|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: Chir means bat, CHir stated that bats are our primates ancestors, and three other stupid evolutionaries said the same thing. That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that.
Remember, ... ah Ill tell you later...as no one gets away with anything with the Lord. What is the Lord going to think about your lies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
RAZD writes: Perhaps you could extract from those rambling posts where you addressed what steps make up the scientific method? What I extracted is that Davidjay is totally against the use of the scientific method. "No keep, schools for knowledge rather than theories."--Davidjay, post 953 The final output of the scientific method is theories. If you say that you don't want theories taught to students, then you are saying that you don't want the scientific method taught. "I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of usthe "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
creation writes: Only when filtered through your religion does evidence contradict creation. In reality it all agrees. I think you have that backwards. You reflexively call anything that contradicts your beliefs a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
creation writes: I look at the reality of the claim and the actual basis. Origin sciences claims are totally belief based. If you observe a car coming down the street, is that belief based?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
creation writes: The wise men observed on over a house on a street. Yet you have faith something else happened.The universe does not exist according to what you see happen on a street on earth. You didn't answer my question. If you see a car coming down the street is that a belief based conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. Let's look at humans as our example. How many beneficial mutations are available in the human genome? If you think it is just one, you are flat out wrong. Two examples off the top of my head are mutations that control melanin production and lactose tolerance. For changes in melanin production, there are many possible mutations that can change the phenotype, not just one. Even more, both of these mutations can happen in the same population and then be joined together in one genome through sexual reproduction. Skin color doesn't have to wait for lactose tolerance, or vice versa. You seem to think that one experiment is applicable to all populations and all environments. You are wrong. It isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: you can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search. The closest node to mammals is Amniota:
Fish are much more distant. Mammals evolved from reptile-like ancestors, also known as Synampsids: Synapsida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Kleinman writes: So you agree, fish evolve into mammals. The step just before mammals was synapsids which were reptile-like. Usually when someone says A evolved into B they are asking about the immediate steps. Do mammals have fish ancestors? Yes. Mammals also have reptile-like ancestors, amphibian-like ancestors, jawless vertebrate ancestors, and single celled eukaryotic ancestors. Why are you picking fish out of that list?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: If you want to see immediate steps, take a look at the Kishony experiment. Your hobby horse is getting worn out.
And why am I picking out fish? Haven't you ever heard a good fish story? You heard about the one-armed fisherman? Someone asked how big the fish was that he caught. He stuck out his arm and said it was that long. I will ask again. Out of all the non-mammalian ancestors of mammals, why did you select fish? Explain. Why not select the reptile-like mammalian transitionals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: You either have not followed or understood my discussion with Taq on the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" topic. If you have 2 possible beneficial mutations, the number of replications required is still over a billion replications. If there are 10,000 possible beneficial mutations, what is the probability then? What about 2 million possible beneficial mutations?
But what happens after that first beneficial mutation occurs? Are there many beneficial mutations for the next and ensuing evolutionary steps for that selection pressure? You still don't understand sexual reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: What does your fossil tea-leaf reading tell you about the Kishony and Lenski experiments? If you think there is only one possible mutation in a whole genome for every single adaptation, and that there is only one possible and specific adaptation for every environmental challenge, then you need to get out into the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Kleinman writes: So you think that Tiktaalik could have just as easily been a tripod or a pentapod? "Mr. Kleinman, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."--from the movie "Billy Madison"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Perhaps Tiktaalik could have evolved into an octopod or a centipod or even a millipod. I've seen replicators like that in the real world. Are you now telling us that it is an impossible adaptation? Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led to those adaptations? Use your brain. I promise, it won't hurt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led it to be a tetrapod? I will take that as a tacit admission that the Kishony experiment does not apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: I will take that as a tacit admission that you have no idea what went on with Tiktaalik genetically. Until you can show that there was only a single mutation at a single base that led to tetrapods then you can't apply the Kishony experiment.
Why do you deny the evidence showing that eukaryotic DNA evolution works the same way as bacterial DNA evolution? You are the one denying the existence of sexual reproduction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024