Evolution Debate ...

[Reverend Blair]

Feck it, I'm going to bed.

 

[no1important]

Well have a good sleep and don't let the bed err neocons bite.

 

[NosyNed]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.

If we take "evolution" to mean "biological evolution" (and in this context that must be what we mean) then No, it is not evolution.

Bio Evolution can only happen to imprefect replicators with selection. The things just discussed to not f**, I mean breed. Without that basic match to biological organisms we do not have anything like biological evolution.

For example, one brand of computer (or whatever) can "borrow" (to be polite when industrial espionage occurs) a feature and it's implementation from another brand. This can't happen in bio-evo other than at the level of bacteria and their plasmid swapping games.

When separate lineages do separate they don't swap across the line .

 

[NosyNed]

That would not have been possible without a working knowledge of evolution.

There are other examples. Dwarf grains are one. They likely prevented a major famine in Asia. They were developed over a few years because we understood the basics of evolution and were able to exploit them.

To make this technically correct (I'm being pedantic again) we need to separate the two meanings behind the word "evolution". One is the fact that living things evolve- change with generations and this can be "directed" to some degree. The other is the Theory of Evolution (ToE) that explains why this occurs and some details of how this process behaves.

We can, did and do successfully breed plants and animals without a clear understanding (but maybe some intuition) about the ToE. We could not have done it without the recognition of the basic underpinnings of the ToE. That is that offspring are not the same as their parents but they do carry some characteristics of their parents which we may select for.

 

[Andygal]

I would agree with that. People have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years before Charles Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species". It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you breed fast horses to other fast horses and then take the fastest of the offspring and breed them to yet more fast horses eventually you will end up with a herd of horses that are on average faster then the original stock you had when you started.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ask around, Ned...I have little use for pedantry, unless it involves free beer. ;-)

My point was that the accelerated rates at which we developed dwarf grains, canola, and the modern Holstein could only be accomplished with a working knowledge of evolutionary theory.

They would have been developed eventually without that knowledge, but our knowledge of evolution allowed us top say, "Hey, feck, we need this," and then go on to develop it in a very short time period.

As for the computer thing, it works as an analogy as well as most technological things. I think music works better as an analogy for pure evolution though. African music became the blues. From the blues came jazz, country, and rock&roll, but the blues remained. Country spawned folk (yeah, I know you want to argue about that but it's my damned keyboard), rock&roll spawned art rock and the power ballad which is why we should've likely killed Stephen Tyler before he begat, but it's too late for that now, while country gave us everything from alt country geniuses like Speedbuggy USA to disco yodeller Shania Twain, and jazz kept freshening the musical gene pool.

See what I mean? Music is much more random and environment-driven than technology.

 

[pastafarian]

Still, you haven't done any thing other than ASSERT that knowledge of evolution as a biological reality has provided a single practical innovation.

Rev. Blair, I've seen your posts on more than one forum and I respect your ideas, brains and tone so if we're gonna disagree seriously, I'd rather it were on the theism issue than this, because I think we basically agree on this one. In that spirit, this is the last query I'm going to make for specifics, and I'm the first to say that I'm not completely ignorant of the subject, but I can't meet my own challenge, though I can ASSERT with the best of them.

My contention is still that we have gotten as far as we have with nothing more sophisticated than "The apple don't fall far from the tree".

 

[peapod]

Uh huh...I will pose this question to someone who I think can answer it, it might take a few days...in the meantime pastafarian, your opinion is not fact, and our opinions are not misguided no matter how intelluctually you babble :wink:

 

[peapod]

Just a side note....I would perfer not to get a 25 page dissertation on the nature of reality....lets just wait for my science connection to see if he can answer your question. Thanks

 

[manda]

Blah!!!!!!

Everyone is wrong, and the answers will only become available to us for a brief shining moment when we die, so there!!!! End of discussion

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Blah!!!!!!

Everyone is wrong, and the answers will only become available to us for a brief shining moment when we die, so there!!!! End of discussion

Nah...that's too much of a cop out...

Why is it that all the good shit happens to people after they die, yet there are none that have been able to come back and say "Yeah baby...this shit is for real"...

Why you ask?

Well I'll tell ya...

Because it's not for real and it never has been...it's bedtime stories for the spiritually gullible...

I mean come on people...open yer eyes... 8O

 

[Reverend Blair]

Still, you haven't done any thing other than ASSERT that knowledge of evolution as a biological reality has provided a single practical innovation.

I'll not claim that evoltion's creations are practical innovations either. Generally the innovations aren't terribly practical and kind of suck. A god, since they are omnipotent, wouldn't have done that.

Blair, I've seen your posts on more than one forum and I respect your ideas, brains and tone so if we're gonna disagree seriously, I'd rather it were on the theism issue than this, because I think we basically agree on this one.

I tend to respond instead of starting new battles. That said, I won't limit it. You respond where you will and I'll respond where I will. You do owe me several beer should we ever meet in person though. That goes without saying.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Why is it that all the good shit happens to people after they die

that is just a come on for the gullible.... so they will permit themselves to become brainwashed.( while they are alive)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Why is it that all the good shit happens to people after they die

that is just a come on for the gullible.... so they will permit themselves to become brainwashed.( while they are alive) :wink:

 

[manda]

Good things happen when we're alive....look at family and friends!

 

[zenfisher]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.

If we take "evolution" to mean "biological evolution" (and in this context that must be what we mean) then No, it is not evolution.

Bio Evolution can only happen to imprefect replicators with selection. The things just discussed to not f**, I mean breed. Without that basic match to biological organisms we do not have anything like biological evolution.

For example, one brand of computer (or whatever) can "borrow" (to be polite when industrial espionage occurs) a feature and it's implementation from another brand. This can't happen in bio-evo other than at the level of bacteria and their plasmid swapping games.

When separate lineages do separate they don't swap across the line .

hmmm ... We splice plants together to create a desired effect. No breeding.
Doesn't a mountain grow and change (evolve) over time. Why does evolution need to be limited to strictly biological entities? Change and adapting to change happens to everything. Excluding it because it is not alive, seems to eradicate the possibility that enviroment has an influence on evolution. ( ie ...a comet hitting the Earth would force living species to adapt.) Yet that comet flew through space for eons changing with each meteor impact, each speck of dust and each revolution around the sun until it finally crashed. To ignore these changes,to these inanimate objects seems to fly in the face of what we perceive as reality. A major cataclismic event that changed the pattern of evolution. Evolution happens to everything.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.

If we take "evolution" to mean "biological evolution" (and in this context that must be what we mean) then No, it is not evolution.

Bio Evolution can only happen to imprefect replicators with selection. The things just discussed to not f**, I mean breed. Without that basic match to biological organisms we do not have anything like biological evolution.

For example, one brand of computer (or whatever) can "borrow" (to be polite when industrial espionage occurs) a feature and it's implementation from another brand. This can't happen in bio-evo other than at the level of bacteria and their plasmid swapping games.

When separate lineages do separate they don't swap across the line .

hmmm ... We splice plants together to create a desired effect. No breeding.
Doesn't a mountain grow and change (evolve) over time. Why does evolution need to be limited to strictly biological entities? Change and adapting to change happens to everything. Excluding it because it is not alive, seems to eradicate the possibility that enviroment has an influence on evolution. ( ie ...a comet hitting the Earth would force living species to adapt.) Yet that comet flew through space for eons changing with each meteor impact, each speck of dust and each revolution around the sun until it finally crashed. To ignore these changes,to these inanimate objects seems to fly in the face of what we perceive as reality. A major cataclismic event that changed the pattern of evolution. Evolution happens to everything.

excellent point.!! an eroding mountain is a form of evolution/and adaptation too. it is a change

 

[pastafarian]

I would perfer not to get a 25 page dissertation on the nature of reality..

Only do that when it's relevant. Besides it's already in another thread. Y'know, there's no law that says you have to read it. :lol:

 

[GL Schmitt]

American Association for the Advancement of Science backs copyright move against Kansas School Board

. . . After carefully reviewing the latest version of the standards, the leadership of the National Academies’ National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council’s National Science Education Standards and Pathways to Science Standards, published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used. . .

National Science Teacher’s Association Letter

On October 26, 2005, NSTA sent the following letter to the Kansas State Department of Education, requesting that the Kansas Science Education Standards not quote or refer to the NSTA publication NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards because "the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology."

* * * * *

October 26, 2005

Dr. Alexa Posny
Assistant Commissioner of Education
Kansas State Department of Education
120 S.E.10th Street
Topeka, KS 66612

cc: Dr. Steve Case, KSES Revision Committee Chair
Carol Williamson, Committee Co-chair

Dear Dr. Posny:

Thank you for your August 22 letter asking us to examine the use of NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards: Guidelines for Moving the Vision into Practice, Middle School Edition in the current draft of the Kansas Science Education Standards. We appreciate the chance to review the treatment of our copyrighted material for accuracy and proper presentation.

Although the majority of the draft Kansas standards could proudly serve as a model for other states to emulate, there are significant errors regarding the theory of evolution. These inaccuracies are of such importance that they compromise the Kansas State Board of Education's (KSBE) stated vision and mission for these Standards, not to mention all of science.

Your mission statement reads, "Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and international communities."

Your vision statement begins, "Science education in Kansas is intended to help students to develop the understandings and intellectual abilities they need to lead personal fulfilling lives, and to equip them to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, equitable, and vital. The educational system must prepare the citizens of Kansas to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

We applaud these statements, but the standards, as currently written, will result in Kansas students being confused about the scientific process and ill-prepared both for the rigors of higher education and for the increasingly technological and scientific challenges we face as a nation.

Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES. Specifically, the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology. NSTA strongly supports this premise and calls for science curricula, state science standards, and teachers to emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. This position is consistent with those issued by the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the vast majority of scientific and educational organizations.

However, we believe that, working together, we can resolve the issues that stand in the way of our granting permission, and we stand ready and willing to work with the KSBE to ensure that your students receive the quality science education they need and deserve.

We do not maintain that science is superior to other ways of understanding our world nor do we think that scientific inquiry is inconsistent with a theological search for answers. Rather, there are profound differences between these ways of knowing and failure to understand them will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.

We appeal to the Board to reconsider its position and work with us for the benefit of your students, science teachers, and your state.

Sincerely,

Michael Padilla
NSTA President

 

[peapod]

Nascar James,
I told you to post your unitelligent design posts in this thread, There is no need for YOU to start different thread on the same topic. Your spamming.

As usual, as in all your posts, you only post snippets and bits, you like to twist the bits to fit your idealogy, a typical "creationist" trick.
The entire case can be read online, I seriously doubt that you are capable of reading it, no, I think not, as it would show you for the clown you are.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000939.html

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/waterloo_in_dov.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Kansas_Intelligent_Design_Army