Should evolution be taught in high school?

Subduction Zone wrote:

And how do cretinists explain ring species?

It is alleged that the word 'cretin' has its roots in the word 'christianos' on the theory that they were so mentally defective that they were incapable of sin. There is hope for fundies yet.

Just for shits and giggles, I levelled accusations against UC and michigan gel, but not only at them, but at the childish click as well. Notice how when I attacked michigan gel and urban cowboy, neither 1 of them responded. Then notice how not 1 of the childish clique said anything about me attacking urban cowboy or michigan gel, because they felt that it was in their favor. So in essence both sides care nothing for anyone else. They only care for themselves. They only care for weather they feel they lose or win. They care nothing 4 science of a whole, neither side.

Next time you want 1 of your children to be a scientist, consider this.

Correction my above post!

They care nothing 4 science as a whole, neither side.

the pet whisperer wrote:

Just for shits and giggles, I levelled accusations against UC and michigan gel, but not only at them, but at the childish click as well. Notice how when I attacked michigan gel and urban cowboy, neither 1 of them responded. Then notice how not 1 of the childish clique said anything about me attacking urban cowboy or michigan gel, because they felt that it was in their favor. So in essence both sides care nothing for anyone else. They only care for themselves. They only care for weather they feel they lose or win. They care nothing 4 science of a whole, neither side.
Next time you want 1 of your children to be a scientist, consider this.

Your opinions, and insults mean nothing, Carpet.

DO get a life.

Loser.

the pet whisperer wrote:

Just for shits and giggles, I levelled accusations against UC and michigan gel, but not only at them, but at the childish click as well. Notice how when I attacked michigan gel and urban cowboy, neither 1 of them responded. Then notice how not 1 of the childish clique said anything about me attacking urban cowboy or michigan gel, because they felt that it was in their favor. So in essence both sides care nothing for anyone else. They only care for themselves. They only care for weather they feel they lose or win. They care nothing 4 science of a whole, neither side.
Next time you want 1 of your children to be a scientist, consider this.

And you refuse to answer a simple, polite question from Mugwump.

So piss off.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Created kind or baramin. Come on man, get with the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over time. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[14]

Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[15][16]

Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is based on the similarity of two or more organisms' characters and uses methods borrowed from phenetics.[17]

Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry. Others point to inter-fertility capability as a possible indicator.[18] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded.[19][20]

Baraminologist Roger W. Sanders advocates a subjective approach to classification over a measurement-based one:[21]
“ The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.(wiki)

So, there is no way to determine what a kind is, nor what kind any particular organism belongs to. If there's no way to reliably apply it, it's useless. Why would you prefer something useless over something useful?

Also...

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data not supporting desired findings.[22] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and so this scientific theory is commonly described by biologists as the fact of evolution.[23] However neither cladistics, the field devoted to classifying living things according to the ancestral relationships between them, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[24]

Despite voluminous evidence for evolution at and above the species level, baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.[24](wiki)

Throw out what you don't like, ignore the inconvenient, and pretend "kind" means something despite no actual way to tell what "kind" any given organism belongs to. Yes, that's very scientific. Sounds far more useful than, you know, ACTUAL science.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>Yes it does.(Notice I'm giving you a break not talking about abiogenesis (Horrors! Not that!) You claim common descent. You claim that creatures crawled out of the water and grew feathers and flew away. You claim it's only a matter of time that worms turn into microbiologists. So show me. Simple. You've been growing populations of organisms with super-fast generation times for over 100 years and not only has it not happened - the exact opposite happened - they devolved! Show me where common descent was observed. Show me where one kind of organism changed into a completely different kind. Have the courage to face it.

wow kudos 😉

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
You gonna eat that? I recommend JOHN BOY & BILLY'S GRILLIN' SAUCE.

I admit it does look like it might need some "tenderizing" but it still looks more appetizing than than this...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/... #

...does. I bet the Japanese would pay top dollar for something that strange.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean you can't tell the difference between a reptile and bird? Or a fish and a mammal? Or a monkey and a man? Why do you have to be so coy and equivocal? Just man up for once already. Do I need to repeat the question again? And AGAIN?!

Yes, its easy to tell the difference between a reptile and a bird today. But if you delve into the strata around 150 million years ago, you will have much more difficulty and eventually see that the distinction no longer applies. There were "reptiles" with feathers and avian respiratory systems. There were "birds" with teeth and more reptilian skeletons.

This is the evidence for common descent that you try to ignore. At least 30 known species that blur the line.

As you track back nearly any lineage of creatures, where we have fossil evidence, that evidence always points to convergence with other kinds, the further back we go.

Evolution explains it.
Creationism does not.

Similarly, anyone can tell the difference between Spanish and French today. But as you go back through history, both languages converge on their common ancestor, latin. If you could go back you would reach a point where they were little more than regional accents, much as you can see today in a country like the USA with English.

You have a problem with trying to show current categories as permanent and essential, while the reality is that the separation into current categories was a gradual process, well documented in the fossil (and genomic) record.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

The expression of genes in the original created kinds is a rich variety which should not be mistaken for evolution. For example, if the orginal created kind of canine were a wolf, natural selection and environmental pressures have resulted in everything from coyotes to foxes and Jack Russels to Beagles. This is in large part the result of built in genetic allele variety although mutation can play a minor role too. This is the same with birds, fish, cats, etc. They change size and color and shape but they are still basically the same creature with the same organs and body types. Speciation can occur not just from isolation but also from differences in diet and color/patterns, so speciation really has nothing to do with whether two organisms are of the same original created kind or not. All the animal diversity on earth is the result of natural selection and built-in genetic variation acting on a relatively few original created kinds. Sort of an orchard of created kinds that migrates outward and diversifies in the various environments. But all the present animals can be grouped and classified according to a relatively few original created kinds.

Yes but unfortunately for your hypothesis, the fossil record of the whole canine line converges with the feline line about 22 million years ago, and ancestors prior to that (Miacids) converge with primitive insectivorous mammals in the late Cretaceous.

There were no cats or dogs before 22 million years ago. There were creatures with the characteristics of both.

Therefore, your distinction of "kind", even if you allow for common ancestry among wolves, foxes etc, does not go far enough. Even you can see that baraminology is merely trying to paint lines so that they can cook reality into their prior scripture based conviction. I note that in one baramin site they could not agree whether Homo erectus was really a human or not. Adam a Homo erectus? Someone should have told Michelangelo.

There is a very simple reason baraminologists cannot agree. Its because they are trying to impose artificial lines of separation on what is really a continuum, and making fools of themselves in the process.

the pet whisperer wrote:

...notice how not 1 of the childish clique said anything about me attacking urban cowboy or michigan gel, because they felt that it was in their favor.

No, its because nobody cares about what you have to say. Its a distinction you have earned many times over.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
No such thing. There are apes and there are humans. That's it.

The fossil record begs to differ from your scriptural based dogmatism.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

The expression of genes in the original created kinds is a rich variety which should not be mistaken for evolution. For example, if the orginal created kind of canine were a wolf, natural selection and environmental pressures have resulted in everything from coyotes to foxes and Jack Russels to Beagles. This is in large part the result of built in genetic allele variety although mutation can play a minor role too. This is the same with birds, fish, cats, etc. They change size and color and shape but they are still basically the same creature with the same organs and body types. Speciation can occur not just from isolation but also from differences in diet and color/patterns, so speciation really has nothing to do with whether two organisms are of the same original created kind or not. All the animal diversity on earth is the result of natural selection and built-in genetic variation acting on a relatively few original created kinds. Sort of an orchard of created kinds that migrates outward and diversifies in the various environments. But all the present animals can be grouped and classified according to a relatively few original created kinds.

I would love to see a grouped and classified list of these original kinds.

Do you have a link?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
As I was already saved even before I ditched evolution there is no current effort or motivating force for me to try and believe it (creation) in order to finally achieve salvation.

You have come to the conclusion that either every word in the Bible has to be literally correct, or none of it has any meaning.

Therefore, in order to preserve your belief that you are saved and will go to heaven and not die, you are forced to argue against the findings of modern biology, geology, and astronomy. Admitting that they are right would be, for you, tantamount to spiritual suicide, a rejection of your belief that you are saved. Other more rational Christians have found a way to reconcile the message of the Bible with non-literalism. Morton is one of those and you might have found his perspective interesting if you had the courage to read him.

And you may want to rethink your suggestion that it takes billions of generations for any of the steps toward a common descent segment to occur otherwise because there's already not enough time left in the current theory.

That is not what I said. The common ancestry of all life today occurred billions of years ago (i.e. "ALL the steps"), but the evidence of convergence as we trace back occurs right through the fossil record. We can see convergence at one million, ten million, or one hundred million years. The pattern is universal.

Bacterial reproduction cannot be equated with mammal reproduction. Firstly, its not sexual so there is no genetic recombination. While there is plasmid based gene swapping on occasion, this is not the same thing. Secondly, the simple ring genome of bacteria is not as amenable to large scale accumulation of information (and junk) as the eukaryote complex chromosomal genome. How eukaryotes appeared in the first place would be the subject of a whole new post...

-------

The basic blauplan (body type) of a huge variety of creatures are actually very closely related. Evolution has created minor incremental changes, accumulating over the basic blauplans.

Consider the animal kingdom. The vast majority of species adhere to either the basic vertebrate, arthropod or mollusc plan. Minor changes in each, accumulated over millions of years, can explain nearly all species. If you were ever going to apply "baraminology" properly, you would be left with a very few true kinds. Whether you want to call it adaptation or evolution, the simple proto-vertebrate can explain all the fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds that followed with minor but accumulating incremental changes.

These show in both the fossil record and the genome.

What is your poison?
Capitalism, nothing more then communism in a different form. In capitalism those with a voice, lie cheat and steal from those without a voice. in communism, those with a voice lie cheat and steal, from those that do not have a voice.

All governments are fully corrupt and they corrupt everything around them.

The only difference in capitalism To communisim, is that capitalist can lie cheat and steal from those without a voice and then blame them as if they are at fault. What a country hey.

Don't tell the judges, they prove to be too stupid to understand.

Why don't you tell us about god and science you piece of shit.

You are good little christian boys and girls right? You are intelligent scientific boys and girls right?
You are all communists in disguise.

the pet whisperer wrote:

You are good little christian boys and girls right? You are intelligent scientific boys and girls right?
You are all communists in disguise.

Priceless - so Jim you never did answer

Are you a vegan (this goes back to your 'science murders animals' theory)