TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Evolution Scare Tactics Undermine Florida's Quest For Excellence
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 4, 2008
Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio cares so much about Florida's education standards the second of his "100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future" was creating a "world class" curriculum for our students.
Rubio never specifically defined what he meant in saying world class. But since the speaker began pushing lawmakers to continue the battle over teaching evolution in public schools, now we know.
In Rubio's world, apparently world-class curriculum standards means undermining and ignoring the top-flight educators and scientists who spent months crafting and reviewing the guidelines to create a rigorous and appropriate science curriculum that would bring Florida's education into the 21st Century.
And it means allowing science teachers to infuse science curriculum with religion - with the state's endorsement and protection.
Rubio invited his fellow lawmakers to follow him down this path shortly after the Florida Board of Education adopted new standards last month requiring that evolution be taught in public schools.
Until that action, Florida's science curriculum standards were among the worst in the nation. Test scores were equally lamentable.
The curriculum overhaul was long overdue.
But in an interview in the Florida Baptist Witness, Rubio fed the anti-evolution hysteria by saying parents who teach their children creationism or intelligent design would be "mocked and derided and undone" in the public schools.
That's utter nonsense - and unfair to Florida's science teachers who understand that many students in their classroom have religious beliefs that transcend the day's science lesson.
Rubio further inflamed the situation by suggesting that this standard makes schools, not parents, responsible for a child's upbringing.
Really, Mr. Speaker? We would suggest if parents' years of influence are negated in a single science lesson, they probably didn't make a big impression on their children.
In the Florida Senate, Ronda Storms introduced legislation casting the creationism issue as academic freedom. Storms' bill protects instructors who teach intelligent design under the guise of offering a "full range of scientific views." Students would be tested but couldn't be penalized if their answer reflected their disagreement with the scientific theory of evolution.
Well, at least there will be one question on the science FCAT where there is no wrong answer.
This is all reminiscent of a decade ago when a school board in Oakland, Calif., decided to recognize Ebonics in its public schools. Ebonics was what the children were learning from their parents, and it was a controversy heavy with worries that students would feel discriminated against if their school work did not reinforce what they were being taught at home.
The only problem was that Ebonics was not correct English. And creationism and intelligent design are not science - they are perfectly fine content for a religion or philosophy class, but not science class.
If Florida lawmakers really want world-class curriculum, they'll let education experts - not politicians - build them.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( hatsoff ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:32 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( gatormb ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Micro-evolution is science. Macro-evolution (one specis turning into another) is not science but theory filled with 'possibly, could have, maybe and given enough time anything can happen'. It's unproved and unprovable. There is not a single piece of evidence of one animal turning into another in the tens of thousands of fossil evidence we have. It's called the 'missing link'. Macro-evolution will go down as the biggest hoax on mankind but will continue because the alternative is just unacceptable to many people.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( fnassar ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:19 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"There is not a single piece of evidence of one animal turning into another in the tens of thousands of fossil evidence we have."
There are tens of thousands of scientists who will disagree with that statement. Go Google Tiktaalik. A creature that was predicted and later discovered. Oh! Wait! You don't want evidence, do you?
"It is that evolution has serious problems scientifically."
More vague crap. Name one.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( doc30 ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( doc30 ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
gatormb, you are technically correct. No animal magically changes into another. Rather, every generation is just a tad bit different from its parents. That's microevolution. But if you accept microevolution, then you are accepting macroevolution (even those are creationist terms). Macroevolution is essentially the sum of many microevolutions. That is clear in the fossil record and tested to be correct from molecular genetics.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( doc30 ) on March 4, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:06 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
To all of you who "religiously" believe evolution: science is the acquisition of knowledge through experimentation finding reproducible results. With-out reproducible results it is not science, it is only theory. Remember the “cold-fusion” fiasco a few years ago? Never in the history of evolution study has reproducible experimentation ever been presented. Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that should be taught as one.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta: wrong, on two points.
Science does not necessarily require reproduction of exact results; this, however, is the easiest way to insure a preponderance of evidence. All science really requires is that you explain all of the evidence everyone has... and keep explaining it as new evidence is found. See the Vitanyi/Li paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov Complexity" (IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Volume 46, Issue 2 [Mar 2000], pp. 446-464).
Second, for a fast counterexample to your claim that "Never in the history of evolution study has reproducible experimentation ever been presented", please see "Laboratory Experiments on Speciation: What Have We Learned in 40 Years?" (Evolution, Vol. 47, No. 6 [Dec 1993], pp. 1637-1653). Some minimal work with a good research librarian will provide you with others.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"With-out reproducible results it is not science, it is only theory."
PLEASE go look up what is meant by a scientific theory.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( fnassar ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Here is a couple:
Ramirez, F. V., R. and J. Maria Bermudez de Castro. 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428: 936-939
Problems in Protein Evolution
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
I am also hard pressed to explain how an organic process such as evolution can give rise to self consciousness and morality.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 4, 2008 at 2 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Neanderthals: "...and points strongly to a specific distinction between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis." Not sure I follow the point you're making here.
The second reference will take some time to digest.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Let's vote for who is the most stupid and most worthless politician in Florida. I vote for Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
abb3w:
Sorry, but both of your points are taken out of context and misleading.
With-out reproducible results you cannot claim "scientific fact", only "scientific theory". Likewise ID or creation is not a “scientific fact” because it also cannot claim reproducible results.
Therefore both evolution and ID/creation are “scientific theory”. As such, both should be taught as scientific theory.
That so-called “scientists” are vehemently opposed to teaching both as theory makes me wonder what they are afraid of. Has in fact, evolution become their “religion” with which there are no alternatives? This same attitude sounds a lot like the attitude of the 14th century Catholic Church. Closed minded all.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
'Therefore both evolution and ID/creation are “scientific theory”.'
That was one hell of a leap! How does ID not being a scientific fact (true) translate into it becoming a scientific theory? Use of the word 'therefore' does not constitute a logical argument.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
ID/creation is not a scientific theory. It's not even a hypothesis. Intelligent design creationism is a childish belief in magic.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:03 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
abb3w, I'm sorry. In my last comments I was talking about InAtlanta, not you. Sorry for my dumb mistake.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:10 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 4, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
God, ladies and gentlemen, is an authentic GENIUS!
From No Thing, No Where he yelled, "BANG!!!"
... and gave astrophysicists something to do for hundreds of years.
After he let that mess cool down for a few seconds, carefully watching the lawful behavior of all that matter that just appeared out of nothing (I ain't lyin', ask Hawkings) He artfully let law take its course and stuff started to coalesce into bigger stuff.
Ultimately this would give GEO physicists projects for just YEARS ...
Well, kids, as soon as it cooled enough for water to slosh around on some of it he started tinkering with the slime. A little nudge here, a little tweak there and the next thing you know he had created BIO physicists...(but he didn't know that for several million years.)
Since all that matter perfectly obeyed physical laws and did exactly what it was supposed to do, he just hung out and played with the outcome... bacteria here, amoeba there, here a paramecium there a flagellate every where invertebrates, and just patiently waited and watched.
Natural law in use by the Creator. One we can measure, the other requires faith. One is science, the other religion.
He had no idea that the idiot naked ape waaaaay out one end of the primate twig on the ol' Tree of Life would argue with itself for YEARS about which one was REAL ...
Evolution as a process for developing living organisms in no way obviates the possibility of a Creator.
Get it, Cheeta?
Now, can we all be friends??!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Unfortunately BobCu, bringing “childish magic” into the discussion is the pot calling the kettle black. “Spontaneous generation” (the basis for evolution) requires a complete disconnect with scientific reason and natural law. In the history of mankind “spontaneous generation” has never been reproduced at any level. And you blast me for “childish magic”?
For your information I am not a Christian, but I am scientist. Phd biology, thank-you. I am neither an ID/creationist or an evolutionist. It has always fascinated me that when evolution is discussed, evolutionists never can seem to have a rational discussion. Closing one’s mind to ideas is not what valid scientific study is all about. Wouldn’t you agree?
My point is that neither evolution nor ID/creation is provable, so teach them both.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dbracht ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:44 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta, you're a liar and you don't even know what evolution is.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta, the liar and the idiot said: “Spontaneous generation (the basis for evolution)"
Anyone want to explain to this dishonest moron what evolution is? InAtlanta, what bible college did you go to? Why do you want to force science teachers to teach religion? Why do you think lying is going to do you any good if everyone knows you're a liar?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The professional liars of the Discovery Institute like to push the idea that non-religious people and scientists support magical intelligent design creationism. InAtlanta is trying to spread the same kind of lies. InAtlanta, I'm now more convinced than ever that you are a liar and you know you're a liar. I'm wondering, what's in it for you, moron? Are you getting paid to spread lies, or are you just stupid?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta said: "it is only theory."
You don't know what a scientific theory is. Why don't you look it up.
InAtlanta said: "I am scientist."
Most grammar school students know what a scientific theory is, and you don't even know that. You're not a scientist. You're an uneducated liar.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 5, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Geez, Bob. Did he get under your skin? ;-)
But you're right. He's just a nut case pretending to be what he's not. That's quite obvious by the comments he's made.
Do the patients have access to computers in mental wards?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 5, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I was being cute before, but I posted this with Otto's column today:
"Positing the notion of a Creator doesn't obviate evolution as the process for developing life. Recognizing evolution as scientifically valid doesn't preclude the possibility of a Creator.
A scientist believes something because reproduceable evidence has led him or her to that conclusion. The faithful believe something because they do. In science belief comes last, in religion belief comes first.
Science cannot disprove faith, faith cannot prove science. They exist in two different domains and are irrelevant to each other.
PUBLIC schools teach science. Yes, let's include the differences of opinion among those who come to their conclusions after carefully weighing reproduceable evidence. There are questions remaining in nearly all endeavors of science. That is the discomfort of science: You must live with incomplete conclusions and you may have to change what you believe if new evidence is presented. Faith answers all questions and need not ever alter. Mention that in school. Yes there are people who don't believe in scientifically arrived at conclusions. Go talk to them, find out what they have to say. Your education will be more complete if you do.
What we shall study is science."
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 5, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yeah, I did read that. For anyone interested, Steve Otto's editorial is here:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/05/me-we-inherit-rondas-big-goofy-wind/
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thursby ) on March 5, 2008 at 11:44 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 5, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"There is not a single piece of evidence of one animal turning into another in the tens of thousands of fossil evidence we have."
Amazing how someone who could not have studied every single thing can make a blanket statement based on something he heard in a church sermon and presents it as a fact.
In fact we see new examples of evolution every year in these modern times. It is an ongoing phenomenon of nature. Science merely studies it, it doesn't make it happen.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 5, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta, I would need more than your statement about having a PhD in Science as proof. You talk like a creationist, christian, ID promoter and there is no way that you can equate science with religious belief. Giving yourself credentials doesn't make you an expert. I guess I don't have enough faith to believe in YOU.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 5, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 5, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Abb3w:
Yes, I could have used the term abiogenesis, but then BobCu would not have known what I was talking about.
Let me describe an experiment that has been tried repeatedly in the micro-biology lab using the simplest form of animal known. Take a living one cell protozoa such as an amoeba (the A. proteus works well) and put it in a solution where it will continue to live. Under microscope carefully separate the chromosomal segments and watch what happens. You guessed it, the amoeba dies.
If life were to form in an abiogenesis manner, this would be the perfect condition for abiogenesis to take place. All of the essential elements for life are all together in one location in a life giving solution. In fact, seconds before, the amoeba was indeed already alive. Yet, the separated chromosomal segments do not rejoin themselves (even with stirring and persuasion) to once again form life.
We would not be having this conversation if abiogenesis could be proven. We can prove gravity (no argument), we can prove the earth is round (no argument), etc., etc., but abiogenesis is not proven. And with-out experiments with reproducible results you are left with theories.
We could have a statistical examination of time scale and the probabilities of life, but that can be another post.
I am well versed in evolution and don’t have a problem with it being taught, however to say that it is a fact and the only theory of origin, is really intellectually dishonest.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 5, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Wow! For someone who claims to be well versed in evolution, why can't you get it though your head that evolution does NOT address the origins of life. More Straw Man arguments.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 5, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
abb3w - Just a point of contention here, evolution is a fact, it did occur and continues to do so. The Theory of evolution explains the fact of what occurred and continues to occur and the mechanism the drive it.Should new information/evidence come to be presented that better explains how evolution operates or adds to our current understanding we will have a new or revised theory of evolution...General Relativity did replace Newtonian laws but the concept of gravity did not change, our understanding of how it works become more developed.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 5, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
For General reference here are some useful links in differentiating the facts of evolution versus the theory of evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 5, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta "however to say that it is a fact and the only theory of origin, is really intellectually dishonest."
Please provide us with what is the alternate scientific theory of origin?"
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 5, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
To say evolution is a fact is the need to differentiate between inter-species evolution and exter-species evolution.
Dogs, fruit flies, horses, humans, etc. all display reproducible experimental results showing inter-species evolution. This is indeed a fact. But genetically, dogs are still dogs and fruit flies are still fruit flies.
However, there are no reproducible experimental results showing extra-species evolution. And examining a group of fossils does not demonstrate extra-species evolution; only a likeness of structure.
If extra-species evolution were possible, the mule would be considered a prime example. Cross a horse with a donkey and you produce a mule. OK so far, with the mule possessing a different genetic pattern from either the horse or the donkey. Unfortunately the mule is sterile, unable to reproduce. Why? With-out reproduction, there is no evolution. This is an example of reproducible experimental results.
I would be most interested in any reproducible experimental results that confirm evolution. In fact, if there were any, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 5, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
If, within the incredibly short lifetime of a human, we can observe the changes within species, and if, over the geologically instantaneous history of the whole human race, we can observe single species developing into dozens of individual species, each shaped by its own unique environmental surroundings, what is the intellectual hairball about the possibility that, over tens and hundreds of millions of years, starting at a single ancestor, gradual surviving adaptations could eventually produce completely separate species?
If you consider the commonality of structure of species as disparate as whales and birds, noticing that in the flippers of whales and the wings of birds are nearly identical structures accented and used for different purposes, there seems to be ample evidence that much of what came to be here has developed from common ancestry.
It is unlikely, in my mind, that we will successfully recreate processes that occur over tens of millions of years in a reproduceably way, we just don't have the time.
If you disbelieve the current theory, the world is awaiting your peer reviewed paper presenting a viable alternative that doesn't involve pre-esisting invisible intelligences and their apparently magical abilities.
I, for one, am all ears ....
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( beerwulf ) on March 5, 2008 at 7:49 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on March 5, 2008 at 9:19 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 5, 2008 at 11:54 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( FJGardner ) on March 6, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I've read a few articles and comments from creationists. The one universal is that they lie to try to prove their points. Their fake textbook, "Pandas and People," states flatly that there are no transitional forms between land-dwelling mammals and whales. There are lots. There are lots and lots of transitional forms showing the evolution of humans. So, yes, gatormb, you're lying. Another form of mendacity is displayed by the creationist liar InAtlanta. They cherry-pick facts, like referring to comparing fossils. Fossils are not just compared, they are dated, and placed geographically. The evidence of the fossil record, including geographical distribution,correlates with DNA evidence. And yes, there have been experiments confirming aspects of neo-Darwinism. Here's a page about speciation, or "macro-evolution," including Diane Dodd's experiment involving fruit flies, showing that reproductive isolation can occur very quickly: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml. Evolution is partly a historic science, like archeology. But any experiment people have been able to devise has confirmed it, and none have disproved it. The basic tactic of these creationist liars is the "If not A then B" fallacy. If they can show any doubt about any aspect of evolution, that "proves" the Bible is right.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( FieryGizzard ) on March 7, 2008 at 2:56 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( FieryGizzard ) on March 7, 2008 at 2:59 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 7, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is virtually identical to the post following Steve Otto's March 5th piece. Where did you copy it from Giz?
Since we are demonstrating our "cut and paste" dexterity, here's the reply:
No, Fiery, gaps the in fossil record point to the incompletion of the record. They point to the incomplete nature of the data. They point to the possiblity that we don't fully understand the phenomena we are studying.
That is one of the discomforts of science: You must often live with incomplete data. That's why even some of the most established of scientific principles continue to be "theories:" They are constantly open to revision upon the discovery of new, solid data. Your conclusion points to the single major flaw in creationist thinking: If we don't understand it, it means God did it.
No.
You, at least, only allude to the "possibility" of a "special creation." Unfortunately, absent the "Special Creator" for testimony, your theory is unproveable.
It rests on faith.
And that is why it is, and will always be, religion.
Even if what we currently call "evolution" is not the mechanism of speciation, the jump from there to a "special creation" is beyond the range of science. How do you propose to prove the intervention of an invisible intelligence?
It rests on faith.
Teach the SCIENCE, with all its gaps and uncertainties, because that is the nature of science. You might mention that there are those who believe the whole thing is the result of "special creation" and you must also recognize that that notion is beyond scientific investigation.
The notion that you know "The Truth" is another of the arrogances of Creationist thinking. Scientists don't know "The Truth." They only know the current state of the inquiry.
Science teachers acknowledge that. Religious people don't have to. They "know" "The Truth"
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 7, 2008 at 8:12 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( FieryGizzard ) on March 7, 2008 at 11:45 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on March 8, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Gizzard writes: "You and I look at the same data but we come to two different conclusions. Example, fossil record says distinct, complete fossil forms not transitional forms."
Transitional forms *are* "distinct, complete forms". A transitional species is not somehow "incomplete".
The people who spoke Old English spoke a distinct, complete language. The people who spoke Middle English spoke a distinct, complete language. The people who speak Modern English speak a distinct, complete language. Yet Middle English was a language *transitional* between Old English and Modern English. "Transitional" doesn't mean "incomplete". It means *intermediate*.
I have no idea what you think a transitional species would look like, but it would certainly look "distinct and complete", because there was never any reason for it to be "indistinct and incomplete".
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 8, 2008 at 9:42 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( FieryGizzard ) on March 8, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
To Drew,
To get a better understanding of what transitional fossils are, probably a good place to get a definition would be from Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” or writings from Gould and Eldredge which talk about “Punctuated Equilibrium”.
To Jack,
Your example of using the bear with changing fur color is an example of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. I agree with you that micro-evolution occurs. We can observe that. The bear is still a bear. It did not change into another type of species. The genes for the different fur color already existed in its DNA but were not expressed until the circumstances for it occurred.
Speaking of DNA leads me to ask, what is the mechanism for macro-evolution? Evolutionists say that mutations are the mechanism. It seems impossible for that to be the case since mutations are 1000 times more harmful then beneficial. Outside of the debate that we are having here, people typically think of mutations as bad and rightfully so. A couple of examples in humans are hemophilia and Tay-Sach’s disease. Humans are now subject to over 1500 mutational disorders. Thankfully we don’t see them that much because as you know we need two sets of genes to show a trait, and we get one set of genes from our mother and one set from our father. The bad genes are covered by the good genes. Several years ago a symposium was held at the Wistar Institute which was attended by highly-respected evolutionists who were mathematicians and biologists. Their primary goal was to answer the question – could mutations serve as the basis with natural selection as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians was simply, No. On the average, a mutation occurs once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molecule. The mathematical problem gets even more difficult when you are trying for a series of related mutations. If you were trying for 4 mutations in a row, the odds of that happening is 10 to the 28th power. The earth is not big enough to hold enough organisms to make that likely. It would take a lot more then 4 mutations to get from a fish to a human. This enormous complexity of life, to me, points to the possibility of special creation not random chance since random chance cannot answer this question of a mechanism for macro-evolution. It all boils down to one of two choices: Random Chance or Special Creation.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on March 8, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Those who would like to present a unified front in the scientific world, and sweep any evolution controversy under the rug may want to visit: http://crev.info/
and go to the 3-7-08 article, Revolt in the Darwin Camp. Very interesing site overall.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 9, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I'll take your word for the large numbers.
This boils down to a difference of opinion in interpreting data. I have no problem with that within scientific parameters. When you begin to hypothesize about "Special" creators you have, by definition, left the domain of science.
Primarily, you simply can never prove the existance of such a being without a personal appearance. The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record and that we don't at this point fully understand the mechanisms, doesn't necessarily support the existance of such a being.
Next: Perhaps not for you personally, but in most of the people I see advancing this notion, the belief in such a "Special Creator" came BEFORE, not after, the investigation, and the people are trying to fit the evidence into the pre-existing belief. That ain't science.
And here's the fundamental problem: If you are advancing the idea that life here and the differentiation of species within that life was the result of a "Special Creation" you MUST be prepared to declare WHO is the Creator. Unless you are advancing the possibility that it was achieved by intervening space aliens, you are talking about God, no matter what other name you may use: It's either God or aliens. Which is it for you?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on March 10, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I wrote: "I have no idea what you think a transitional species would look like, but it would certainly look "distinct and complete", because there was never any reason for it to be "indistinct and incomplete"."
Gizzard responded: "To get a better understanding of what transitional fossils are, probably a good place to get a definition would be from Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” or writings from Gould and Eldredge which talk about “Punctuated Equilibrium”."
I'm well aware of what they wrote. At no point did these authors suggest that the species would be somehow "incomplete". Demonstrate otherwise.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on March 10, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Gizzard wrote: "if evolutionists who have been studying and teaching paleontology their whole life are admitting that there is a lack of transitional fossils in the record..."
Where did Gould ever say that there was a *lack* of transitional fossils in the record?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on March 10, 2008 at 7:20 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)