Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 177 (470060)
06-09-2008 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Re: One List
quote:
Since Gabler is dead, we may never know whether he was intentionally being dishonest. It appears from the Wiki article that he challenged many different textbooks outside the areas of science seeking changes and corrections. It does not appear that these actions were all religiously motivated. It also appears that he truly believed that there were problems with textbooks related to the teaching of evolution. Whether he viewed these problems from a point of ignorance, or religious bias, I do not know.
The science section of Gabler's textbook criticisms only deals with biology texts and is almost entirely concerned with evolution.
Clearly he wanted biology texts to be modified to fit better with his own beliefs (even though he obviously didn't know the subject matter at all).
So it seems very obvious that his dealings with biology texts were almost entirely religiously motivated.
Edited by PaulK, : Original posting went wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 47 of 177 (470061)
06-09-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Fossils and Assumptions
I know that you have plenty to answer already, so I'm not going to say anything beyond this, which I just can't leave to go unchallenged.
[We should] Help students to understand the difficulties, the assumptions, and the controversy related to dating.
Help students to understand the process of interpreting fossil evidence, and how the same evidence could be subject to different interpretations.
There you go again, talking about assumptions and interpretation of evidence, yet, when challenged to provide alternative interpretations of the fossil record, you go quiet.
Scientists are not making assumptions. That would not be science. What they are doing is drawing conclusions based upon evidence. It's no use saying that scientists are making erroneous assumptions if you can't point to an example of an "assumption" and provide an alternative explanation for the evidence.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-09-2008 8:22 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 59 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 8:36 PM Granny Magda has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 48 of 177 (470063)
06-09-2008 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Re: One List
Even though you disagree with the wording of the items on the list related to fossils, it could also prove that students need to be taught that the fossil record is jerky, or appears in spurts rather than conforming to gradualism which appears to be the theory accepted by science today.
Punctuated Equilibria is not supported by the fossil record. Where we have sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other (almost exclusively in the Cenozoic) the record support phyletic gradualism. While an more incomplete fossil record cannot distinguish between the two.
Evolution is gradual in the sense that Darwin meant the word (it's shifted in meaning, in Darwins time it meant simply that there were no big jumps), but it shows a much wider variety of speeds and can proceed considerably faster than he expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 177 (470064)
06-09-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
06-09-2008 8:02 AM


Re: Fossils and Assumptions
It's no use saying that scientists are making erroneous assumptions if you can't point to an example of an "assumption" and provide an alternative explanation for the evidence.
I would go even further. Any alternative explanation should also be able to be falsified or verified by the prediction of new physical eveidence that is a logical and exclusive consequence of the explanation in question.
Wumpini has his hands full at the moment but if things do progress to alternative explanations of the known evidence I think that the validity of the explanation in terms of the above will be the key differentiator between the scientific explanation and any other proposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2008 8:02 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2008 8:51 AM Straggler has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 50 of 177 (470072)
06-09-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
06-09-2008 8:22 AM


Re: Fossils and Assumptions
I would go even further. Any alternative explanation should also be able to be falsified or verified by the prediction of new physical evidence that is a logical and exclusive consequence of the explanation in question.
I quite agree. Any explanation ought to conform to the usual requirements of science, at least, it should if its proponents want to see it taught in science classes.
Actually, a supernatural explanation that made some kind of logical sense would be something at least.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-09-2008 8:22 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2008 9:21 AM Granny Magda has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 177 (470076)
06-09-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda
06-09-2008 8:51 AM


The ultimate new strategy!
Granny Magda writes:
Actually, a supernatural explanation that made some kind of logical sense would be something at least.
That supernatural explanation, even on the current evidence, would have to be omphalism of some sort, or something similar, I think.
That would be an interesting strategy, although not, strictly speaking, new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2008 8:51 AM Granny Magda has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 177 (470077)
06-09-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Still just wrong
Actually, that is not my job.
In the discussion here you have put forward a position. You may either retract it or support it if you wish to remain intellectually honest.
I would hope that we both want them taught. It is only a matter of what they are taught.
"Them" here is the ridiculous misinformation of the kind in Gabler's list. I certainly do not want them taught.
I do not think you have the wrong impression because of this one list. I think you have already made a decision that is based upon your understanding of the entire evolution/creation controversy.
You are correct that I am aware of more than this list. However, as I said, so far all we have on the table in this discussion is the one list. If my impression is wrong then other lists will correct that.
I am not trying to prove you wrong. Each one of the items on the list would require a separate thread to debate. I do not view that as the topic of this thread.
You are correct that this thread should not be used to debate each item at length. I did suggest before that you might want to take significant ones and support them in separate threads.
The topic of this thread is the teaching of "weaknesses". To discuss that we need to see what "weaknesses" that should be taught are not being taught. We'll get to your short list at the bottom of this post.
Even though you disagree with the wording of the items on the list related to fossils, it could also prove that students need to be taught that the fossil record is jerky, or appears in spurts rather than conforming to gradualism which appears to be the theory accepted by science today.
As you said, no room in this thread, but the view of this that you have been given is wrong in more than one way.
I think it is realistic in the entire education of a child to spend one day of class or two emphasizing that a particular theory is disputed and analyzing a few of these areas of dispute.
Let's clarify again: There is no controversy! The only reason there appears to be one is because of lists like Gablers. It is junk!
The evidence related to speciation seems to be very limited and subject to interpretation. I believe there are other threads that are in progress right now discussing this evidence.
I'd like to see your alternate interpretations in that thread. Everytime someone suggests that "interpretation" is involved (implying total subjectivity, wishful thinking, ...) I ask for the alternate interpretation. This would, of course, have to be supplied with the basic evidence and chains of reasoning used to arrive at the alternate interpretation. Such alternates are never, ever supplied.
\However, if you are going to teach these students that dates in the millions and billions of years are factual then it would seem that you should take the time to help them understand that there are disputes about the methods, assumptions, and interpretations used to reach those dates.
There are no disputes. The dates of millions and billions of years are factual.
Since Gabler is dead, we may never know whether he was intentionally being dishonest.
Agreed. That is why I used ignorance and/or dishonest. However, in many of these cases the nonsense is so blatant that, at a minimum, it has to be willful ignorance, which, in my mind, is a form of dishonesty. It certainly is if you are willfully ignorant and try to promulgate your views.
The issues discussed above would not take significant classroom time in my opinion.
The issues in Gabler's list are not disputes. They are junk!
# Teach alternative theories about the rate of evolution.
# Help students to understand the difficulties, the assumptions, and the controversy related to dating.
# Help students to understand the process of interpreting fossil evidence, and how the same evidence could be subject to different interpretations.
There aren't alternative theories about the rate. It is understood that evolutionary rates vary. They vary a lot more than was once believed but there is no controversy over this. As I mentioned parenthetically above I learned here and was surprised that Darwin even had a note about varying rates.
There are no legitimate controversies regarding dating itself. There are only issues in using the techniques carefully.
To see what you want taught I'd have to see an example of a "different interpretation" given in the same form and quality as the interpretations of fossil evidence used in biology.
We now seem to be down to a list of, possibly, one entry. That might make a very good new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM NosyNed has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 177 (470089)
06-09-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Re: One List
Creationists like to frame evolution as a controversial theory distinct from the other well established theories within science, and they argue that simple honesty demands that the theory's weaknesses be included in any curriculum. But evolution is as well established as almost any other theory within science, having gone through a lengthy period of observation, experimentation, analysis, replication and argument and thereby passing the threshold for acceptance for the vast majority of scientists, as all theories must do if they are to become part of mainstream science.
The controversy that creationists point to is not a controversy within science, but one between science and and a particular set of religious beliefs. The weaknesses that creationists point to all fit into one of two categories: either they're not scientific weaknesses, or they're questions for which we have no answers as yet. Naturally non-scientific weaknesses do not belong in science class, and all theories have unanswered questions which can be included or not in a program as appropriate. For example, though we have far more questions than answers about dark matter and dark energy, any science class that happened to include a week on cosmology would probably want to mention them because they're fascinating topics likely to fuel students curiosity. But they're unanswered questions, not weaknesses.
So in the same way, it would be appropriate during a week spent on evolution to mention some topics with more questions than answers, such as the origin of flight or even the origin of life itself, because these are legitimate scientific topics within science about which many technical papers have been written.
What would not be appropriate would be to mention the irreducible complexity of hemoglobin or the unreliability of radiometric dating, because these are not scientific issues, indeed have such an insufficient scientific basis that no technical literature about them exists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 54 of 177 (470090)
06-09-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:23 AM


Re: One List
I doubt very seriously it has any impact on what the state of Texas does with their textbooks.
You would be mistaken. I was one of a couple of hundred people who testified at the 2003 hearings on biology text adoptions. A large number of us were not biologists (though at least one Nobel Prize winner was there) but were, instead, internet aficianodos of the debate.
And the Discovery Institute creationists didn't get their way that time. I'm going back in 2010 to try to keep them out again.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 55 of 177 (470165)
06-09-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NosyNed
06-09-2008 9:34 AM


What Position?
NosyNed writes:
In the discussion here you have put forward a position. You may either retract it or support it if you wish to remain intellectually honest.
Now who is treading on a thin line with intellectual honesty? What is this position that you think I put forward and need to retract? I made myself very clear from the beginning that I had no idea what the proponents of this teach the “weaknesses” thing wanted to include in textbooks. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to state that I know what they were proposing should be taught. I was hoping that you could give me some idea of what they were proposing, so we could decide if they were “weaknesses” or not. If you do not know what they are proposing, or do not wish to reveal what they want taught, then say so.
If you want to end the discussion because it is not moving in the direction that you hoped, then do so. However, do not threaten me with intellectual dishonesty if I do not retract a position that I have never taken. I made my position clear from the beginning. I said:
Wumpini msg 19 writes:
Do we have a list of those things that are being proposed to be included as “weaknesses” in the textbooks? Or, are we making assumptions about what would be included based upon prior or current arguments? Could you or someone give me some specific realistic (not a strawman) examples of what would be included as a weakness in the textbooks besides the Cambrian explosion?
I asked you guys to give me some idea of what these "weaknesses" were. I was given a link that led no where. I then jokingly made this statement.
Wumpini msg 25 writes:
We could just let me decide what is significant? That may work! I am sure that there would still be controversy though.
Nosyned msg 27 writes:
Excellent idea! How about you give a list of those things that you think should be put into a high school biology course? These would be the left out "weaknesses" that you think should be made known.
Wumpini msg 28 writes:
I was only joking about me being the one to select the areas of weakness that should be included in the textbooks. I was hoping that some of you would tell me what the major areas of dispute were that you thought students may be taught as a part of the science curriculum. However, not one person could come up with one weakness that needed to be taught, although some did indicate that there were weaknesses with the "Theory of evolution." That makes me wonder why there is no desire to make children aware that there are two opposing sides to this issue.
I searched on the internet and came up with a quick list of scientific weaknesses that is promoted by one website.
Nosyned msg 40 writes:
Yes, it is quite probably that I have read more creationist material than you have. This list is representative.
It is, in any case, your job to supply lists of "weaknesses". You are the one that wants them taught.
When exactly did it become my job to supply lists of “weaknesses?” You and others have indicated that there are weaknesses in the “theory of evolution.” You and others have also indicated that the reason that these “weaknesses” cannot and should not be taught is a lack of classroom time. In other words, the school system has time to teach the strengths about evolutionary theory, but not the weaknesses of the theory. I guess that should make perfect sense to me. And now, you want me to search out arguments from creationist websites (PRATTS) so that you can attempt to defeat them and feel good about what you are not teaching.
The website that I was given a link to had this to say about those who refuse to teach both sides of the theory.
quote:
We've noted an interesting evolution of arguments by the Darwinists. In 2003, they said weaknesses were too complicated to be taught to high school students and had to wait until college. Later this morphed to having to wait until grad school and later to post doc work only. Now the true colors come out--they can't tolerate ANY criticism of Darwinian theories at any level, even if it does NOT include creationism or intelligent design but is merely a robust discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolution!
Texans for Better Science Education
You are correct that I am aware of more than this list. However, as I said, so far all we have on the table in this discussion is the one list. If my impression is wrong then other lists will correct that.
If you are knowledgeable about other items that are not on this list then why do you not bring those items forward and put them on the table. Then we can determine whether those items should be taught.
The topic of this thread is the teaching of "weaknesses". To discuss that we need to see what "weaknesses" that should be taught are not being taught. We'll get to your short list at the bottom of this post.
You are correct. And you seem to have a better idea than I do as to where we may find this list. Why do you not provide that information?
Let's clarify again: There is no controversy! The only reason there appears to be one is because of lists like Gablers. It is junk!
If there is no controversy then why does this website exist? If there is no controversy then why is there a website that is proposing the teaching of “weaknesses” for this theory?
There aren't alternative theories about the rate. It is understood that evolutionary rates vary. They vary a lot more than was once believed but there is no controversy over this. As I mentioned parenthetically above I learned here and was surprised that Darwin even had a note about varying rates.
From what I have read on the internet and in biology textbooks, there seem to be some who think there are alternative theories. For example:
quote:
Recently, some biologists have suggested that the underlying assumption of gradualism, that macroevolution proceeds at a uniform pace, is incorrect. They argue instead that macroevolution occurs in fits and starts.
“The Living World” by George B. Johnson
The Wiki encyclopedia entry on the internet calls this a theory. That would tell me that there are at least two different theories regarding the rate of evolution in the past. If that is incorrect then I will have to learn it from somewhere other than where I have been looking.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
There are no legitimate controversies regarding dating itself. There are only issues in using the techniques carefully.
I am sure that you are the one determining what is or is not a legitimate controversy.
To see what you want taught I'd have to see an example of a "different interpretation" given in the same form and quality as the interpretations of fossil evidence used in biology.
There have been all kinds of problems with the fossil evidence every since the theory of evolution has been proposed. The lack of transitional fossils has caused fraud after fraud, and misinterpretation after misinterpretation to be revealed. Why would anyone believe that what exists today is any different?
We now seem to be down to a list of, possibly, one entry. That might make a very good new thread.
So are you telling me that these people that want to teach the “weaknesses” only have one potential item that they are interested in teaching?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2008 9:34 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2008 7:25 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2008 7:56 PM Wumpini has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 177 (470169)
06-09-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:17 PM


Frauds again
The lack of transitional fossils has caused fraud after fraud,
Please name five frauds in the fossil record.
I'll even give you the first two: Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.
Since there are so many frauds in the fossil record, you should be able to come up with three more?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 57 of 177 (470170)
06-09-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
06-08-2008 11:23 PM


Re: What do you think?
Vanishingly few bio-scientists doubt the reality of evolution.
I said there were disputes. I did not say that they doubted the reality of evolution. Scientists can dispute the theory of evolution without rejecting the theory entirely.
I was responding to that. That is not teaching an alternative view, that is just opting not to teach at all. A pretty surprising opinion for a teacher. You'll talk yourself out of a job at this rate.
What kind of teacher do you think that I am? You seem to keep bringing that up. I do not ever recall telling you what I do for a living. Or, are you fishing?
As Dobzhansky had it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.". Evolution is an essential aspect of biology. To ignore it is to invite ignorance and sow the seeds of confusion, just as the creationists behind this "strengths and weaknesses" tosh doubtless intend.
This quote may be overused. There were 47,300 hits on Google for this quote alone. With the speed of my internet connection, it would take me months or years to look at all of those references. It will suffice to say that I really do not know what this guy means by evolution. If he means macroevolution then I do not understand why he would say that biology makes no sense without this theory.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 06-08-2008 11:23 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2008 11:23 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 06-10-2008 12:42 AM Wumpini has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 177 (470175)
06-09-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 7:17 PM


Positions
Now who is treading on a thin line with intellectual honesty? What is this position that you think I put forward and need to retract? I made myself very clear from the beginning that I had no idea what the proponents of this teach the “weaknesses” thing wanted to include in textbooks. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to state that I know what they were proposing should be taught. I was hoping that you could give me some idea of what they were proposing, so we could decide if they were “weaknesses” or not. If you do not know what they are proposing, or do not wish to reveal what they want taught, then say so.
If you want to end the discussion because it is not moving in the direction that you hoped, then do so. However, do not threaten me with intellectual dishonesty if I do not retract a position that I have never taken. I made my position clear from the beginning. I said:
Are you now saying that you don't think the "weaknesses" as suggested by the likes of the Discovery Institute should be taught? I thought that was your position. Since you seem to be saying you don't have such a position I guess there is no argument.
Note: We have to be careful when we use the words like "issues", "weaknesses", etc. What the DI and others are proposing are not the issues which are under discussion in biological circles - the real issues.
I am for teaching both the basics and as much of the challenging parts as can be fit into the time available. You don't know where the line between basics (which are necessary to understand the issues) and the more advanced parts of the science where issues are. Because so much of the basic science is needed it is hard to get to the more advanced stuff.
To summarize:
There are no "weaknesses" (issues, controversies) with dating and the general progression of life on earth within science as the proponents wanting weaknesses taught in school. We have shown that your list disintegrated when examined.
I asked you guys to give me some idea of what these "weaknesses" were.
We already know that there are no such weaknesses as the proponents of this change to schooling want to put forward. If you think these people (like the late Gabler) have something then you will have to show it. Did it turn out to be harder than you thought?
We've noted an interesting evolution of arguments by the Darwinists. In 2003, they said weaknesses were too complicated to be taught to high school students and had to wait until college. Later this morphed to having to wait until grad school and later to post doc work only. Now the true colors come out--they can't tolerate ANY criticism of Darwinian theories at any level, even if it does NOT include creationism or intelligent design but is merely a robust discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolution!
Interesting comment: now let's ask them what they would include in this "discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of evolution". I am reasonably confident that if you dig this out you will find it is the same junk that Gabler had. This is the game being played. It is a dishonest game. It is couched to sound fair and reasonable but when you open the box to see what is inside it is rotten apples all the way down.
Again, if someone wants such things taught they will have to show, in some detail, what they want taught. I've already told you that the Gabler list is, in fact, representative: it is junk!
If you are knowledgeable about other items that are not on this list then why do you not bring those items forward and put them on the table. Then we can determine whether those items should be taught.
They are all junk and should not be taught.
If there is no controversy then why does this website exist? If there is no controversy then why is there a website that is proposing the teaching of “weaknesses” for this theory?
There is "controversy" because there are liars and self deluding folks who have no idea what they are talking about out there. Anyone can decide to make assertions but if they have no rational support for it then there isn't a controversy there is just smoke and noise.
Recently, some biologists have suggested that the underlying assumption of gradualism, that macroevolution proceeds at a uniform pace, is incorrect. They argue instead that macroevolution occurs in fits and starts.
Well, since the issue has only been under discussion for less than half a century (and more like 30 years) I guess if you were reviewing the 150 years involved that might be "recently".
However the fact is that speciation has been shown to occur rapidly (PE) and also gradually through long detailed fossil sequences. I don't see this as being particularly controversial any more AND I think it can be included in a reasonably early biology course.
Is that all these people want? This isn't a particularly big deal anymore.
I am sure that you are the one determining what is or is not a legitimate controversy.
If you disagree then supply the details of the so called "controversy". If you don't want to do that then drop it. I've already seen the kind of total nonsense put forward in support of this view. Perhaps you need to dig into it more deeply. You should read over the various threads in "Dates and Dating" that have "correlations" in their titles. We find that the young earthers tend to give up on those threads rather quickly.
There have been all kinds of problems with the fossil evidence every since the theory of evolution has been proposed. The lack of transitional fossils has caused fraud after fraud, and misinterpretation after misinterpretation to be revealed. Why would anyone believe that what exists today is any different?
We have an active thread on the "frauds". We seem to be having trouble getting the list out of the single digits in length after 150 years of development of the field. The "fraud after fraud" is statement contradictory to fact.
There is a very large number of transitional forms. Some of the sequences are startlingly detailed considering the 100 and more million years which separate us from the events. Saying there is a lack is also contradictory to fact.
There have often been arguments over detailed interpretation. Some of these are taught in biology at various levels. This is not a change of the kind these people want.
You have yet to supply examples of these problems or show an alternative interpretation for something. How about giving a concrete example so we can (and you can) know what you are talking about.
So are you telling me that these people that want to teach the “weaknesses” only have one potential item that they are interested in teaching?
That is what you have told me so far. You gave a list-- after examination we are left with the "interpretation" question. The rest turned out to be the standard junk. I'm saying even that might not remain as an item but I'd have to be given and example of a carefully developed alternative interpretation to know if it is a valid item.
Please start the thread that gives a few solid examples of this that are suitable for inclusion in biology courses at various levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 9:57 PM NosyNed has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 59 of 177 (470184)
06-09-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
06-09-2008 8:02 AM


Re: Fossils and Assumptions
I know that you have plenty to answer already, so I'm not going to say anything beyond this, which I just can't leave to go unchallenged.
Well, we wouldn’t want to do that now would we?
There you go again, talking about assumptions and interpretation of evidence, yet, when challenged to provide alternative interpretations of the fossil record, you go quiet.
What do you think a scientist does when they find a fossil? What process does that scientist go through? I do not understand why you guys keep saying that scientists do not interpret evidence, that they do not make assumptions, and that there is no controversy. It makes no sense. It is like you are all listening to the same broken record, and for some reason are believing it to be true. Maybe I can help to solve this problem. You can do these searches for yourself.
“Interpretation of fossil” - There were 145,000 Google hits on this search. I looked at the first couple of pages and they appear to be all scientific type of links.
“Alternative Interpretation” fossil - There are 8,220 Google hits on this search. I looked at the first couple of pages and they appear once again to be scientific.
What do these links say? There are a lot of alternative interpretations of the fossil record. There is significant debate and controversy taking place regarding these fossils. These are not creationist links (at least not the ones I was looking at). These are disputes between scientists regarding their interpretation of the fossil record.
Scientists are not making assumptions. That would not be science.
You would not have science if you did not assume that there were certain scientific principles that you could rely upon.
What they are doing is drawing conclusions based upon evidence.
And those conclusions are based upon many things including certain assumptions.
It's no use saying that scientists are making erroneous assumptions if you can't point to an example of an "assumption" and provide an alternative explanation for the evidence.
You just said that scientists do not make assumptions and now you are talking about erroneous assumptions. Which one is it?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2008 8:02 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2008 8:44 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 61 by bluescat48, posted 06-09-2008 8:54 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 06-10-2008 12:18 AM Wumpini has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 60 of 177 (470186)
06-09-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wumpini
06-09-2008 8:36 PM


Alternate Interpretations
What do these links say? There are a lot of alternative interpretations of the fossil record. There is significant debate and controversy taking place regarding these fossils. These are not creationist links (at least not the ones I was looking at). These are disputes between scientists regarding their interpretation of the fossil record.
Then bring them here. Any disputes I have seen are not the kind of thing the anti-evolution forces want. Maybe there is a good one or two. Let's see them. You're the one pushing this view here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 8:36 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Wumpini, posted 06-09-2008 10:07 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024