Texas approves pro-science textbooks for public schools

After months of debate, Texas education officials voted against anti-evolution activists and approved some new biology textbooks for use in schools. Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/990157.asp

sigh

Crazy kooks. The seductive thing about religion is that one can just shut one's brain off: "This is what my pastor says, so that's what I believe. Why bother thinking for myself? That path leads to Satan." The absurdity of creationism seems almost unreal, like something out of a parody. You just want to laugh these people off and let them live their crazy fantasy lives.

But as you point out, we can't afford to do that. It isn't a laughing matter, they're trying to force their hallucinations on the rest of us and with one of their own in the Oval Office we must take them deadly seriously.

they'll be back to try again... they do it every time.

they're like fireants.

I've seen these people up close...they make fireants seem docile.

the borg would be a much better comparison.

drip, drip, drip?

approved. Good for you, Texas. HURRAH!

And all of us Texans need a good reason.

It's been a while since I could honestly say that.

Postponement of the day when it becomes known as 'The Lone Brain-Cell State'.

Former Texan, proud Washingtonian here. No flames, please.

who are more cattle than hat

(did I get that right?)

:bounce:

I'm jealous - you actually get weather during the winter months that looks like winter weather, which we Dallas folks (Dallasites? Daleks?) have lacked throughout history.

hows the weather?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

Of course...Everything I just said was BASED IN SCIENCE...But you then proclaim I have no science background. WTF?

As far as my science background let us just say that I have enough experience, knowledge and credentials to make the statements I did in my previous post...statements you of course ARE NOT qualified in your own right to rebutt.

Evolution is a model...it is not a theory, let alone fact. When the legitimate proof comes out that this is how we came to be, then I will admit I was wrong.

But I will be damned if I accept this doctrine blindly. I see ZERO difference in people like you (I am assuming your faith is to evolution) and the creationist nutjobs.

My take is I have yet to discover a plausible explanation either way. Neither evolution or creation gives me the answers.

See this is my take on my fellow Liberals...So many are no more open minded than wingnuts. You just blindly accept evolution as fact and lambast Right Wingers (hell or anyone) who accepts some other thing as fact...all of it based on complete faith.

..not just among humans, but among most every type of vertebrate on the face of the earth. The transitional fossils creationists say don't exist are about. Not for everything, surely, but the convergence of genetic and geologic evidence leaves no doubt as to evolution's veracity.

Such as: "Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics."

There are others, but this is the most easily disproved if you believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you do not believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics then it does not matter.

Point them out.

I would just love to see your response.

The content of your post causes me to believe that it would be too tedious to spend any further time on the matter.

You pointed nothing out to me. You stated that evolution doesn't contradict the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

I am amazed anyone can say this.

Of course, I am beneath you and the content of my post just makes it too difficult for you to bring about an appropriate response. Nice way to weasel out of that one.

You made a comment...saying my statement was false...However, to make your point that my statement was false YOU HAD to interject a false statement.

Entropy increases in the Sun, at a rate much more than enough to allow for the limited decrease in entropy that is the growth of things in Earth. It's all about masses!

Satisfied?

leave out is that the earth is not a closed system. Feel the heat from the sun? That heat, that light came from outside our system.

Your position is, unfortunately, not uncommon these days. It stems from attempts to resolve conflicting inputs in an atmosphere of source relativism, IMHO.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Every one of the objections you listed is covered, in depth, in the talkorigins FAQ. The Theory of Evolution, ESPECIALLY so-called "macro-evolution", is as essential to modern biology as the Theory of Relativity is to modern physics. You ignore its importance at your own disadvantage.

Thank you for posting the link. I've always been repelled by the mutual exclusivity that often surrounds the debate. It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one that feels that belief can fit within the framework of science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

belive in science? Why do people insist that belief means only in the supernatural?

when he verb "to know" is more proper. Example:

WRONG: I believe the derivative of the exponential function is itself.
RIGHT: I know the derivative of the exponential function is itself.

WRONG: I believe Mars is farther away from the Sun than the Earth.
RIGHT: I know Mars is farther away from the Sun than the Earth.

Analogously for Natural Selection.

I just freaking hate when people say I am wrong and don't have anything to prove it.

You obviously don't know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is.

How is "degree of disorder increasing" not being contradicted by evolution? I'd love to hear this well thought out response.

for something like 150 years. How evolution works is the theory. The study of evolution is science in action. Genetics helps prove evolution.

This 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument as applied to evolution is straight out of the religious teaching of the creation scientists.

* Heat flows from hot to cold
* Heat cannot be completely converted
* Isolated systems become disordered

These laws apply to NON-living matter. Living things are not isolated systems.

everything about living beings contradicts the 2nd Law, growth, for instance. Such is what happens when you apply laws of physics to biology.


oh, and one other thing, the 2nd only applies to closed systems. since there is energy entering our little system (from that great big burning ball of gas up yonder) all that energy can be used to build complexity.

Remember Alexander Pope's lament: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." He's talking to you, sir.

In this case, you've picked up this surface idea -- "entropy always increases" -- without really understanding it. The 'entropy' the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics references is the indication of unusable energy -- it roughly parallels our layman's understanding of "disorder", but the two are not always the same. In fact, all that the 2LoT really demands of a system is that no process be possible where the sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer body.

A similar pattern of "little learning" crops up with the rest of your cited arguments, most of which are old hat groaners dispensed of by theTalk.Origins pages.

If you had, maybe you would know more about thermodynamics than Fred Phelps.

The second law only applies to closed systems. Life is not a closed system.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe is always increasing. However, entropy of a system can decrease. When the entropy of a system decreases, the entropy of another system increases to a larger degree. Thus, evolution is possible when the entropy of a single system (such as a cell) decreases.

Come on. This is something that my conservative chemistry professor at a religious university taught. He even flat-out said that evolution did not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

just saved this link for people like you. Evolution is a FACT, a scientific one.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2

we are continually pelted with asteroids and meteors, even moreso in the early milleniums of the planet.

ouch, that sounds painful!! :scared:

Case in point...

Hawaii and a population of honey dippers. These birds evolved from a common ancestor. Each evolved modifications that enabled them to exploit a particular type of food source. The birds beaks evolved many different shapes to accomodate a food source. it was an advantage to expolit a food source that had decreased competition. With this also comes differentiation in species behavior, mating rituals and nesting become different. The result is a unique species. Even though the birds all look the same but for beak shape they do not interbreed.

So from a common anscestral species degree of disorder increases as new species exploit the surrounding environment. This creates a rich and diverse environment full of numerous distinct species existing in balance. Humans have a way of disrupting this balance by thier mere presence.

When you begin to study evolution you cannot narrow your vision to one species. You have to look at the entire evironment as a whole to understand how evolution occurs.

Isolated islands like hawaii, galopogos, sychelles (sp) offer scientists across dicisplines to collaborate in understanding how the flora and fauna evloved as they did. TO do this you have to look at not only the phlogeny of a single species but also the climate, geology, fossil record, environmental pressures, human pressures both ancient and modern.

In some ways I agree that sometimes people get passionate about "evolution" vs. creation and tend to lash out at creation when it is purposed as something other a spritual answer to a difficult question.

I reserve creation personally for the unanswerable questions likle how did the universe begin and what was there before? This question is simply answered with creation or ignored and researched.

Creation theory does not allow for the human mind to seek the truth. it is a doctrine that is either followed or denied. Science provides mankind with the ability to reason with logic. It is a concept outlined in the bible a document written not by god but by men. It was modified over thousands of years to console and provide guidence in waorl much different than what exists today. People who do not believe there is a god or that the Bible is the answer and THE source of all truth take offence at it being forced upon them.

I for one make a clear distinction between religion and science. Creation is not science.

YOu can believe in creation just as one can belive in evolution. The key is to remeber which is science and which is faith.

1. The universe doesn't exist. Niether does bush*.
2. Not even nothing was here before because there was no before. There isn't even a "now".
3. The only thing that is real is the knowledge that nothing is real.
4. The meaning of life is life, simple.
5. The purpose of the "universe" is to discover it's purpose.
6. No, I'm not on drugs.

One of my favorite things to do is to ask someone what the meaning of life is and yell RIGHT! before they say a word.

Because thats what many fundies do when they actually hear the explanation why Evolution is in no way a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They say "Bah!" and ignore them.

Will you stay and listen to the explanation or run away and continue to spew the same old fallacies?

..become more "ordered." Evolution refers to a change in gene frequencies. You're putting up a strawman. At any rate, the 2nd law only holds for closed systems. The earth receives a constant supply of light energy from the sun, which is converted into chemical energy by plants and distributed to other organisms.

in common language. Scientific "theory" is just one step away from "law". That is, while it still is constantly tested via real evidence, it is just short of "law" as gravity is now termed and thus more consequential than "theory", which is often substituted for "hypothesis."

When Creationists or "Intelligent Designers" say - well, it is "just a theory", they are relying on the common usage of the term and not the scientific usage to convince their religion based believers.

Of course, much still remains to be verified, but modern testing which does not rely on a religious predilection posits that evolution is indeed something which explains scientific phenomena.

I don't know about you, butI just got a flu shot - different from last year's to account for the mutation of deleterious viruses due to natural selction, an engine of genetic muation, leading to different species.

Hooray for Texas teachers and other educators for giving their students an education which will allow them entry into the bio-sciences. Before this, they would be sorely handicapped.

"The fossil record has still never given us these transitional species that pro-evolution forces support."

That's because the system of classification demands that each new discovery either be placed in one category or the other or a new category be created. And the creationists just argue that there's no "transitional species" between the new closer category and the old one. There's no such thing as a transitional species period.


"Chance can not write code as complex as our DNA."

How do you know this? Isn't that why they call it chance? It may be unlikely, but you can't state definitively what is possible and what isn't when it comes to creation.

I've worked on a farm. Evolution isn't even close to as big a question of faith as creationism.

It's driven by external forces as adaptation. Nature tinkers with the DNA until some mutation seems to be advantageous. That creature prospers and takes over that niche. It's all a matter of survival in the face of a changing ecosystem.

i am not trying to flame you;

but if the DNA is comprised of Adenine, Thyamine, Guanine, Cytosine, and sometimes Uricil -- please orgive my spelling.

and a strand is
ATTGGCCATTA and so on
would not a replacement of Uricil with Thyamine create a 'new' gene?
or a deletion of Adenine and replacement of more Cytosine do the same?

but actually replacement of uracil with thymine would not create a new gene as uracil and thymine are the equivalent bases that occur in RNA and DNA, respectively.

other than that, there are essentially billions (really, many more) of possibilities for creating new genes from simple base substitutions or deletions as you mention.

Thou shalt not give false witness.

"Evolution is NOT a theory, NOR is it fact. Theories can be tested, proven and disproven. Evolution is a MODEL and should be promoted as such"

Wrong. Evolution can be tested, it's been shown in the laboratory. It's also been tested in the fossil record. If evolution is true, I should be able to find a transitional fossil such as a large land mammal evolving into a whale. I experiment by digging in strata that should contain such a specimen. I find one, I've proven my theory.


"Evolution requires NEW genes to form via random mutation. "

Agreed. Single mutations can cause new genes to form, they do it all the time.


-\"Flight occured by random mutation 4 times? A random genetic mutation created flight in 4 different kinds of animals? Every part of the anatomy of flying animals has been adapted for flying."

Which would agree with evolution. Notice how mammals, bird, anthropods and reptiles clearly evolved their own mechanisms for flight.

"-The fossil record has still never given us these transitional species that pro-evolution forces support"

Wrong. There's half land mammal/ half whale fossils, half dinosaur/ half bird fossils, and perhaps more importantly, half ape/ half human fossils.

"rcheopteryx is often has been brought up as a pre-cursor to birds, yet its fossil was found in the same layer as birds. I question the "science" used here."

Wrong. Scientists haven't thought archeopteryx was the direct decendant of birds in decades. If you're going to argue against science, you should at least play catch up.

"-Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics."

A ridiculous lie and a purposeful misapplication of the theory. You should be ashamed.


"While mutations have been an argument to suggest evolution, at this time we have not found a single mutation that promotes anything positive. Not saying there won't be, but at this time, we don't have the proof on this."

Of course we have. Want one? Sickle cell anemia. Provides an advantage against malaria.

"-Evolved species are not irreducably complex and evolution promotes culmulatively complex. Even Darwin himself said his theory was a fraud if any organ that existed did not come from previous organs due to slight, continious modifications. "

You're misreading your own propaganda. It is the creationists who say that life is irreducibly complex. There's not one organ that can't be explained by evolution. even the eye, so don't go there.

"LIFE can ONLY come from known life and THIS IS A KNOWN LAW (it has been tested, proven and never disproven)."

Wrong. There's nothing that says life can't come from non-lfe. You're making stuff up.

"Evolution claims life began out of primordial soup."

Agreed. And primordial soup has been made in the lab by duplicating the environment of the early earth.

'ANYTHING that goes against known laws is UN-SCIENTIFIC"

Agreed. Good thing there's no law against evolution. Since all scientists everywhere agree with evolution then they'd really look stupid.

I missed the fun, but I want to play too:

"Evolution is NOT a theory, NOR is it fact. Theories can be tested, proven and disproven. Evolution is a MODEL and should be promoted as such"

Clearly evolution can be disproven. If a whale gave birth to a penguin, the theory would have to be discarded. Same would happen if a human fossil were found under a 4million year old stromolite.


"Evolution requires NEW genes to form via random mutation. "

I don't think this is true. Sexually reproducing species can achieve variation without mutation, such as through recombination. But yes, DrWeird is right, new genes form all the time.


-\"Flight occured by random mutation 4 times? A random genetic mutation created flight in 4 different kinds of animals? Every part of the anatomy of flying animals has been adapted for flying."

What is a "kind of animal"? And yes, parallel evolution happens all the time.


"-The fossil record has still never given us these transitional species that pro-evolution forces support"

Of course it has. Hyracotherium vassacciense is a transitional species between Hyracotherium and Orohippus, which is a transitional species between Hyracotherium vassacciense and Epihippus, and so on...
These fossils all show temporal progression.


"-Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics."

Others have provided excellent responses to this ludicrous claim. Snowflakes, for instance, display a decreased degree of entropy. Do these contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


"While mutations have been an argument to suggest evolution, at this time we have not found a single mutation that promotes anything positive. Not saying there won't be, but at this time, we don't have the proof on this."

Another counterfactual suggestion. Mutations have been shown to provide resistance to heart disease (ApoA-1) and AIDS (CKR5 deletion). Mutations frequently confer resistance in bacteria - not beneficial to us but beneficial to them.


"-Evolved species are not irreducably complex and evolution promotes culmulatively complex. Even Darwin himself said his theory was a fraud if any organ that existed did not come from previous organs due to slight, continious modifications. "

Yes, DrWeird caught you on this one. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity, you shot yourself in the foot here. Darwin never said any such thing, and even if he did the theory would still hold because it is the best means of explaining all available evidence.


"LIFE can ONLY come from known life and THIS IS A KNOWN LAW (it has been tested, proven and never disproven)."

What law is this and where has it been proven? You should look this stuff up before you post.


"Evolution claims life began out of primordial soup."

This is actually abiogenesis and not necessarily part of evolution. But they are related.


'ANYTHING that goes against known laws is UN-SCIENTIFIC"

Yes. See creationism.

in many laboratories under rigorously controlled conditions.

didn't notice.
Evolution is a fact. Everything after your first comment which was wrong, was also wrong.
Idiot.

you have to realize that these mutations happened over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. eventually, the better adaptations won out...i guess. there are alternate theories about how apes transcended into humans. we probably won't really understand how it all works for a long time to come. :(

While I get annoyed when the pro-creationist try to force their beliefs down the throats of others, I challenge that the pro-evolution forces are just as dogmatic as the pro-creation forces and I argue that there is JUST AS MUCH faith that goes into believing evolution (MACRO-evolution) as some sort of "intelligent being."

Not so. Speciation has been witnessed both in nature and in a laboratory setting. Evolution is accepted as fact in the scientific community.

As someone who honestly doesn't know, yet has spent some credible time working in this field, I believe the pro-evolution forces have had more than their fair share in public education. We have essentially promoted the notion of evolution as fact.

It is a fact. And so much of modern biology is built upon it that it's impossible to teach it otherwise.

-Evolution is NOT a theory, NOR is it fact. Theories can be tested, proven and disproven. Evolution is a MODEL and should be promoted as such

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. That genetic changes occur in a population over time is indisputable. The evidence for historical evolution is so overwhelming that it's treated as fact in the scientific community.

The mechanisms that cause evolution are the subject of theory -- Darwin's theory of evolution, in particular.

-Evolution requires NEW genes to form via random mutation.

And?

-The fossil record has still never given us these transitional species that pro-evolution forces support

Preservation as a fossil itself is rare. Because of that, and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions betweeen species are uncommon in the fossil record. However, there are many transitions are higher taxonomic levels.

Preserved transitional forms that have been unearthed include bird-reptiles, reptile-mammals, ape-humans, legged whales, and legged seacows.

-Flight occured by random mutation 4 times? A random genetic mutation created flight in 4 different kinds of animals? Every part of the anatomy of flying animals has been adapted for flying.

Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous.

-Archeopteryx is often has been brought up as a pre-cursor to birds, yet its fossil was found in the same layer as birds. I question the "science" used here.

This is simply wrong. The fossils that were found in the same layer were, in fact, re-identified soon thereafter as belonging to the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus.

-No one has ever explained to me how random and consecutive mutations creates the ideal of punctuated equilibrium.

See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors

-Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

The 2nd Law says that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. Life is not a closed system.

-While mutations have been an argument to suggest evolution, at this time we have not found a single mutation that promotes anything positive. Not saying there won't be, but at this time, we don't have the proof on this.

Beneficial mutations are often observed. Plant breeders use mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones. Some mutations confer humans resistance to heart diease. Another one makes bones strong.

The DNA of bacteria is closer to the DNA of a horse than it is to yeast.

According to who?

-Chance can not write code as complex as our DNA.

-Evolved species are not irreducably complex and evolution promotes culmulatively complex. Even Darwin himself said his theory was a fraud if any organ that existed did not come from previous organs due to slight, continious modifications.

"Irreducable complexity" relies on an unrealistically simplistic model of evolution. Because of mechanisms that this idea don't take into account (like functional change and coevolution), irreducable complexity is to be expected.

-LIFE can ONLY come from known life and THIS IS A KNOWN LAW (it has been tested, proven and never disproven).

And?

-Evolution claims life began out of primordial soup.

And evolution deniers claim that life began due to the whims of some cosmic toymaker.

-ANYTHING that goes against known laws is UN-SCIENTIFIC

Evolution doesn't contradict any "known laws".

Hey where'd he go? That guy needed a dose of Richard Dawkins! Time for the human race to GROW UP!

I never have the patience for this particular argument. Thank you for doing all the work to correct this pseudo-science bs that the creationists like to spit out.

...because a bunch of religiously insane whackos want equal time. That's why it's called SCIENCE class. RELIGION class is on Sundays - away from school grounds.

DNA is a molecule. Thus it is made of atoms just like dirt, rocks, and everything else found in the universe. Thus, if you remember your chemistry, conditions had to exist that assembled the atoms into this self-replicating thing we call living matter. Understanding what those conditions likely were is what SCIENCE is all about. Trying to prove that God did it by throwing out the scientific method, selectively ignoring things that are clearly evident, and making the rest of it up is NOT SCIENCE.

THESE are facts. Saying otherwise and calling it a KNOWN LAW doesn't make it so. Science is littered with KNOWN LAWS that have been disproven long ago. That's why it's called SCIENCE - an organized quest for knowledge that uses THEORIES to get more knowledge. Every third grader learns about the scientific method, and how it is used to formulate THEORIES that are provable by repeatable results brought about by experimentation.

I don't think God will get mad at us for trying to increase our understanding of the universe. Quite contrarily, I think He has to be pretty pissed off at people who refuse to learn and grow as members of a modern society. I seriously doubt He meant for us to remain as primitives cowering in their caves when it's thundering out.

Hi all,

This is my first post, although I've been lurking at DU since March. So please be gentle wrt any formatting or etiquette errors I might make.

kwolf68's post pinged one of my hot button issues. This is a personal hobby - the discussion about and debate with the anti-science political movement called Creationism and/or Intelligent Design.

First let me say that one of the best resources for information on the mainstream scientific thinking about evolution and the creationism/evolution debate is

http://www.talkorigins.org/

This website was created and is maintained by the denizens of the Usenet group, talk.origins, among whom are working scientists and graduate students, especially in biology. I'm just an interested layman and occasional poster to the newsgroup. :D

While I get annoyed when the pro-creationist try to force their beliefs down the throats of others, I challenge that the pro-evolution forces are just as dogmatic as the pro-creation forces and I argue that there is JUST AS MUCH faith that goes into believing evolution (MACRO-evolution) as some sort of "intelligent being."

As someone who honestly doesn't know, yet has spent some credible time working in this field, I believe the pro-evolution forces have had more than their fair share in public education. We have essentially promoted the notion of evolution as fact.

I respectfully submit that the above indicates some pretty far-reaching misconceptions about evolution in particular and science in general. Science is NOT a democracy. All ideas are not equal in science, no matter how popular an idea is among the general public. It is no more "dogmatic" nor based any more on "faith" to "believe" in and teach (in SCIENCE classes) evolution than it is to "believe" and teach that the earth revolves around the sun or that matter is made of atoms. All of these are the best explanations that science has at present for observed reality. Evolution IS a fact that has been observed, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation that scientists have developed over the last 150 years to explain observed facts about the changes, development, and diversity of life on our planet.

DU isn't the most appropriate forum for discussions about this and I invite any who are interested to check out the website and Usenet group. That said, I'd still like to briefly respond to kwolf68's list. The list reads like a course in Creationism 101. My intent is not to be offensive, but I can't let this kind of misinformation slide without comment.

First of all, some general points I have:

-Evolution is NOT a theory, NOR is it fact. Theories can be tested, proven and disproven. Evolution is a MODEL and should be promoted as such

To the best of my understanding, THEORY and MODEL mean the same thing in science. Both words represent ideas and explanations that have the highest confidence given to any scientific proposal. An accepted scientific model or theory has been thoroughly tested and is considered the best explanation for the phenomena and facts it covers. So promoting evolution as a model (which IS what it is) means to promote it as the best theory there is.

-Evolution requires NEW genes to form via random mutation.

And your point is ? Completely NEW genes are very rare but have still been observed (nylon eating bacteria is one example of this if I am remembering correctly). Allelles (or modifications) to existing genes are pretty common. The average number of random mutations to functional genes in the genome of every human born is 6. The overwhelming majority of random mutations have little or no effect and are considered neutral wrt natural selection. These are facts.

-The fossil record has still never given us these transitional species that pro-evolution forces support

This is simply not true. The discoveries of the fossils showing the development of land animals to whales and the feathered, proto-winged (pre-bird) dinosaurs in China are just the latest examples of transitional fossil finds. See this link for more in-depth information:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

-Flight occured by random mutation 4 times? A random genetic mutation created flight in 4 different kinds of animals? Every part of the anatomy of flying animals has been adapted for flying.

Evolution isn't JUST random mutation, you know. Random mutation provides the diversity in the genes of a population of a species. Natural selection is the sieve that sifts which of those genomes will be most successful in having offspring and passing on their genes. That's the super simplified version of evolution.

WRT flight.
a)none of the ancestors of the animals that fly developed the ability with just 1 big mutation. The abilities and modifications were made in small increments, e.g. feathers first developed on therapod dinosaurs, probably for insulation and/or display, and eventually were changed and co-opted for flight many millions of years later. This hypothesis was developed in part to explain the feathered dinosaur fossils being discovered primarily in China.

b) there are 'transitional' animals alive today that demonstrate intermediate adaptations that show how flight could have previously or may in the future develop - flying squirrels, flying lizards, etc.

-Archeopteryx is often has been brought up as a pre-cursor to birds, yet its fossil was found in the same layer as birds. I question the "science" used here.

Archeopteryx is NOT presented as a direct precursor to birds by scientists. Archy is a cousin branch to birds that retains the dinosaur traits of the common ancestor of Archy and birds. An example of a living 'cousin' branch that retains transitional/primitive traits is the monotreme mammals (duck-billed platypus, echidna). Millions of years ago ALL mammals still laid leathery eggs, had a cloaca, and had their limbs held lateral to their bodies like their reptile ancestors (and as reptiles still do today). One population of these mammals kept these primitive traits (even though they still evolved and changed in other ways) while another population of mammals slowly developed, in small, incremental changes, into the placental mammals that are the most common type around today.

-No one has ever explained to me how random and consecutive mutations creates the ideal of punctuated equilibrium.

I think you're confused about what PE is. For a real scientific explanation see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html


-Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Not even a little bit true! This post is already way too long, so again I recommend looking at the archives at talk.origins.org for accurate information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

-While mutations have been an argument to suggest evolution, at this time we have not found a single mutation that promotes anything positive. Not saying there won't be, but at this time, we don't have the proof on this.

Again - untrue. I think I mentioned a mutation that now allows a certain bacteria to feed on nylon (a purely man-made material that did not exist 60 years ago)? Antibiotic resistance in some bacteria and pesticide resistance in some insects have all developed from random mutations to genes within the last few decades. Inducing antibiotic resistance in bacteria through random mutation and selection is a standard lab experiment for undergraduate biology students!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

-The DNA of bacteria is closer to the DNA of a horse than it is to yeast.

It would be interesting to find out where you got this factoid, but without looking into it and based purely on the theory of evolution, I'd say this isn't true. The reason? Bacteria are prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus); yeast and horses are eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). This is such a basic, structural difference in the way the cells function that yeast MUST be more closely related to horses than bacteria is!

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life

-Chance can not write code as complex as our DNA.

Since science doesn't claim that 'chance' writes anything, this point doesn't make a lot of sense.

-Evolved species are not irreducably complex and evolution promotes culmulatively complex. Even Darwin himself said his theory was a fraud if any organ that existed did not come from previous organs due to slight, continious modifications.

I'm completely baffled about what you're trying to say here. Want to rephrase?

-LIFE can ONLY come from known life and THIS IS A KNOWN LAW (it has been tested, proven and never disproven).

AFAIK there is no such 'known law' in science. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

-Evolution claims life began out of primordial soup.

Nope. Evolution is not the scientific study of where or how life began and the theory says nothing directly about where or how life began. That field of study is called abiogenesis. There is no current scientific theory of abiogenesis, just a bunch of hypotheses that are being investigated and tested. It's an interesting and exciting branch of science, but it ain't evolution.

-ANYTHING that goes against known laws is UN-SCIENTIFIC

If FACTS or OBSERVATIONS are found to disagree with a scientific theory/model/law, the theory/model/law is modified or discarded. Reality trumps everything else in science.

I argue that while evolution has brought an interesting discourse to science that its followers are just as blind, just as un-objective and just as dogmatic as the so-called "creationists" who reject evolution.

I disagree. Science is a tool that we can use to figure out how reality works. It has been incredibly successful in accomplishing that goal, as evidenced by the technological society we live in. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported models in science. It is NOT dogmatic to insist that the best current scientific theories be taught in SCIENCE classes.

The whole evolution/creation debate is a political construct engendered by people who have a religious objection to the science. There is NO scientific debate about the evidence supporting the thory of evolution because there is NO EVIDENCE that the theory is incorrect.

for reminding me why I've joined the Round Earth Society.

Another good site you might want to check out is http://www.infidels.org/

It has a lot of good stuff on science and evolution in general, as well as philosophy, ethics, church/state issues and plenty more.

That sure is a whompin first post. Mine consisted of a ".". Welcome anyhow! You'll find some pretty smart people here (mostly).

that scientific creationists give against the theory of evolution, all of which have been discreditied over the last 10-15 years.

Science is not "blind and un-objective" as you put it. That's what peer review is all about. New ideas are constantly being put forth every day to challenge the status quo. Fortunately (or unfortunatly as the case may be), these new ideas must also pass the same rigorous tests that their predecessors did before they become accepted.

It is up to the claimant to prove his case, not the defendant to disprove the claimant's ideas. Science is full of tales of wild and crazy ideas than become accepted simply because they explain better the workings of the universe that the ideas they replaced (see Copernicus' planetary model vs. Ptolemy's for one).

Creation Science is not science. It is religion dressed up in pseudo-scientific terms.

Main Entry: the�o�ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS


======

Broad-brush anyone?

"I argue that while evolution has brought an interesting discourse to science that its followers are just as blind, just as un-objective and just as dogmatic as the so-called "creationists" who reject evolution. "

I feel a bit part in this victory as in I am involved with the Texas Freedom Network which is group organized the fight the fundie influence in Texas schoolbooks (censorship). I urge ALL TEXAS DU'er to do the same. You can sign up to read books on history, geography and science and submit either written or oral testimony at the Hearings that take pro and con text book viewpoits. THe fundies are incrediby well organized and have usually triumphed at these things.

All Texas DU'ers please sign up because as TexasPatriot said they'll be back and next time with more fury and zeal.

http://www.tfn.org/issues.htm

Have we sunk so far that "pro-science" vs. "pro-creationism" textbooks is actually being framed as a real debate?

Remember Kansas a few ago?

since Texas is so big that they wouldn't need stickers, they'd actually get the books written the way they want and other states would be stuck with it.

Thankfully,here sanity seems to have won out...

Now we know how shrub got his ideas.

:kick:

... for a deserving thread.

.

Teaching science in science class! What's next teaching math in math class?

going to contain nonsense about the theory of gravity?

if gravity actually existed, please tell me how the holy word of god, spoken to me in the book of Acts, chapter 1

9: And when he (Jesus) had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10: And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

could possibly be correct?

notice all the references to going "up" and the notably lack of any reference to any locomotion system (apollo I? space shuttle?) - now how could that be if the theory of gravity was correct?? :freak:

I'm so glad there's at least a little bit of common sense in that state.

Adam and Eve, yeah right.

I am not kidding.

utterly ridiculous that this is even debatable in the 21st century.

too many fundies, I wish they'd all just rapture themselves the hell outta here and leave the rest to us.

SCIENCE! What a concpet!

Its a very sad commentary that basing a science textbook on science is considered a victory. Teach science in science class and religion in Sunday School, or would it be OK for us to go over to the nearest Baptist Church nad hold a Physics lesson during the Sunday service?

Thing #31 here sounds interesting.

Others have addressed this, but I'd like to give a short lesson on what the 2nd Law of Thermo says (I'm a professor of mechanical engineering, so I like to think I'm a bit of an expert on the subject).

The 2nd law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system must always increase. Fundies tend to twist this to say that entropy (or disorder) must always increase, but that is either a misunderstanding or an outright lie. Read the initial statement more carefully; it concerns an ISOLATED system.

An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings in any way. For example, the universe is an isolated system (it has nothing outside of itself to interact with), and therefore the entropy of the universe is always increasing.

Non-isolated systems can, and often do move to a more ordered state. Think about putting a tray of water outside on a cold day. The water freezes, becoming more ordered (ice), and thus the entropy of the water decreases. Does this violate the 2nd Law of Thermo? Of course not, because the tray of ice cubes is not an isolated system! All that the 2nd Law requires is that the entropy outside of the system increase more than the entropy inside the system decreases. More specifically, the entropy of the outside environment is increasing due to the heat transfered from the water during the freezing process.

The earth is NOT an isolated system, and of course, neither are any living organisms on the earth. They all interact with their surroundings. Thus, their becoming more ordered is perfectly legitimate as long as the entropy of the surroundings is increasing more than the entropy of the system is decreasing.

Any questions, or have all the fundies gone to hide when faced with the facts?

But none of this matters when the choice is Science and truth or burning in hell forever. Fear will win out, it's stuck in our brain stem. It's a war between that and the cerebral cortex.
Fear is the mind-killer.