't have had any ancestors, they all would have bled to death.

This has been shown to be false: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

[collapse=TL:DR]

[/collapse]

 

[Nicholas1024]

Two things:

1. And ID isn't just a theory?
2. Explain Lucy, Neaderthals, and Homo Erectuses for me.

We know that man walked upright BEFORE Lucy's birthdate. Therefore, Lucy can't be a true transitional form.

Some other fun ones...
Neanderthal man: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2711
Nebraska man: http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html
Piltdown man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Archaeoraptor: http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeoraptor
Flipperpithecus: http://www.conservapedia.com/Flipperpithecus

So, time after time the media has jumped on these "transitional forms", when in reality they're nothing but hoaxes and huge mistakes. How do we know some of this present "evidence" isn't just the same exact thing?

Bookworm *coughcough*Dre*coughcoughcough* used that same argument.

How does that mean that god created the universe? Care to explain?

You don't even find it the SLIGHTEST bit suspicious that we lucked into the 1 in 10^50 or so (which is equal to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to put it in perspective a little) chance to actually get a working universe?

How would that make covalent ones cease to exist?

When the bond between nucleus and electron becomes tighter, the middle ground disappears. The electron would eventually get pulled back in to one of the atom's orbits.

Tell me, is Occam's razor usually right?

I could break a window with a baseball bat, and I can either:
1. Blame it on the dog (lying)
2. Fix it

Which one is better?

Yeah, it is a very useful tool. Sorry, but I'm not understanding the point of your window thing.

You're treating those odds like they're impossible. Remember, the universe has existed for 15 billion years. Lots of stuff can happen in that time.

Didn't I already reply to that? Even giving 15 billion years and a trillion planets or so, those are still very long odds. You've improved your chances from 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Not bad, but still a very long way to go. (and this doesn't even take into account the odds of getting the universe to work in the first place.)

This has been shown to be false: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

I replied to that as well. Please read.

[collapse=TL:DR]

[/collapse]

Really?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

We know that man walked upright BEFORE Lucy's birthdate. Therefore, Lucy can't be a true transitional form.

Some other fun ones...
Neanderthal man: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2711
Nebraska man: http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html
Piltdown man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Archaeoraptor: http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeoraptor
Flipperpithecus: http://www.conservapedia.com/Flipperpithecus

So, time after time the media has jumped on these "transitional forms", when in reality they're nothing but hoaxes and huge mistakes. How do we know some of this present "evidence" isn't just the same exact thing?

Because they probably would have been discovered as hoaxes by now.

You don't even find it the SLIGHTEST bit suspicious that we lucked into the 1 in 10^50 or so (which is equal to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to put it in perspective a little) chance to actually get a working universe?

No, as the odds are probably much bigger.

Would a universe without jupiter cease to exist?

When the bond between nucleus and electron becomes tighter, the middle ground disappears. The electron would eventually get pulled back in to one of the atom's orbits.

You do realize that's where the electron is located there, right?

Yeah, it is a very useful tool. Sorry, but I'm not understanding the point of your window thing.

Basically, i'm saying "is it right to lie about it (simpler), or go and fix it (complicated)?"

Didn't I already reply to that?
Even giving 15 billion years and a trillion planets or so, those are still very long odds. You've improved your chances from 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Not bad, but still a very long way to go. (and this doesn't even take into account the odds of getting the universe to work in the first place.)

Seriously? Do you honestly think that's the chance that you start with?

I replied to that as well. Please read.

Rvkevin responded to that as well. Please read.

Really?

Yes.

 

[freeman123]

Nicholas1024
So, time after time the media has jumped on these "transitional forms", when in reality they're nothing but hoaxes and huge mistakes. How do we know some of this present "evidence" isn't just the same exact thing?

Even if there were no "transitional forms" discovered, DNA alone tells us that all known life had a common ancestor.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Because they probably would have been discovered as hoaxes by now.

You realize that Piltdown man lasted 40 years? My point is that the evidence for evolution isn't nearly as far-reaching as most people think, due to selective exposure via the media.

No, as the odds are probably much bigger.

Prove it. Stephen Hawking (one of the experts in this area and in fact an atheist) said this. (The universe being extremely fragile, that is.)

Would a universe without jupiter cease to exist?

Now you're just trolling me. Jupiter is hardly a fundamental constant, wise guy.

You do realize that's where the electron is located there, right?

Yes, I realize that. But it can't be part of the covalent compound (sort of in-between orbits) when it's pulled back tightly into a single atom's orbit.

Basically, i'm saying "is it right to lie about it (simpler), or go and fix it (complicated)?"

That isn't at all how Occam's razor is meant to be used. The idea is "When there's multiple explanations for certain phenomenon, go with the simplest." It has nothing to do with morals, merely common sense.

Seriously? Do you honestly think that's the chance that you start with?

No, actually I think the chance is worse, but since I don't have the book I originally got the data from ATM I'm not entirely sure.

Rvkevin responded to that as well. Please read.

Does repeating something that someone else said verbatim and attempting to revert the debate to an early stage help anyone in any way? You're free to disagree with me, but don't be a jerk about it.

Yes.

...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Your point about the theory thing? The flat earth is a theory. The whole FSM thing is a theory. The point is that evolution does not have enough evidence behind it to be taught in the same class as gravity and a round earth.

WHAAAAAAT?

NO, those are not theories. Stop talking out of your ***. They are, on a "literal" level, theories. Not a scientific level. "Theories" on the scientific level, are, in effect, facts. There's not really much difference.

In addition, my first two points still stand. First off, there is a limited time frame. The steady state universe has been disproven, there is plenty of evidence that the universe has a beginning. It might be billions of years back, but even accounting for that and the trillions of planets...

1 billion = 10^9
1 trillion = 10^12

So, you've improved your chances from 10^-50 to 10^-29. Not bad, but it's still easier to win a global lottery three times in a row than to find intelligent life.

...You really have no idea how big the universe is, do you? Try "improved your chances from 10^-50 to 10^0" for accuracy.

Also, although it's true that no intelligent life means we wouldn't be here, don't you find it odd that we won out in said 1 in 10^29th shot? Aren't you just somewhat curious, or are you just willing to accept at face value that we happen to be astronomically lucky.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that, why would you, someone who supposedly counts occam's razor, reject it?

 

[Nicholas1024]

WHAAAAAAT?

NO, those are not theories. Stop talking out of your ***. They are, on a "literal" level, theories. Not a scientific level. "Theories" on the scientific level, are, in effect, facts. There's not really much difference.

Apparently we differ on the definition of theory. But anyways, that's hardly the point.

...You really have no idea how big the universe is, do you? Try "improved your chances from 10^-50 to 10^0" for accuracy.

Did a google search, and taking the larger of the two answers (the smaller one was a mere 10 billion capable of supporting life if you're curious) for the sake of argument, it would be about 10^21 planets. So, 10^-20 then. Still a really small chance.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_known_planets_are_in_the_universe

I'm perfectly willing to accept that, why would you, someone who supposedly counts occam's razor, reject it?

If you're willing to base your eternal fate on a 1 in 10^20th chance, then fine. But somehow, I'd like to see a little more reasoning behind the things I base my faith on. (And I do have reasoning. This is somewhat off-topic, but the evidence behind the new testament is quite substantial.)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You realize that Piltdown man lasted 40 years? My point is that the evidence for evolution isn't nearly as far-reaching as most people think, due to selective exposure via the media.

Lucy also lasted 40 years, and is still around.

Prove it. Stephen Hawking (one of the experts in this area and in fact an atheist) said this. (The universe being extremely fragile, that is.)

Links or it didn't happen.

Now you're just trolling me. Jupiter is hardly a fundamental constant, wise guy.

My point exactly. Since it's hardly fundamental, we should be able to remove it, and it wouldn't affect the universe.

Yes, I realize that. But it can't be part of the covalent compound (sort of in-between orbits) when it's pulled back tightly into a single atom's orbit.

Electrons in between orbits? Never heard of that.

That isn't at all how Occam's razor is meant to be used. The idea is "When there's multiple explanations for certain phenomenon, go with the simplest." It has nothing to do with morals, merely common sense.

Sorry about that.

Okay: Bob disappears, occams razor says he was murdered. BUT, he was actually captured by terrorists.

Ocam's razor is wrong.

No, actually I think the chance is worse, but since I don't have the book I originally got the data from ATM I'm not entirely sure.

How?

Does repeating something that someone else said verbatim and attempting to revert the debate to an early stage help anyone in any way? You're free to disagree with me, but don't be a jerk about it.

Says the guy that had just done thy a couple of posts back.