Intellegent Design?

[Spiderman]

Hey, if people are going to extropolate the existence of all species from a set of birds from galapogas, then im going extrapolate my expierence with many.

Well then, there's no use further discussing this with you.

DUke: Without evidence to the contrary, I doubt that evolution has become so "accepted" in the scientific community that they have moved on to other things. Sure, the "big money" and publicity might be going to the genome project, but as there's thousands of scientists, everyone's doing they're own thing. And like I said before, the absence of news regarding any developments in evolution (or any area) should not be taken to mean nothing's being done with it.

Just read an article today about a debate (still going, but apparently either new evidence or article was just published) about whether the Neanderthals co-existed with the ancestors of modern humans or not, due to some cave in France and the evidence contained therein.

 

[Oversoul]

Without evidence to the contrary, I doubt that evolution has become so "accepted" in the scientific community that they have moved on to other things.

Ah, but no controlled experiments on evolution have been done. Even for a universally accepted theory, there should still be experimentation done to gain a better understanding of the mechanics behind it. Instead, it seems that it's all just being taken for granted.

 

[Mooseman]

Well then, there's no use further discussing this with you.

I'll have to agree with this in regards to Mythosx....
This has degraded from a rational discussion to a inane spouting of statements with nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to substantiate them......
Time to move to another discussion.

 

[DÛke]

Oversoul:

...it seems that it's all just being taken for granted.

My point exactly.

And Spiderman - come on, we are in a multimedia age. People know about even the most petty of details if they wanted to. Almost all news that can affect the public in any exaggerated way is made even more sensational with the proper advertisement or presentation, and is aired almost within twenty-four hours, if not less. In an age where you hear about Martha Stewart’s big bad flop, or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, any information about evolution would have become public even quicker so as to create hype and create money. The silence surrounding evolution in an age where silence is not golden...what must one believe? That there is somewhere some scientist, isolated in his corner, still tinkering and bothering with a theory that has lost its fashionable value? Why should anyone suppose that? I know there are a lot of scientists and researchers out there, known and unknown, but we cannot presuppose this and that just on the basis of probability. After all, we are talking about facts, last time I checked, and well...as far as facts are concerned, the hype, progress, as well as the urgency behind evolution have died a long time ago. It is no longer a pressing matter.

I am sure someone is concerend with it - look at us talking about it - but as far as serious research, or controlled experiment, as Oversoul calls it? No...no such thing has existed for over a century. Why? I've answered this Why question before...

 

[mythosx]

I'll have to agree with this in regards to Mythosx....
This has degraded from a rational discussion to a inane spouting of statements with nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to substantiate them......
Time to move to another discussion.

I was kidding and if you can't tell let me ask you this quesiton..

Who here was actually taught that evolution wasn't a "fact" and that indeed that ID or Creation was a possibility in their highschools? You are all going to say yes, unless you went to a private school. I know for a fact that the california school board pushes evolution as a "fact".

 

[Oversoul]

Who here was actually taught that evolution wasn't a "fact" and that indeed that ID or Creation was a possibility in their highschools? You are all going to say yes, unless you went to a private school. I know for a fact that the california school board pushes evolution as a "fact".

I was taught that evolution was a theory. I now hesitate to give it even that much credence, for reasons I've already made clear in this thread, but that was what my teachers pretty much always called it: theory. NONE of them EVER called it a FACT.

Evolution has gained a lot of momentum through the use of speculation. This doesn't make it valid as a theory (from a purely scientific perspective, which as DÛke pointed out, is probably quite a rare perspective). But it does provide at least provide some evidence. I am obviously in disagreement with the majority (of high school science teachers) that this makes it a subject worthy of taking study time away from other matters (you know, things that can be and have been researched in controlled experiments).

But as far as IDT being taught as a "possibility" in a biology class...

Since this is a science class we're talking about, can you provide even a shred of scientific evidence that supports the notion of IDT?

Biology classes don't teach about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, but no scientist can prove that they don't exist...

 

[Spiderman]

(and echoed by DUke) Ah, but no controlled experiments on evolution have been done. Even for a universally accepted theory, there should still be experimentation done to gain a better understanding of the mechanics behind it. Instead, it seems that it's all just being taken for granted.

I'm not an expert on evolution, barely even a passerby, but none? I find that hard to believe in the last 125 years... but honestly, I don't have the time or inclination to look up whether it's so or not, so unless you do and want to further substantiate that claim, I'll let it drop and stop discussion here.

People know about even the most petty of details if they wanted to.

Here's the key phrase: if they wanted to. How many people actually WANT to learn more about evolution? How many here? Like I said above, I don't want to learn about it in depth just for this thread.

I believe there's scientists out there still "working on it", directly or indirectly. If the news gets published in a "mainstream" newspaper (i.e. makes the jump from a scientific journal), then I'll read about it. And I've mentioned some articles already. It may not be big news and of course in this day and age, celebrity news trumps all right now. Only if some celebrities jump in the particular evolution debate might more light shine on it (kind of like Tom Cruise's rant about post-partem depression).

I was kidding and if you can't tell let me ask you this quesiton..

Who here was actually taught that evolution wasn't a "fact" and that indeed that ID or Creation was a possibility in their highschools? You are all going to say yes, unless you went to a private school. I know for a fact that the california school board pushes evolution as a "fact".

I honestly wasn't sure if you were kidding due to the lack of smilies and even if you were, the statement still didn't lead to any further meaningful discussion.

I honestly don't remember what I was taught what evolution was. But ID or creation was not mentioned in high school.

It WAS mentioned in Sunday School class (well, creation was) under traditional Bible study and understanding.

Again, you keep making these claims. How do you know the CA school board pushes evolution as "fact"? Is it expressly written in some guidelines or something?

And I'll reiterate - even if it does, one state out of 50 still does not constitute "so many" in my mind. "So many" being the central argument in your post from 9/12, as implied it's the majority and a "big" problem.

 

[Oversoul]

I'm not an expert on evolution, barely even a passerby, but none? I find that hard to believe in the last 125 years... but honestly, I don't have the time or inclination to look up whether it's so or not, so unless you do and want to further substantiate that claim, I'll let it drop and stop discussion here.

How can you substantiate a claim that something hasn't been done?

Anyway, unless it's being kept hush-hush, experimentation on evolution should show up here.

Most of what I've seen there has been rather unsatisfactory on some level, but I'll let you form your own opinions of the site.

 

[mythosx]

I'm not an expert on evolution, barely even a passerby, but none? I find that hard to believe in the last 125 years... but honestly, I don't have the time or inclination to look up whether it's so or not, so unless you do and want to further substantiate that claim, I'll let it drop and stop discussion here.



Here's the key phrase: if they wanted to. How many people actually WANT to learn more about evolution? How many here? Like I said above, I don't want to learn about it in depth just for this thread.

I believe there's scientists out there still "working on it", directly or indirectly. If the news gets published in a "mainstream" newspaper (i.e. makes the jump from a scientific journal), then I'll read about it. And I've mentioned some articles already. It may not be big news and of course in this day and age, celebrity news trumps all right now. Only if some celebrities jump in the particular evolution debate might more light shine on it (kind of like Tom Cruise's rant about post-partem depression).



I honestly wasn't sure if you were kidding due to the lack of smilies and even if you were, the statement still didn't lead to any further meaningful discussion.

I honestly don't remember what I was taught what evolution was. But ID or creation was not mentioned in high school.

It WAS mentioned in Sunday School class (well, creation was) under traditional Bible study and understanding.

Again, you keep making these claims. How do you know the CA school board pushes evolution as "fact"? Is it expressly written in some guidelines or something?

And I'll reiterate - even if it does, one state out of 50 still does not constitute "so many" in my mind. "So many" being the central argument in your post from 9/12, as implied it's the majority and a "big" problem.

It is in the guidelines. If you are asking me to go through all fifty states and the additional territories then I will.

 

[EricBess]

Barring any future communication with a "higher being" (which apparently hasn't happened in the past 2000 years, unlike the early history of the Bible).

Are you sure about that? Read the bible. Everytime God was communicating with people, it was always with specific people and the great majority of the people didn't directly know about it. People tend to generalize into thinking that there was a "lot" of direct communication back then, but the fact of the matter is that the type of communication that most people think of happened only between God and his prophets. Why would anyone assume that, accepting God exists (which is an entirely different argument, I realize), he would stop communicating directly with prophets?

I'm not sure what you mean from the ape-to-man example. But right now, I'd say that each intermediate step was enough to move forward a little until the end result of today.

You are correct...I must not have made myself clear. The idea behind evolution is that over time, things mutate and change. If the mutation is one that sustains life, it will naturally continue because more and more instances of the thing with that trait will breed and that trait will become more predominant in whatever species we are talking about.

A good example of this is from HG Well's "The Time Machine". The Morlocks and the surface dwellers (don't remember their name) both evolved from the same source, but the Morlocks, having settled underground, slowly over time developed certain traits that helped them survive. The instances that didn't mutate with those traits were less likely to survive and therefore, over time, only those that had those traits remained.

But, it stands to reason that this takes thousands upon thousands of years because each generation wouldn't automatically develop those traits. And if that's the case, then it further stands to reason that there must be something viable in the intermediate forms or the earlier forms would dominate and the intermediate forms would die out. That is, barring different conditions.

Now, I suppose you could argue that apes developed in jugles while man developed in forest, but I personally don't really buy that as a valid enough difference between living conditions to justify such a huge difference in evolutionary patterns. And this is assuming you posit that they developed independently from a different source. If you claim that man evolved from the ape, then you must accept that some intermediate form between man and ape must have had the ability to survive the countless years it would take for the evolution to take place. That being the case, it makes little sense that only the two extreams would have survived. If each step in the evolutionary chain were infinitely small and each step were viable, it stands to reason that some intermediate form should be present. After all, we aren't talking absolutes when we talk about survival. The traits only present a better disposition to survive, not an absolute of either you have the trait or you don't.

 

[Oversoul]

Now, I suppose you could argue that apes developed in jugles while man developed in forest, but I personally don't really buy that as a valid enough difference between living conditions to justify such a huge difference in evolutionary patterns. And this is assuming you posit that they developed independently from a different source. If you claim that man evolved from the ape, then you must accept that some intermediate form between man and ape must have had the ability to survive the countless years it would take for the evolution to take place. That being the case, it makes little sense that only the two extreams would have survived. If each step in the evolutionary chain were infinitely small and each step were viable, it stands to reason that some intermediate form should be present. After all, we aren't talking absolutes when we talk about survival. The traits only present a better disposition to survive, not an absolute of either you have the trait or you don't.

Not to go off-topic, but the "Aquatic Ape Theory" addresses this nicely (not that I'm a proponent of the theory, since I'm on the fence when it comes to Darwinian evolution anyway).

 

[EricBess]

Not to go off-topic, but the "Aquatic Ape Theory" addresses this nicely (not that I'm a proponent of the theory, since I'm on the fence when it comes to Darwinian evolution anyway).

Not familiar with that one so I can't really form an opinion one way or the other as to whether it addresses it.

 

[Spiderman]

How can you substantiate a claim that something hasn't been done?

Yeah, the burden of proof appears to be more on me, as it's easier to try to find evidence to contradict. But like I said, I don't have the time or inclination to investigate further. But I just remain skeptical of such a claim that says such an absolute that no controlled experiments have been done.

It is in the guidelines. If you are asking me to go through all fifty states and the additional territories then I will.

Is it online? Just so I can see what form these guidelines take?

It's up to you if you want to go through all 50 states. I don't want to tie up your time, but it would help to substantiate your position of "so many schools", implying this is widespread and a "problem".

Are you sure about that? Read the bible. Everytime God was communicating with people, it was always with specific people and the great majority of the people didn't directly know about it. People tend to generalize into thinking that there was a "lot" of direct communication back then, but the fact of the matter is that the type of communication that most people think of happened only between God and his prophets. Why would anyone assume that, accepting God exists (which is an entirely different argument, I realize), he would stop communicating directly with prophets?

I agree, which leads the skeptic to wonder about this communication at all. It's very easy for a single person to claim to have spoken to God and what he says is "God's will".

But barring all of that, let's look at how the Bible came to be. It's basically a history of the Jews, the Chosen People (or at least the Old Testament is). How did some books make it in and some not? If it was a history, isn't it "ongoing" rather than static, or ended 2000+ years ago? Shouldn't more books be added to cover the present? Has any "books" been written that qualify as such?

Basically, God seemed to be in some communication with his People "constantly". Yet it seems to have stopped. You might get the person who says it was God's will to begin the Crusades or do this or do that, but how do you know? There didn't seem to be such a question of authenticity in the "old days"...

But, it stands to reason that this takes thousands upon thousands of years because each generation wouldn't automatically develop those traits. And if that's the case, then it further stands to reason that there must be something viable in the intermediate forms or the earlier forms would dominate and the intermediate forms would die out. That is, barring different conditions.

Now, I suppose you could argue that apes developed in jugles while man developed in forest, but I personally don't really buy that as a valid enough difference between living conditions to justify such a huge difference in evolutionary patterns. And this is assuming you posit that they developed independently from a different source. If you claim that man evolved from the ape, then you must accept that some intermediate form between man and ape must have had the ability to survive the countless years it would take for the evolution to take place. That being the case, it makes little sense that only the two extreams would have survived. If each step in the evolutionary chain were infinitely small and each step were viable, it stands to reason that some intermediate form should be present. After all, we aren't talking absolutes when we talk about survival. The traits only present a better disposition to survive, not an absolute of either you have the trait or you don't.

You'd have to talk to someone who knows this stuff. Offhand, I'd say it's possible for apes and man to develop separately by isolation. Say one member of the ape tribe developed or mutated the advancing gene. However, because he's different, he's ostracized by most of the tribe. He leaves but mates with someone and passes on the gene or teaches what he knows to his offspring. The original ape tribe survives, but off in another location you have the more advanced tribe.

I think basically your question asks why modern humans survived while Neanderthals didn't, and that's a question that still hasn't been answered.

 

[Killer Joe]

http://www.wpxi.com/education/5020661/detail.html

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah, it's made it to the Sun and Post, I think.

 

[EricBess]

Is that really all it is? "a statement that says intelligent design differes from Darwin's view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook"????

If you are going to require a unit on Darwin, the least you can do is require teachers to read something saying that it is only a theory and that other views exist!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a proponent of just kicking it all out, but this hardly seems worthy of all of the effort that is being put forth to stop it.

I think basically your question asks why modern humans survived while Neanderthals didn't, and that's a question that still hasn't been answered.

Yes Spidey...That is a very succinct way to effectively restate the general intent of my question

 

[Oversoul]

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a proponent of just kicking it all out, but this hardly seems worthy of all of the effort that is being put forth to stop it.

Such is politics.

 

[Spiderman]

You figure that they want to nip it in the bud.

Reading it closer, it looks different from what I read in the Sun and Post. The case I was thinking of was the school district reading a statement that evolution was a theory, not fact.

Yes Spidey...That is a very succinct way to effectively restate the general intent of my question

Thanks... I had to restate it because it was getting confusing from the way I was reading it from you