Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am curious to know what those are. This is a scientific area I am particularly well versed in and I would be very interested in understanding what is unsettled in evolutionary biology?

She's baiting me right? serenity now!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Can anyone point to any evidence that contradicts evolution?

Note I said evidence. For instance, are there any experiments that have ever been done that showed the fittest don't survive to pass on their genes? Or even a biological observation. Got any of those you can point to that are inconsistent with evolution?

Why do you have an appendix?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not Me, the article doesn't say the curriculem teaches creationism, does it- i know the article talks about creationism.

The article says the curriculum teaches "intelligent design." The article then states that the intelligent design theory is that the fact that life is complex indicates that a higher being had to have created life.

I don't care what you call it. It is just bad logic. Bad logic does not belong in the science class room.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's wrong with ending the science chapter on quantum mechanics by saying "here's some stuff that doesn't, or isn't explained yet."
That is part of the scientific process.

What is unexplained in evolutionary biology? What exactly are you people talking about here?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Can anyone point to any evidence that contradicts evolution?

Note I said evidence. For instance, are there any experiments that have ever been done that showed the fittest don't survive to pass on their genes? Or even a biological observation. Got any of those you can point to that are inconsistent with evolution?

Depends on your definition of "fittest." Plus, evolution has been completely supplemented with the emergence of the welfare state.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you have an appendix?

So you can look up specific topics and subjects.

Sheesh. Try to keep up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am curious to know what those are. This is a scientific area I am particularly well versed in and I would be very interested in understanding what is unsettled in evolutionary biology?

Think of the various spats Stephen Jay Gould was involved in. E.g., punctuated equilibria.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you have an appendix?

No fair! You should at least pick something that, if it cannot be explained by evolution, can be explained by intelligent design. Otherwise, it's a wash.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Depends on your definition of "fittest."

No it doesn't. The defintion of "fittest" in terms of evolutionary biology is fittest to pass on their genes.

What are these inconsitencies/controversies/unexplained stuff to which you refer?

Originally posted by sgtclub
Plus, evolution has been completely supplemented with the emergence of the welfare state.

Only true of humans. It still is fully operating in the non-human world. For instance, mosquitos. In my lifetime I have personally witnessed the evolution of mosquitos because of all the pesticides used to kill them.

Seen a few bacteria evolve, too, and develop antibiotic resistence to once useful antibiotics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I know that I would vehemently protest the teaching of some model of subatomic theory that conflicted with qm but that was offered because it didn't conflict with someone's religious/philosophical views - and that, to me, is the entire basis for the push for the various creationist theories.

I suspect string theory came about because some Trekkie really really wanted there to be such a thing as an interdimensional wormhole. Does that count?

Oh, shit, now I've thrown off the schedule for posting a picture of Eva.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm not redoing my argument- Atticus says I can't till May at the earliest- but your answer points to general fears, I was asking specific facts- do yuo know whats in the approved curriculem? If its simply "there are some big ass questions in evolution" is that so very wrong?

I also don't want to repeat. GO back to my post #1096. THere are links to the specific Ohio lesson plan. In the lesson plan are links to sites for students to use in their "critical analysis" of evolution. Two links from one of these sites got me right to Christian Leadership Ministries.

I guess I still don't understand how teaching creationism, Intelligent Design or any other religion-based idea is a valid theory for a science classroom. If there are holes in evolution, how is it valid to say, "well foget those holes, God did it!" How do you test that theory? How do you test the idea that some intelligent being created life, the universe and everything? Where is the science in this? You don't believe in evolution? Fine. Show me a theory that has some credence that can be tested. I guess that is what I don't understand about people pushing the validity of ID as "science."

aV

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you have an appendix?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No fair! You should at least pick something that, if it cannot be explained by evolution, can be explained by intelligent design. Otherwise, it's a wash.

Liberal philosphy?

edited to fix tags -- T.S.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you have an appendix?

The presence of vestigial organs only serves to prove we have evolved from different animals and are continuing to evolve.

Anyhow, you picked a bad organ to make your point because recent evidence indicates that the appendix is not a vestigial organ. All the recent evidence shows that the appendix plays are role in immunosurveillance of the gut.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
No it doesn't. The defintion of "fittest" in terms of evolutionary biology is fittest to pass on their genes.

Only true of humans. It still is fully operating in the non-human world. For instance, mosquitos. In my lifetime I have personally witnessed the evolution of mosquitos because of all the pesticides used to kill them.

Sure, but what it takes to survive/pass on genes has drastically changed for both humans and animals given human intervention in the "natural" world. Animal preserves and the Endagered Species Act are both good example.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sure, but what it takes to survive/pass on genes has drastically changed for both humans and animals given human intervention in the "natural" world. Animal preserves and the Endagered Species Act are both good example.

Some things have been turned on their ears- Example- in the wild premature ejaculatiion was probably a trait that increased liklihood of passing on your genes. the quicker you get it done, the quicker you can be on guard again. Until recently it was probably a non-issue.
Now most woman wouldn't marry a premmie, so it actually has become a negative trait, and will probably be erased from the population in short order. See Ty, you were just born 200 years too soon.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sure, but what it takes to survive/pass on genes has drastically changed for both humans and animals given human intervention in the "natural" world. Animal preserves and the Endagered Species Act are both good example.

As recently as Victorian times, about half of children never reached adolescence. (Insert Bilmore joke about which half.) Now it's like 99% or something.

Of course, there are places in the world where natural selection is still a strong force on human development because medical intervention is so rare or ineffectual. Look for the first natural resistance to AIDS to come from sub-Saharan Africa.