"Evolution isn't science"

[Foster Zygote]

Ok here is my response. I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE! do you believe that slavery back then was different than say a few hundred years ago?

I don't see your point. Are you saying that slavery as legally allowed in the Bible is just? I believe that slavery is unjust under any circumstance. The fact is that the Bible does contain passages that do not fit with the idea of a just, loving god. God commands his people to slaughter whole communities. If you are going to claim that the Bible is 100% factual then you must concede that God commanded that his people take swords and hack up entire communities from the oldest great-grandmother to the youngest newborn baby.

 

[Timble]

Text books take time to catch up with new knowledge, if you're teaching about the appendix, you might want to say that compared with other species the appendix has no digestive function, but we think that it might still have some endocrine activity. Depend what level you're teaching at.

And while you don't see it, it shows that function changes over time. .

There's lots of instructions in Leviticus that makes sense from the viewpoint and state of knowledge of a semi-nomadic Bronze-age culture, however, the intervening three and a half millenia have superseded a lot of stuff too as knowledge accumulates and situations chage. The Bible's of the time that it was written. Textbooks are of the time that they're written.

The older books aren't lies, they just reflect the state of current knowledge

 

[Lynx2174]

Now explain how nothing exploded and formed a rock, then how rain on a rock(no matter how long) can cause life.

Well, assuming you're a fellow american, there's certainly SOMETHING that needs changing about the teaching of science in our public schools.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you actually believe that sentence has anything to do with evoluition, you don't even have any idea about how you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's plenty of information about on the internets. Take some time to educate yourself on the matter. A little science never killed anybody.*

*(well, it probably has, but only through accidents. and you're not going to have to play around with radioisotopes to study biology on the internet.)

 

[cyborg]

OK I repeat should it be taught that the appendix has NO function

I already answered that. NO. It should be taught that the appendix is a vestigial organ - which it is. The fact that I thought that 'vestigial' meant 'no' function is almost certainly because of a simplification due to the fact that 'high-school' level biology courses do not teach the most complicated aspects. (Again you might as well demand the revocation of the physics classes as well on that basis - they're teaching all kinds of lies about Newtonian mechanics I hear).

ok here are a few...give me some time and I can go look up the rest...The appendix has no function, gill slits in human embreos,comparitive anatomy provides EVIDENCE of evolution,the tailbone serves no function,snakes and whaleshave reduced hind legs,and so on.

Again I must ask - do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Where is the INTENT to mislead?

Do you understand this? Science is not about perfection first time - otherwise I again assert that gravity should not be taught in school because Netwon's laws of mechanics are lies.

I again assert that you should be pushing for an improvement in schooling, not demanding evolution stop being based on very weak objections and your belief (despite a clearly shown example) in the infallibility of the Bible. That would be the honest thing to do.

Oh and BTW if you're gonna caps 'evidence' as if it were a dirty word in science you really, REALLY need to get a handle on how science works. Science does not fall from the sky fully formed from beneficent gods.

 

[Jekyll]

ok here are a few...[...]snakes and whaleshave reduced hind legs

Please clarify - are you saying that these are examples of lies that are commonly taught?

I've never seen a snake nor a whale shave their reduced hind legs...

 

[Schneibster]

OK I repeat should it be taught that the appendix has NO function

Individuals have been found, upon laparoscopy, laparotomy, or other abdominal surgery, who do not have (congenitally, i.e. were not born with) a veriform appendix. No physical problem or syndrome is associated with this condition. Humans who have the veriform appendix removed, both children and adults, show no further physical problem or syndrome either.

Given that there are no symptoms either to being born without an appendix, or to having it removed, what function could it serve? Given these two indisputable pieces of information, the burden of proof is on you; you must produce proof that either congenital absence or surgical removal provokes some symptom, and there is no such proof. If there were, doctors would be identifying the symptoms, and the cause, and doing something about it.

 

[Wavicle]

Perhaps the "gill slit" myth continues to be taught because there is no better "evidence" for evolution. How many of you were taught the gill slit myth in school??

You know I'm so tired of this gill slit strawman. So let's get it straight. The reason they are called "Gill Slits" is because the LOOK kind of like gill slits. Not because they are gill slits. You know the word 'vagina' originates from a word meaning 'sheath.' You don't believe they used to stick their daggers in women to strop the blade do you? Why don't you go around shouting that women don't really have vaginas.

Further the Branchial Arches (a.k.a. Pharyngeal arches, a.k.a. Pharyngeal folds, a.k.a. Gill Slits) form during embryonic development of ALL VERTEBRATES, not just mammals. In fish, they do become gills. More significantly their formation is controlled by the same genes in all these vertebrates.

Why are these 'gill slits' good evidence of evolution? Because they are an adaptation unique to all vertebrates. The less divergent the organism from the first vertebrates, the less likely these arches are to change their morphology during morphogenesis. Interestingly in humans the 5th arch doesn't turn into anything. It forms and then disappears. All vertebrates at some point have 6 arches.

So let's sum up the facts:

1. Branchial arches form during morphogenesis in ALL vertebrates
2. The same genes in ALL vertebrates control the formation of Branchial arches
3. In fish, branchial arches become gills.
4. 6 arches form at some point during development of all vertebrates.

The theory of evolution would predict that the evolved progeny of the first vertebrates would likely have similar such features. You could also argue that these similarities are the result of an intelligent designer using the same basic blue print for a whole branch of phylogeny. Well, okay. But that doesn't change that evolution as a naturalistic and scientific theory is indeed valid.

 

[Zep]

Folks, can I suggest we revise our level of conversation and approach for this guy.

Again, we are finding that the ranters who appear here seem to not have had much of a basic education, so they are easy prey to the stupidities of the Ken Hams of this world. To this guy, Ken sounds scientific, so he must be scientific. Mixed with a solid dose of religiosity, it's a potent mix for the undeducated to get in with the "hip science" crowd. Little does he realise, however, that Ken and his ilk have other hidden agendas, and that this is all a smokescreen.

What we are really challenging is not his notions of what creationism is and its inconsistencies, but what his totality of understanding of science really is. He is clinging desperately to a crumbling ledge of sand that he thought was a basalt cliff of reason. His basis of belief is being shown to have no substance. It would be very unnerving if that happened to you and you didn't know it until now, I'm sure.

So it may be the wrong thing to let that happen without giving him a chance to accept a more solid and proven base to fall back to with a modicum of dignity. So, less confrontation, more education?

I've seen this with the homeopaths too - when confronted suddenly with actual facts that totally and clearly undermine their beliefs in reality, they do tend to resort very much to this tu quoque and defiance mode, rather than acting rationally as we would like them to.

 

[cyborg]

Again, we are finding that the ranters who appear here seem to not have had much of a basic education,

The guy sounds like a teenager so I'm guessing he's still in education.

 

[CapelDodger]

No. Actually those clever Greeks had figured out that the Earth was a sphere and had even calculated its size with remarkable accuracy some 2500 years ago.

Screw the Greeks, who quite openly stood (scientifically speaking) on the shoulders of giants, the Babylonians and Egyptians were there first. And quite possibly the Chinese. Watch out for Eurocentrism, it's an insidious beast.

 

[Darat]

Dang I gotta go play basketball but I will be back later. I really do enjoy this even if we dont get anywhere!

Try not to be intimidated by the sheer volume of responses; if you read them carefully I think you'll find that many people are asking you very similar questions so a good way to deal with this is to make a single more considered reply that covers all the areas.

Also it seems as if you are making several claims and when you respond or make a post you often mix them up, I would suggest you try to keep your different claims separate - it will help you and everyone else who wants to discuss those claims with you.

 

[hellaeon]

Does this guy really believe people lived for 600 years?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies: "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals. OK is this better?

Well, it can't be too important because people born without appendixes don't show any symptoms of it.

Source of your quote provided below, it's interesting in other regards

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

 

[Wavicle]

ok here are a few...give me some time and I can go look up the rest...The appendix has no function, gill slits in human embreos,comparitive anatomy provides EVIDENCE of evolution,the tailbone serves no function,snakes and whaleshave reduced hind legs,and so on.

Gah. You are, once again, attempting to straw man this whole argument with your own definition of 'vestigial' which is not the currently accepted one.

The appendix, when it is present, performs a function but not a significant or necessary one. There is no known disorder associated with lack of a veriform appendix, either by surgical or congenital means.

There are no 'gill slits' - read my previous post.

Comparative anatomy does support evolution. You could falsify this by showing strikingly similar features in decidedly divergent species. For example, if you find an arthropod with vertebra, that would shake the foundation of evolution.

The tailbone serves a vastly reduced funtion. Comparative anatomy shows it strikingly similar to what other primates have to support a prehensile tail. Now it is little more than an attachment point for a few internal ligaments. When an organ serves a vastly reduced function from similar forms in other species, we refer to it as vestigial.

If you REALLY like your nonsense definition of vestigial, consider this: humans have a vestigial gene sequence for synthesizing vitamin C. The gene is there BUT IT IS INACTIVE. We know what the gene does because other mammals have it, and it still works.

ETA: Inactivated gene sequences were predicted by evolution theory before they were observed. A good theory has predictive power.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you REALLY like your nonsense definition of vestigial, consider this: humans have a vestigial gene sequence for synthesizing vitamin C. The gene is there BUT IT IS INACTIVE. We know what the gene does because other mammals have it, and it still works.

And amplifying on that point, the mutation that makes it inactive is also present in our most closely related primates. Why would God design the same defect in to several species?

 

[fuelair]

Ok so this is what I read...Now Noah was 600 years old when the flood of water came upon the earth...and on the 27th day of the second month the earth was dry. I know I am missing your point pleas help me.

This has no relationship to anything. There was no Noah. If you disagree, feel free to show proof - genetics would be good. Also, explain why other cultures had equivalent stories prior to this and what evidence you have that your/bibles' is correct.

 

[fuelair]

OK my position is that the Bible is litteral and true, and that evolution should not be taught in public schools as fact and backed up with lies. I am willing to discuss this with anyone who has intelligent questions and I do not call people names and expect the same out of others, that gets us no where. I think it is possible to discuss without arguing and realize that I will probably change no minds but just like to have both sides represented fairly. Thanks.

That's a position not facts - and it leads to way too many contradictions to waste time pointing out. Second, given your position there are no intelligent questions that can be asked of you other than by a good psychiatrist and none you can ask that will seem rational to most of us as they start with the assumption that a collection of old pawed over stories is A)somehow historical and B) not just equivalent to actual research/experimentation but superior to it. You are free to believe that but that does not prevent it from being abject silliness.

 

[clarsct]

I'm still trying to figure out what jesus_freak's stance and argument IS. I don't think it has been clearly stated.


I invite him to do so, as coherently as he/she/it is able.

 

[Darat]

I'm still trying to figure out what jesus_freak's stance and argument IS. I don't think it has been clearly stated.


I invite him to do so, as coherently as he/she/it is able.

As far as I understand it he is against evolution being taught in school as science because it is not true, he knows this because some people have evidence that evolution is not true and also because he believes the bible (I presume Christian but he does not say which particular Bible) is literally true.

 

[switchtech]

Ok...ummm...hold a bowling ball 20 feet above your head and have it droped. Thats a pretty weird analogy I think.
Now explain how nothing exploded and formed a rock, then how rain on a rock(no matter how long) can cause life.

The science behind evolution is much better understood and more well developed than the scientific understanding of Gravity. The difference between the two is that Gravity can be observed happening in human scale time frames (we still don't understand why there is Gravity). Evolution happens in time frames with which most human minds can't cope. But the evidence it does happen is as compelling as the evidence that Gravity happens.

Evolution theory says absolutely nothing about the first instance of life. It makes no claim for abiogenesis. Asking people who accept evolution as the best theory that fits known facts to explain "how rain on a rock(no matter how long) can cause life" is like asking an archery expert how gun powder works. You should realize that abiogenesis has not advanced to the stage of being a theory - it's a hypothesis.

A hypothesis and a theory are not the same. A hypothesis is what you have before you have conducted tests and made predictions. A theory is after (when the tests and predictions proved true). So calling evolution a theory is high praise (it works!). The only thing that supplants a theory is a better theory.

Do you really want us to start pointing out where the christian bible contradicts itself? ... By the way, that isn't to say the bible is wrong (unless you intend to take every word literally, but then you better be reading it in Hebrew and Greek first. I understand from those that can that the English version pales in comparison to the beauty and poetry in the original).