DI's Klinghoffer undermines Behe, Luskin et al. on the origin of new genes

Wow. I didn't think anyone used "it's still a fruit fly" in such plain language as a real argument, but as a snarky parody of Creationist logic.

Klinghoffer's “It’s still a fruit fly” remark is just another version of "Why are there still monkeys?"

Yeah (occasionally I hold my nose and go to EN&V) I was looking at that and laughed at its obstinacy:
"Yeah, we know it's still a fruit fly, but it's one that SOMEHOW evolved an irreducibly complex subsystem."
I mean, that's supposed to be impossible, right?

But what the heck, details, details ... no stone left unthrown.

Out of curiosity I went over to Uncommon Descent to see if there was any more talk about this. Newp. The only mention of Behe's paper in recent entries is as background for a dirt-digging, quote-mining session on Coyne. Besides that there's a lot of talk about the government wanting to take over the internet and the folly of "global warmists."

Way to totally ignore the crucial point about new genes becoming necessary for the organisms to function once established, contrary to the claims of Behe that "irreducibly complex" systems can't evolve.

The Curmudgeon said: Klinghoffer's “It’s still a fruit fly” remark is just another version of "Why are there still monkeys?"

He forgot the obligatory Hitler reference.

I use the term microevolution for changes in the genetic make up of a population over time without a speciation event occurring. Macroevolution is speciation events. Is this how most evolutionary biologists use the terms? I've never heard the terms genusization or familyization, or the like, so I suppose speciation is all there is to macroevolution.

Your definition of microevolution is correct, but to creationists it means "whatever evolution we accept because it is so blindingly obvious that we really look like morons if we deny it, plus we can then just dismiss it as trivial, as in 'that's just microevolution within the kind'."

To them, "macroevolution" is what they don't believe in.

In evolutionary biology, "macroevolution" means more than speciation. Speciation really is it's own thing, it's basically the border between micro and macro. Macroevolution contains lineage dynamics (speciation and extinction of many lineages), "large" morphological change (annoying -- I would ditch this if I were in charge), the evolution of "higher taxa" (also annoying, I would also ditch this), etc. It's sort of "everything except population genetics".

Yeah, no Hitler ref...maybe he's out of Godwins for the year?

Behe is apparently going to reply. This will be interesting. Either he has to accept that evolution can produce lots of new genes, or that the IDer was tinkering with the genomes within the genus Drosophila, hundreds of times, and Klinghoffer is wrong that it's all just trivial change "within the kind."

I meant to link to it: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/more_from_jerry_coyne042161.html

Jim Thomerson said: I use the term microevolution for changes in the genetic make up of a population over time without a speciation event occurring. Macroevolution is speciation events. Is this how most evolutionary biologists use the terms? I've never heard the terms genusization or familyization, or the like, so I suppose speciation is all there is to macroevolution.

John Kwok said:

Jim Thomerson said: I use the term microevolution for changes in the genetic make up of a population over time without a speciation event occurring. Macroevolution is speciation events. Is this how most evolutionary biologists use the terms? I've never heard the terms genusization or familyization, or the like, so I suppose speciation is all there is to macroevolution.

I agree with Nick's description of macroevolution up to a point. A lot of very interesting work on taxonomic diversification in the Phanerozoic Eon (approximately the last 543-plus million years) has been done relying on lineage data at higher taxonomic levels (e. g. families and orders) of which the most notable have been done by the late Jack Sepkoski and his colleagues and former students at the University of Chicago and elsewhere. Similar work has been done too with regards to tetrapod evolution and the evolution of various types of vascular plants. So while higher taxonomic levels are indeed "artificial constructs" up to a point, robust statistical analyses of their diversities over time have led to some fascinating insights relevant to the tempo and mode of evolution from a macroevolutionary perspective.

I didn't mention extinction, because it occurs at all levels from individual organism to the biosphere, but it is indeed important in the history of life. I think the macroevolution phenomena mentioned above are explainable by a series of speciation events and extinctions.

If higher taxa are monphyletic, then they are just as real as species. Are arguments about their boundaries different in kind from arguments about species boundaries? My work has been from the species to family level, so I don't really have much to say about higher categories. But I haven't noticed any major difference in my thinking within that limited part of the hierarchy.

Jim Thomerson said: I think the macroevolution phenomena mentioned above are explainable by a series of speciation events and extinctions.

If higher taxa are monphyletic, then they are just as real as species. Are arguments about their boundaries different in kind from arguments about species boundaries?

But I haven't noticed any major difference in my thinking within that limited part of the hierarchy.

Yes, a species is not necessarily monophyletic. I recall reading that about 25% of higher plant species are of hybrid origin. Many of the all female fish and lizard species are known to be of hybrid origin. However, I have seen no reason to think the species I have dealt with are anything but monophyletic. My work has been more taxonomic than systematic. My participation in tree making came later, after species were identified, so the trees were properly built from species rather than the vice versa.

Non-monophyly of species doesn't have to come from hybridization. One species may be nested within another, the most famous example of which is that polar bears lie within brown bears.

Anyway, isn't determination of species completely different from making trees? How can you say they involve identical thinking?

I think it is comparative biology all the way. In determining species, one considers possible relationships among the putative species and other populations/species. Who is similar, and how are they similar and different. Tree construction is perhaps a more formal consideration of relationships. Wasn't the discovery of the polar bear nested within the brown bear the result of constructing a tree?

I must suspect, unfortunately, that you are confused not only about how species are determined but about how relationships among them are determined. Nesting of polar bears within brown bears has nothing to do with species status for either of them. Nor do similarities and differences have much to do with determining species status, though one might attempt to estimate recency of gene flow that way, which is potentially a clue when used in concert with other data. Sure, when describing a species you have to explain now it differs from similar species, but that's after you have decided it's a new species. Tree construction is indeed quite formal, or should be; no perhaps about it. But species status isn't about relationships. And "comparative biology" is much too broad a term to make its use by both endeavors into a matter of identical thinking.

Two species, D. willistoni and D. melanogaster, diverged starting about 35 million years ago.

wamba said:

Two species, D. willistoni and D. melanogaster, diverged starting about 35 million years ago.

That must be a typo. I'm sure they meant to say "less than 6000 years ago."

I don't recall using the term species in referring to brown and polar bears. I will leave that to the mammal taxonomists. So far none of the 20+ species I have described have been synonomized, although only the last four benefited from information from DNA. Several have been transfered to other genera. One of my earliest new species is now in its fourth genus. This is a result of increased understanding of relationships within the group. Of course I look at similarities and differences before deciding I have a new species. How else would I know?

It was not I who referred to brown bears and polar bears as species. I've described some 20 + new species, and none have been synonomized so far. I had the benefit of DNA information on only the last four. Of course one examine similarities and differences to identify a species, or recognize it as new. How could one make an identification decision otherwise?

Sorry for the double comment. I thought the first one was lost. 20th century person me.

I must suspect, unfortunately, that you are confused not only about how species are determined but about how relationships among them are determined. Nesting of polar bears within brown bears has nothing to do with species status for either of them. Nor do similarities and differences have much to do with determining species status, though one might attempt to estimate recency of gene flow that way, which is potentially a clue when used in concert with other data. Sure, when describing a species you have to explain now it differs from similar species, but that’s after you have decided it’s a new species. Tree construction is indeed quite formal, or should be; no perhaps about it. But species status isn’t about relationships.

Nick (Matzke) said: Behe is apparently going to reply. This will be interesting. Either he has to accept that evolution can produce lots of new genes, or that the IDer was tinkering with the genomes within the genus Drosophila, hundreds of times, and Klinghoffer is wrong that it's all just trivial change "within the kind."

Technically speaking, vertebrates are basically also just highly developed worms once you get right down to it.

Nick (Matzke) said: The real question is, if you don't have reciprocal monophyly, can species delimitations be made in an objective way? Or is it just an exercise in drawing lines on what is in reality a continuum?

But apparently there are cases of critters which have been geographically isolated for tens of millions of years, and exhibit consistent morphological differences, and yet when brought together exhibit a propensity to interbreed, and have fertile offspring. Because of the geographic separation, there was never any selection for genetic isolating mechanisms. So, what do we do with them?

As said, allopatric populations cannot have selection for reproductive isolation as such. If there is reproductive isolation, it is a happenstance. The biological species concept is not a universal theory. It has its virtues and sometimes generates testable hypotheses. Where it is least helpful is when comparing similar allopatric populations. Basic practice is if they look different enough, call them separate species for the moment. Making hybrids in the lab may or may not tell you anything. In terms of the BSC, the question is what happens when allopatric populations come together in nature. If they happily hybridize, the question is, so what? Are the hybrids of low fitness and there is little or no introgression and thus selection for isolating mechanisms? Sometimes we get hybrid swamping where hybrids backcross with one of the populations, lower its fitness, and drive it to extinction. Maybe we get one big happy species. There are lots of possibilities, and knowing that hybrids are fertile is useful but not definitive. There are a lot of examples of expanding ranges, etc, and hybridization events in freshwater fishes. There are examples of just about any outcome one can think of.

Nick (Matzke) said: But apparently there are cases of critters which have been geographically isolated for tens of millions of years, and exhibit consistent morphological differences, and yet when brought together exhibit a propensity to interbreed, and have fertile offspring. Because of the geographic separation, there was never any selection for genetic isolating mechanisms. So, what do we do with them?

John Harshman said: I must suspect, unfortunately, that you are confused not only about how species are determined but about how relationships among them are determined. Nesting of polar bears within brown bears has nothing to do with species status for either of them. Nor do similarities and differences have much to do with determining species status, though one might attempt to estimate recency of gene flow that way, which is potentially a clue when used in concert with other data. Sure, when describing a species you have to explain now it differs from similar species, but that's after you have decided it's a new species. Tree construction is indeed quite formal, or should be; no perhaps about it. But species status isn't about relationships. And "comparative biology" is much too broad a term to make its use by both endeavors into a matter of identical thinking.

Kris said: Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined? Thanks.

Biological Species Concept holds that species are reproductively isolated from each other. This means that genes do not move in wholesale fashion from one species into the genome of another. There are a number of examples in fishes of species producing fertile hybrids without breaking down reproductive isolation. The hybrids are not able, for whatever reason, to act as a conduit for introgression of genes from one species to the other. I am most familiar with the situation in Fundulus notatus and F. olivaceus, where fertile hybrids are produced in some of the contact zones.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined? Thanks.

Species are defined as a population of organisms that can breed among themselves and do not breed among other populations. If two different populations live in the same area, but do not interbreed, they may be considered two species. This issue is complicated by the existence of "ring" species, such as some populations of gulls, that can interbreed with their neighbors but at the ends of the ring, they cannot interbreed even if they live together, because they are too different. This is one of the best proofs of evolution, that we can see the gradual differences within a species that can result in their splitting into two or more species later.

Might I recommend Coyne & Orr, Speciation, to anyone interested in this subject?

for the abridged version, hear Coyne talk about the current issues during the Darwin Conference in Chicago last year:

https://mindonline.uchicago.edu/media/history/fishbein/darwin_2009/coyne_512k.mov

from:
http://darwin-chicago.uchicago.edu/List%20of%20Video%20Talks.html

lots of other good talks there, too.

The hybrids are not able, for whatever reason

well, I would rephrase that to clarify that actually many reasons HAVE been proposed, and tested, regarding how even fertile hybrids can exist and still not impact reproductive isolation.

the way you wrote it, someone might get the idea nobody has a clue what those reasons might be.

just a nitpick.

Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined?

will you please go away and read some textbooks on basic biology, and stop pestering everyone with dishonest questions?

For those unfamiliar with the various uses of the word "species", Wilkins had an article a while back that tried to summarize the various species concepts that are worked with in biology:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/a_list_of_26_species_concepts.php

Kris said: Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined? Thanks.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined? Thanks.

Species are defined as a population of organisms that can breed among themselves and do not breed among other populations. If two different populations live in the same area, but do not interbreed, they may be considered two species. This issue is complicated by the existence of "ring" species, such as some populations of gulls, that can interbreed with their neighbors but at the ends of the ring, they cannot interbreed even if they live together, because they are too different. This is one of the best proofs of evolution, that we can see the gradual differences within a species that can result in their splitting into two or more species later.

My questions are directed to John Harshman.

What guidance does Creationism (including its wholly-owned subsidiary, ID) provide on this point?

they've actually been asked that question for decades.

the entirely inane and aping response?

baraminology

John Harshman said:

Kris said: Will you please explain exactly how species are determined, and how relationships among them are determined? Thanks.

You mean, will I explain the entire content of the science of systematics? In a word, no. But I can briefly touch on it. There are many concepts of species, but the most popular is the so-called biological species concept, which several posters have explained to you well enough. You can easily determine if two populations with overlapping ranges are separate species by seeing if they interbreed significantly. If ranges don't overlap, it can be more difficult, but it can be done. And you can make a rough estimate by looking at obvious, fixed differences, though that's chancy. As for determining relationships, that's done by using those fixed characters to construct trees, the simplest method being to choose a tree that posits the smallest number of character transformations -- called parsimony.

How many breeding populations do we know of today, which seem to be separating into groups of increasing breeding isolation? In other words, how many incipient branches seem to be occurring at any given time? Is there any way to approximate what percentage of branches get started, then abort? Is this common? Is there any good way to tell?

How many breeding populations do we know of today, which seem to be separating into groups of increasing breeding isolation?

is this rhetorical?

Coyne's book on speciation was referenced upstream earlier. a good cross section of studies looking at exactly that is in there, though even then I doubt you will find exact numbers (it's simply too much work to pull every study ever done and that is currently being done on biogeography and speciation).

general answer:

not as many as might have been suspected, given a basic view of biogeography. See, for example, some of the more recent review papers on island biogeography (but there are caveats). More than enough to establish the concept does have relevance (see for example, rift lake cichlids).

:)

again, I would highly recommend at least listening to his overview in the talk at Chicago from last year.

It's good.

how many incipient branches seem to be occurring at any given time? Is there any way to approximate what percentage of branches get started, then abort?

I wish there WAS a way to really quantify the answers to those questions, Flint.

there simply isn't enough money available to pay for enough independent studies to make precise statements about percentages and probabilities. Hell, it would be difficult to do even for ONE specific isolated ecosystem, let alone make general quantitative statements that cover the entire planet.

ask again in 30 years would be my advice; maybe by that time there will be more than a few dozen completed and replicated studies that attempt to quantify degree of speciation and mechanism in populations in the field There are lots in the lab, including those done on Drosophila by Jerry's lab, but it becomes an issue when trying to infer what the results mean for the field.

*sigh*

I know it doesn't help much, but again, I really would recommend you read Jerry's book, or even ask him your questions directly. It's very much a specialty of his.

I know it doesn’t help much, but again, I really would recommend you read Jerry’s book, or even ask him your questions directly. It’s very much a specialty of his.

Kris said: [Responding to John Harshman] That made me wonder how you personally feel that species and their relationships are or should determined. In other words, I'm seeking a specific answer from you, not a general lesson from others.

Cubist said:

Kris said: My questions are directed to John Harshman.

That's nice. This being a public forum, it's kind of silly to expect that questions aimed at John Doe won't be replied to by Richard Roe, but hey, if you want to be concerned about Who Replied To What, have a blast...

"For the last ten or fifteen years," he says, "I've been trying to understand situations in nature in which the genes within a single individual are in disagreement—or put differently, in which genes within an individual are selected in conflicting directions. It's an enormous topic, which 20 years ago looked like a shadow on the horizon, just as about a hundred years ago what later became relativity theory was just two little shadows on the horizon of physics, and blew up to become major developments. In genetics it's fair to say that about 20 years ago a cloud on the horizon was our knowledge that there were so-called selfish genetic elements in various species that propagated themselves at the expense of the larger organism. What was then just a cloud on the horizon is now a full-force storm with gale winds blowing."

hmm, link's busted. try again:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/trivers04/trivers04_index.html

for some reason, the BBcode here keeps trying to "fix" the link at "3rd"

just copy and paste it into a new window and it will work.

You see what I’m getting at?

So either there ARE some means of getting that close, or estimates of the scale of the mass extinctions are a lot hazier than the estimates imply.

yes, but aren't you comparing individual extinction events, vs. wanting a rate of extinction generally, over entire eons?

it's easy enough to make a rough estimate of what survived the KT boundary, but much harder to really say with any confidence what the extinction rates really were during the Cambrian, say.

And I note that Coyne and Orr's book is $60 in paperback

hmm. got an ebook or PDF reader? I seem to recall having seen it... somewhere...

OTOH, if you're fond of the feel of paper in your hands (like me), I actually just checked it out from the local city library here. If they have it here in NZ, surely any reasonable library in the states will?

also, the talk he gave at Chicago I linked to is quite accessible to anyone who has ever read anything about bio-geography or has a basic understanding of the "biological species" concept.

It's certainly not as comprehensive as his book, but it's a nice overview nonetheless.

I frankly was not a big fan of Coyne's until I heard that lecture myself!

yes, but aren’t you comparing individual extinction events, vs. wanting a rate of extinction generally, over entire eons? it’s easy enough to make a rough estimate of what survived the KT boundary, but much harder to really say with any confidence what the extinction rates really were during the Cambrian, say.

Kris said: When you refer to obvious, fixed differences, or fixed characters, do you mean morphological differences and/or characters, or those that are determined by molecular studies?

eric said: This is my opinion, of course, but I think most people (including J.H.) will agree with me that demanding Harshman's personal definition of species and then judging the validity of species studies based on one researcher's definition is the wrong way to go.

Flint said: (And I note that Coyne and Orr's book is $60 in paperback, and not intended to be accessible to the non-biologist. I'll check my local library...)

eric said:

Kris said: [Responding to John Harshman] That made me wonder how you personally feel that species and their relationships are or should determined. In other words, I'm seeking a specific answer from you, not a general lesson from others.

But that misses the whole point of the science. Which is that many people can use different definitions of species depending on the utility of the definition for their application. There is no single, specific answer. There are many general lessons. If you cannot figure out when and where to apply them appropriately, that signifies a lack of understanding on your part rather than some failure in the theory. This is my opinion, of course, but I think most people (including J.H.) will agree with me that demanding Harshman's personal definition of species and then judging the validity of species studies based on one researcher's definition is the wrong way to go.

Kris said: With all the different definitions and opinions regarding determining species and their relationships, and the obvious inability of "the science" to straighten out the mess, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone how they think it should be done when they say or imply that someone else does not or may not understand how to go about it.

Kris said: I didn't ask about "the whole point of the science" and I didn't ask whether different people use different definitions. I already know they do. And I didn't "demand" a damn thing. John said he suspects that Jim doesn't understand how to determine species and the relationships between them. That implies or claims that John thinks he knows how to determine species and the relationships between them. I asked John to explain how he thinks species and the relationships between them should be determined. Since the question was directed to him I was asking him what he thinks about it. I even said please and thanks. If what you say is true, and there are many different definitions and opinions as to how to determine species and their relationships, then it would be pretty hard to reasonably tell someone they're going about it wrongly (don't understand) unless that person says something that is so radical as to be obviously ridiculous to virtually everyone working on species and their relationships. With all the different definitions and opinions regarding determining species and their relationships, and the obvious inability of "the science" to straighten out the mess, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone how they think it should be done when they say or imply that someone else does not or may not understand how to go about it.

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens. The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down. The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless. Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species. The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs. I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

I'm new here, but I am doing a little research on my own and thought that a discussion here might help me out. I am a Christian fundamentalist (I can see lots of love here), but I have a degree in science. I have yet to get some of my questions answered and I have not formed any of my opinions from reading the popular creationists views (although I am aware of some of their work).

This question of "species" is one that I really think needs more attention paid to it, especially regarding creationists. For the sake of taxonomy, it is probably very valuable, especially considering the speciation of new bacteria, insects, etc in response to man's interventions (we need the distinction for the sake of working with the organism). However, from an evolutionary standpoint, I do think it can become very confusing and creationists tend to get hung up on it for some reason.

Most agnostic scientists that I have had conversations with will tell me that they don't think the Big Bang is an acceptable theory and that the only other option would be some sort of intelligent intervention (some of them think alien) to start the process. When questioned further, they will also say that a single-celled organism may not have been the original start point, but that life was started as more vaguely defined taxonomic groups ie. all plant life, all marine life, all terrestrial...etc.

What say you on this site? Yea or nay? All or nothing? How "set in stone" is the evolutionist standpoint on the Big Bang Theory?

FlowersFriend said: Most agnostic scientists that I have had conversations with will tell me that they don't think the Big Bang is an acceptable theory

and that the only other option would be some sort of intelligent intervention (some of them think alien) to start the process.

How "set in stone" is the evolutionist standpoint on the Big Bang Theory?

eric said:

FlowersFriend said: Most agnostic scientists that I have had conversations with will tell me that they don't think the Big Bang is an acceptable theory

Well, there's your first problem, and your second. First, the big bang is a cosmological theory that has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution or the question of defining species. Second, I personnaly know of no scientists who think the BBT is "not an acceptable theory," so I would be interested in knowing who you have read that lead you to this conclusion. Certainly you must not be getting your information from reading Hawking, or Smoot, or Phil Plait, or any other well-recognized and published astronomer or cosmologist.

and that the only other option would be some sort of intelligent intervention (some of them think alien) to start the process.

As, that is your third problem. This is not true. What you are presenting is a false dichotomy. There may be many different explanations for how the universe arose, it is not either-or. The only people who claim it is either-or are creationists, so despite what you said about not getting your information from creationist sources, I think that's exactly where you got it.

How "set in stone" is the evolutionist standpoint on the Big Bang Theory?

The question is not even wrong. Its like asking how set in stone germ theorists are on the question of whether gravity is quantized. Again, I have to say that you are giving strong indications of getting your information from creationist sources, despite saying you didn't. Creationists often conflate the big bang theory with the biological theory of evolution. But no one else does. So if your information source conflated the two, it was almost certainly creationist.

FlowersFriend said: Most agnostic scientists that I have had conversations with will tell me that they don't think the Big Bang is an acceptable theory and that the only other option would be some sort of intelligent intervention (some of them think alien) to start the process.

When questioned further, they will also say that a single-celled organism may not have been the original start point ...

... but that life was started as more vaguely defined taxonomic groups ie. all plant life, all marine life, all terrestrial...etc.

How "set in stone" is the evolutionist standpoint on the Big Bang Theory?

This evolutionary biologist is not equipped to evaluate Big Bang Theory so I simply accept whatever Steven Hawking says about it, whether I understand it or not. I suspect this is true of many of my colleagues.

I think, based on the unity of life, particularly in using the same genetic code, all present day living things are related, ie traceable back to a single unique common ancestor. I am neither biochemist nor knowledgeable about early earth conditions. My fairly uniformed guess is that this ancestor was the first successful self replicating molecule.

Simplest definition of evolution is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Species I have studied seem to be enclosed units. By this I mean their evolution, their change in gene frequencies, is not caused by immigration of genes from outside into the species genome.

There are situations where one wonders if speciation is occurring. There have been a couple on the blogosphere recently, both involving change in diet of lizards on colonizing another island. If and/or when they become separate species is something for future generations.

We have been describing species from 1758 forward (and some even before). But molecular methods have come into general use within the the last 20 years. The definition, "A species us what a competent taxonomist says it is." probably applies to the large majority of described species. As I mentioned above, I've described 20+ new species, but was able to use information from DNA only on the last four.

FlowersFriend said: While the Big Bang may not have anything, specifically, to do with defining species, it does explain the origin of life

Is there some other explanation for the origin of life besides ID and the Big Bang Theory? Please elaborate, because that is exactly what I am here for.

No, it doesn't.

mrg-

Thanks for the honest response. Interestingly, I agree with you about Intelligence not having an effect on Big Bang (which is what I think). I tend to think that Big Bang is simply and elaboration of "God spoke and it was".

No, absolutely not. All known organisms on Earth have common molecular features – the structure of their DNA for example – that suggests a single common ancestry. Now it is possible, and a very interesting idea, that there were several “first replicators” and that life as we understand it arose as a collaboration of two or more of them – which I find a very interesting idea.

Forgive me, I'm having trouble figuring out the C&P procedure here. Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator. While I understand that a "Creation Theory" for the origin of life can never be viable (and for the record I don't think it should be taught in a science class), I also think that any other theory for the origin of life is also not viable for the science class. While we can certainly write a hypothesis concerning the origin of life, it can never truly become law because no one was around to verify our hypothesis. So unless it can be duplicated in a lab (and this includes macroevolution) it is too far reaching to be considered science IMO.

Nick (Matzke) said: Technically speaking, vertebrates are basically also just highly developed worms once you get right down to it.

mrg said: Y'know, this person sounds serious ... so we'll be nice.

FlowersFriend said: Most agnostic scientists that I have had conversations with will tell me that they don't think the Big Bang is an acceptable theory and that the only other option would be some sort of intelligent intervention (some of them think alien) to start the process.

There's some technical questions over the Big Bang but there's not much dispute that it happened. The actual "other option" is the Steady State Universe, which says that the Universe always was and always will be.

Jim Thomerson said: This evolutionary biologist is not equipped to evaluate Big Bang Theory so I simply accept whatever Steven Hawking says about it, whether I understand it or not. I suspect this is true of many of my colleagues. I think, based on the unity of life, particularly in using the same genetic code, all present day living things are related, ie traceable back to a single unique common ancestor. I am neither biochemist nor knowledgeable about early earth conditions. My fairly uniformed guess is that this ancestor was the first successful self replicating molecule. Simplest definition of evolution is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Species I have studied seem to be enclosed units. By this I mean their evolution, their change in gene frequencies, is not caused by immigration of genes from outside into the species genome. There are situations where one wonders if speciation is occurring. There have been a couple on the blogosphere recently, both involving change in diet of lizards on colonizing another island. If and/or when they become separate species is something for future generations. We have been describing species from 1758 forward (and some even before). But molecular methods have come into general use within the the last 20 years. The definition, "A species us what a competent taxonomist says it is." probably applies to the large majority of described species. As I mentioned above, I've described 20+ new species, but was able to use information from DNA only on the last four.

mrg said:

No, it doesn't.

I think FF is hung up on a theory of cosmic origins as a "necessary predicate" -- which it certainly is. However, as you point out, the TOE doesn't change if entirely different TCOs are assumed. Actually, it doesn't change if entirely different theories of the origin of life itself are assumed. I should offer to the gallery that (possibly I am getting my hopes up) FF seems sincere and should be treated as such, until demonstrated differently.

FlowersFriend said: Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator.

While I understand that a "Creation Theory" for the origin of life can never be viable (and for the record I don't think it should be taught in a science class), I also think that any other theory for the origin of life is also not viable for the science class.

So unless it can be duplicated in a lab (and this includes macroevolution) it is too far reaching to be considered science IMO.

Stuart Weinstein said: Thats not an option anymore either.

FlowersFriend said: mrg- Thanks for the honest response. Interestingly, I agree with you about Intelligence not having an effect on Big Bang (which is what I think). I tend to think that Big Bang is simply and elaboration of "God spoke and it was". No, absolutely not. All known organisms on Earth have common molecular features – the structure of their DNA for example – that suggests a single common ancestry. Now it is possible, and a very interesting idea, that there were several “first replicators” and that life as we understand it arose as a collaboration of two or more of them – which I find a very interesting idea. Forgive me, I'm having trouble figuring out the C&P procedure here. Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator. While I understand that a "Creation Theory" for the origin of life can never be viable (and for the record I don't think it should be taught in a science class), I also think that any other theory for the origin of life is also not viable for the science class. While we can certainly write a hypothesis concerning the origin of life, it can never truly become law because no one was around to verify our hypothesis. So unless it can be duplicated in a lab (and this includes macroevolution) it is too far reaching to be considered science IMO.

FlowersFriend said: Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator.

While we can certainly write a hypothesis concerning the origin of life, it can never truly become law because no one was around to verify our hypothesis. So unless it can be duplicated in a lab (and this includes macroevolution) it is too far reaching to be considered science IMO.

Stuart Weinstein said: Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence be released from prison? After all, nobody witnessed their crimes.

We do not know how life originated. It may have originated as a divine miracle. Or it may have happened as a result of natural causes in a particular set of circumstances. If we think the former is true, then the origin of life is not in the realm of scientific inquiry. If we accept the latter, even if it is false, we can then study the matter and learn all sorts of interesting things.

Jim Thomerson said: We do not know how life originated. It may have originated as a divine miracle. Or it may have happened as a result of natural causes in a particular set of circumstances. If we think the former is true, then the origin of life is not in the realm of scientific inquiry. If we accept the latter, even if it is false, we can then study the matter and learn all sorts of interesting things.

mrg said: The difficulty with: "Life just poofed into existence!" -- is not so much its unproveability, which goes along with the pathetic argument of "your idea is just as unproveable as mine" (you say that with a straight face?) -- but the fact that, having said that, it's GAME OVER. There's nothing more to say.

Jim Thomerson said: We do not know how life originated. It may have originated as a divine miracle. Or it may have happened as a result of natural causes in a particular set of circumstances. If we think the former is true, then the origin of life is not in the realm of scientific inquiry. If we accept the latter, even if it is false, we can then study the matter and learn all sorts of interesting things.

Yep. I would add that we've got all sorts of very interesting ideas about the matter. Still, at the present time I'm not sure it's something that really affects high-school education, because there's not much more than a page or so that could be usefully taught to high-school students about the matter anyway. The difficulty with: "Life just poofed into existence!" -- is not so much its unproveability, which goes along with the pathetic argument of "your idea is just as unproveable as mine" (you say that with a straight face?) -- but the fact that, having said that, it's GAME OVER. There's nothing more to say. It's not an interesting answer, and nobody who has any real curiosity about how things work sees any reason to accept it. The only answer is: "OK, even if we assume that as a possibility, you got any problem with us tinkering around with the vast range of other possibilities?" Well, in fact they do, but it's hard to understand why.

FlowersFriend said: The problem is that any attempt to even suggest that there are other possibilities (ID) is met with furious opposition. It can't even be mentioned.

I feel that the origins of life is not even a topic that should be addressed in a high school science class (and does anyone think it needs to be...honest question).

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

eric said: What's more, even if its true its less useful than evolution. Neil Shubin in Your Inner Fish goes into pretty good detail about how he decided exactly where to go to look for Tiktaalik. He succeeded in finding it based on mainstream scientific theories. That is useful. Doesn't matter if its ultimately wrong, a theory that lets you find exactly what you're looking for is useful. ID...not so much.

FlowersFriend said: The problem is that any attempt to even suggest that there are other possibilities (ID) is met with furious opposition. It can't even be mentioned.

I feel that the origins of life is not even a topic that should be addressed in a high school science class (and does anyone think it needs to be...honest question). I certainly have no problem whatsoever with anyone "tinkering" with evolution as the mechanism for our origins beyond the high school level. What I DO have a problem with is teaching it to the exclusion of all else.

FlowersFriend said:

eric said: What's more, even if its true its less useful than evolution. Neil Shubin in Your Inner Fish goes into pretty good detail about how he decided exactly where to go to look for Tiktaalik. He succeeded in finding it based on mainstream scientific theories. That is useful. Doesn't matter if its ultimately wrong, a theory that lets you find exactly what you're looking for is useful. ID...not so much.

I agree (not that ID is not useful...but the rest) and I am going to use this as a jumping off point. You guys will have to bear with me, because I am not a paleontologist or a geneticist, but I think I am educated enough to have a decent understanding. I would like to focus on the finding of the "hobbits" in Flores. I have researched all the internet will allow without subscriptions and I have looked at both creationist responses (which don't really convince me) and evolutionist responses (which don't do any better). Both sides have walled themselves into a box that has no escape. From what I can gather, the "hobbits" have a brain capacity that is too small to really be classified H. Erectus (although evolutionists are doing so anyway) and are more physically representative of Australopithecus, except that they were found with tools. The creationist says "it can't be a transitional form" and rushes to insist that they were humans with microcephaly....which poses problems if they lived isolated for so long. Evolutionists rush to classify them as transitional forms,

validating their theory (and making the finders famous in the process I might add)....but there are two problems.

Their brain was too small to know how to make tools

and how did they get to a remote island to colonize it.

Evolutionists insist that they must have figured it out....that's not very scientific. It goes against everything we have already established about brain size and intellect up to this point (unless it IS microcephaly).

I illustrate this example to highlight how preconceived notions can interfere with truly finding answers to riddles. Shouldn't evolution "help you find what you are looking for"? In this case it only brings more questions. I don't have an answer, but I am certainly intrigued and have some thoughts....I am a little hesitant to share for fear of being laughed at.

FlowersFriend said: Evolutionists rush to classify them as transitional forms, validating their theory (and making the finders famous in the process I might add)....but there are two problems. Their brain was too small to know how to make tools and how did they get to a remote island to colonize it.

I don't have an answer, but I am certainly intrigued and have some thoughts....I am a little hesitant to share for fear of being laughed at.

FlowersFriend said: Well, I actually was misinformed. I now realize after a quick search that BBT is separate from theories on the origins of life. I had always been taught that BBT went hand in hand with origins of life. So I appreciate the correction and I can see where an alternate to BBT would actually have no bearing on evolution at all.

FlowersFriend said: Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator.

While I understand that a "Creation Theory" for the origin of life can never be viable (and for the record I don't think it should be taught in a science class), I also think that any other theory for the origin of life is also not viable for the science class.

While we can certainly write a hypothesis concerning the origin of life, it can never truly become law because no one was around to verify our hypothesis. So unless it can be duplicated in a lab (and this includes macroevolution) it is too far reaching to be considered science IMO.

FlowersFriend said: mrg- The problem is that any attempt to even suggest that there are other possibilities (ID) is met with furious opposition.

It can't even be mentioned. I feel that the origins of life is not even a topic that should be addressed in a high school science class (and does anyone think it needs to be...honest question). I certainly have no problem whatsoever with anyone "tinkering" with evolution as the mechanism for our origins beyond the high school level. What I DO have a problem with is teaching it to the exclusion of all else.

Never in all the years I went to school did I ever hear a single professor suggest that they don't know how life originated....not once. In every, single, case evolution was presented, in many cases as a blatant mockery of creationism. You think that suggesting that a Creator "did it" is uninteresting, but have you ever bothered to even consider it? I think there are fascinating ideas with regards to a Creator. I am particularly interested in physics (unfortunately, I am an amateur) and string theory and how that could explain an omnipresent God.

I mention the genetic code specifically as evidence for relationship of all life, because it is not difficult to think of life using an entirely different genetic code. In fact there are small instances of deviations. Yeast mitochondrial DNA has eight readings different from the standard model, for example. Other biochemical, physiological, etc. similarities may be due to chemistry and physics saying that is the best way to do it, regardless of relationship.

Evolutionists tend to accept Darwinan parsimony, that similarities are the result of relationship. This is not always the case, so one cannot blindly apply the criterion. However it seems to work very well and give satisfying results.

FF wrote:

"Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator."

Well apparently you have been misinformed once again. The conclusion that there was a common ancestor for all of life does not depend on the structure of DNA. It comes from the observation that the pattern of sequence similarity that we see between all life forms is exactly what one would expect if there were a single common ancestor and species arose by descent with modification. This hypothesis allows for very precise predictions to be made, and these predictions have been confirmed.

For example, if descent with modification is true, there should be a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that corresponds to the time of first appearance of all major groups in the fossil record. This is indeed the pattern that is observed. There is no other reasonable explanation for this pattern. Common design did not produce this pattern, nor can it be used to explain this pattern. And the pattern extends to many different molecular and developmental characters that have nothing to do with function, they are simply markers that can be used to confirm phylogenetic relationships. And the independent data sets all give the same answer!

So you see, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that accounts for all of the available evidence. It cannot be replaced with fairy tales or wishful thinking. In order to replace the theory of evolution, you have to come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence - fossil, developmental and genetic. Until then, the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory available. That is why it is taught in science classes, that's why it should be.

Cubist said:

FlowersFriend said: The problem is that any attempt to even suggest that there are other possibilities (ID) is met with furious opposition. It can't even be mentioned.

The problem is, ID isn't another 'possibility'; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism. And ID can be mentioned... it just can't be taught in a science class, because of that 'wholly-owned subsidiary' thing. But even if ID weren't thinly-disguised religious dogma... what would you teach the students? Okay, "some people think an intelligent entity might have had something-or-other to do with something or other". But that's, what, 3-4 seconds? What's the teacher going to do with the rest of the class time? What else would you teach about ID? In other words, what would an ID lesson plan look like? I only know of one case in which ID-pushers actually did present an ID lesson plan, and... er... the material they proposed to teach consisted entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit. Much as the actual content of the recent ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit.
So, yeah... lots of people do have a less-than-favorable reaction to ID. But if ID-pushers didn't fucking lie about themselves, their motives, and ID; if ID-pushers could produce a positive case for ID, rather than the purely negative case "Evolution doesn't explain X, therefore ID"; in short, if ID-pushers were honest, maybe people wouldn't be so hostile to ID.

I feel that the origins of life is not even a topic that should be addressed in a high school science class (and does anyone think it needs to be...honest question). I certainly have no problem whatsoever with anyone "tinkering" with evolution as the mechanism for our origins beyond the high school level. What I DO have a problem with is teaching it to the exclusion of all else.

It's worth noting that evolution is hardly the only thing that's taught "to the exclusion of all else". Do you also object to the blatantly one-sided presentation of such topics as the Holocaust (no class time given over to the position that the Nazis didn't plot to systematically exterminate all Jewish people!) -- and if you don't object to the Holocaust being taught in such a "one-sided" manner, why not?
Arithmetic classes teach that 2+2=4 "to the exclusion of all else"; if it really and truly is "to the exclusion of all else" which you object to in the teaching of evolution, shouldn't you be lobbying your local school board to add 2+2=5 to the arithmetic curriculum?
How about geography -- do you object to the fact that every class which teaches about the Earth's shape, teaches that the Earth is round? If you have a problem with teaching-one-position-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else, shouldn't you also be standing up for the right of students to learn that the Earth is flat?
And hey, how about sex education: Teach the kids about abstinence, and teach 'em about condoms, and let the children decide for themselves! You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?
It's all well and good to be opposed to 'indoctrination'. But if your courageous stand against 'indoctrination' is focused solely and entirely on evolution, and if there are some blatant instances of 'to the exclusion of all else' which you heartily approve of... well, you'll just have to forgive anyone who thinks that the 'indoctrination' thing just isn't your real objection, that you're using the 'indoctrination' thing as a pretext that lets you avoid laying your real objection(s) out on the table where everyone can see them, and that you are, in the final analysis, Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher.

Robin said: it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

Evolution is taught in exclusion because there isn't anything else, scientifically speaking.

The Gorgon said: Nicely done Cubie baby, you sure showed that evil Creationist. His being cordial and inquisitive was a dead giveaway that he must be Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher, but you sure weren't fooled and you saw right through his facade. Damn you're good! It's a good thing you're here to watch over things because we definitely don't want any cordial, inquisitive people to be coming here and acting all nice and all that. Keep up the good work Cubie baby! A fan.

Cubist said: The problem is, ID isn't another 'possibility'; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism. And ID can be mentioned... it just can't be taught in a science class, because of that 'wholly-owned subsidiary' thing. But even if ID weren't thinly-disguised religious dogma... what would you teach the students? Okay, "some people think an intelligent entity might have had something-or-other to do with something or other". But that's, what, 3-4 seconds? What's the teacher going to do with the rest of the class time? What else would you teach about ID? In other words, what would an ID lesson plan look like? I only know of one case in which ID-pushers actually did present an ID lesson plan, and... er... the material they proposed to teach consisted entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit. Much as the actual content of the recent ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit.

It's worth noting that evolution is hardly the only thing that's taught "to the exclusion of all else". Do you also object to the blatantly one-sided presentation of such topics as the Holocaust (no class time given over to the position that the Nazis didn't plot to systematically exterminate all Jewish people!) -- and if you don't object to the Holocaust being taught in such a "one-sided" manner, why not?
Arithmetic classes teach that 2+2=4 "to the exclusion of all else"; if it really and truly is "to the exclusion of all else" which you object to in the teaching of evolution, shouldn't you be lobbying your local school board to add 2+2=5 to the arithmetic curriculum?
How about geography -- do you object to the fact that every class which teaches about the Earth's shape, teaches that the Earth is round? If you have a problem with teaching-one-position-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else, shouldn't you also be standing up for the right of students to learn that the Earth is flat?
And hey, how about sex education: Teach the kids about abstinence, and teach 'em about condoms, and let the children decide for themselves! You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?
It's all well and good to be opposed to 'indoctrination'. But if your courageous stand against 'indoctrination' is focused solely and entirely on evolution, and if there are some blatant instances of 'to the exclusion of all else' which you heartily approve of... well, you'll just have to forgive anyone who thinks that the 'indoctrination' thing just isn't your real objection, that you're using the 'indoctrination' thing as a pretext that lets you avoid laying your real objection(s) out on the table where everyone can see them, and that you are, in the final analysis, Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher.

My “issue” is that when you have any subject that there is no verifiable answer for (several posters have already said that the origins of life are unknown.…do you agree with them?).…I don’t think it belongs in a high school science class. Are you telling me that it is so vital to the education of our children (origins of life) that it absolutely MUST be taught before 12th grade?

Stuart-

Here are some links to some of the articles that came up on H. Floresiensis...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/21/hobbit-rewriting-history-human-race

The above is one of the most recent articles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507185535.htm

This one mentions the brain size and talks about the possibility of dwarfism.....but it's the only place I could find anyone suggesting they were dwarves with any real conviction. So I didn't know if that idea had been disregarded or not.

I was just curious as to if there was a consensus in the scientific community. Have they been classified yet? Where are they suggesting that they end up on the hominid family tree?

FlowersFriend said: You know what? You are absolutely right. I think that rather than spending time trying to "debunk" evolution, energy would be better spent focusing on how to teach what is factual about evolution and how that can relate to a Creation POV. I'm not even talking about pushing to present that to a public school science class...but more in the realm of educating Christians. I do find that many (if not nearly all) Christians are so badly misinformed about evolution.

FlowersFriend said: I was just curious as to if there was a consensus in the scientific community. Have they been classified yet? Where are they suggesting that they end up on the hominid family tree?

In related news, BBC WORLD Online reports that paleontologists investigating the Indonesian island of Flores have found the remains of a giant marabou stork, roughly 1.8 meters (6 feet) tall and with a weight of 16 kilograms (35 pounds), dating back 20,000 to 50,000 years. Flores is noted for its giant and dwarf species, both living and extinct, the most famous being the extinct miniature hominin known as Homo floriensis or the "hobbit", only about a meter (1.1 yards) tall. The island was also home to dwarf elephants, and is still home to giant rats and the Komodo dragon, a giant monitor lizard and the biggest living lizard. Dwarf and giant variants of animals tend to arise on islands; a full-grown elephant might find it difficult to stay fed in the restricted range available on an island, while a pygmy version wouldn't have that problem. At the other end of the size range, a relative lack of predators could lead to an "arms race" between prey species, such as giant rats, and resident predators, such as storks or monitor lizards. The extinction event that put down the giant stork and the hobbits appears to have been a major volcanic eruption, eruptions being common in the Indonesian archipelago.

Robin said: Hold the phone...a self-described fundamentalist Christian admitting an error and thanking someone here for a correction?!?! Is this a joke? Are we on Candid Camera? Does this person really ignore folks like Demski, Brown, Gish, and Ham? What's going here? All kidding aside, FF, but if you're going to continue behaving as above, you're more than welcome here. I for one have no qualms with you disagreeing with EVERYTHING we all might post, but if you have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit when you're wrong...WOW! That's a huge breath of fresh air! What a marvelous opportunity for a discussion...

FlowersFriend said: You know what? You are absolutely right. I think that rather than spending time trying to "debunk" evolution, energy would be better spent focusing on how to teach what is factual about evolution and how that can relate to a Creation POV. I'm not even talking about pushing to present that to a public school science class...but more in the realm of educating Christians. I do find that many (if not nearly all) Christians are so badly misinformed about evolution.

Well, my views on "indoctrination" do include other subjects, but I don't think they are appropriate for this board. My "issue" is that when you have any subject that there is no verifiable answer for (several posters have already said that the origins of life are unknown....do you agree with them?)....I don't think it belongs in a high school science class. Are you telling me that it is so vital to the education of our children (origins of life) that it absolutely MUST be taught before 12th grade?

The Gorgon said:

Cubist said: It's all well and good to be opposed to 'indoctrination'. But if your courageous stand against 'indoctrination' is focused solely and entirely on evolution, and if there are some blatant instances of 'to the exclusion of all else' which you heartily approve of... well, you'll just have to forgive anyone who thinks that the 'indoctrination' thing just isn't your real objection, that you're using the 'indoctrination' thing as a pretext that lets you avoid laying your real objection(s) out on the table where everyone can see them, and that you are, in the final analysis, Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher.

Nicely done Cubie baby, you sure showed that evil Creationist. His being cordial and inquisitive was a dead giveaway that he must be Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher...

but you sure weren't fooled and you saw right through his facade. Damn you're good! It's a good thing you're here to watch over things because we definitely don't want any cordial, inquisitive people to be coming here and acting all nice and all that. Keep up the good work Cubie baby!

Robin said: The problem there is that so far ID has not been presented scientifically. The hostility you note is directed at the perceived intent of those presenting ID - it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

Evolution is taught in exclusion because there isn't anything else, scientifically speaking. You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when it comes to science class, only actual science can be taught.

I realize you may well take creationism seriously, but if you're also seriously scientific minded, at some point you're going to have face the inherent contradictions between the two. Not even someone as devout as Francis Collins takes creationism seriously after such a comparison.

Jim Thomerson said: I mention the genetic code specifically as evidence for relationship of all life, because it is not difficult to think of life using an entirely different genetic code. In fact there are small instances of deviations. Yeast mitochondrial DNA has eight readings different from the standard model, for example. Other biochemical, physiological, etc. similarities may be due to chemistry and physics saying that is the best way to do it, regardless of relationship. Evolutionists tend to accept Darwinan parsimony, that similarities are the result of relationship. This is not always the case, so one cannot blindly apply the criterion. However it seems to work very well and give satisfying results.

FlowersFriend said:

I realize you may well take creationism seriously, but if you're also seriously scientific minded, at some point you're going to have face the inherent contradictions between the two. Not even someone as devout as Francis Collins takes creationism seriously after such a comparison.

Try me, which contradictions?

FlowersFriend said: Thank you....I think I'm blushing now. I think you will find that I do my best to be civil and I will always try to be honest....I've eaten crow before and I'm sure I will again. I have nothing to prove and for the most part I am interested in being educated so that I can help educate my children. I'm also not very defensive about evolution....I know that the creation will not contradict the Creator, So experience has taught me that any supposed contradiction is simply an opportunity to learn more (not only about science, but about my Creator).

FlowersFriend said:

Cubist said: The problem is, ID isn't another 'possibility'; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism. And ID can be mentioned... it just can't be taught in a science class, because of that 'wholly-owned subsidiary' thing. But even if ID weren't thinly-disguised religious dogma... what would you teach the students? Okay, "some people think an intelligent entity might have had something-or-other to do with something or other". But that's, what, 3-4 seconds? What's the teacher going to do with the rest of the class time? What else would you teach about ID? In other words, what would an ID lesson plan look like? I only know of one case in which ID-pushers actually did present an ID lesson plan, and... er... the material they proposed to teach consisted entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit. Much as the actual content of the recent ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit.

You know what? You are absolutely right. I think that rather than spending time trying to "debunk" evolution, energy would be better spent focusing on how to teach what is factual about evolution and how that can relate to a Creation POV. I'm not even talking about pushing to present that to a public school science class...but more in the realm of educating Christians. I do find that many (if not nearly all) Christians are so badly misinformed about evolution.

It's worth noting that evolution is hardly the only thing that's taught "to the exclusion of all else". Do you also object to the blatantly one-sided presentation of such topics as the Holocaust (no class time given over to the position that the Nazis didn't plot to systematically exterminate all Jewish people!) -- and if you don't object to the Holocaust being taught in such a "one-sided" manner, why not?
Arithmetic classes teach that 2+2=4 "to the exclusion of all else"; if it really and truly is "to the exclusion of all else" which you object to in the teaching of evolution, shouldn't you be lobbying your local school board to add 2+2=5 to the arithmetic curriculum?
How about geography -- do you object to the fact that every class which teaches about the Earth's shape, teaches that the Earth is round? If you have a problem with teaching-one-position-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else, shouldn't you also be standing up for the right of students to learn that the Earth is flat?
And hey, how about sex education: Teach the kids about abstinence, and teach 'em about condoms, and let the children decide for themselves! You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?
It's all well and good to be opposed to 'indoctrination'. But if your courageous stand against 'indoctrination' is focused solely and entirely on evolution, and if there are some blatant instances of 'to the exclusion of all else' which you heartily approve of... well, you'll just have to forgive anyone who thinks that the 'indoctrination' thing just isn't your real objection, that you're using the 'indoctrination' thing as a pretext that lets you avoid laying your real objection(s) out on the table where everyone can see them, and that you are, in the final analysis, Yet Another Goddamn Lying ID-Pusher.

Well, my views on "indoctrination" do include other subjects, but I don't think they are appropriate for this board. My "issue" is that when you have any subject that there is no verifiable answer for (several posters have already said that the origins of life are unknown....do you agree with them?)....I don't think it belongs in a high school science class. Are you telling me that it is so vital to the education of our children (origins of life) that it absolutely MUST be taught before 12th grade?

FlowersFriend said:

Jim Thomerson said: I mention the genetic code specifically as evidence for relationship of all life, because it is not difficult to think of life using an entirely different genetic code. In fact there are small instances of deviations. Yeast mitochondrial DNA has eight readings different from the standard model, for example. Other biochemical, physiological, etc. similarities may be due to chemistry and physics saying that is the best way to do it, regardless of relationship. Evolutionists tend to accept Darwinan parsimony, that similarities are the result of relationship. This is not always the case, so one cannot blindly apply the criterion. However it seems to work very well and give satisfying results.

A different code within the same parameters we currently have? Do you mean different nucleotides? Or a completely different structure? You see from a Creation standpoint similarities would be no surprise at all either....in fact expected. Often I find that science only supports what I already believe. I see the complication involved the structure of DNA and find it hard to imagine that it didn't require intelligence to form. Even if it were a different code, it would still make sense to me....it is the very fact that it IS a code.

phantomreader42 said: Let me get this straight. You support teaching the "controversy" that maybe all of modern biology is a hoax. But you won't say whether or not you support teaching the equally legitimate "controversies" of the Holocaust being a hoax, or all world leaders actually being shape-shifting reptiloids, or the world being a flat disk supported by four immense elephants who stand on the back of a gargantuan turtle, or basic arithmetic being totally disconnected from reality? You really refuse to say if you support teaching children Holocaust denial? You expect us to believe that you have no opinion on that subject? That's just insane. That's almost as insane as Holocaust denial itself! The "teach the controversy" strategy is a fraud, because the "controversy" is a fraud. But even if you think it's real, then surely you should at least make SOME distinction between teaching a "controversy" that you believe is legitimate and one that is obviously insane even to you. Unless the assertion that alien shape-shifters rule the world is something you ALSO consider legitimate. You may not be aware of the evidence for evolution, you may be honestly ignorant and seeking to learn (though if so you'd be the first creationist of that type I've ever encountered). But it's hard to believe that when you endorse the position that facts are wholly irrelevant. It's hard to believe you sincerely care about the truth when you come right out and say that 2+2=whatever The Party says.

FlowersFriend said:

Robin said: The problem there is that so far ID has not been presented scientifically. The hostility you note is directed at the perceived intent of those presenting ID - it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

I can't speak for those at the forefront of the ID debate. So I will only speak for myself and some of the Christians I associate with. I see no agenda, only a fear for their children's spiritual well-being. The Christians I know are not interested in "indoctrinating" or pushing an agenda, but simply concerned that their children will lose faith. It makes for a very emotional subject matter.

Evolution is taught in exclusion because there isn't anything else, scientifically speaking. You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when it comes to science class, only actual science can be taught.

Agreed. My thought is that the minute that we have to say things like "most likely", "probably", "could have", we need to save it for college. There is enough factual data to keep high school and middle school students busy for hours on end. I think that if you took macroevolution (I know you guys don't like that word...but it makes the conversation easier) out of high school classes, you would no longer have an ID/Evolution debate. Maybe that is oversimplified, but I see it as a way to teach evolution, so that children are educated properly about it (I know some school districts won't even mention it, which is sad too), without crossing into the realm of religious debate.

I realize you may well take creationism seriously, but if you're also seriously scientific minded, at some point you're going to have face the inherent contradictions between the two. Not even someone as devout as Francis Collins takes creationism seriously after such a comparison.

Try me, which contradictions?

Malchus said: If the child's faith is that weak, then it is not faith. It is indoctrination, and you are afraid someone else will undo that indoctrination.

FlowersFriend said:

Cubist said: The problem is, ID isn't another 'possibility'; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism. And ID can be mentioned... it just can't be taught in a science class, because of that 'wholly-owned subsidiary' thing. But even if ID weren't thinly-disguised religious dogma... what would you teach the students? Okay, "some people think an intelligent entity might have had something-or-other to do with something or other". But that's, what, 3-4 seconds? What's the teacher going to do with the rest of the class time? What else would you teach about ID? In other words, what would an ID lesson plan look like? I only know of one case in which ID-pushers actually did present an ID lesson plan, and... er... the material they proposed to teach consisted entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit. Much as the actual content of the recent ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit.

You know what? You are absolutely right. I think that rather than spending time trying to "debunk" evolution, energy would be better spent focusing on how to teach what is factual about evolution and how that can relate to a Creation POV.

I'm not even talking about pushing to present that to a public school science class...but more in the realm of educating Christians. I do find that many (if not nearly all) Christians are so badly misinformed about evolution.

FlowersFriend said: Well, my views on "indoctrination" do include other subjects, but I don't think they are appropriate for this board.

My "issue" is that when you have any subject that there is no verifiable answer for (several posters have already said that the origins of life are unknown....do you agree with them?)....I don't think it belongs in a high school science class. Are you telling me that it is so vital to the education of our children (origins of life) that it absolutely MUST be taught before 12th grade?

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: Let me get this straight. You support teaching the "controversy" that maybe all of modern biology is a hoax. But you won't say whether or not you support teaching the equally legitimate "controversies" of the Holocaust being a hoax, or all world leaders actually being shape-shifting reptiloids, or the world being a flat disk supported by four immense elephants who stand on the back of a gargantuan turtle, or basic arithmetic being totally disconnected from reality? You really refuse to say if you support teaching children Holocaust denial? You expect us to believe that you have no opinion on that subject? That's just insane. That's almost as insane as Holocaust denial itself! The "teach the controversy" strategy is a fraud, because the "controversy" is a fraud. But even if you think it's real, then surely you should at least make SOME distinction between teaching a "controversy" that you believe is legitimate and one that is obviously insane even to you. Unless the assertion that alien shape-shifters rule the world is something you ALSO consider legitimate. You may not be aware of the evidence for evolution, you may be honestly ignorant and seeking to learn (though if so you'd be the first creationist of that type I've ever encountered). But it's hard to believe that when you endorse the position that facts are wholly irrelevant. It's hard to believe you sincerely care about the truth when you come right out and say that 2+2=whatever The Party says.

When you've spent your entire life being continually taught that not only is there a God, but that the image of God can be found absolutely in the Bible, then anything which challenges that assumption must be seen as a threat to one's soul. It is that fear more than anything else which motivates people to swallow the ideas of Creationism. And being so biased about the matter, they assume there must be a "controversy" about the issue of creation vs. evolution even among scientists. A few people who have gained science degrees even present themselves as "creation scientists" to maintain the illusion of a controversy. But is it a scam, because the "creation scientists" do not follow at all the actual standards of science. Everything they do is based on the literal reading of the Bible.

Cubist said: Part of the problem is the visceral "I didn't come from no monkey!!" reaction. There is a Biblical response to that; "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Mt 3:9) Or, in modern parlance, "Hey, guy, how come you're all cocky about your ancestors? God can make you out of rocks!"
As well, some people just don't want to acknowledge that their (oh so spiffy!) bodies are, in any way, similar to the (dirty, nasty) bodies of mere, lowly animals. Ecclesiastes 3:19 -- "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
Some people may think that being a "child of God" precludes their being descended from 'lower' critters. Such people probably haven't asked themselves whether being a "child of God" precludes their being a child of their biological parents, and they may also be under the impression that either God creates things directly, getting His metaphorical hands dirty, or else God isn't involved at all. For these people, a suitable response might be found in Genesis, in triplicate yet: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Gen 1:11, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Gen 1:24, emphasis added).
There is a theological justification for denying evolution, which runs somewhat thus (and I hope I don't do any violence to it here): Adam's sin brought death into the world, and this is what made Christ's sacrifice necessary in order to provide salvation for all humanity. If Adam's sin didn't bring death into the world, Christ's sacrifice was a sham, and there is no salvation! Evolution says there was death in the world right from the start, meaning before Adam's sin, hence Christ's sacrifice was a sham, so if evolution is true, there is no salvation and all of Christianity is a lie! If there's a Biblical response to this, I'm not aware of it, but there's a response based on logic and common sense: Even after Christ's sacrifice, Christians die just like anybody else -- there's cemeteries and cemeteries full of dead Christians. So one of two things must be true: Either Christ's sacrifice was a sham, or else Christ's sacrifice was never intended to save us from the death of the body. Since Christ's sacrifice was not a sham, it follows that the point of said sacrifice was to save us from death of the soul. It's true that evolution requires death before Adam's sin -- but the death required by evolution, is death of the body, NOT death of the soul! Therefore, evolution being true does not mean that Christ's sacrifice was a sham, nor that Christianity is a lie, nor that there is no salvation.

DS said: FF wrote: "Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator." Well apparently you have been misinformed once again. The conclusion that there was a common ancestor for all of life does not depend on the structure of DNA. It comes from the observation that the pattern of sequence similarity that we see between all life forms is exactly what one would expect if there were a single common ancestor and species arose by descent with modification. This hypothesis allows for very precise predictions to be made, and these predictions have been confirmed. For example, if descent with modification is true, there should be a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that corresponds to the time of first appearance of all major groups in the fossil record. This is indeed the pattern that is observed. There is no other reasonable explanation for this pattern. Common design did not produce this pattern, nor can it be used to explain this pattern. And the pattern extends to many different molecular and developmental characters that have nothing to do with function, they are simply markers that can be used to confirm phylogenetic relationships. And the independent data sets all give the same answer! So you see, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that accounts for all of the available evidence. It cannot be replaced with fairy tales or wishful thinking. In order to replace the theory of evolution, you have to come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence - fossil, developmental and genetic. Until then, the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory available. That is why it is taught in science classes, that's why it should be.

Cubist said: No problerm: "God did it, and evolution is how He did it." What else needs to be said?

Part of the problem is the visceral "I didn't come from no monkey!!" reaction. There is a Biblical response to that; "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Mt 3:9) Or, in modern parlance, "Hey, guy, how come you're all cocky about your ancestors? God can make you out of rocks!"
As well, some people just don't want to acknowledge that their (oh so spiffy!) bodies are, in any way, similar to the (dirty, nasty) bodies of mere, lowly animals. Ecclesiastes 3:19 -- "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
Some people may think that being a "child of God" precludes their being descended from 'lower' critters. Such people probably haven't asked themselves whether being a "child of God" precludes their being a child of their biological parents, and they may also be under the impression that either God creates things directly, getting His metaphorical hands dirty, or else God isn't involved at all. For these people, a suitable response might be found in Genesis, in triplicate yet: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Gen 1:11, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Gen 1:24, emphasis added).
There is a theological justification for denying evolution, which runs somewhat thus (and I hope I don't do any violence to it here): Adam's sin brought death into the world, and this is what made Christ's sacrifice necessary in order to provide salvation for all humanity. If Adam's sin didn't bring death into the world, Christ's sacrifice was a sham, and there is no salvation! Evolution says there was death in the world right from the start, meaning before Adam's sin, hence Christ's sacrifice was a sham, so if evolution is true, there is no salvation and all of Christianity is a lie! If there's a Biblical response to this, I'm not aware of it, but there's a response based on logic and common sense: Even after Christ's sacrifice, Christians die just like anybody else -- there's cemeteries and cemeteries full of dead Christians. So one of two things must be true: Either Christ's sacrifice was a sham, or else Christ's sacrifice was never intended to save us from the death of the body. Since Christ's sacrifice was not a sham, it follows that the point of said sacrifice was to save us from death of the soul. It's true that evolution requires death before Adam's sin -- but the death required by evolution, is death of the body, NOT death of the soul! Therefore, evolution being true does not mean that Christ's sacrifice was a sham, nor that Christianity is a lie, nor that there is no salvation.

Addressing Dale and Phantom-

I didn't realize that you wanted a line by line response. I was generalizing for the sake of time.

No I don't think Holocaust denial deserves equal time, or 2+2="whatever the party says" . I don't have a problem with distributing condoms AND teaching abstinence....if you want the full details on how I came to this ideological stance I would be glad to share.

I do not think that the descent from a single common ancestor is as black and white as the Holocaust or 2+2=4 either so if you would like to discuss that in detail, I am prepared to do so.

Ok, my turn

I don't want to send you all into panic mode, but I have an honest inquiry. I read a study on the ICR website (I know, I know, but bear with me).

I want your thoughts on it. It's a couple of years old and I don't know what the latest is on recent human descent. I also can't find any response to it (good or bad).

http://www.icr.org/article/mitochondrial-eve-consensus-sequence/

Is he right about the facts as they stand right now "There was a single dispersal of mankind with three main mitochondrial lineages interspersed within the clans and that the dispersal either originated within or passed through the Middle East"? Are the methods sketchy? I know enough to understand the results and methods....but I'm not sophisticated enough to compare to some of the other studies (like the one using the chimp out group). What effect would there be to not using a chimp out group?

I chose this one because it appears to be one of the few that makes an effort to "do it's own research" rather than just focus on the "debunk" approach. I realize that it makes a few references to what other studies did wrong, but doesn't any study do that?

FlowersFriend said: God promised a Redeemer from sin early on and set up the standard for remission of sin immediately after the fall (by covering them with animal skins instead of fig leaves, God demonstrated that the only covering for sin was shed blood). There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer. Just as a side note, the Bible makes the distinction between death of the body and death of the soul. Jesus came to save us from the death of our soul.

FlowersFriend said: Ok, my turn I don't want to send you all into panic mode, but I have an honest inquiry. I read a study on the ICR website (I know, I know, but bear with me). I want your thoughts on it. It's a couple of years old and I don't know what the latest is on recent human descent. I also can't find any response to it (good or bad). http://www.icr.org/article/mitochondrial-eve-consensus-sequence/ Is he right about the facts as they stand right now "There was a single dispersal of mankind with three main mitochondrial lineages interspersed within the clans and that the dispersal either originated within or passed through the Middle East"? Are the methods sketchy? I know enough to understand the results and methods....but I'm not sophisticated enough to compare to some of the other studies (like the one using the chimp out group). What effect would there be to not using a chimp out group? I chose this one because it appears to be one of the few that makes an effort to "do it's own research" rather than just focus on the "debunk" approach. I realize that it makes a few references to what other studies did wrong, but doesn't any study do that?

While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicking it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations.Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and are thought to be descended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles are completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells. We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and chloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA. Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, especially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago. Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.

FlowersFriend said:

Cubist said: No problerm: "God did it, and evolution is how He did it." What else needs to be said?

If I agreed with that I wouldn't be a fundamentalist now would I.

Part of the problem is the visceral "I didn't come from no monkey!!" reaction. There is a Biblical response to that; "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Mt 3:9) Or, in modern parlance, "Hey, guy, how come you're all cocky about your ancestors? God can make you out of rocks!"
As well, some people just don't want to acknowledge that their (oh so spiffy!) bodies are, in any way, similar to the (dirty, nasty) bodies of mere, lowly animals. Ecclesiastes 3:19 -- "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
Some people may think that being a "child of God" precludes their being descended from 'lower' critters. Such people probably haven't asked themselves whether being a "child of God" precludes their being a child of their biological parents, and they may also be under the impression that either God creates things directly, getting His metaphorical hands dirty, or else God isn't involved at all. For these people, a suitable response might be found in Genesis, in triplicate yet: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Gen 1:11, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20, emphasis added) -- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Gen 1:24, emphasis added).
There is a theological justification for denying evolution, which runs somewhat thus (and I hope I don't do any violence to it here): Adam's sin brought death into the world, and this is what made Christ's sacrifice necessary in order to provide salvation for all humanity. If Adam's sin didn't bring death into the world, Christ's sacrifice was a sham, and there is no salvation! Evolution says there was death in the world right from the start, meaning before Adam's sin, hence Christ's sacrifice was a sham, so if evolution is true, there is no salvation and all of Christianity is a lie! If there's a Biblical response to this, I'm not aware of it, but there's a response based on logic and common sense: Even after Christ's sacrifice, Christians die just like anybody else -- there's cemeteries and cemeteries full of dead Christians. So one of two things must be true: Either Christ's sacrifice was a sham, or else Christ's sacrifice was never intended to save us from the death of the body. Since Christ's sacrifice was not a sham, it follows that the point of said sacrifice was to save us from death of the soul. It's true that evolution requires death before Adam's sin -- but the death required by evolution, is death of the body, NOT death of the soul! Therefore, evolution being true does not mean that Christ's sacrifice was a sham, nor that Christianity is a lie, nor that there is no salvation.

Again, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I realize there is the whole "I didn't come from no monkey" crowd, but that is not where my objection truly lies. While your summary of what the issue with a common ancestor with apes and the Biblical account is intriguing....it's not why I take exception, although it is maybe closely related. God promised a Redeemer from sin early on and set up the standard for remission of sin immediately after the fall (by covering them with animal skins instead of fig leaves, God demonstrated that the only covering for sin was shed blood). There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer.

Just as a side note, the Bible makes the distinction between death of the body and death of the soul. Jesus came to save us from the death of our soul.

FlowersFriend said:

Cubist said: No problem: "God did it, and evolution is how He did it." What else needs to be said?

If I agreed with that I wouldn't be a fundamentalist now would I.

FlowersFriend said:

Robin said: The problem there is that so far ID has not been presented scientifically. The hostility you note is directed at the perceived intent of those presenting ID - it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

I can't speak for those at the forefront of the ID debate. So I will only speak for myself and some of the Christians I associate with. I see no agenda, only a fear for their children's spiritual well-being. The Christians I know are not interested in "indoctrinating" or pushing an agenda, but simply concerned that their children will lose faith. It makes for a very emotional subject matter.

FlowersFriend said: Stuart- Here are some links to some of the articles that came up on H. Floresiensis... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/21/hobbit-rewriting-history-human-race The above is one of the most recent articles. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507185535.htm This one mentions the brain size and talks about the possibility of dwarfism.....but it's the only place I could find anyone suggesting they were dwarves with any real conviction. So I didn't know if that idea had been disregarded or not. I was just curious as to if there was a consensus in the scientific community. Have they been classified yet? Where are they suggesting that they end up on the hominid family tree?

FlowersFriend said: Stuart- Here are some links to some of the articles that came up on H. Floresiensis... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/21/hobbit-rewriting-history-human-race The above is one of the most recent articles. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507185535.htm This one mentions the brain size and talks about the possibility of dwarfism.....but it's the only place I could find anyone suggesting they were dwarves with any real conviction. So I didn't know if that idea had been disregarded or not. I was just curious as to if there was a consensus in the scientific community. Have they been classified yet? Where are they suggesting that they end up on the hominid family tree?

FlowersFriend said:

Robin said: The problem there is that so far ID has not been presented scientifically. The hostility you note is directed at the perceived intent of those presenting ID - it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

I can't speak for those at the forefront of the ID debate. So I will only speak for myself and some of the Christians I associate with. I see no agenda, only a fear for their children's spiritual well-being. The Christians I know are not interested in "indoctrinating" or pushing an agenda, but simply concerned that their children will lose faith. It makes for a very emotional subject matter.

Evolution is taught in exclusion because there isn't anything else, scientifically speaking. You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when it comes to science class, only actual science can be taught.

Agreed. My thought is that the minute that we have to say things like "most likely", "probably", "could have", we need to save it for college. There is enough factual data to keep high school and middle school students busy for hours on end. I think that if you took macroevolution (I know you guys don't like that word...but it makes the conversation easier) out of high school classes, you would no longer have an ID/Evolution debate.

Maybe that is oversimplified, but I see it as a way to teach evolution, so that children are educated properly about it (I know some school districts won't even mention it, which is sad too), without crossing into the realm of religious debate.

FlowersFriend said:

Cubist said: The problem is, ID isn't another 'possibility'; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism. And ID can be mentioned... it just can't be taught in a science class, because of that 'wholly-owned subsidiary' thing. But even if ID weren't thinly-disguised religious dogma... what would you teach the students? Okay, "some people think an intelligent entity might have had something-or-other to do with something or other". But that's, what, 3-4 seconds? What's the teacher going to do with the rest of the class time? What else would you teach about ID? In other words, what would an ID lesson plan look like? I only know of one case in which ID-pushers actually did present an ID lesson plan, and... er... the material they proposed to teach consisted entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit. Much as the actual content of the recent ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist bullshit.

You know what? You are absolutely right. I think that rather than spending time trying to "debunk" evolution, energy would be better spent focusing on how to teach what is factual about evolution and how that can relate to a Creation POV. I'm not even talking about pushing to present that to a public school science class...but more in the realm of educating Christians. I do find that many (if not nearly all) Christians are so badly misinformed about evolution.

Dale Husband said: Do you understand that paper? If so, you should have no trouble explaining it to us. Why does a very limited variation within human mitochondrial DNA show a problem for evolution? Speaking of which... http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/a-critical-test-of-common-descent-evolution/

Cubist said: It's worth noting that "teach what is factual" is an ID talking point. But when you manage to pin an ID-pusher down on what, exactly, that actually means -- what specific information they propose to teach under the rubric of "teach what is factual" -- it generally turns out that what they propose to teach is good old recycled Creationist bullshit. As witness the ID book EXPLORE EVOLUTION, which purports to "teach what is factual", but somehow manages to leave out pretty much any actual evidence that could support evolution while, at the same time, including recycled Creationist bullshit, more recycled Creationist bullshit, and still more recycled Creationist bullshit. This sort of thing does not inspire confidence in a Creationist who asserts that they just want to teach the facts about evolution, honestly, that's all I want you to do.
So: You want to "teach what is factual" about evolution, FlowersFriend? Great! What, exactly, would you teach?

FF wrote:

"This paper is of particular interest to me because if you believe what the Bible says, then like the paper says, you would expect that modern human descent would be from three (possibly four) maternal lines (Noah and his son’s wives). You would also expect a dispersion that originated in the Middle East (the tower of Babel). If science agrees with that, then it would be useful for me to present that, but if the paper is weak for some reason that I can’t see, then I would rather not."

Well then, here is the thing that you need to understand. ALL of the evidence, fossil DNA, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome DNA is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves over the last 200,000 years. NONE of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. If you want to teach children about evolution, that is what you need to teach them.

"Yet my goal is not to prepare children to mount an argument or debate, simply to help prepare them for what they will be faced with in a college setting. I also don’t dismiss what is taught with regards to common descent (from apes for example).…I certainly think it is a valid view, just not one I agree with."

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant and have no place in a science education. ALL of the evidence, fossil, genetic, developmental, is consistent with the hypothesis of descent with modification. That is what you need to teach to children.

If you really are serious about wanting to give your children a good education, then get a some good Biology textbooks that have evolution as the main principle and teach what is in them. Leave your personal belief out of science class and leave the science to the experts. To do any less is to deceive your children.

A major concern in education is teaching critical thinking. Why should we accept one viewpoint over another? Facts are slippery things. A botanist friend showed me an early 1900 botany text book which said that chlorophyll contains iron. Chlorophyll does not contain iron, but why did we think it did back then. In my yard I have a paloverde tree which has been yellow with yellow leaves. I fertilized it with an iron containing compound and it turned green. It turns out that there are iron containing heme groups involved in photosynthesis, and this is where the lack of iron makes for yellow rather than green leaves.

One would hope that, back in the day, rather than saying "chlorophyll contains iron. Memorize it because it will be on the test.", the discussion would be about why do we think chlorophyll contains iron. If we understand why we think something is true, then we can modify our thinking as evidence is acquired which challenges our thinking.

Science is the study of things we do not completely understand. I've read the statement that geometric optics is completely understood, and therefore no longer part of science. So teaching science as a list of facts is not teaching science.

I made the comment early on, which you may not have seen, that I think speciation is all there is to macroevolution, and that the combination of speciation and extinction is the core of the story of life on earth.

Jim wrote:

"If we understand why we think something is true, then we can modify our thinking as evidence is acquired which challenges our thinking."

Absolutely. That is why it is so important to teach the evidence for evolution, not just the conclusions.

Of course, this might be difficult depending on the level that is being taught. However, this is in general the best approach to teaching any science. Present the evidence. Do the experiments. Let the students see for themselves. Don't just tell them what scientists believe, tell them why scientists have come to (tentatively) accept these conclusions. This is certainly the way that all science should be taught.

If you think that you are better able to do this than science and education experts, more power to you. If you are unable to do this at home, then you might think twice about home schooling.

FlowersFriend,

Given your stated goal, let me recommend three books to you:

Kenneth R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution"

Robert T. Pennock, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism"

Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"

Miller's book gives an excellent exposition of modern evolutionary theory at a lay person's level. Many think he goes off the rails when he moves in to theology, but the science is well-presented and thought-provoking If you can only read one of these three books, read this one. FYI, Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic.

Pennock's book is the most challenging of the three, but it includes some excellent exposition about the nature of science and the role of "naturalism" in scientific method. The "New Creationism" in the title is intelligent design. Pennock is a Quaker.

Collins's book is worth a read, but if your time is limited, this is the one I'd skip. Collins was raised as an atheist and became an evangelical Christian later in life. His science is good, but not presented as thoroughly as in Miller's or Pennock's books.

I drew heavily on Miller and Pennock when I taught an adult Sunday school series on modern evolutionary theory. In my experience, it is critical to understand the nature of the scientific method and the nature of scientific explanations to teach a class like that, and one of the greatest gifts you can give your students is a clear understanding of what science does and does not involve.

Also, if you'd like to see a lot of the scientific evidence for evolution laid out in a single place, check out "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent" on the talk.origins site.

FlowersFriend,

Understanding the age of the Earth is critical to many fields of science including evolutionary biology. There is at least one easily accessible piece of evidence that the Earth is quite old. The continents on both sides of the Atlantic ocean fit together like puzzle pieces (click Google map satellite view) because the Atlantic ocean basin has grown from the splitting of a previous single land mass. The north Atlantic ocean basin is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by many methods to be a steady ~1 inch per year. Recently, even GPS (like a car navigator) has confirmed the current spreading at ~1 inch per year. This slow and continuous rate is consistent with the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge, the thickness of the sediments on the ocean floor, the order and diversity of fossils in the ocean sediments, the radiometric age of the rocks on the ocean floor, the pattern of magnetic reversals recorded on the ocean floor and other lines of evidence.

FlowersFriend said: Is he right about the facts as they stand right now "There was a single dispersal of mankind with three main mitochondrial lineages interspersed within the clans and that the dispersal either originated within or passed through the Middle East"? Are the methods sketchy?

Kris said: If what you say is true, and there are many different definitions and opinions as to how to determine species and their relationships, then it would be pretty hard to reasonably tell someone they're going about it wrongly (don't understand) unless that person says something that is so radical as to be obviously ridiculous to virtually everyone working on species and their relationships.

FlowersFriend said: You think that suggesting that a Creator "did it" is uninteresting, but have you ever bothered to even consider it? I think there are fascinating ideas with regards to a Creator.

There might be fascinating ideas with regards to a creater of the first replicator, but not of the first human being, which a dime to a dollar says is what you are really concerned about.

FlowersFriend said:

DS said: FF wrote: "Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator." Well apparently you have been misinformed once again. The conclusion that there was a common ancestor for all of life does not depend on the structure of DNA. It comes from the observation that the pattern of sequence similarity that we see between all life forms is exactly what one would expect if there were a single common ancestor and species arose by descent with modification. This hypothesis allows for very precise predictions to be made, and these predictions have been confirmed. For example, if descent with modification is true, there should be a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that corresponds to the time of first appearance of all major groups in the fossil record. This is indeed the pattern that is observed. There is no other reasonable explanation for this pattern. Common design did not produce this pattern, nor can it be used to explain this pattern. And the pattern extends to many different molecular and developmental characters that have nothing to do with function, they are simply markers that can be used to confirm phylogenetic relationships. And the independent data sets all give the same answer! So you see, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that accounts for all of the available evidence. It cannot be replaced with fairy tales or wishful thinking. In order to replace the theory of evolution, you have to come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence - fossil, developmental and genetic. Until then, the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory available. That is why it is taught in science classes, that's why it should be.

Let me rephrase.....the problem I have with MACROevolution. I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution.

FlowersFriend said: There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer.

FlowersFriend said: Addressing Dale and Phantom- I didn't realize that you wanted a line by line response. I was generalizing for the sake of time. No I don't think Holocaust denial deserves equal time, or 2+2="whatever the party says" . I don't have a problem with distributing condoms AND teaching abstinence....if you want the full details on how I came to this ideological stance I would be glad to share. I do not think that the descent from a single common ancestor is as black and white as the Holocaust or 2+2=4 either so if you would like to discuss that in detail, I am prepared to do so.

FlowersFriend said:

DS said: FF wrote: "Here is where I have trouble with evolution. Suggesting that we have a common ancestor because all of our DNA is structured the same is no more of a reach than suggesting that we have a common Creator." Well apparently you have been misinformed once again. The conclusion that there was a common ancestor for all of life does not depend on the structure of DNA. It comes from the observation that the pattern of sequence similarity that we see between all life forms is exactly what one would expect if there were a single common ancestor and species arose by descent with modification. This hypothesis allows for very precise predictions to be made, and these predictions have been confirmed. For example, if descent with modification is true, there should be a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that corresponds to the time of first appearance of all major groups in the fossil record. This is indeed the pattern that is observed. There is no other reasonable explanation for this pattern. Common design did not produce this pattern, nor can it be used to explain this pattern. And the pattern extends to many different molecular and developmental characters that have nothing to do with function, they are simply markers that can be used to confirm phylogenetic relationships. And the independent data sets all give the same answer! So you see, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that accounts for all of the available evidence. It cannot be replaced with fairy tales or wishful thinking. In order to replace the theory of evolution, you have to come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence - fossil, developmental and genetic. Until then, the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory available. That is why it is taught in science classes, that's why it should be.

Let me rephrase.....the problem I have with MACROevolution. I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution.

FF wrote:

"There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer."

Right. That is why you should keep your religion out of science class. Obviously your religious beliefs are contradicted by reality. So, you either have to ignore reality, or simply ignore your religious beliefs in science class. I presume that this is the reason why you want to homeschool your kids in the first place, to keep them from learning such inconvenient facts. If you just want them to learn some religious myths in place of science, no one can stop you. Just don't pretend that you have any intention of ever teaching your kids any real science.

FF wrote:

"I do not think that the descent from a single common ancestor is as black and white as the Holocaust or 2+2=4 either so if you would like to discuss that in detail, I am prepared to do so."

Well, what are you waiting for. I have already presented five different independent data sets. How do you explain this evidence? There is much more you know.

Given your stated goal, let me recommend three books to you: Kenneth R. Miller, “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” Robert T. Pennock, “Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism” Francis S. Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”

FlowersFriend said: There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer.

DS said: Well then, here is the thing that you need to understand. ALL of the evidence, fossil DNA, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome DNA is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves over the last 200,000 years. NONE of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. If you want to teach children about evolution, that is what you need to teach them.

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant and have no place in a science education. ALL of the evidence, fossil, genetic, developmental, is consistent with the hypothesis of descent with modification. That is what you need to teach to children.

If you really are serious about wanting to give your children a good education, then get a some good Biology textbooks that have evolution as the main principle and teach what is in them. Leave your personal belief out of science class and leave the science to the experts. To do any less is to deceive your children.

Matt Young said:

Given your stated goal, let me recommend three books to you: Kenneth R. Miller, “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” Robert T. Pennock, “Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism” Francis S. Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”

Please excuse me for being parochial (or self-serving), but I think Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) by Paul Strode and me addresses many of FF's questions and assumptions directly. I agree with SWT's assessments of the books by Pennock and Miller, particularly that Miller "goes off the rails" somewhat on theology. I was much less impressed with Collins's book, which I reviewed here.

There is no conflict with Biblical teaching if modern humans migrated out of Africa, since we don’t know where the ark rested. It could have rested pretty much anywhere. So, I don’t see a conflict with that. If there is a conflict that I am unaware of, I’d like to hear it.

but I also intend to show them that while common descent from apes is what is thought to have happened it has not been proven, and if not proven then leaves room for creation.

I’ve never felt deceived and I never had a problem grasping the principles taught in any class in college. It didn’t “handicap” me to have religious views.

FlowersFriend said:

DS said: Well then, here is the thing that you need to understand. ALL of the evidence, fossil DNA, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome DNA is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves over the last 200,000 years. NONE of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. If you want to teach children about evolution, that is what you need to teach them.

It is your opinion that none of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. There is no conflict with Biblical teaching if modern humans migrated out of Africa, since we don't know where the ark rested. It could have rested pretty much anywhere. So, I don't see a conflict with that. If there is a conflict that I am unaware of, I'd like to hear it.

FlowersFriend said: It is your opinion that none of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. There is no conflict with Biblical teaching if modern humans migrated out of Africa, since we don't know where the ark rested. It could have rested pretty much anywhere. So, I don't see a conflict with that. If there is a conflict that I am unaware of, I'd like to hear it. I intend to teach them (referring specifically to my own children, because I have no intention of teaching other children, I can only present what I know and understand to other parents....it is up to them to decide what to teach their children) exactly that.....but I also intend to show them that while common descent from apes is what is thought to have happened it has not been proven, and if not proven then leaves room for creation. Well I have to politely disagree. I personally studied Biology textbooks with evolution as the main principle AND was taught about religion by my parents.....I've never felt deceived and I never had a problem grasping the principles taught in any class in college. It didn't "handicap" me to have religious views.

FlowersFriend said: I intend to teach them (referring specifically to my own children, because I have no intention of teaching other children, I can only present what I know and understand to other parents....it is up to them to decide what to teach their children) exactly that.....but I also intend to show them that while common descent from apes is what is thought to have happened it has not been proven, and if not proven then leaves room for creation.

SWT said: FlowersFriend, Given your stated goal, let me recommend three books to you: Kenneth R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" Robert T. Pennock, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism" Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" Miller's book gives an excellent exposition of modern evolutionary theory at a lay person's level. Many think he goes off the rails when he moves in to theology, but the science is well-presented and thought-provoking If you can only read one of these three books, read this one. FYI, Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic. Pennock's book is the most challenging of the three, but it includes some excellent exposition about the nature of science and the role of "naturalism" in scientific method. The "New Creationism" in the title is intelligent design. Pennock is a Quaker. Collins's book is worth a read, but if your time is limited, this is the one I'd skip. Collins was raised as an atheist and became an evangelical Christian later in life. His science is good, but not presented as thoroughly as in Miller's or Pennock's books. I drew heavily on Miller and Pennock when I taught an adult Sunday school series on modern evolutionary theory. In my experience, it is critical to understand the nature of the scientific method and the nature of scientific explanations to teach a class like that, and one of the greatest gifts you can give your students is a clear understanding of what science does and does not involve. Also, if you'd like to see a lot of the scientific evidence for evolution laid out in a single place, check out "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent" on the talk.origins site.

Stuart Weinstein said:

FlowersFriend said:

DS said: Well then, here is the thing that you need to understand. ALL of the evidence, fossil DNA, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome DNA is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves over the last 200,000 years. NONE of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. If you want to teach children about evolution, that is what you need to teach them.

It is your opinion that none of the evidence is consistent with any biblical scenario. There is no conflict with Biblical teaching if modern humans migrated out of Africa, since we don't know where the ark rested. It could have rested pretty much anywhere. So, I don't see a conflict with that. If there is a conflict that I am unaware of, I'd like to hear it.

Except there was never any Noachian deluge either. So let's get to the crux of the matter. Why are you here? Are you attempting to get scientists to back off from teaching macroevolution? Not gonna happen. Your theological conflicts result from attempting to adhere to a 15th century mindset in the 21st century. Millions of your co-religionists have reconciled their beliefs with the 21st century.

I recommended the Collins book principally because he’s closer, I think, to where FF is theologically than either Miller or Pennock (or you!).

Science Avenger said:

FlowersFriend said: You think that suggesting that a Creator "did it" is uninteresting, but have you ever bothered to even consider it? I think there are fascinating ideas with regards to a Creator.

Let's just skip to the end of this dance. There might be fascinating ideas with regards to a creater of the first replicator, but not of the first human being, which a dime to a dollar says is what you are really concerned about. The evidence that human beings evolved from other non-human creatures is overwhelming. Any book that says "a creater did it" is wrong, period. There is no reconciling such a view with modern evolutionary theory.

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: If what you say is true, and there are many different definitions and opinions as to how to determine species and their relationships, then it would be pretty hard to reasonably tell someone they're going about it wrongly (don't understand) unless that person says something that is so radical as to be obviously ridiculous to virtually everyone working on species and their relationships.

Nonsense. The continuum of wrongness of such a subject is not going to be confined to only the obvious end of the scale, but to a more discussion-worthy, nonobvious side as well. As an actuary, I have many techniques available to estimate ultimate claim values, and there are many ways such estimates can be done that any actuary would recognize as "wrong". Some are obviously ridiculous. Many are not. IMO this is a good example of a tendency toward all-or-nothing thinking I've noticed in your posts.

If anyone feel the need to respond to the lying troll, you can do so on the Bathroom Wall. I have made a New Year's resolution not to respond to Kris or IBIGOT anywhere else.

The Bathroom Wall has been cleaned recently. Four hundred pages of IBIGOT filth wiped out in an instant. You have to see it to believe it.

Jim Thomerson said: A major concern in education is teaching critical thinking. Why should we accept one viewpoint over another? Facts are slippery things. A botanist friend showed me an early 1900 botany text book which said that chlorophyll contains iron. Chlorophyll does not contain iron, but why did we think it did back then. In my yard I have a paloverde tree which has been yellow with yellow leaves. I fertilized it with an iron containing compound and it turned green. It turns out that there are iron containing heme groups involved in photosynthesis, and this is where the lack of iron makes for yellow rather than green leaves. One would hope that, back in the day, rather than saying "chlorophyll contains iron. Memorize it because it will be on the test.", the discussion would be about why do we think chlorophyll contains iron. If we understand why we think something is true, then we can modify our thinking as evidence is acquired which challenges our thinking. Science is the study of things we do not completely understand. I've read the statement that geometric optics is completely understood, and therefore no longer part of science. So teaching science as a list of facts is not teaching science. I made the comment early on, which you may not have seen, that I think speciation is all there is to macroevolution, and that the combination of speciation and extinction is the core of the story of life on earth.

Rob said: FlowersFriend, Understanding the age of the Earth is critical to many fields of science including evolutionary biology. There is at least one easily accessible piece of evidence that the Earth is quite old. The continents on both sides of the Atlantic ocean fit together like puzzle pieces (click Google map satellite view) because the Atlantic ocean basin has grown from the splitting of a previous single land mass. The north Atlantic ocean basin is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by many methods to be a steady ~1 inch per year. Recently, even GPS (like a car navigator) has confirmed the current spreading at ~1 inch per year. This slow and continuous rate is consistent with the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge, the thickness of the sediments on the ocean floor, the order and diversity of fossils in the ocean sediments, the radiometric age of the rocks on the ocean floor, the pattern of magnetic reversals recorded on the ocean floor and other lines of evidence.

Kris said: Define the word 'species', and then try to convince me that every scientist/biologist will agree with your definition.

FF, there's a book called THE AGE OF THE EARTH, by G. Brent Dalrymple, which you might find interesting. I see that AGE OF THE EARTH can be purchased from Amazon.com for about $30 in paperback;it looks like you can read it for free at Google Books, and of course it's worth checking your local libraries to see if they've got any copies.

Aargh! Google Books only presents a small part of AGE OF THE EARTH -- just the first few dozen pages. You're better off looking for the real thing, whether from your local libraries or via Amazon.com.

FF wrote:

"In regards to speciation is all there is to macroevolution.….my disagreement would be (and I think this answers another poster’s question) is that I DO think there is a stop mechanism at work. I think it is certainly a fair question to be asked of anyone who believes in creation and speciation.…..where and why does it stop. The where I can’t be certain of (except in the specific cases that I have looked at personally) because no one has considered researching (or maybe they have and I don’t know it?)."

There is no limitation to the number of species that can be produced by speciation. Indeed, there is ample evidence that all known life forms are descended from a single common ancestor. You cannot ignore this evidence and still claim that you are teaching science.

You are perfectly free to teach your children about magic apples and magic floods, but if you try to claim that you are teaching them science you are being fundamentally dishonest. Your children will learn the truth eventually and there will be consequences for such dishonesty.

FlowersFriend said: In regards to speciation is all there is to macroevolution.....my disagreement would be (and I think this answers another poster's question) is that I DO think there is a stop mechanism at work. I think it is certainly a fair question to be asked of anyone who believes in creation and speciation......where and why does it stop. The where I can't be certain of (except in the specific cases that I have looked at personally) because no one has considered researching (or maybe they have and I don't know it?). I've thought a lot about the why and I think you will correct me if there are errors in my logic. My example is fairly simplified, but I it think illustrates what I am trying to get across. I think the stop mechanism (why microevolution doesn't continue on into macroevolution due to speciation) is a combination of negative mutations and in the absence of that natural selection itself. For example, the problem when looking for biological controls on insects and weeds is that you don't find the insect that is the control where you would normally find the insect or weed that is a problem. The reason is that the insect that controls the pest is doing its job, but at the same time, once it has control of the pest, the biological feels pressure on it's own population due to dwindled resources. Of course this sometimes results in a speciation event, where the biological changes resources, but it also can result in an extinction event because the population has been reduced so much. My observations (limited I realize) suggest that there is as much chance for extinction as there is for speciation. Wouldn't that limit the possibility of speciation on an infinite scale?

I twitch whenever I hear or read, "Scientists believe . . . " To my mind, we do not believe, rather we think something may be the best available explanation, or may even be true, and so on.

I think "believe" is so contaminated with faith that it should never accurately describe scientific thinking.

I was raised a Southern Baptist, and spent many hours in Sunday School, Church, Training Union, and Vacation Bible School, so I have some familiarity with fundamentalist Christian thinking. As I understand it, Faith is immutable,not affected by logic or evidence. It is what one believes, and one believes it regardless. There are a fair number of biblical stories which present this point of view.

So, I think if one is a Christian and wants to teach about science, one has to separate one's belief from one's thinking. There are important evolutionary biologists who are also committed Christians. So far as I can tell most of them can separate their unshakable belief from their thinking which changes as the evidence changes.

FlowersFriend said: In regards to speciation is all there is to macroevolution.....my disagreement would be (and I think this answers another poster's question) is that I DO think there is a stop mechanism at work. I think it is certainly a fair question to be asked of anyone who believes in creation and speciation......where and why does it stop. The where I can't be certain of (except in the specific cases that I have looked at personally) because no one has considered researching (or maybe they have and I don't know it?).

I've thought a lot about the why and I think you will correct me if there are errors in my logic. My example is fairly simplified, but I it think illustrates what I am trying to get across. I think the stop mechanism (why microevolution doesn't continue on into macroevolution due to speciation) is a combination of negative mutations and in the absence of that natural selection itself. For example, the problem when looking for biological controls on insects and weeds is that you don't find the insect that is the control where you would normally find the insect or weed that is a problem. The reason is that the insect that controls the pest is doing its job, but at the same time, once it has control of the pest, the biological feels pressure on it's own population due to dwindled resources. Of course this sometimes results in a speciation event, where the biological changes resources, but it also can result in an extinction event because the population has been reduced so much. My observations (limited I realize) suggest that there is as much chance for extinction as there is for speciation. Wouldn't that limit the possibility of speciation on an infinite scale?

FlowersFriend said: For example, the problem when looking for biological controls on insects and weeds is that you don't find the insect that is the control where you would normally find the insect or weed that is a problem. The reason is that the insect that controls the pest is doing its job, but at the same time, once it has control of the pest, the biological feels pressure on it's own population due to dwindled resources. Of course this sometimes results in a speciation event, where the biological changes resources, but it also can result in an extinction event because the population has been reduced so much. My observations (limited I realize) suggest that there is as much chance for extinction as there is for speciation. Wouldn't that limit the possibility of speciation on an infinite scale?

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: Define the word 'species', and then try to convince me that every scientist/biologist will agree with your definition.

No need, no one cares about your semantic jerkfests.

Before I go any further, I want to thank those of you who have answered my questions and directed me to other literature. I'm not ignoring your responses, I just don't have a response when you have answered my questions and I have not had time to review some of the resources that have been offered.

Matt Young said:

I recommended the Collins book principally because he’s closer, I think, to where FF is theologically than either Miller or Pennock (or you!).

Collins is of course closer to FF than to any of the three of us, and his book had some merit. His principal argument, though, was the Moral Argument, and I thought he failed utterly, so I cannot in good faith recommend the book to anyone.

FlowersFriend said:

Matt Young said:

I recommended the Collins book principally because he’s closer, I think, to where FF is theologically than either Miller or Pennock (or you!).

Collins is of course closer to FF than to any of the three of us, and his book had some merit. His principal argument, though, was the Moral Argument, and I thought he failed utterly, so I cannot in good faith recommend the book to anyone.

I haven't looked up Pennock yet and I have already researched Miller (who I have theological problems with). A quick review of Collins indicates that his theology is probably much closer to mine. I will probably read it, but I might read one of the others for balance (probably Matt or Pennock). Thanks for the recommendations.

Jim Thomerson said: I twitch whenever I hear or read, "Scientists believe . . . " To my mind, we do not believe, rather we think something may be the best available explanation, or may even be true, and so on. I think "believe" is so contaminated with faith that it should never accurately describe scientific thinking. I was raised a Southern Baptist, and spent many hours in Sunday School, Church, Training Union, and Vacation Bible School, so I have some familiarity with fundamentalist Christian thinking. As I understand it, Faith is immutable,not affected by logic or evidence. It is what one believes, and one believes it regardless. There are a fair number of biblical stories which present this point of view. So, I think if one is a Christian and wants to teach about science, one has to separate one's belief from one's thinking. There are important evolutionary biologists who are also committed Christians. So far as I can tell most of them can separate their unshakable belief from their thinking which changes as the evidence changes.

Scott F said: Humans are fully chordates. Does being related to all land animals make us not "fully human"? Humans are fully vertebrates. Does being related to turtles and eagles make us not "fully human"? Humans are fully mammals. Does being related to mice and lions make us not "fully human"? Yet somehow being related to apes makes us not "fully human"? At what point in the continuum of the relatedness of humans to all other life do we cease being "fully human"? Saying that we are not fully human because we are related to apes is like saying you are not fully the daughter of your mother and father because you are related to your cousin. The fact that your grandmother had other children who were not your parents, does not mean that you are not descended from your grandmother. The only difference between saying "I am not related to apes" and saying "I am not related to my cousin" is in the number of years and the number of generations of separation.

DS said: FF wrote: "There are requirements for the Redeemer and one of them is that He had to be a kinsman of Adam (read that fully human), so if we are descended from a common ancestor with apes (that was not human) then Jesus was not our Redeemer." Right. That is why you should keep your religion out of science class. Obviously your religious beliefs are contradicted by reality. So, you either have to ignore reality, or simply ignore your religious beliefs in science class. I presume that this is the reason why you want to homeschool your kids in the first place, to keep them from learning such inconvenient facts. If you just want them to learn some religious myths in place of science, no one can stop you. Just don't pretend that you have any intention of ever teaching your kids any real science.

FlowersFriend said: I think by using the phrase "fully human" I may have caused confusion. In the creation account, God created man in His own image (and goes to the trouble to mention creating other groups of organisms so that there is a differentiation). There is just no way around that IMO. Next, Adam sins and God's plan for redemption is put into action, from the very beginning, the plan for redemption required a Man (Jesus) because it was by man that the fall came. So for man to have descended from apes, you have to either suggest that the descent occurred somewhere before the fall of man (on one of the days of creation) or you have to discount that Jesus was a Kinsman Redeemer. Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible.

I have practical concerns, and I don’t take a decision like this lightly. For whatever that’s worth to you.

So for man to have descended from apes, you have to either suggest that the descent occurred somewhere before the fall of man (on one of the days of creation) or you have to discount that Jesus was a Kinsman Redeemer. Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible.

FF wrote:

".….so no, I haven’t decided to homeschool my children because of evolution or any other fear of public education. I have practical concerns, and I don’t take a decision like this lightly. For whatever that’s worth to you."

Actually that's worth an awful lot.

So, it seems that you have a decision to make. Do you want to teach your children science or not? If you read the books that were recommended to you, you will see that it is possible to be religious without denying reality.

If you choose to teach your children science, then do it as honestly and truthfully as you can. Lying to them, or trying to protect them from reality is probably not going to work. Ignoring evidence, or pretending that the evidence isn't good enough to meet some arbitrary burden that you set for certain issues that challenge religious presuppositions is not the way to teach science. Show your kids the evidence, tell them the conclusions of science. If you choose to take on the responsibility of educating your children, you owe them that much.

FlowersFriend said: So, in a way, I don't think it is as different as you would like to think.

DS said:

FlowersFriend said: "Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible."

Exactly. You can interpret the myths any way you want. You can have as much faith as you want. You can trust your own experiences as much as you want. You can believe in whatever kind of god you want. But what you cannot do is take the bible to be literally true about the six days of creation and the flood. That is inconsistent with all of the findings of science. ... If you want to teach your children science, that is what you should teach them. Either that or just admit that you don't want to teach them science and be done with it.

I am Christian because of experiences I have had. By definition, this is subjective. My experiences are not reproducible, they are not subject to authentication by others.

Kind of like reading “The road was a ribbon of moonlight” and deliberately getting tangled up on the possible mechanics by which the moon creates ribbons which can be used as roads!

well, obviously you're not Lunar-theologically educated enough to understand the implications for Lunar worship contained in that revelation!

:P

FlowersFriend said: In the creation account, God created man in His own image (and goes to the trouble to mention creating other groups of organisms so that there is a differentiation). There is just no way around that IMO.

So for man to have descended from apes, you have to either suggest that the descent occurred somewhere before the fall of man (on one of the days of creation) or you have to discount that Jesus was a Kinsman Redeemer. Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible.

SWT said: As it happens, I am both a Christian (ordained and in active service as an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)) and a working scientist -- I tell you this only so that you understand that I have no reason to caricature either side and every reason to want to portray my understanding as accurately as I can. I am Christian because of experiences I have had. By definition, this is subjective. My experiences are not reproducible, they are not subject to authentication by others. Many of my atheist and agnostic co-posters here likely think my interpretation of my subjective, non-reproducible experience is at best a silly but mostly harmless delusion; so be it.

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

Cubist said:

FlowersFriend said: In the creation account, God created man in His own image (and goes to the trouble to mention creating other groups of organisms so that there is a differentiation). There is just no way around that IMO.

If God did indeed create Man in His own image, He did that regardless of what particular process He might have employed to do it. Do you think the "in His image" thing requires that God use some specific process, or not use some specific process, to create Man?
Again: What's the deal -- is everything hunky-dory if Adam is modified dirt, but everything sucks if Adam is a modified ape?

So for man to have descended from apes, you have to either suggest that the descent occurred somewhere before the fall of man (on one of the days of creation) or you have to discount that Jesus was a Kinsman Redeemer. Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible.

And a non-literal view of scripture is of course completely untenable. After all, it's not like Jesus ever spoke in parables or anything...

Dale Husband said:

SWT said: As it happens, I am both a Christian (ordained and in active service as an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)) and a working scientist -- I tell you this only so that you understand that I have no reason to caricature either side and every reason to want to portray my understanding as accurately as I can. I am Christian because of experiences I have had. By definition, this is subjective. My experiences are not reproducible, they are not subject to authentication by others. Many of my atheist and agnostic co-posters here likely think my interpretation of my subjective, non-reproducible experience is at best a silly but mostly harmless delusion; so be it.

I like your attitude. It contrasts so strongly with what I heard an atheist say at PT several months ago.

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

And I have not forgotten it! The idea that it is "evil" to believe something without proof (rather than "mistaken") is an example of hyperbole no rational person should be allowed to get away with. Painting all religions, and all religious people, with the same hateful brush instead of taking them on a case by case basis as I do is BIGOTRY no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. And you, SWT, have shown exactly why.

DNFTT

Kris has been invited to the Bathroom Wall where he belongs. If anyone wants to respond to him, that is the place to do it. I'm sure he doesn't have the guts to show up there, so this is the end for him.

Dale Husband said:

SWT said: As it happens, I am both a Christian (ordained and in active service as an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)) and a working scientist -- I tell you this only so that you understand that I have no reason to caricature either side and every reason to want to portray my understanding as accurately as I can. I am Christian because of experiences I have had. By definition, this is subjective. My experiences are not reproducible, they are not subject to authentication by others. Many of my atheist and agnostic co-posters here likely think my interpretation of my subjective, non-reproducible experience is at best a silly but mostly harmless delusion; so be it.

I like your attitude. It contrasts so strongly with what I heard an atheist say at PT several months ago.

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

And I have not forgotten it! The idea that it is "evil" to believe something without proof (rather than "mistaken") is an example of hyperbole no rational person should be allowed to get away with. Painting all religions, and all religious people, with the same hateful brush instead of taking them on a case by case basis as I do is BIGOTRY no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. And you, SWT, have shown exactly why.

Let us consider speciation and extinction. If we follow Will Hennig's convention that a speciation event produces two new species and causes the extinction of the parent species (never mind that one of the new species may look almost exactly like the parent species.) this gives us an extinction rate of one per every two new species. For example, the unique common ancestor of the human + chimp line speciates. The result is the first species of the human line and the first species of the chimp line, no more unique common ancestor.

Now add in all the extinctions which do not involve speciation and it turns out that 99+% of all species which have ever existed are extinct. Look at all the extinctions in the human lineage, Australopithecus, Neanderthals, etc. with only one living species squeaking through. If one counts success of a lineage as number of living species, the chimps out do us at least two to one (chimps + bonobos, and possibly more than one species of living chimp).

Thanks for the recommendations.

I will, perhaps immodestly, use my own experience as an example.

Jim Thomerson said: Let us consider speciation and extinction. If we follow Will Hennig's convention that a speciation event produces two new species and causes the extinction of the parent species (never mind that one of the new species may look almost exactly like the parent species.) this gives us an extinction rate of one per every two new species. For example, the unique common ancestor of the human + chimp line speciates. The result is the first species of the human line and the first species of the chimp line, no more unique common ancestor. Now add in all the extinctions which do not involve speciation and it turns out that 99+% of all species which have ever existed are extinct. Look at all the extinctions in the human lineage, Australopithecus, Neanderthals, etc. with only one living species squeaking through. If one counts success of a lineage as number of living species, the chimps out do us at least two to one (chimps + bonobos, and possibly more than one species of living chimp).

Malchus said: I think this will help FF clarify her point: if I understand her correctly, she believes that extinction is more likely than speciation. Given extinction rates, this is probably correct.

FlowersFriend said: I've thought a lot about the why and I think you will correct me if there are errors in my logic. My example is fairly simplified, but I it think illustrates what I am trying to get across. I think the stop mechanism (why microevolution doesn't continue on into macroevolution due to speciation) is a combination of negative mutations and in the absence of that natural selection itself. For example, the problem when looking for biological controls on insects and weeds is that you don't find the insect that is the control where you would normally find the insect or weed that is a problem. The reason is that the insect that controls the pest is doing its job, but at the same time, once it has control of the pest, the biological feels pressure on it's own population due to dwindled resources. Of course this sometimes results in a speciation event, where the biological changes resources, but it also can result in an extinction event because the population has been reduced so much. My observations (limited I realize) suggest that there is as much chance for extinction as there is for speciation. Wouldn't that limit the possibility of speciation on an infinite scale?

Malchus said: Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand the bigotry charge. He is condemning them for a decision to accept, on the basis of no evidence, a particular position. This is irrational - though I admit to being guilty of it myself. We do not accept unquestioning acceptance of a position without evidence in other areas of life, why should religion get a pass? Is it bigotry to assess mad people as mad?

As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest. I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

Malchus said:

Dale Husband said:

SWT said: As it happens, I am both a Christian (ordained and in active service as an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)) and a working scientist -- I tell you this only so that you understand that I have no reason to caricature either side and every reason to want to portray my understanding as accurately as I can. I am Christian because of experiences I have had. By definition, this is subjective. My experiences are not reproducible, they are not subject to authentication by others. Many of my atheist and agnostic co-posters here likely think my interpretation of my subjective, non-reproducible experience is at best a silly but mostly harmless delusion; so be it.

I like your attitude. It contrasts so strongly with what I heard an atheist say at PT several months ago.

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

And I have not forgotten it! The idea that it is "evil" to believe something without proof (rather than "mistaken") is an example of hyperbole no rational person should be allowed to get away with. Painting all religions, and all religious people, with the same hateful brush instead of taking them on a case by case basis as I do is BIGOTRY no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. And you, SWT, have shown exactly why.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand the bigotry charge. He is condemning them for a decision to accept, on the basis of no evidence, a particular position. This is irrational - though I admit to being guilty of it myself. We do not accept unquestioning acceptance of a position without evidence in other areas of life, why should religion get a pass? Is it bigotry to assess mad people as mad?

As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest. I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

Sorry for the double post, moderators! Delete the first one please.

Stanton said:

Cubist said:

FlowersFriend said: In the creation account, God created man in His own image (and goes to the trouble to mention creating other groups of organisms so that there is a differentiation). There is just no way around that IMO.

If God did indeed create Man in His own image, He did that regardless of what particular process He might have employed to do it. Do you think the "in His image" thing requires that God use some specific process, or not use some specific process, to create Man?
Again: What's the deal -- is everything hunky-dory if Adam is modified dirt, but everything sucks if Adam is a modified ape?

So for man to have descended from apes, you have to either suggest that the descent occurred somewhere before the fall of man (on one of the days of creation) or you have to discount that Jesus was a Kinsman Redeemer. Either way takes liberty with the scripture and certainly makes a literal view of the scripture impossible.

And a non-literal view of scripture is of course completely untenable. After all, it's not like Jesus ever spoke in parables or anything...

I always failed to understand the logic of why it's so horrible to assume that humans are a species of ape, yet, it's perfectly acceptable to assume that humans are all cursed with death and suffering, partly because they're all unforgivably imperfect, and partly because they're all descended from a pair of incompetent, disobedient ne'erdowells who literally wrecked the Universe even, apparently, beyond God's ability to repair.

Dale Husband said: Just because a position is "irrational" doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. I make a distinction between a harmless belief that can be disproven and a harmful belief that CAN be disproven. Are both to be condemned equally by skeptics?

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: Just because a position is "irrational" doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. I make a distinction between a harmless belief that cannot be disproven and a harmful belief that CAN be disproven. Are both to be condemned equally by skeptics?

It's the process that they condemn, not the results.

FlowersFriend said: Before I go any further, I want to thank those of you who have answered my questions and directed me to other literature. I'm not ignoring your responses, I just don't have a response when you have answered my questions and I have not had time to review some of the resources that have been offered.

Kris said: Here are ...

Malcus wrote:

"I think this will help FF clarify her point: if I understand her correctly, she believes that extinction is more likely than speciation. Given extinction rates, this is probably correct."

You think that that was her point. Well, that would only be problem for macroevolution if all species went extinct. However, the number of species has increased almost continuously for the last three billion years and is now higher than at any time in the past. This, despite the fact that, as Jim correctly pointed out, more than ninety percent of every species that has ever lived has already gone extinct. This despite the fact that there have been at least three mass extinction events some of which killed off nearly eighty percent of all of the species that were alive at the time.

So no, the rate of extinction poses no problem whatsoever to macroevolution. Species continue to evolve, speciation continues to occur and new types of organism are still evolving. Of course some lineages do go extinct, but that poses no real problem to the evolution of new species or new types of organisms.

Currently, human activity is indeed drastically increasing the rate of extinction. In the future, all species may go extinct. But until that happens, evolution continues, even in the face of increasing extinction rates.

Dale Husband said:

Science Avenger said: It's the process that they condemn, not the results.

But I see lots of examples of atheists bashing Christianity, Islam, the Bible, and specific religious dogmas, all results of belief in God.

Jim Thomerson said: Let us consider speciation and extinction. If we follow Will Hennig's convention that a speciation event produces two new species and causes the extinction of the parent species (never mind that one of the new species may look almost exactly like the parent species.) this gives us an extinction rate of one per every two new species. For example, the unique common ancestor of the human + chimp line speciates. The result is the first species of the human line and the first species of the chimp line, no more unique common ancestor. Now add in all the extinctions which do not involve speciation and it turns out that 99+% of all species which have ever existed are extinct. Look at all the extinctions in the human lineage, Australopithecus, Neanderthals, etc. with only one living species squeaking through. If one counts success of a lineage as number of living species, the chimps out do us at least two to one (chimps + bonobos, and possibly more than one species of living chimp).

Kris said: You seem to be operating ...

You seem to be operating on the presumption deduction...

with one word corrected, we can now safely ignore the entire rest of your meaningless drivel.

aren't you bored of being an ignorant ass yet?

DS said: However, the number of species has increased almost continuously for the last three billion years...

....and is now higher than at any time in the past.

DNFTT. This is fun.

Kris said: You can't possibly know that either.

mrg said:

Kris said: You can't possibly know that either.

DNFTT

Rob said: DNFTT. This is fun.

mrg said:

Rob said: DNFTT. This is fun.

"Join the TROLL PATROL today!" Some suggested guidelines: 1: Only nail trolls for whom there is a general consensus that they're trolls. Casual trolls aren't really worth the ammo. 2: Do not DNFTT any Panda who FTTs. Trolls want the targets to fight among themselves. But any response a troll makes to FTTs are fair game. 3: If a troll replies to a DNFTT, ignore him. By responding to the DNFTT, you have derailed the troll.

Mike Elzinga said: The TROLL PATROL is on a roll.

Ichthyic said: You seem to be operating on the presumption deduction... with one word corrected, we can now safely ignore the entire rest of your meaningless drivel. aren't you bored of being an ignorant ass yet?

mrg said:

Rob said: DNFTT. This is fun.

"Join the TROLL PATROL today!" Some suggested guidelines: 1: Only nail trolls for whom there is a general consensus that they're trolls. Casual trolls aren't really worth the ammo. 2: Do not DNFTT any Panda who FTTs. Trolls want the targets to fight among themselves. But any response a troll makes to FTTs are fair game. 3: If a troll replies to a DNFTT, ignore him. By responding to the DNFTT, you have derailed the troll.

Dale Husband said: Many theists, including a Christian blogger I know, admit to the baselessness of their positions, and by doing that they earn my respect for their honesty. Specifically, that Christian said to me:

As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest. I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

So I won my point with him.....not to convert him to atheism, but to show him that Christianity is not the ultimate source of spiritual truth in the world and that atheism is indeed credible.

There is a difference between faith, which is believing in something that has not been disproven, and stupidity, which is believing something that has not only been disproven, but is IMPOSSIBLE to be true. I know [the Christian] to be a man of faith. You, [the Mormon], are a man of profound STUPIDITY!

Kris said: What's the matter ...

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: The TROLL PATROL is on a roll.

Feel free to join in, Mike. You don't have to do it more than casually -- if about a half-dozen Pandas play at it, that should provide 90%+ coverage.

Mike Elzinga said: This Kris troll is sufficiently well profiled so that it is no longer in any need of replies.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: This Kris troll is sufficiently well profiled so that it is no longer in any need of replies.

Yes, but that's why it's nice to remind people of that -- it's not a message to the troll. I figure it should cut responses about in half.

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said: Many theists, including a Christian blogger I know, admit to the baselessness of their positions, and by doing that they earn my respect for their honesty. Specifically, that Christian said to me:

As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest. I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

So I won my point with him.....not to convert him to atheism, but to show him that Christianity is not the ultimate source of spiritual truth in the world and that atheism is indeed credible.

Incidentally, that Christian (ex-Seventh Day Adventist, to be more precise) later teamed up with me to argue against a Mormon. We both tore the Mormon's claims apart, while never attacking each other. One wonders if the Mormon and the Christian could have joined forces to attack me first (as they DO have more in common with each other than with me, a non-theist), but I already defused that possibility by treating the Christian with respect prior to the battle. I even said at one point in the debate:

There is a difference between faith, which is believing in something that has not been disproven, and stupidity, which is believing something that has not only been disproven, but is IMPOSSIBLE to be true. I know [the Christian] to be a man of faith. You, [the Mormon], are a man of profound STUPIDITY!

Which pretty much disqualifies my from the New Atheist club, I'm sure. But I never sought to join it.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: This Kris troll is sufficiently well profiled so that it is no longer in any need of replies.

Yes, but that's why it's nice to remind people of that -- it's not a message to the troll. I figure it should cut responses about in half.

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

Kris said: "With a ... "

Mike Elzinga said: And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here. No doubt PT will continue to get ID/creationist supporters who will come here to try out their latest take-downs of "evolutionism" and "naturalism;"; but it is unlikely they will have anything new, judging from what we are seeing over at AiG, the ICR and the DI. The crap there is just getting worse with time.

Kris said: Everyone blindly ...

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here. No doubt PT will continue to get ID/creationist supporters who will come here to try out their latest take-downs of "evolutionism" and "naturalism;"; but it is unlikely they will have anything new, judging from what we are seeing over at AiG, the ICR and the DI. The crap there is just getting worse with time.

If they want "intelligent exchanges" here, and not just obsessive, compulsive, one-sided, insanely hateful ID/creation bashing here, they're going to have to delete 99+ percent of what's already on this site, re-think the entire purpose of this site, AND get permanently rid of you and any other 'regulars' along with the part-time ID/creation bashers. Everyone blindly, obediently, and obsessively being on one side is not an 'intelligent exchange' Mike. It's gang mentality.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here.

PT's moderation is ... be tactful here ... inconsistent. Not like Phil Plait, whose tolerance of fools is short -- they don't call him the "Bad Astronomer" for nothing.

Mike Elzinga said: Does he have as many and as wide a range of topics, with different moderators, over there?

phantomreader42 said: *SNIP*

SW, I would suggest only dinging the trolls. If we ding Pandas for FTTs we fight among ourselves, which is what the trolls want. Now if the troll responds to PR42, we can ding the troll again as a reminder to anyone thinking of FTT.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here. No doubt PT will continue to get ID/creationist supporters who will come here to try out their latest take-downs of "evolutionism" and "naturalism;"; but it is unlikely they will have anything new, judging from what we are seeing over at AiG, the ICR and the DI. The crap there is just getting worse with time.

If they want "intelligent exchanges" here, and not just obsessive, compulsive, one-sided, insanely hateful ID/creation bashing here, they're going to have to delete 99+ percent of what's already on this site, re-think the entire purpose of this site, AND get permanently rid of you and any other 'regulars' along with the part-time ID/creation bashers. Everyone blindly, obediently, and obsessively being on one side is not an 'intelligent exchange' Mike. It's gang mentality.

Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Does he have as many and as wide a range of topics, with different moderators, over there?

Nope, which is why he can play dictator more successfully. And he admits it. I actually haven't been over to the BABB blog in a long time, but if I have a nitty-gritty astronomy question I can get a great answer there. "But you mind your manners!"

Mike Elzinga said: But I don’t see how PT can narrow its topics as long as ID/creationists continue to pretend to be “universal scientists” in their attacks on every area of science.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: But I don’t see how PT can narrow its topics as long as ID/creationists continue to pretend to be “universal scientists” in their attacks on every area of science.

Eh, PT has never policed trolls very well and I have no expectation that they ever will. It's a shrug. But there are things that can be done.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Does he have as many and as wide a range of topics, with different moderators, over there?

Nope, which is why he can play dictator more successfully. And he admits it. I actually haven't been over to the BABB blog in a long time, but if I have a nitty-gritty astronomy question I can get a great answer there. "But you mind your manners!"

Yeah; it is definitely harder here at PT. But I don’t see how PT can narrow its topics as long as ID/creationists continue to pretend to be “universal scientists” in their attacks on every area of science. Those characters don’t appear to be going away anytime soon; and the second the spotlight is off them, they are provoking mischief again. It’s their history; and they are still at it in my community (where “Gish’s people” still reside). There are few sites that keep the spotlight on ID/creationist tactics as well as this one; the NCSE and the Sensuous Curmudgeon being a couple of the others that immediately come to mind. So it would not be good to have PT taken down by a few persistent trolls.

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here. No doubt PT will continue to get ID/creationist supporters who will come here to try out their latest take-downs of "evolutionism" and "naturalism;"; but it is unlikely they will have anything new, judging from what we are seeing over at AiG, the ICR and the DI. The crap there is just getting worse with time.

If they want "intelligent exchanges" here, and not just obsessive, compulsive, one-sided, insanely hateful ID/creation bashing here, they're going to have to delete 99+ percent of what's already on this site, re-think the entire purpose of this site, AND get permanently rid of you and any other 'regulars' along with the part-time ID/creation bashers. Everyone blindly, obediently, and obsessively being on one side is not an 'intelligent exchange' Mike. It's gang mentality.

Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too.

What does the Holocaust have to do with anything I've said?? Do you actually believe that your imagined level of persecution by some creationists is comparable to the persecution of the Holocaust victims?

Jim Thomerson said: Let us consider speciation and extinction. If we follow Will Hennig's convention that a speciation event produces two new species and causes the extinction of the parent species (never mind that one of the new species may look almost exactly like the parent species.) this gives us an extinction rate of one per every two new species. For example, the unique common ancestor of the human + chimp line speciates. The result is the first species of the human line and the first species of the chimp line, no more unique common ancestor. Now add in all the extinctions which do not involve speciation and it turns out that 99+% of all species which have ever existed are extinct. Look at all the extinctions in the human lineage, Australopithecus, Neanderthals, etc. with only one living species squeaking through. If one counts success of a lineage as number of living species, the chimps out do us at least two to one (chimps + bonobos, and possibly more than one species of living chimp).

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens. The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down. The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless. Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species. The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs. I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

Kris said: If you're not....

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too. You whine about how “both sides” deserve respect (while only supporting the creationists). Of course, you don’t actually believe that, it’s just a transparent “teach the controversy” gambit that you apply solely to evolution. If you REALLY thought that “both sides” deserve to be treated equally, you’d be promoting other “controversies” like alchemy, Holocaust denial, Thetans, and the notion that flouridation of water is a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. But we know you don’t actually believe a word you say. You’re just a brain-dead lying creationist troll. So go fuck yourself.

If you’re not a theist or a christian, why do you argue your interpretation of bible scripture on your blog? Why do you even care what the bible says or how it’s interpreted? And who made you the only correct interpreter? You do know, don’t you, that there are many versions and interpretations of the bible? And since much or most of what’s in the bible is bunk anyway, why does it matter how it’s interpreted? Are you also nitpickingly concerned with how Dr. Seuss books are interpreted?

Jim Thomerson said: If one counts success of a lineage as number of living species, the chimps out do us at least two to one (chimps + bonobos, and possibly more than one species of living chimp).

Kris said: *SNIP*

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Half. I'll name no names but there are some Pandas -- one will come immediately to EVERYONE's mind -- who feel a sacred obligation to snap at the bait.

And this is where the moderators need to be on the job if they want intelligent exchanges taking place here. No doubt PT will continue to get ID/creationist supporters who will come here to try out their latest take-downs of "evolutionism" and "naturalism;"; but it is unlikely they will have anything new, judging from what we are seeing over at AiG, the ICR and the DI. The crap there is just getting worse with time.

If they want "intelligent exchanges" here, and not just obsessive, compulsive, one-sided, insanely hateful ID/creation bashing here, they're going to have to delete 99+ percent of what's already on this site, re-think the entire purpose of this site, AND get permanently rid of you and any other 'regulars' along with the part-time ID/creation bashers. Everyone blindly, obediently, and obsessively being on one side is not an 'intelligent exchange' Mike. It's gang mentality.

Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too.

What does the Holocaust have to do with anything I've said?? Do you actually believe that your imagined level of persecution by some creationists is comparable to the persecution of the Holocaust victims?

You whine about how "both sides" deserve respect (while only supporting the creationists). Of course, you don't actually believe that, it's just a transparent "teach the controversy" gambit that you apply solely to evolution. If you REALLY thought that "both sides" deserve to be treated equally, you'd be promoting other "controversies" like alchemy, Holocaust denial, Thetans, and the notion that flouridation of water is a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. But we know you don't actually believe a word you say. You're just a brain-dead lying creationist troll. So go fuck yourself.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too. You whine about how “both sides” deserve respect (while only supporting the creationists). Of course, you don’t actually believe that, it’s just a transparent “teach the controversy” gambit that you apply solely to evolution. If you REALLY thought that “both sides” deserve to be treated equally, you’d be promoting other “controversies” like alchemy, Holocaust denial, Thetans, and the notion that flouridation of water is a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. But we know you don’t actually believe a word you say. You’re just a brain-dead lying creationist troll. So go fuck yourself.

No matter what you say, the troll will simply take it and throw it back at you in pathological hatred, so you might as well say nothing directly to him. See this for an example of his crap:

If you’re not a theist or a christian, why do you argue your interpretation of bible scripture on your blog? Why do you even care what the bible says or how it’s interpreted? And who made you the only correct interpreter? You do know, don’t you, that there are many versions and interpretations of the bible? And since much or most of what’s in the bible is bunk anyway, why does it matter how it’s interpreted? Are you also nitpickingly concerned with how Dr. Seuss books are interpreted?

The argument that non-theists have no business talking about how they view the Bible shows the @$$hole's bigotry against us. So, like you, I say he can go fuck himself.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Comment a while back about a small amount of introgression of Neanderthal genes into one bunch of modern humans and the same with Denisovian genes into another. However, so far as I know, there are no people around today with predominately Neanderthal or Denisovian genes. Because there was some gene exchange between them and modern humans, I wonder of we drove the Neanderthals and Denisovians to extinction by hybrid swamping. I haven't seen anything about that possibility.

The difficulty lies in determining the various Neanderthal, etc. Extinction events. We simply don't have enough data. We are also not entirely clear how localized the other human variants were.

By the way Dale, since fossils can't breed among themselves and the species names applied to them are "entirely arbitrary", then what does that say about the veracity of the theory of evolution, in your opinion? You do know, don't you, that the ToE is based on evolution, which requires speciation. If species are indeterminable in extinct (fossil) organisms, then how, in your opinion, can evolution possibly be observed or verified except with extant species that are allegedly undergoing speciation/evolution?

Kris said: You and many others here are full of pathological hatred. You also like to throw the word "bigot' around but you're one of the most obvious and flagrant bigots I've ever come across, and a MASSIVE hypocrite to boot. Hey, I see you learned how to spell the word 'fuck'. Congratulations!

Kris said: *SNIP*

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so "Kris" now admits to being a Holocaust denier too. You whine about how “both sides” deserve respect (while only supporting the creationists). Of course, you don’t actually believe that, it’s just a transparent “teach the controversy” gambit that you apply solely to evolution. If you REALLY thought that “both sides” deserve to be treated equally, you’d be promoting other “controversies” like alchemy, Holocaust denial, Thetans, and the notion that flouridation of water is a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. But we know you don’t actually believe a word you say. You’re just a brain-dead lying creationist troll. So go fuck yourself.

No matter what you say, the troll will simply take it and throw it back at you in pathological hatred, so you might as well say nothing directly to him. See this for an example of his crap:

If you’re not a theist or a christian, why do you argue your interpretation of bible scripture on your blog? Why do you even care what the bible says or how it’s interpreted? And who made you the only correct interpreter? You do know, don’t you, that there are many versions and interpretations of the bible? And since much or most of what’s in the bible is bunk anyway, why does it matter how it’s interpreted? Are you also nitpickingly concerned with how Dr. Seuss books are interpreted?

The argument that non-theists have no business talking about how they view the Bible shows the @$$hole's bigotry against us. So, like you, I say he can go fuck himself.

DS said: Actually that's worth an awful lot. So, it seems that you have a decision to make. Do you want to teach your children science or not? If you read the books that were recommended to you, you will see that it is possible to be religious without denying reality. If you choose to teach your children science, then do it as honestly and truthfully as you can. Lying to them, or trying to protect them from reality is probably not going to work. Ignoring evidence, or pretending that the evidence isn't good enough to meet some arbitrary burden that you set for certain issues that challenge religious presuppositions is not the way to teach science. Show your kids the evidence, tell them the conclusions of science. If you choose to take on the responsibility of educating your children, you owe them that much.

I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

John Kwok said: Different year, same tune (YAWN!!!!):

Kris said: You and many others here are full of pathological hatred. You also like to throw the word "bigot' around but you're one of the most obvious and flagrant bigots I've ever come across, and a MASSIVE hypocrite to boot. Hey, I see you learned how to spell the word 'fuck'. Congratulations!

Think you are in some dire need of psychological counseling my poor dear "puppy", and not only for your science denialism. Since I have an uncle who is a Holocaust survivor (Family lore has it he survived World War II in hiding in Amsterdam.), I find your comments regarding the Holocaust to be most offensive and disturbing.

flowersfriend said: I have never suggested that I intend to ignore the evidence.....that is why I am here, to get my facts straight. I fully intend to tell them what conclusions science makes.....I'm not going to leave that out, nor am I going to disparage or "debunk" common descent. That is not my goal. I am asking honest questions that I personally have and on the side I am responding to a little debate (because I can't help myself), please don't confuse that with the mission that I am actually on. On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

flowersfriend said: On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

flowersfriend said:

DS said: Actually that's worth an awful lot. So, it seems that you have a decision to make. Do you want to teach your children science or not? If you read the books that were recommended to you, you will see that it is possible to be religious without denying reality. If you choose to teach your children science, then do it as honestly and truthfully as you can. Lying to them, or trying to protect them from reality is probably not going to work. Ignoring evidence, or pretending that the evidence isn't good enough to meet some arbitrary burden that you set for certain issues that challenge religious presuppositions is not the way to teach science. Show your kids the evidence, tell them the conclusions of science. If you choose to take on the responsibility of educating your children, you owe them that much.

I have never suggested that I intend to ignore the evidence.....that is why I am here, to get my facts straight. I fully intend to tell them what conclusions science makes.....I'm not going to leave that out, nor am I going to disparage or "debunk" common descent. That is not my goal. I am asking honest questions that I personally have and on the side I am responding to a little debate (because I can't help myself), please don't confuse that with the mission that I am actually on. On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

flowersfriend said: I have never suggested that I intend to ignore the evidence.....that is why I am here, to get my facts straight. I fully intend to tell them what conclusions science makes.....I'm not going to leave that out, nor am I going to disparage or "debunk" common descent. That is not my goal. I am asking honest questions that I personally have and on the side I am responding to a little debate (because I can't help myself), please don't confuse that with the mission that I am actually on. On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

If your true self is indeed Christian, then it is incumbent on you to be the best Christian you can be. You fail to do that if you ignore what science discovers, since science is ultimately the study of the universe God supposedly created. That's more important than any myth thousands of years old that was written in God's name.

Why does “spirituality” have to include the fairy tales in the bible, like Noah’s Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, 6,000 year old Earth, etc.? Ya see, that’s where most of the disagreement is between science and Christianity. Does the belief in a god/creator have to include the trappings of a prescribed ‘religion’?

FF:

If you are interested in learning about macroevolution, the Talk Origins web site has a great entry:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

My favorite is Part 4, number 5. It is strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution. This is evidence that cannot be explained by common design or any type of intelligent design. I would encourage you to become familiar with this evidence. Obviously, not all of this material is appropriate for grade school children.

Dear FF,

I don't know if it's been addressed in this thread, but I also wanted to try to clear up a common misconception. In general (*), mutations do not happen in response to stress on a species, and so cause a speciation event. In fact, in most cases there isn't a single speciation "event", as such.

Instead, mutations happen all the time, from one generation to the next. Over time, a given species will acquire a bunch of different kinds of mutations, broadening the range of what is considered "normal" for that species. Then later, when a stress is put on the species (or typically on an isolated subset of that species), some members of the species with a particular set of existing mutations will respond more favorably to the stress (or maybe simply be in just the right place at the right time (eg on high ground during a flood, or in their burrows during a volcanic explosion)), the rest of the existing species won't, and this small subset will be the nucleus of a new group with a set (or distribution) of mutations that is distinctly different than found in the "parent" population. Still mostly the same species as the parent population, but subtly different. Over time, after several such events, we end up with something that we would recognize as a truly new species.

(*) My limited understanding is that some species do have a higher "evolvability", and do indeed respond to environmental stress by acquiring more mutations than is typical in unstressed times. However, IIRC, this is not the typical response of most species. (I'm no biologist, so I could be wrong about those details.)

Best of luck in your search for information for your kids.

(FYI, my wife home schooled our son through high school, and has lots of information if you are interested. There are lots of resources for home schoolers out there, with a wide range of spiritual perspectives.)

Dale Husband said: flowersfriend, I would strongly advise you to ignore everything Kris says, since we have established that he has no interest in any sort of productive dialogue with anyone. Note that I said:

If your true self is indeed Christian, then it is incumbent on you to be the best Christian you can be. You fail to do that if you ignore what science discovers, since science is ultimately the study of the universe God supposedly created. That's more important than any myth thousands of years old that was written in God's name.

But Kris, who bitterly attacks us for not tolerant enough (by his standards) of Creationism, went after you by saying:

Why does “spirituality” have to include the fairy tales in the bible, like Noah’s Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, 6,000 year old Earth, etc.? Ya see, that’s where most of the disagreement is between science and Christianity. Does the belief in a god/creator have to include the trappings of a prescribed ‘religion’?

Do not fall for his trap! Do Not Feed The Troll!

DNFTT

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and drop dead you psycho moron. Why should anyone listen to a raging, hypocritical idiot like you who mixes parts of whatever belief systems you can find into whatever it is that you believe in for the next 30 seconds? You can't even make up your delusional mind from minute to minute.

flowersfriend said: On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

Dale Husband said: See what I mean, flowersfriend? We respect your comments even if we disagree, as long as you respect us. Kris doesn't respect anyone and never has since he first showed up here before Christmas. Look at other blog entries this troll has invaded to see what he has done. We tried reasoning with him, arguing with him and even insulting him when he kept up the attacks, but he keeps coming back for more. Normal personalities don't operate like that. So finally some of us have taken to shunning him completely. You do what you like, but I'm done with Kris for good.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and drop dead you psycho moron. Why should anyone listen to a raging, hypocritical idiot like you who mixes parts of whatever belief systems you can find into whatever it is that you believe in for the next 30 seconds? You can't even make up your delusional mind from minute to minute.

flowersfriend said: On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

By church affiliation: I am a Unitarian Universalist. By theological perspective, I am agnostic. And by philosophical leaning, I am an Honorable Skeptic. I made up my own philosophy (which is derived from the scientific skepticism advocated by Carl Sagan blended with the Japanese concept of bushido and the liberal politics of Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and others of the Democratic party in the United States) to free me from being led down a false path by others. If your true self is indeed Christian, then it is incumbent on you to be the best Christian you can be. You fail to do that if you ignore what science discovers, since science is ultimately the study of the universe God supposedly created. That’s more important than any myth thousands of years old that was written in God’s name.

flowersfriend said: I have never suggested that I intend to ignore the evidence.....that is why I am here, to get my facts straight. I fully intend to tell them what conclusions science makes.....I'm not going to leave that out, nor am I going to disparage or "debunk" common descent. That is not my goal. I am asking honest questions that I personally have and on the side I am responding to a little debate (because I can't help myself), please don't confuse that with the mission that I am actually on. On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

Dale Husband said: See what I mean, flowersfriend? We respect your comments even if we disagree, as long as you respect us. Kris doesn't respect anyone and never has since he first showed up here before Christmas. Look at other blog entries this troll has invaded to see what he has done. We tried reasoning with him, arguing with him and even insulting him when he kept up the attacks, but he keeps coming back for more. Normal personalities don't operate like that. So finally some of us have taken to shunning him completely. You do what you like, but I'm done with Kris for good.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and drop dead you psycho moron. Why should anyone listen to a raging, hypocritical idiot like you who mixes parts of whatever belief systems you can find into whatever it is that you believe in for the next 30 seconds? You can't even make up your delusional mind from minute to minute.

flowersfriend said: On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

By church affiliation: I am a Unitarian Universalist. By theological perspective, I am agnostic. And by philosophical leaning, I am an Honorable Skeptic. I made up my own philosophy (which is derived from the scientific skepticism advocated by Carl Sagan blended with the Japanese concept of bushido and the liberal politics of Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and others of the Democratic party in the United States) to free me from being led down a false path by others. If your true self is indeed Christian, then it is incumbent on you to be the best Christian you can be. You fail to do that if you ignore what science discovers, since science is ultimately the study of the universe God supposedly created. That’s more important than any myth thousands of years old that was written in God’s name.

DNFTT

DNFTT

A double post. My apologies. But I do notice that Kris is providing precise, confirming evidence that Dale is correct in his assessment. It appears to be a firm and undeniable characteristic of trolls that they lie.

I will pray for him; he is in need of God's redemption.

Malchus said: A double post. My apologies.

Malchus said: A double post. My apologies. But I do notice that Kris is providing precise, confirming evidence that Dale is correct in his assessment. It appears to be a firm and undeniable characteristic of trolls that they lie. I will pray for him; he is in need of God's redemption.

Mike Elzinga said:

flowersfriend said: I have never suggested that I intend to ignore the evidence.....that is why I am here, to get my facts straight. I fully intend to tell them what conclusions science makes.....I'm not going to leave that out, nor am I going to disparage or "debunk" common descent. That is not my goal. I am asking honest questions that I personally have and on the side I am responding to a little debate (because I can't help myself), please don't confuse that with the mission that I am actually on. On the flip side of that coin. I am a deeply spiritual person, there is nothing that will change that. I am not this way because "my parents said so"....I have very real, personal experiences that make it impossible to be otherwise. I would be amiss in not sharing that with my children as well, especially since it is what makes me a content and happy person. To do otherwise would be insincere and dishonest.

You may already know this; but just in case, be especially careful to teach concepts and not just words and definitions. The ID/creationist websites (for example, Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and the Institute for Creation Research) dispense grotesquely mangled science. Avoid them; they will only confuse and mislead. The history of this goes back into the 1960s; and a number of us have been tracking it for decades (I guess one could say we were in the “wrong place at the wrong time” because we happened to be the default persons in our communities that people turned to for answers). Every area of science is mangled in ID/creationist literature; all of it consciously done in the face of repeated attempts by the science community over the years to get Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and the rest of these pushers of pseudo-science to correct the misinformation and mischaracterizations they were promulgating. The real science is far more interesting and inspiring whether or not one is spiritual. How you integrate this with your own spirituality is a task only you can do for yourself. But however you do it, you will find the journey interesting and exciting. Compared to the real science, the stuff you find coming from the ID/creationist sources is depressing and just plain wrong.

Kris said: Why don't you just shut the fuck up and drop dead you psycho moron. Why should anyone listen to a raging, hypocritical idiot like you who mixes parts of whatever belief systems you can find into whatever it is that you believe in for the next 30 seconds? You can't even make up your delusional mind from minute to minute.

I agree completely with the links and other comments offered by DS, Mike Elzinga and Malchus. I would also point out
that the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has excellent introductory material on evolution:

http://ncse.com/evolution

I also highly recommend the University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology's website (which is the best, most comprehensive, online resource I know on biological evolution and the history and philosophy of science pertaining to it):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

I can also recommend as an excellent introduction to Charles Darwin's life and work and the importance that his ideas still have for modern biology, the American Museum of Natural History's Darwin exhibition website:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/

Kris doesn’t respect anyone and never has since he first showed up here before Christmas. Look at other blog entries this troll has invaded to see what he has done. We tried reasoning with him, arguing with him and even insulting him when he kept up the attacks, but he keeps coming back for more.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

Dale Husband said: In his last comment thrown at me, Kris completely ignored what I specifically said, so I'll repeat the parts he overlooked ...

Mike Elzinga said: The real science is far more interesting and inspiring whether or not one is spiritual. How you integrate this with your own spirituality is a task only you can do for yourself. But however you do it, you will find the journey interesting and exciting. Compared to the real science, the stuff you find coming from the ID/creationist sources is depressing and just plain wrong.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: In his last comment thrown at me, Kris completely ignored what I specifically said, so I'll repeat the parts he overlooked ...

Hmm. Maybe we could ALL respond with insults and abuse. If that's what you're after, we might as well oblige.

flowersfriend said: I want to draw my own conclusions and go from there, testing my ideas for both scientific and theological accuracy. Luckily, my oldest if four, so I have some time and the presentation I've been asked to compile for other mothers has no time limit (just whenever I get it done). I can see now why I had to prove my sincerity. I hope I continue to do so. I know many of you are busy professionals and I appreciate the time you've taken with me.

Malchus said: And always try to use concrete examples; the value of real-world examples, carefully broken down, cannot be overestimated. Particularly with children, the ability to see for themselves how the science works, and why it works are crucial educational tools.

flowersfriend said:

Malchus said: And always try to use concrete examples; the value of real-world examples, carefully broken down, cannot be overestimated. Particularly with children, the ability to see for themselves how the science works, and why it works are crucial educational tools.

Hence my inquiry into specific, documented, speciation. I want this information first to show other parents that speciation is real and documented (most Christians freeze and grow silent when I tell them this, until I explain). Then I want it to show my kids. We live in the country, so I have every intention of setting up specific experiments in the field (since it's literally our back yard) that hopefully will grow more sophisticated as my children get older. The only thing that might get hard is lab experiments when they get older, but I will cross that bridge when we get there.

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn't deserve anything more.

flowersfriend said: Hence my inquiry into specific, documented, speciation. I want this information first to show other parents that speciation is real and documented (most Christians freeze and grow silent when I tell them this, until I explain). Then I want it to show my kids. We live in the country, so I have every intention of setting up specific experiments in the field (since it's literally our back yard) that hopefully will grow more sophisticated as my children get older. The only thing that might get hard is lab experiments when they get older, but I will cross that bridge when we get there.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn't deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

DS said: Well he is free to invite it on the Bathroom Wall. It seems inappropriate in a thread where a fundamentalist is actually asking for help in teaching evolution.

Kris the pathological liar said: phantomreader42 brought up the Holocaust (for some strange reason) and apparently thinks that he is being persecuted by creationists as much as Jews were by the Nazis. Jews actually were persecuted, imprisoned, and slaughtered, in massive numbers. Poor little phantomreader42 doesn't even know what persecution is, compared to what Jews received during the Holocaust, if he thinks that creationists are persecuting him in a comparable way. If that's not what he thinks, then I can't imagine why he brought up the Holocaust in the first place. Maybe he's just a nutcase who's looking for a fight by moving the goalposts a few thousand miles. Maybe he's just a nutcase period. I'll go with the latter, and the former, but not necessarily in that order.

This site has a nice discussion of the Darwin's "Origin of Species" if you don't want to spend the time to read it in hardcopy. http://scienceblogs.com/bloggingtheorigin/

As a professional taxonomist/systematist, I go twitch whenever someone presents THE species definition. I read a while back that there were 26 in active use. Given the rapid progress of science, surely the number is over 30 by now.LOL Given the diversity of life, I think the search for a Procrustean, authoritative definition, equally useful for all groups, is futile.

When I describe a new species, I use all the information that I can accumulate. It may be just counts and measurements on dead fish in a museum jar, or I may have information on ecology, distribution, hybridization (or not), breeding behavior, food habits, DNA, etc, etc.

When I describe a species, I designate one individual specimen at the Type. This is the name bearer, and is not necessarily average or outstanding, complete, or well preserved. Ideally the description is based on a series of individuals and gives some idea of variation in the species. These individuals are paratypes. I've never described a species based on a single specimen, but would do so under circumstances where I was sure of my ground.

Although I am describing the species only on the material at hand (jar of dead fish, for example), I am naming all populations of the species, in all places and in all times from its origin to its extinction.

This is still true if I were describing a new species based on a single fossil tooth. The concern that fossils cannot interbreed neglects what they did while alive. Recognition of fossil species is indeed more difficult than recognizing living species, just because less information is available.

Jim Thomerson said: This site has a nice discussion of the Darwin's "Origin of Species" if you don't want to spend the time to read it in hardcopy. http://scienceblogs.com/bloggingtheorigin/

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn't deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

Mike Elzinga said: One should not feed it anything; not even by responding to its taunts indirectly in comments to anyone else.

flowersfriend said: I'm wondering if anyone could direct me to literature that highlights speciation events. I need it to be unambiguous, modern (not fossils) and preferably with larger organisms like birds. Plants would be ok too...but animals would be better. Now that I think about it, something in a lab would be good too....insects or bacteria maybe?

Mike Elzinga said: "Ah; but the troll feeds on emotions ..."

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/natural_selection_and_macroevo.php

This blog is mostly really neat pictures graphs, explanations, and stuff about cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, Quantum Theory etc. The link is to a nicely done presentation on coevolution of lizards and food plants. However, it is not (yet) an example of macroevolution, because it is not clear that speciation has occurred. Speciation may happen or it may not. We will just have to wait and see.

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said: "Ah; but the troll feeds on emotions ..."

Like a vampire bat sucks blood. They provoke and taunt, most unchristianlike.

"There is no explanation for the nested hierarchy of life other than common descent."

Just as there is no explanation for the the fossil record in its entirety other than common descent.

John Vanko said: "There is no explanation for the nested hierarchy of life other than common descent." Just as there is no explanation for the the fossil record in its entirety other than common descent.

John Vanko said: "There is no explanation for the nested hierarchy of life other than common descent." Just as there is no explanation for the the fossil record in its entirety other than common descent.

flowersfriend said: I can see now why I had to prove my sincerity. I hope I continue to do so. I know many of you are busy professionals and I appreciate the time you've taken with me.

Dale Husband said: In his last comment thrown at me, Kris completely ignored what I specifically said, so I'll repeat the parts he overlooked:

Kris doesn’t respect anyone and never has since he first showed up here before Christmas. Look at other blog entries this troll has invaded to see what he has done. We tried reasoning with him, arguing with him and even insulting him when he kept up the attacks, but he keeps coming back for more.

Can he show examples of him respecting others? Why would I suggest that flowersfriend look at previous blog entries here if I was not sure the evidence was stacked against him? Note that I specifically said that Kris slowly escalated the situation over time. He wasn't always so abusive, but he is now. How does that make him our innocent victim? I admit to slamming Kris a lot, but I finally figured out that he thrives on that. And Kris tries to cover his @$$ by saying:

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

Bull$#it. It's BECAUSE she has been nice the whole time that the attacks on her have been limited. It's not a matter of gender. In fact, when I first saw Kris here, I thought perhaps he was a woman because of his name, which looks feminine. I went after him anyway. I'd go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.

DNFTT

Q.E.D.

DNFTT

ID is, in any event, not an argument about a testable mechanism; it's an argument about intent. Dog-breeding is intelligent design, in that light, but that's nit what the IS folks are claiming. The are trying to claim MECHANISM. It has been a dead issue since Hume; currently serving as convenient "air-cover" for creationism.

One excellent point that Mike makes is that mechanism can be easily examined by children, and intelligent inferences can be drawn from that.

I apologize for the typos; I'm working on grading at the same time.

mrg said: "Well, I suppose Design could explain a clade diagram ..."

John Vanko said: But a single act of special creation cannot explain the fossil record.

Malchus said: DNFTT

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D. DNFTT

Kris said: *SNIP*

You and others write posts that say DNFTT but then you and others write other posts with insulting remarks aimed at me.

awww, is poor diddums confused?

You and others sure do like to play childish games, don’t you?

project much?

IC, if you must respond ... why not the Bathroom Wall?

If there's a reason why not, just say so -- you don't even need to say what it is -- and I won't suggest it again.

mrg said: Yes it can ... Omphalos creationism.

John Vanko said: Stop giving them ideas ;-)

Do trolls have more fun than Pandas?

Nah!

mrg said: IC, if you must respond ... why not the Bathroom Wall? If there's a reason why not, just say so -- you don't even need to say what it is -- and I won't suggest it again.

John Vanko said:

mrg said: Yes it can ... Omphalos creationism.

Please. Do Not Teach The Trolls. DNTTT They don't know their Omphalos from their Homunculus. Stop giving them ideas ;-)

Malchus said: Didnt you mean to reply to Icthyic?

mrg said:

Malchus said: Didnt you mean to reply to Icthyic?

Yeah, I thought I was, don't know quite what fumble I made there. I think that's a fairly non-confrontational way of dropping a suggestion.

Malchus said: Oh, I agree. I'm sorry that Dale is sensitive enough to fatuous criticism of his theological position that he needs must respond, but Icthyic is generally more controlled. Stanton, on the other hand... :)

Malchus said: Stanton, on the other hand... :)

mrg said:

John Vanko said: But a single act of special creation cannot explain the fossil record.

Yes it can ... Omphalos creationism. Of course, of all the intellectually sleazy creationist arguments, that's one of the sleaziest. Maybe not THE sleaziest. I was just thinking of: "We just have to prove Design, we don't have to identify the Designer." -- which is at least as sleazy.

mrg said:

John Vanko said: Stop giving them ideas ;-)

I am shamed. Dang, that's scary, I know more about creationist arguments than typical creationists do.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Malchus said: Stanton, on the other hand... :)

There's a worse one ... He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned lest the wrath of incoherent argument descend from the heights on the hapless transgressor.

Malchus said: Ah yes. You are clearly a redshirt.

See what you've done?

I told you, DNTTT ;-)

Malchus said: Oh, I agree. I'm sorry that Dale is sensitive enough to fatuous criticism of his theological position that he needs must respond, but Icthyic is generally more controlled. Stanton, on the other hand... :)

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

Stanton said: What else is there to do beyond confirming his troll profile?

Kris said: Do Not Feed The Troll

Stanton said: I've decided to stop feeding Kris the troll ...

mrg said:

Stanton said: I've decided to stop feeding Kris the troll ...

Thank you Stanton. May I ... ever so politely ... suggest that when you are motivated to let a troll have it, you might at least consider doing it on the BW?

Stanton said: If they can be convinced to do so, absolutely.

And, may I add, you can simply leave a note in the original thread along the lines of: "REPLY ON BATHROOM WALL" -- to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.

I think the consensus here is that the BW is a "free-fire zone" where no practice can be criticised.

Stanton said:

mrg said:

Stanton said: I've decided to stop feeding Kris the troll ...

Thank you Stanton. May I ... ever so politely ... suggest that when you are motivated to let a troll have it, you might at least consider doing it on the BW?

If they can be convinced to do so, absolutely.

Malchus said: If trolls could be convinced of anything, it's unlikely they would be trolls now, isn't it?

Stanton said:

mrg said:

Stanton said: I've decided to stop feeding Kris the troll ...

Thank you Stanton. May I ... ever so politely ... suggest that when you are motivated to let a troll have it, you might at least consider doing it on the BW?

If they can be convinced to do so, absolutely.

Mike Elzinga said:

Malchus said: If trolls could be convinced of anything, it's unlikely they would be trolls now, isn't it?

Stanton said:

mrg said:

Stanton said: I've decided to stop feeding Kris the troll ...

Thank you Stanton. May I ... ever so politely ... suggest that when you are motivated to let a troll have it, you might at least consider doing it on the BW?

If they can be convinced to do so, absolutely.

I think the point here is to get people to recognize their own contributions to getting trolls excited. A number of these trolls are clearly sociopaths (this current one certainly is). They have much in common with serial killers (the Zodiac killer comes to mind) who enjoy the publicity they get on the news; and they taunt and avidly watch to see the psychological pain they are inflicting on others; including the cops and reporters. Whether such a person becomes a serial killer or a fundamentalist preacher who uses fear and psychological manipulation to control others, or who becomes a troll on the internet seeking people who can be lured into places where he can inflict pain, whatever; you simply don’t gain anything by helping him elevate his endorphins or whatever turns him on. If you play the game with him, you start feeding on the same dark psychological characteristics that drive him. Get him over to the Bathroom Wall if you want to; but he sure as hell won’t go there as long as he gets satisfaction from being talked about on regular threads. He loves the pain and the quandary he is able to generate. Maybe the regulars here need to get some of this out in the open and discussed, but once it is settled, ignore him.

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

I think people like attention; it's just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse -- I did -- but added: "People thank you sometimes."

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well -- not often, and maybe thanks aren't the be-all and end-all of the effort ... but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here ... does anyone ever thank them for what they're doing? It's obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven't any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn't deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

Dale Husband said: It is useless to demand that he go there unless we go there first.

mrg said: Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.” And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good? Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will. They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: It is useless to demand that he go there unless we go there first.

We're not in a position to demand anything of them. BUT ... if nobody talks to them except on the BW, then they actually want a conversation, they won't have any choice but to go to the BW.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: This Kris troll is sufficiently well profiled so that it is no longer in any need of replies.

Yes, but that's why it's nice to remind people of that -- it's not a message to the troll. I figure it should cut responses about in half.

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said: Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison. I think people like attention; it's just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse -- I did -- but added: "People thank you sometimes." And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well -- not often, and maybe thanks aren't the be-all and end-all of the effort ... but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good? Now take the negative mentalities that show up here ... does anyone ever thank them for what they're doing? It's obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven't any expectation that it will. They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.” And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good? Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will. They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these. But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention. Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.” And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good? Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will. They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these. But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention. Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

I want to thank you all for your help. I am going to work on the references you have given me....should keep me busy for awhile. I was wondering if I have more questions (and I will) if there is a better place to do it (rather than derail a discussion).

flowersfriend said: I was wondering if I have more questions (and I will) if there is a better place to do it (rather than derail a discussion).

flowersfriend said: I want to thank you all for your help. I am going to work on the references you have given me....should keep me busy for awhile. I was wondering if I have more questions (and I will) if there is a better place to do it (rather than derail a discussion).

Stuart Weinstein said: You can also post questions to talk.origins. A few of us PT regulars also post there.

Stuart Weinstein said:

flowersfriend said: I want to thank you all for your help. I am going to work on the references you have given me....should keep me busy for awhile. I was wondering if I have more questions (and I will) if there is a better place to do it (rather than derail a discussion).

I don't consider an honest request for Info a derail. You can also post questions to talk.origins. A few of us PT regulars also post there.

flowersfriend said: Thanks for the suggestion, but since it is ok with you guys I will probably come back here since some of you already know what I'm here for. Again, a sincere thanks and I hope you all have a wonderful New Year.

mrg said:

Stuart Weinstein said: You can also post questions to talk.origins. A few of us PT regulars also post there.

You sure? TO tends to make PT look rather tame by comparison, though their archives are impressive.

Stuart Weinstein said: Not that they listen to me that much..

Flowersfriend,

You may want to take a look at the latest PT post, titled "NABT Molecular Insights videos available online."

I think at one point you said you were looking for material for home education, those videos may be appropriate (I haven't watched them and don't know how old your kids are, though, so judge for yourself).

FlowersFriend said:

Robin said: The problem there is that so far ID has not been presented scientifically. The hostility you note is directed at the perceived intent of those presenting ID - it appears (and this is supported so far by all available evidence) that those promoting ID are do so out of a political/religious agenda rather than a genuine curiosity about how the universe works.

I can't speak for those at the forefront of the ID debate. So I will only speak for myself and some of the Christians I associate with. I see no agenda, only a fear for their children's spiritual well-being. The Christians I know are not interested in "indoctrinating" or pushing an agenda, but simply concerned that their children will lose faith. It makes for a very emotional subject matter.

Evolution is taught in exclusion because there isn't anything else, scientifically speaking. You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when it comes to science class, only actual science can be taught.

Agreed. My thought is that the minute that we have to say things like "most likely", "probably", "could have", we need to save it for college. There is enough factual data to keep high school and middle school students busy for hours on end. I think that if you took macroevolution (I know you guys don't like that word...but it makes the conversation easier) out of high school classes, you would no longer have an ID/Evolution debate. Maybe that is oversimplified, but I see it as a way to teach evolution, so that children are educated properly about it (I know some school districts won't even mention it, which is sad too), without crossing into the realm of religious debate.

I realize you may well take creationism seriously, but if you're also seriously scientific minded, at some point you're going to have face the inherent contradictions between the two. Not even someone as devout as Francis Collins takes creationism seriously after such a comparison.

Try me, which contradictions?

FlowersFriend said: I will do my best to comment on this, hopefully, without offending you (because you have been very respectful and I sincerely appreciate that). When a scientist says "it is thought that", I fully understand that what they are about to say is backed by some kind of empirical evidence. Yet I really have trouble separating that from a Christian saying "I believe that"....please hear me out on this one.....while some Christians certainly believe what they believe without any evidence at all (I honestly admire that kind of pure faith), others do have evidence. Not empirical, testable, evidence (although it can be argued that prophecies in the OT can be tested for accuracy and validity) but evidence on a much more personal level. So, in a way, I don't think it is as different as you would like to think. The Christian has faith in something that they personally have evidence for, while the scientist has faith in something they have empirical evidence for (you have faith that what you have observed will carry through to its logical conclusion). IMO, faith is not necessarily a religious experience, but simply that which you put your trust in.

Robin said: Science on the other hand does not rely on personal-only observations and feelings, and it corrects those explanations that do meet near universal agreement with the evidence. As the evidence grows, the explanations become more refined such that their predictive accuracy becomes greater. This is not the case with personal belief however.

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”.

Matt Young said: Poppycock. Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

In other words, the problem with personal experience is that it can’t be verified.

Matt Young said:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”.

Poppycock. Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Flint said:

Matt Young said:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”.

Poppycock. Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

You are drawing an arbitrary line on a continuum, and creating the misleading impression that such lines exist. But they do not. All we have in science is degrees of probability that something is true. A great deal has been established to the point where that degree comes as close to 100% as the empirical world can ever get. And this DOES draw a line between an empirical and a faith-based approach, because "as close to 100% likely as possible" is qualitatively different from "absolutely true". Religious doctrine doesn't recognize ANY form of probability - everything is either absolutely true or absolutely false. FF is trying to draw a distinction between "empirical evidence" and "personal evidence". What could such a distinction describe, except the distinction between what we observe intellectually, and what we need emotionally? Tiger Woods' wife had "emotional evidence" that he was a faithful husband. She WANTED it to be true.

mrg said:

Robin said: Science on the other hand does not rely on personal-only observations and feelings, and it corrects those explanations that do meet near universal agreement with the evidence. As the evidence grows, the explanations become more refined such that their predictive accuracy becomes greater. This is not the case with personal belief however.

I think sometimes in explaining things about science we can make it sound a bit overblown -- but this here basically just shows it as an example of "evidence-based thinking". We get the same, in its own way, in a court of law, or for that matter any practical endeavor -- even on a battlefield, with a combat commander trying to make decisions on the basis of the military intelligence at hand. If the intelligence is wrong, the results are disastrous.

Matt Young said: Poppycock. Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt

Flint said: FF is trying to draw a distinction between "empirical evidence" and "personal evidence".

Flint said:

It has been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt

Sigh. Yes, yes. "Demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt" is NOT THE SAME THING as "absolutely true by decree." It's like the difference between excellent and perfect. No degree of excellence, however rarified, comes any closer to perfect.

Flint said:

Matt Young said: Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

You are drawing an arbitrary line on a continuum, and creating the misleading impression that such lines exist.

All we have in science is degrees of probability that something is true.

FF is trying to draw a distinction between "empirical evidence" and "personal evidence".

To insist, then, that science has established some “fact” - particularly at the high school level - imo completely diminishes the overall awe and practicality of science in the first place.

Flint, I think you’re quibbling. Nobody claims ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ = 100% probability. It is a degree of probability - a very very extreme one. :)

Flint said:

To insist, then, that science has established some “fact” - particularly at the high school level - imo completely diminishes the overall awe and practicality of science in the first place.

The way I see it, science is poorly taught for a variety of administrative reasons. For one thing, there's too much to cover. Too many facts (i.e. raw observations) and theories. For another thing, it's hard to test a student's understanding that science is an ongoing iterative process based on a method with an excellent track record, with standard multiple-choice tests. Such tests, conversely, lend themselves perfectly to science presented as a long list of "proven factoids" to be memorized and regurgitated. And so we constantly see science and religion positioned as competing authorities issuing arbitrary decrees one either accepts or rejects. And this is followed by "and one of these authorities keeps changing its mind and being found wrong, so which one you gonna believe? Huh"

Flint said: BUT the word "proved" is slippery and overloaded...I think this is the fast track to confusion.

In fact, using phrases such as ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ may be a great way out of the confusion you want to avoid (and which, I’ll agree, some creationists attempt to exploit).

I agree that "beyond reasonable doubt" is preferable to "proven". However, I also like "consistent with all available evidence". That seems to convey more of feeling for the process of science and the tentative nature of all conclusions.

Funny how creationists and others unfamiliar with scientific methods always consider proper use of qualifiers as somehow undesirable. Things like "probably", "most likely" are often the most honest way of representing tentative conclusions. This is the strength of science, not a weakness. Of course it can difficult to convince someone indoctrinated with black and white thinking that this is the proper terminology.

DS said: I agree that "beyond reasonable doubt" is preferable to "proven". However, I also like "consistent with all available evidence".

Sir Karl Popper writes about "verisimilitude", truth-likeness. He is a logical positivist and thinks the scientific method, creating and testing hypotheses, leads us to more and more verisimilitude in our understanding. 100% verisimilitude = Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, the scientific method does not allow us to recognize 100% verisimilitude should we ever attain it.

eric said:

Flint said: BUT the word "proved" is slippery and overloaded...I think this is the fast track to confusion.

Given that 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' has a vernacular legal meaning that practically every American understands does NOT mean aboslute, logical 100% certainty, I think it is more likely that you confused Matt's fairly easy to understand point, rather than that Matt's point was confusing on its face. In fact, using phrases such as 'beyond all reasonable doubt' may be a great way out of the confusion you want to avoid (and which, I'll agree, some creationists attempt to exploit). Since most Americans, at least, will understand the non-absolute meaning of that phrase almost intstantly. Maybe scientists should be borrowing that legal phrase more, not using it less. :)

Robin said:

eric said:

Flint said: BUT the word "proved" is slippery and overloaded...I think this is the fast track to confusion.

Given that 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' has a vernacular legal meaning that practically every American understands does NOT mean aboslute, logical 100% certainty, I think it is more likely that you confused Matt's fairly easy to understand point, rather than that Matt's point was confusing on its face. In fact, using phrases such as 'beyond all reasonable doubt' may be a great way out of the confusion you want to avoid (and which, I'll agree, some creationists attempt to exploit). Since most Americans, at least, will understand the non-absolute meaning of that phrase almost intstantly. Maybe scientists should be borrowing that legal phrase more, not using it less. :)

But Eric, do you agree with Matt Young that "beyond a reasonable doubt" negates the speculative nature of science? If so, I disagree. I can't agree that there are things in science that are not provisional. That to me defies what science is and what sets it apart from religion as a mode of inquiry.

Flint said:

Matt Young said:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”.

Poppycock. Descent with modification, for one, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

You are drawing an arbitrary line on a continuum, and creating the misleading impression that such lines exist. But they do not. All we have in science is degrees of probability that something is true. A great deal has been established to the point where that degree comes as close to 100% as the empirical world can ever get.

And this DOES draw a line between an empirical and a faith-based approach, because "as close to 100% likely as possible" is qualitatively different from "absolutely true". Religious doctrine doesn't recognize ANY form of probability - everything is either absolutely true or absolutely false.

DNFTT

Kris said: *SNIP*

There might be another way of looking at. Certainly I would side with those who accept that all scientific claims are provisional; but there are some whose acceptance has moved beyond the point of needing to be reconfirmed unless some set of totally anomalous data points arise.

If you get into Hume, he's no softy on religion BUT he was careful to say that it had a basis in faith and revelation.
Now whether he was just being tolerant or just saying that faith and revelation didn't give me any leverage to protest is a good question.

However, he made it DEAD clear that once a question of facts was raised, faith and revelation was absolutely no good whatsoever. Hume in his inquiries was very careful to identify the limits to the rule of reasoning, but once certain lines were crossed its rule was absolute.

Flint said:

There might be another way of looking at. Certainly I would side with those who accept that all scientific claims are provisional; but there are some whose acceptance has moved beyond the point of needing to be reconfirmed unless some set of totally anomalous data points arise.

The way Gould phrased it was, "the point where it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Religion does not have "provisional assent." It doesn't have "probably". It doesn't rest on evidence, much less struggle with assigning reliability weight to various data. Religion doesn't concern itself with anomalous data points, because it's not concerned with data in the first place. The entire point of discussion here, I think, is that a scientific claim is in an entirely different phylum from a religious claim. Religious certainty is unrelated to scientific certainty, they are different KINDS, not different degrees along the same kind. Scientific certainty rests on enormous amounts of unequivocal and consistent evidence. Religious certainty rests on ARBITRARY DECLARATION. In science, doubt of the well-established is unlikely and poorly supported. In religion, doubt of what is DECLARED to be certain is simply prohibited. And this is important because scientific types keep demanding scientific evidence for what doesn't rest on or require evidence in any way, such that evidence as science understands it is meaningless, irrelevant. And religious types project their orientation onto science, regarding each claim as either accepted without doubt or entirely blasphemous.

Kris said: *SNIP*

There is an ongoing discusson of the KrisTroll in the BW for those interested in the matter. I wouldn't have much to say about the matter myself.

Malchus said:

Robin said:

eric said:

Flint said: BUT the word "proved" is slippery and overloaded...I think this is the fast track to confusion.

Given that 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' has a vernacular legal meaning that practically every American understands does NOT mean aboslute, logical 100% certainty, I think it is more likely that you confused Matt's fairly easy to understand point, rather than that Matt's point was confusing on its face. In fact, using phrases such as 'beyond all reasonable doubt' may be a great way out of the confusion you want to avoid (and which, I'll agree, some creationists attempt to exploit). Since most Americans, at least, will understand the non-absolute meaning of that phrase almost intstantly. Maybe scientists should be borrowing that legal phrase more, not using it less. :)

But Eric, do you agree with Matt Young that "beyond a reasonable doubt" negates the speculative nature of science? If so, I disagree. I can't agree that there are things in science that are not provisional. That to me defies what science is and what sets it apart from religion as a mode of inquiry.

There might be another way of looking at. Certainly I would side with those who accept that all scientific claims are provisional; but there are some whose acceptance has moved beyond the point of needing to be reconfirmed unless some set of totally anomalous data points arise.

Robin said: Oh indeed...well said. I'm not advocating reassessing things like Boyle's Law and Thermodynamics because there's some waaaaaay outside possibility they are wrong, but at the same time I'm not about to kid anyone - particularly not a high schooler - and say that anything in science is proven.

Where’s the problem?

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

Flint said: ... "well, since it's not ABSOLUTELY PROVEN that humans evolved from other critters, THEREFORE the poof story is EQUALLY LIKELY ..."

Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology.

Flint said:

Where’s the problem?

So is science right, or is it wrong? Remember, from some religious perspectives, these are the only choices you are permitted. You are NOT permitted to say that it's probably right most of the time, or almost surely right about the big picture, or gets a little bit righter with every experiment or investigation. You can only say that it's right or wrong. And what we're trying to show certain religious people is that science does not make sense when viewed through binary blinders. And when someone like FF comes along and says "well, since it's not ABSOLUTELY PROVEN that humans evolved from other critters, THEREFORE the poof story is EQUALLY LIKELY and I'll teach that to my kids", then you can see where the problem is. Evolution is right or wrong. Poof is right or wrong. Flip a coin. And I strongly suspect this projection of binary options is comfortable for more than just our brains being inclined to dichotomize. I think there IS a realization going on that evidence matters, and that poof stories have none, and so projecting poof onto science serves the purposes that foregone religious conclusions demand.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

LOL

Kris said: *SNIP*

Rob said: LOL

mrg said:

Rob said: LOL

You get the joke.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Wolfhound said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT (This is kinda' fun!)

Kris said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Why are you so afraid of my response? Does it make too much sense for you? Do you actually believe that nothing in the so-called "mature" theories like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology is or may be questionable, potentially wrong, and/or wrong period?

Kris said:

Wolfhound said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT (This is kinda' fun!)

STFU

I've started to wonder whether we're dealing with an actual person, or with a rather incompetent version of the old computer program "Perry". I haven't seen a single original sentence, only reflections of what others write turned into questions. All substantive arguments are dismissed or ignored, and no substantive claims or objections are presented.

And the problem with this sort of program is, the Great Alleged Lurking Audience cannot really learn anything useful. There's no signal in the noise.

We need to start having fun here again. How about these two videos I found on YouTube?

Do You Wanna Date My Avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU

Game On

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrN3Rh55uM

Those CANNOT be any more absurd than what's been going on here these past few days. But at least we don't have to deal with insults.

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Kris said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Why are you so afraid of my response? Does it make too much sense for you? Do you actually believe that nothing in the so-called "mature" theories like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology is or may be questionable, potentially wrong, and/or wrong period? Without speaking for Matt, I would guess that he would agree with me that the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which has the Darwin - Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection at its core) probably isn't the last word. Indeed there are notable evolutionary biologists such as invertebrate paleobiologist Niles Eldredge and plant developmental biologist - and philosopher of science - Massimo Pigliucci who have argued persuasively that we need an "Extended Modern Synthesis" to account better for much of the recent data emerging out of paleobiology and evolutionary developmental biology. Scientific theories are never static. They are always "evolving" in response to new data being discovered and analyzed. And there may be times when that data does suggest that the theory requires some - if not a substantial - modification up to and including its replacement by a more comprehensive theory that does a better job in accounting for the data being collected.

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating how delusional you are once more (I also endorse completely Stanton's latest observation on your breathtaking inanity):

Kris said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Why are you so afraid of my response? Does it make too much sense for you? Do you actually believe that nothing in the so-called "mature" theories like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology is or may be questionable, potentially wrong, and/or wrong period?

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating how delusional you are ...

What you’re doing is arguing that SOME scientific claims are so well-evidenced that they are basically just as right as scriptural claims, as though if ENOUGH evidence is marshalled in support, these scientific truth-claims become the qualitative equivalent of a DEFINED AS TRUE claim.

Everything in science is speculative;

everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong.

Maybe ya'll could just agree to differ?

Robin said: But Eric, do you agree with Matt Young that "beyond a reasonable doubt" negates the speculative nature of science?

I can't agree that there are things in science that are not provisional. That to me defies [sic] what science is and what sets it apart from religion as a mode of inquiry.

Robin said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Speciation is a "fact" by definition - we have defined a term to describe a condition that we observe. Same for the term "gravity". But the mechanics of those conditions - which incidentally use the same terms -, while well-studied and certainly convincing given the overwhelming success they've had against falsification, are not "facts" or even "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. And while I would feel comfortable saying that the descent with modification explanation is "true" in social company, I'd never agree that such was a scientifically accurate statement, nor would I ever use such a phrase in any science setting. So I stand by my original statement. Everything in science is speculative; everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong. Anyone, particularly any scientist, who insists otherwise is, imho, doing science a great disservice.

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Why are you so afraid of my response? Does it make too much sense for you? Do you actually believe that nothing in the so-called "mature" theories like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology is or may be questionable, potentially wrong, and/or wrong period?

How come you refuse to tell us what's is or may be questionable, potentially wrong, and/or wrong period in "mature" theories like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology? You keep saying there is, yet, when we ask you, you fly into a childish hissy fit and throw childish invectives at us like it's going out of style, while childishly remaining opaque about whatever your point is supposed to be. In other words, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, or why don't you just take your own advice, and STFU? Oh, wait, no, you can't.

Matt Young said:

What you’re doing is arguing that SOME scientific claims are so well-evidenced that they are basically just as right as scriptural claims, as though if ENOUGH evidence is marshalled in support, these scientific truth-claims become the qualitative equivalent of a DEFINED AS TRUE claim.

No, I am not. I claim that they are more right than scriptural claims (at least the kind you mean) because they are backed up by evidence and reasoning. A well-established scientific claim may be considered to be true in any meaningful sense of the word. But it is not true by fiat.

Everything in science is speculative;

Look up "speculative" or "speculation" in a good dictionary.

everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong.

Sure - in principle. But you know as well as I do that the electrostatic attraction between an electron and a proton is an inverse-square law, where the exponent is exactly 2 with very small uncertainty. That is a fact, unless you want to grasp at the uncertainty and say it may be 2.000...0001. But that would be silly and would not change the original statement.

Matt Young said: No, I am not.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robin said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Speciation is a "fact" by definition - we have defined a term to describe a condition that we observe. Same for the term "gravity". But the mechanics of those conditions - which incidentally use the same terms -, while well-studied and certainly convincing given the overwhelming success they've had against falsification, are not "facts" or even "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. And while I would feel comfortable saying that the descent with modification explanation is "true" in social company, I'd never agree that such was a scientifically accurate statement, nor would I ever use such a phrase in any science setting. So I stand by my original statement. Everything in science is speculative; everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong. Anyone, particularly any scientist, who insists otherwise is, imho, doing science a great disservice.

I wouldn't use the term *speculative*. I myself prefer *provisional*, meaning subject to possible change. I don't regard QM, the most precisely tested theory of all time, as *speculative* for example.

Vaughn said:

Matt Young said: No, I am not.

Robin seemed to realize in his last post, but I think you are talking about two different steps in the scientific method. Let me digress to explain. I teach introductory biology classes and start with the definition of science as "using the scientific method to study nature". A four step explanation of the scientific method follows: 1) Observe a natural phenomenon (using one or more of the five senses) 2) Hypothesize an explanation of the natural phenomenon (how or why did that happen?) 3) Experiment to disprove your hypothesis (science can never prove a hypothesis to be "true") 4) Communicate the results of your experiment (science is open and honest) So, Matt was referring to directly observable "facts" of nature (which we also call "evidence") while Robin was primarily referring to our explanations of those facts. However, I agree with Stuart Weinstein that the word "provisional" is preferable to "speculative", especially when talking about theories. (Item 2a in my scientific method schema is that a theory is a "extensively tested, never disproven hypothesis that is widely accepted as the 'correct' explanation of the phenomenon".) Flowersfriend (Bambi?), if you are still following along, misunderstanding the scientific method, its proper and improper uses (trying to use science to "study" God is improper - see step one), or what a scientist means when using the words "evidence", "fact", or "theory" almost always underlies the disagreements between advocates of religious positions and scientists. Something to keep in mind as you work through your questions. Vaughn

If the troll wants anyone to read his crap he can post it on the Bathroom Wall. All troll comments here will be ignored.

John Kwok said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robin said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Speciation is a "fact" by definition - we have defined a term to describe a condition that we observe. Same for the term "gravity". But the mechanics of those conditions - which incidentally use the same terms -, while well-studied and certainly convincing given the overwhelming success they've had against falsification, are not "facts" or even "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. And while I would feel comfortable saying that the descent with modification explanation is "true" in social company, I'd never agree that such was a scientifically accurate statement, nor would I ever use such a phrase in any science setting. So I stand by my original statement. Everything in science is speculative; everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong. Anyone, particularly any scientist, who insists otherwise is, imho, doing science a great disservice.

I wouldn't use the term *speculative*. I myself prefer *provisional*, meaning subject to possible change. I don't regard QM, the most precisely tested theory of all time, as *speculative* for example.

Stuart, the one scientific theory I know that is constantly affirmed daily is that supporting the fact of biological evolution, from all branches of biology up to and including health sciences such as epidemiology.

DS said: If the troll wants anyone to read his crap he can post it on the Bathroom Wall. All troll comments here will be ignored.

Vaughn said: 3) Experiment to disprove your hypothesis (science can never prove a hypothesis to be "true")

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robin said:

Matt Young said:

But I submit that it’s far more important to emphasize that science is about best explanations, not a search for “truth”.

That is a far cry from what you said before:

The first and foremost thing to understand about science is that it is speculative. ALL of science is really just “most likely”, “probably”, and “could have”,

though I am not sure that even the your later statement is wholly accurate, at least in its connotations. Speciation, for example, is a fact (beyond reasonable doubt and all that). Without getting into a philosophical definition of "true," I would argue that it is therefore "true" that existing species have descended from earlier species. Why weasel-word that, unless you have a hidden agenda? Yes, I understand that some things in science are provisional, but I do not think that all things are provisional, at least when it comes to a mature theory like physics, chemistry, or evolutionary biology. No, I do not want to hear the Kris troll's response.

Speciation is a "fact" by definition - we have defined a term to describe a condition that we observe. Same for the term "gravity". But the mechanics of those conditions - which incidentally use the same terms -, while well-studied and certainly convincing given the overwhelming success they've had against falsification, are not "facts" or even "proven" by any stretch of the imagination. And while I would feel comfortable saying that the descent with modification explanation is "true" in social company, I'd never agree that such was a scientifically accurate statement, nor would I ever use such a phrase in any science setting. So I stand by my original statement. Everything in science is speculative; everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong. Anyone, particularly any scientist, who insists otherwise is, imho, doing science a great disservice.

I wouldn't use the term *speculative*. I myself prefer *provisional*, meaning subject to possible change. I don't regard QM, the most precisely tested theory of all time, as *speculative* for example.

eric said:

Vaughn said: 3) Experiment to disprove your hypothesis (science can never prove a hypothesis to be "true")

Popper made this argument. However philosophically sound it may be, it is not, in my experience, the way real scientists actually approach designing experiments.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Vaughn said:

eric said:

Vaughn said: 3) Experiment to disprove your hypothesis (science can never prove a hypothesis to be "true")

Popper made this argument. However philosophically sound it may be, it is not, in my experience, the way real scientists actually approach designing experiments.

I fully concur that science in practice is never as neat and clean as the idealized version I present to my intro students. My primary purpose in presenting item three to my students is to show that we don't just go into the lab to muck around or do "unnatural" things, but rather that experiments are hypothesis-driven . My secondary purpose is to introduce the Popperian concept of falsifiability. The concept that a student should be striving to prove their hypothesis wrong (Oh! NOW they get what they are trying to do with this experiment!) seems to help with the difficult process of learning to design experiments. Vaughn

Wolfhound said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTMFT

Vaughn said:

eric said:

Vaughn said: 3) Experiment to disprove your hypothesis (science can never prove a hypothesis to be "true")

Popper made this argument. However philosophically sound it may be, it is not, in my experience, the way real scientists actually approach designing experiments.

I fully concur that science in practice is never as neat and clean as the idealized version I present to my intro students. My primary purpose in presenting item three to my students is to show that we don't just go into the lab to muck around or do "unnatural" things, but rather that experiments are hypothesis-driven . My secondary purpose is to introduce the Popperian concept of falsifiability. The concept that a student should be striving to prove their hypothesis wrong (Oh! NOW they get what they are trying to do with this experiment!) seems to help with the difficult process of learning to design experiments. Vaughn

eric said: Popper made this argument. However philosophically sound it may be, it is not, in my experience, the way real scientists actually approach designing experiments. My experience is with fairly "hard" physics and chemistry so this may not apply to all disciplines, but here goes: High accuracy and precision on the cutting edge of science is expensive. You typically have to design an experiment with a limited detection range. So you pick the dynamic range you hypothesize is the right one and the accuracy and precision you can afford. Any result outside of this range is going to be very poorly characterized. Thus, your negative results may not yield as accurate or precise a value as your positive ones...sometimes, to the point where they may be unpublishable.

SWT said: When I discuss this with my grad students, I present this not as "disproving" a proposition, but rather as "testing" or "challenging" a proposition.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Wolfhound said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTMFT

That's LOW, Wolfie. LOL.

STufF YoU, MuFfy?

That is pretty low.

(Raised in a strict Presbyterian home; never learned to swear.)

John Vanko said: Raised in a strict Presbyterian home; never learned to swear.

John Vanko said: Raised in a strict Presbyterian home; never learned to swear.

I think perhaps I shall go and enlist!

John Vanko said: I think perhaps I shall go and enlist!

Roger, roger. I guess I'll just have to learn from the trolls.

Kris said: *SNIP*

eric said:

I can't agree that there are things in science that are not provisional. That to me defies [sic] what science is and what sets it apart from religion as a mode of inquiry.

I think you mean 'defines.' :) Certainly court decisions that are beyond all reasonable doubt can be overturned by future evidence. They are provisional in that respect, people understand that new evidence can (rarely, but sometimes) overturn a court decision, and that's one of the reason I think the phrase is a good one for science to borrow. To me, what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' suggests is something along the lines of "given what we know right now, you'd have to be pretty crazy to reject this conlusion." It doesn't say anything about how future evidence might alter our estimation of the reasonableness of doubting it.

Matt Young said:

Everything in science is speculative;

Look up "speculative" or "speculation" in a good dictionary.

everything in science that we currently think we understand could indeed be wrong.

Sure - in principle. But you know as well as I do that the electrostatic attraction between an electron and a proton is an inverse-square law, where the exponent is exactly 2 with very small uncertainty. That is a fact, unless you want to grasp at the uncertainty and say it may be 2.000...0001. But that would be silly and would not change the original statement.

Mike Elzinga said: Actually, if theoretical explanations are good out to something like 15 significant figures (and some of our theories are just that), then we are pretty much constrained to accepting the theory as being true out to that many significant figures.

eric said: If you have two competing hypotheses, then what you really want to try and do is design an experment that can tell the difference between the two different results. But this is not the same as 'experiment to disprove' either. If one hypothesis says 5 Vaughns and the other says 6 Vaughns, you might live with an experimental design that can detect 1-10 Vaughns +/- 0.1 Vaughns. -snip- If you have two theories that predict widely differing values (0.001 Vaughns, 6 billion Vaughns), you may be stuck with an expensive experiment. Or you call your buddies in a different lab and coordinate experiments: one of you builds the microVaughn detector while the other builds the macroVaughn detector. :)

eric said: If one hypothesis says 5 Vaughns and the other says 6 Vaughns, you might live with an experimental design that can detect 1-10 Vaughns +/- 0.1 Vaughns. But if the real value is 100 Vaughns, you are going to be S.O.L.

stevaroni said: If, for example, you have a picture of a swarm of Vaughn, you might not be able to say whether it's 14,245 or 14,246 individuals, but you should be able to throw out millivaughn and megavaughn and say that it looks like about 14 kilovaughn in the frame.

eric said: ... and just say that I'm glad this thread's signal:noise has picked up a bit in the last day or two.

I'm a fan of Asimov, but hadn't read that essay; thanks for the link, Eric. Asimov very nicely illuminates many of the things we have been talking about here, including issues in the OP. My intro lab includes an exercise in experimental design where I try to get the students to think about precision vs. accuracy. I want them to be accurate first, then maybe after they develop some facility with science they can add precision into the mix. Klinghoffer (and this seems to be true for most creationists) is caught up in criticizing scientists for our "precision" discussions/arguments while missing the fact that his ideas are completely inaccurate (or "not even wrong" in PT vernacular). After all, aren't discussions about species boundaries and what constitutes a speciation event really just discussions about the precise edges of related groups?

Vaughn

eric said: But QM is something of an exemplar in that respect, not the norm. Like the spanish inquisition, NOBODY expects prediction out to 15 decimal places. :)

I just wanted to say that I am, indeed, still following along. I wanted to thank whoever posted the link to the Berkeley website...very helpful.

Ok, so new question.....

Can someone explain H. Habilis? The information I find is a little confusing. Is it a direct ancestor to H. Erectus? Is there still debate over it? Some of the other hominids seem so well defined, I'm having trouble really understanding what the criteria is to fit in this particular species.

Vaughn said: ... so all this use of my name as a metric is making me uncomfortable....

John Vanko said: My slide rules are good to three digits, uncertain in the last, unless the number begins with a 1 (then you can push it to four).

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Actually, if theoretical explanations are good out to something like 15 significant figures (and some of our theories are just that), then we are pretty much constrained to accepting the theory as being true out to that many significant figures.

Sure. But QM is something of an exemplar in that respect, not the norm. Like the spanish inquisition, NOBODY expects prediction out to 15 decimal places. :) The way I see it, pretty much all of us in this discussion basically agree about how science operates and we're really discussing the best way to convey this to laymen. But in essence we're all just rephrasing Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Since I'm not a teacher, I think at this point I'll defer to Vaughn and SWT about what works in the classroom, and just say that I'm glad this thread's signal:noise has picked up a bit in the last day or two.

stevaroni said: By the way, you wouldn't have any idea of where the name "Vaughn" come from, would you? I don't mean to slag on your name, but it's always struck me as an unusual array of letters, as i was spelling it I was trying to figure out what language it might be rooted in.

stevaroni said: For many applications, the electrical engineering version of pi is "3".

John Vanko said: DNTTT (do not teach the trolls).

Kevin B said: The usual etymology derives "Vaughn" (or "Vaughan") from the Welsh "bechan", meaning "small".

stevaroni said: By the way, you wouldn't have any idea of where the name "Vaughn" come from, would you? I don't mean to slag on your name, but it's always struck me as an unusual array of letters, as i was spelling it I was trying to figure out what language it might be rooted in.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. "Vaughn" is my middle name.

I’ll defer to Kevin B’s knowledge of the etymology, but I am well aware it is an unusual name. How I hated it as a child!

Flint said: I was fine until the movies "In Like Flint" and "Our Man Flint" came out. Then things got pretty rough for me, and I can assure you those stupid moves aren't forgotten either. But at least people I meet don't start reciting from those movies every time, like they did for a couple of decades.

FlowersFriend said: I just wanted to say that I am, indeed, still following along.

FlowersFriend said: Can someone explain H. Habilis? The information I find is a little confusing.

Is it a direct ancestor to H. Erectus? Is there still debate over it?

Some of the other hominids seem so well defined, I'm having trouble really understanding what the criteria is to fit in this particular species.

FF's question made me wikipedia Homo habilis, which says similar things to what Dale said.

But what really struck me reading it was the sheer length of time the various hominid species have roamed the planet. If we measure success in terms of "time on planet," homo sapiens would have to survive another ~700,000 years to equal habilis' success. That's a very humbling thought. They had quite a run.

Flint said:

I’ll defer to Kevin B’s knowledge of the etymology, but I am well aware it is an unusual name. How I hated it as a child!

I was fine until the movies "In Like Flint" and "Our Man Flint" came out. Then things got pretty rough for me, and I can assure you those stupid moves aren't forgotten either. But at least people I meet don't start reciting from those movies every time, like they did for a couple of decades.

FlowersFriend said: I just wanted to say that I am, indeed, still following along. I wanted to thank whoever posted the link to the Berkeley website...very helpful. Ok, so new question..... Can someone explain H. Habilis? The information I find is a little confusing. Is it a direct ancestor to H. Erectus? Is there still debate over it? Some of the other hominids seem so well defined, I'm having trouble really understanding what the criteria is to fit in this particular species.

Dale Husband said: Possibly, but we are not sure. And yes, there is still debate about that issue. But it is still accepted as a transitional form.

"some features of later species” Curse no edit feature!

"One way of interpreting the evidence even says that there is no man-ape transition because we humans are STILL apes, just with a few unusual features."

FF, look at yourself in the mirror, and at your lovely children. See what GLORIOUS THINGS God can do starting with plain old apes!

tara said: I completely understand Flint, my brother's name is Conan.

Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed. To date a sedimentary rock, it is necessary to isolate a few unusual minerals (if present) which formed on the seafloor as the rock was cemented. Glauconite is a good example. Glauconite contains potassium, so it can be dated using the potassium-argon technique.

OK, the Burgess shale is just that, shale, which means that in itself it can't be radioactively dated. I poked around for an answer to how its age was determined but came up zeroes.

Any geoscience types know the score on that and have some idea of the error bars?

Flowers,

I would propose something that to me is a solid, real-world, eminently observable example of speciation of large mammals in a relatively short time. (Some of the PT pros will dispute my use of the term "species" here, but I'm not a pro, so forgive me, and we've seen here that "species" means different things in different contexts and for different purposes.)

DOGS. Canis lupus familiaris, I believe. If a reasonable definition of "species" is critters that can't normally interbreed, then various categories of dogs have to qualify.

Consider a couple of extremes: Saint Bernards and teacup poodles. They can't possible mate! The Saint Bernard dog could not mate with the teacup bitch (sorry, but that's the right term), even if her scent in estrus drove him wild. Likewise, a teacup dog could not mount a Saint Bernard bitch, even if she would tolerate his advances. That surely meets the criterion of reproductive isolation from each other. The only way a "hybrid" of the two could be accomplished would artificial insemination--and if the dam was the poodle, I suspect she couldn't carry even a litter of one giant (compared to her) pup, even if it were intermediate in size.

So why do we consider all domestic dogs to be the same species? Only because we KNOW their recent evolution (via mainly artificial selection) from a common wolf ancestor. I suspect the differences in DNA between an Irish Wolfhound and a Shih Tzu would be very small--but the resulting morphology differences are so great that they are now reproductively isolated.

If dogs were "natural" species, then I believe that they would be considered ring species, with one species mating with another that's not too greatly different in size (teacup-scottie-cocker-basset-doberman-bernard, or something like that).

But consider: if aliens observed Earth for just a few months, without accessing human knowledge, and made a comprehensive listing of megafauna species--would they ever list Saint Bernards and teacup poodles as the same species?

So...if it's reasonable to consider reproductively isolated types to be separate species, then surely dogs have to qualify. And we made those separate species within fairly recent human history. Of course they're "still dogs," but they have evolved so radically in different directions that I submit that it's completely reasonable to call them different (if "artificial") species.

Just Bob said: Flowers, I would propose something that to me is a solid, real-world, eminently observable example of speciation of large mammals in a relatively short time. (Some of the PT pros will dispute my use of the term "species" here, but I'm not a pro, so forgive me, and we've seen here that "species" means different things in different contexts and for different purposes.) DOGS. Canis lupus familiaris, I believe. If a reasonable definition of "species" is critters that can't normally interbreed, then various categories of dogs have to qualify. Consider a couple of extremes: Saint Bernards and teacup poodles. They can't possible mate! The Saint Bernard dog could not mate with the teacup bitch (sorry, but that's the right term), even if her scent in estrus drove him wild. Likewise, a teacup dog could not mount a Saint Bernard bitch, even if she would tolerate his advances. That surely meets the criterion of reproductive isolation from each other. The only way a "hybrid" of the two could be accomplished would artificial insemination--and if the dam was the poodle, I suspect she couldn't carry even a litter of one giant (compared to her) pup, even if it were intermediate in size. So why do we consider all domestic dogs to be the same species? Only because we KNOW their recent evolution (via mainly artificial selection) from a common wolf ancestor. I suspect the differences in DNA between an Irish Wolfhound and a Shih Tzu would be very small--but the resulting morphology differences are so great that they are now reproductively isolated. If dogs were "natural" species, then I believe that they would be considered ring species, with one species mating with another that's not too greatly different in size (teacup-scottie-cocker-basset-doberman-bernard, or something like that). But consider: if aliens observed Earth for just a few months, without accessing human knowledge, and made a comprehensive listing of megafauna species--would they ever list Saint Bernards and teacup poodles as the same species? So...if it's reasonable to consider reproductively isolated types to be separate species, then surely dogs have to qualify. And we made those separate species within fairly recent human history. Of course they're "still dogs," but they have evolved so radically in different directions that I submit that it's completely reasonable to call them different (if "artificial") species.

mrg said: OK, the Burgess shale is just that, shale, which means that in itself it can't be radioactively dated. I poked around for an answer to how its age was determined but came up zeroes. Any geoscience types know the score on that and have some idea of the error bars?

How approximate, JV? Plus-minus ten percent would seem reasonable to me and I bet it's well better than that.

FlowersFriend said: I was going to use horses as an example (much like dogs) except that my Mom pointed out that horses (and dogs) still recognize each other as a member of their species. I have no idea how that affects the definition of species one way or another, but it made sense to me that if they recognize each other as a member of their species....then they probably were. I still plan on using dogs and horses, but more in the light of subspecies. On the Berkley website there is a really well defined example of a ring species, it's salamanders in California. I also will use the goatsbeard and Hawthorne fly.

mrg said: How approximate, JV? Plus-minus ten percent would seem reasonable to me and I bet it's well better than that.

FlowersFriend said: Can someone explain H. Habilis? The information I find is a little confusing. Is it a direct ancestor to H. Erectus? Is there still debate over it? Some of the other hominids seem so well defined, I'm having trouble really understanding what the criteria is to fit in this particular species.

mrg said:

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

Actually, that's something I didn't think of. Dating methods as a rule determine the clock from the time molten rock solidified -- the melting of the rock resets the "clock" to start. This page: http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed. To date a sedimentary rock, it is necessary to isolate a few unusual minerals (if present) which formed on the seafloor as the rock was cemented. Glauconite is a good example. Glauconite contains potassium, so it can be dated using the potassium-argon technique.

Also, if sedimentary rock is bracketed between layers of volcanic rock in strata, that will "bracket" the time intervals. Volcanic ash particles trapped in the sediment will also permit dating. There's some "somewhat high fog factor" comments along this line on the bottom of this page: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

phantomreader42 said: But if the mud solidified into rock, which was found hundreds of millions of years later, the difference in ages between your remains and the rock they were encased in would be pretty much negligible after all that time.

Radioactive isotopes don’t tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.

Try that link again -- a simple copy from the posting doesn't work:

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

Flowers,

Want something to really think about regarding the species question? Go to Wikipedia and look up HeLa (note capitalization). IANAB, but granting it species status as Helacyton gartleri certainly makes sense to me. As with dog breeds, if we just discovered this organism without knowing its origin, no one would hesitate to call it a unique species.

mrg said:

phantomreader42 said: But if the mud solidified into rock, which was found hundreds of millions of years later, the difference in ages between your remains and the rock they were encased in would be pretty much negligible after all that time.

No: http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geol[…]02/radio.htm

Radioactive isotopes don’t tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.

Just Bob said: Flowers, Want something to really think about regarding the species question? Go to Wikipedia and look up HeLa (note capitalization). IANAB, but granting it species status as Helacyton gartleri certainly makes sense to me. As with dog breeds, if we just discovered this organism without knowing its origin, no one would hesitate to call it a unique species.

FlowersFriend said: I just wanted to say that I am, indeed, still following along. I wanted to thank whoever posted the link to the Berkeley website...very helpful. Ok, so new question..... Can someone explain H. Habilis? The information I find is a little confusing. Is it a direct ancestor to H. Erectus? Is there still debate over it? Some of the other hominids seem so well defined, I'm having trouble really understanding what the criteria is to fit in this particular species.

Just Bob said: Flowers, Want something to really think about regarding the species question? Go to Wikipedia and look up HeLa (note capitalization). IANAB, but granting it species status as Helacyton gartleri certainly makes sense to me. As with dog breeds, if we just discovered this organism without knowing its origin, no one would hesitate to call it a unique species.

Since most cancers are aneuploid (having unusual numbers of chromosomes), I don't find Van Valen's proposal to call Henrietta's cervical cancer cells a new species very convincing. That is a very poor precedent to set; think of the implications for medicine: "You can't eradicate that tumor Doctor! It's an endangered new species!" ;-)

Vaughn

It doesn't seem to have been a problem with smallpox. I don't recall even PETA making a complaint. And nobody is trying to mandate a recovery plan for the polio virus either. Apparently we only want to preserve *some* endangered species.

I assume you were being facetious, as I was in the second half of my remark. Hard to tell without emoticons. If not, given that viruses aren't alive (postulate 1 of Cell Theory - all living things are composed of one or more cells), I don't think they qualify for species classification either.

Vaughn

OK, I'll see your smallpox and raise you a black plague and malaria. Are you proposing to protect all parasites, just as long as they're bacteria or eukaryotes? Anyway, I thought you were being facetious in your entire remark. Where does the serious end, exactly?

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

Cubist said:

FlowersFriend said: Now I have a Radiometric dating question. How can you be certain that the fossil is the same age as the "rock" it was found in? Again, a layman trying to understand, so be patient. If I were trapped in a mudslide today, I certainly would not be as old as the mud that I was trapped in, so how does that work in, like say, the Burgess Shale?

If the fossil is of a difference age than the rock it's embedded in, how did it get into that rock in the first place? Whatever the means by which the fossil got into that rock, there should be physical signs of the process that was at work. For instance, one way a younger fossil could end up embedded in older rock, is if someone or something dug a hole and buried it -- maybe a dog did the digging, who knows. Well, if a dog actually did dig a hole, it would have disturbed the rock and ground immediately over the fossil's final resting place, right? So you should be able to find signs of that disturbance.
Much the same applies to any other means by which a fossil could end up embedded in rock that's not the same age as the fossil. So if the rock isn't disturbed, if there's nothing about the rock which would point to its having been disturbed, there's no reason to conclude that the fossil is older or younger than the rock in which it's embedded.

The first sentence was serious. The second was comedic reductio ad absurdum .

Vaughn