Letters to the Editor
-
@Taliesan
ev·o·lu·tion (ěv'ə-lōō'shən, ē'və-) Pronunciation Key
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Biology
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
one cell ->multicelluar colonies ->specialisation of cells ->invertebrates ->shelled invertebrates ->boney fishes ->amphibians ->reptiles ->birds ->mammals ->apes ->people
or in some cases:
one cell ->multicelluar colonies ->specialisation of cells ->invertabrates ->shelled invertebrates ->boney fishes ->amphibians ->reptiles ->birds ->mammals ->apes ->people ->troll
apparently it is a two way street.
small changes believable, big changes, not so much.
not that it matters.
-
Fundamental(ist) Dishonesty and Immorality
The error made in arguing with ID adherents, repeated here and elsewhere ad nauseum, is to talk about science at all. As many posters have pointed out, just as every correct reviewer on Amazon has pointed out in discussing Michael Behe's books, ID has no hypotheses, makes no predictions, provides no explanations. It is therefore, not a theory at all. It is nothing more than a collection of puzzles and complaints about evolutionary theory's supposed shortcomings in explaining this or that. The shortcomings are either easily dispatched - such as the ubiquitous and specious 'eye complexity' problem - or involve a generalized problem with so-called irreducible complexity - complaints which lead to no testable alternative hypotheses and therefore confirm that ID is not a theory at all.
The last paragraph of Gordy Slack's article reveals the proper grounds on which ID and every other form of creationism should be opposed. The adherents of this idiocy are fundamentally dishonest - interested only in what every shaman has always been interested in - power. The power that the village witch doctor had and the power that the Catholic Inquisitor enforced; it is the power for which theocrats lust. Science usurps this power. This is the thing that must be pointed out in every argument on this otherwise extremely tiresome issue, and it is the reason for rational people to keep up the fight.
-
Rupert_c
Yes yes, very nice kid, but where does it say that hybridisation isn't part of the process?
-
Science is NOT Orthodoxy
"'Science' is the new Orthodoxy and all are heretic who reveal is nakedness."
Uh, no.
An orthodoxy is a fixed set of beliefs that ties its veracity to its immutability. That is, the very benefit it confers is its unchanging nature. "Jesus Christ the Same, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow." That's why you have people citing Bronze Age tribal texts to enforce discrimatory laws. Of course orthodoxies DO change; Christianity itself started out as heresy, and if evangelicals actually knew the first thing about Mormonism they'd be more scared of Mitt than Hillary. But the point of an orthodox belief is that it's supposed be true, eternal, and not up for debate.
Science is the opposite: it encourages heresy; no, it demands it. When it seems to be intransigent it is simply asking you to prove your claims.
Evolution is a fact, unless you are crazy. You can't argue with millions of tons of geologic evidence and the utter lack of any - any - fossil evidence negating it. (E.g. the famous demand for rabbits fossils in pre-Cambrian strat.) The synthesis of natural selection, sexual selection, and genetics which forms the basis of the most widely accepted theory explaining evolution IS theoretical, but a theory in science is something utterly more substantial than in the vernacular. By comparison, ID is not a competing theory; it's not even honest speculation. It is political sophistry designed simply to obscure the debate.
-
I'll take my constantly corrected science far before
I'll take your holy book. Particularly seen as your holy book includes demonstrable lies (EG: The tradition of clemency. You know, where the Roman governor - in a rebellious province - wa supposed to have had a tradition of releasing the most popular rebel. Another one being the census, think about it, these highly organised Romans even cared where Joseph's long past ancestor came from? And this is without even getting into tales about astronomic events which were only recorded in one small part of Israel and no where else.)
-
The real meaning of scientific pronouncments
I personally find this whole creationism vs evolution argument hilarious. It brings to mind a conversation I had with a guy I carpooled into work with years and years ago. Stan is a born again Christian and a firm believer in creationism. I am neither. He was constantly trying to push his creationism/ID at me and I was constantly poking holes in it.
One particular conversation which started with Stan jumping up and down about something Steven Gould had said and went around and around until he just about shouted in frustration: "Well, what DO you believe?" And this is what I said: "Stan, I don't BELIEVE anything or, at least, not very much. In the world of scientific hypotheses and theories, the only thing you get is the best explanation. Someone proposes a hypothesis to explain an observed phenomenon. One then tests the hypothesis by looking at the hypothesis itself and/or its implications to see if what the hypothesis predicts can be observed. If you observe the prediction, then you can claim confirmation of the hypothesis. After a hypothesis has been confirmed in numerous different ways, on numerous occasions, by numerous different researchers, someone bestows the moniker theory on your hypothesis. That still doesn't mean I believe it. It means that I accept it as the best explanation and use it to understand other phenomena related to it. But that's not the end of it. Someone could propose a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the observed phenomenon and I would start using that hypothesis. Unfortunately, creationism doesn't rise to that standard because (a) none of the phenomena predicted by this theory have been observed and (b) your arguments about the dating process require that I suspend vast stretches of atomic theory that has been demonstrated over and over again."
So what do you teach the kids? Well, you don't teach them a theory that is as full of holes as Swiss cheese (If they want to teach creationism, they have to include the flying spaghetti monster). But you don't teach them evolution as pravda (Russian for "the ultimate truth") either. Evolution has its issues and those are being looked into. Stay tuned. However, those issues are very unlikely to be resolved by the acceptance of creationism as the correct answer. Until and unless creationism is scientifically proven, it should be taught for what it is: the Jewish creation myth. As such, it is neither better nor worse than anybody else's creation myth. And leave us not forget, creation myths are like assholes; every religion and society has one and they're all different.