B
buffalo
Guest
Correct - it is philosophy supported by modern science.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here we go again. What are your credentials? What have you taught? Blah Blah Blah.What mathematics degree do you hold? What mathematics have you taught?
Argue the merits of the points.
B
buffalo
Guest
Then we can agree that Design exists and is detectable?You have my response.
L
larkin31
Guest
The passage accurately states that this is a summary of Darwin’s reasoning (in 1859). That is not at all what you wrote.Uh, yes it does.
CA Content Standards, Science, p. 32
Evolution
3. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms.
b. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
c. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution.
d. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms.
e. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival.
Notice that it does not say “a” mechanism (cf. the equivalent Texas standard which states “evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life.”). California says it is THE mechanism.
Strike two.
So again: how do you account for your misrepresentation of what this standard says? Was it intentional or accidental?
L
larkin31
Guest
Stick to the thread topic.Here we go again. What are your credentials? What have you taught? Blah Blah Blah.
Argue the merits of the points.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
And Darwin asserted that natural selection was the sole cause of diversity. (2) above disproves that.The passage accurately states that this is a summary of Darwin’s reasoning (in 1859).
I wrote that the standard teaches that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Do you see anything else in the curriculum standard?That is not at all what you wrote.
You are unable to move beyond ad hominem attacks and engage in an actual conversation. So that’s strike three, although it really should be strike four.So again: how do you account for your misrepresentation of what this standard says? Was it intentional or accidental?
F
Farsight001
Guest
Do you guys enjoy blatantly ignoring my posts? I have raised what I believe are some very good points, and it feels like I’m on most of your ignore lists.
K
kbachler
Guest
I agree with Larkin. It reads the way you say ONLY IF you ignore most of what is there.Uh, yes it does.
CA Content Standards, Science, p. 32
Evolution
3. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms.
b. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
c. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution.
d. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms.
e. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival.
Notice that it does not say “a” mechanism (cf. the equivalent Texas standard which states “evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life.”). California says it is THE mechanism.
Strike two.
K
kbachler
Guest
Appeal to authority is not a valid logical argument in any case.I am not qualified to decide what is valid science either. Harvard’s various authorities are.
Which is false, and false.Throughout this thread I have made three, and only three assertions:
- Teaching natural selection alone establishes atheism and violates the Constitution
There is nothing in natural selection which establishes atheism, just as there is nothing in chaos theory that establishes God.
That you would even make these arguments DOES establish that you’re throwing around words with no understanding of the theory.
A non sequitur not relevant to the matter at hand.
- Harvard professors teach that evolution involved chaos as well as natural selection
And this is a false statement.
- Properties of chaos, such as attractors and fractals, provide empirical proof of design
Your statements above clearly establish that you don’t understand the topic. All 3 of your assertions have been addressed.You keep harping on (3) and ignoring (1) and (2).
Regardless of whether (1) or (3) is a valid conclusion or not, (2) raises serious doubt about whether natural selection and evolution should be conflated in schools. As (2) is the conclusion of the Harvard professors, I don’t see how you can call (2) “bad science” and expect to be taken seriously.
You don’t know how to deal with (2) so instead of trying to oppose some authority against it, you conflate it with (3) to undermine my credibility. Specifically, you accuse me of putting (3) in the mouth of the Harvard professors asserting only (2) when I have never done that. Each time I have mentioned (3)—only twice so far!—I have emphasized that it is my conclusion.
I don’t feel like reporting you right now so I’ll let this slide.
How is it that you feel qualified to make statements about chaos when you understand none of the mathematical underpinnings? There is no more implied “design” in chaos theory than in any other branch of mathematics.
K
kbachler
Guest
Uh, yes you can.
What you quoted has nothing to do with extrapolating from cells to populations. Sorry.
Cat Herder;7559869:
So in other words, you’re offering conclusions on branches of mathematics, about which you know nothing, and have never actually used the mathematics. Correct?Math? Yuck.
K
kbachler
Guest
Actually, that’s false. It’s philosophy that incorrectly claims scientific support.Correct - it is philosophy supported by modern science.
K
kbachler
Guest
His points have no merit, and he’s arguing points based on branches of advanced mathematics about which he apparently has no understanding. The point was to determine if he had any real knowledge about what he was trying to talk about. He’s established that he does not.Here we go again. What are your credentials? What have you taught? Blah Blah Blah.
Argue the merits of the points.
K
kbachler
Guest
No, we cannot. Define design.Then we can agree that Design exists and is detectable?
L
larkin31
Guest
You misread the standard.And Darwin asserted that natural selection was the sole cause of diversity. (2) above disproves that.
You misread the standard.I wrote that the standard teaches that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Do you see anything else in the curriculum standard?
You misread the standard. It is not “ad hominem” to point this out to you. I am stating a fact about your erroneous interpretation, not about your character.You are unable to move beyond ad hominem attacks and engage in an actual conversation. So that’s strike three, although it really should be strike four.
I will repeat: In California, students are to learn that “Darwin reasoned” that the mechanism for evolution was “natural selection.” It is exactly right that Darwin reasoned this (in 1859), and, if the state wants to review Darwin’s opinion, it is exactly right to express the standard this way. Darwin’s book was on natural selection. He, for example, had no understanding of genetics, so it would have been impossible for him to have included anything on that topic. We know better today, of course.
You are incorrect to be summarizing this standard as stating that California students are being taught that the ONLY known mechanism in evolutionary process is natural selection.
So, again: Was this an accidental error on your part or a purposeful one?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
There is no discussion anymore. This whole page of the thread is a personal attack against me.Do you guys enjoy blatantly ignoring my posts? I have raised what I believe are some very good points, and it feels like I’m on most of your ignore lists.
It’s time to move on.
L
larkin31
Guest
No, it is not.There is no discussion anymore. This whole page of the thread is a personal attack against me.
I read the EXACT page that you cited and found out that you were mis-characterizing it. For some reason you appear unable to acknowledge this fact. This is no attack on your character, simply on your reading of a clearly worded state standard that YOU alluded to. I am a teacher. I REALLY care about these things and read them carefully.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I quoted the exact page. It says that students will learn that “Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species … As a basis for understanding this concept … Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.” The reasoning used by Charles Darwin is natural selection alone. It says exactly what I said it does.I read the EXACT page that you cited and found out that you were mis-characterizing it.
If you interpret that standard a different way, you can just say so (preferably by citing some authority) instead of accusing me of lying.
Your continued personal attacks clearly demonstrate that you are unable to refute my arguments and so you have resorted to leveling false accusations at my credibility. I have better things to do than to waste time with you, as you are clearly unwilling to have an intelligent conversation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Would you agree then to defund SETI?No, we cannot. Define design.
de·sign
to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
- to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
- to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
- to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
- Obsolete . to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.
- to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
- organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
- the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.
- the art of designing: a school of design.
- a plan or project: a design for a new process.
- a plot or intrigue, especially an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.
- designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner’s stock.
- intention; purpose; end.
- adaptation of means to a preconceived end.
1350–1400; Middle English designen < Latin dēsignāre to mark out. See de-, sign
—Related forms out·de·sign, verb (used with object)
o·ver·de·sign, verb
pre·de·sign, verb (used with object)
re·de·sign, verb
self-de·sign, noun
un·der·de·sign, verb (used with object)
—Synonyms
5. See intend. 13. See plan.
K
kbachler
Guest
Then no, from a scientific perspective with respect to the universe, I do not agree that design exists.Would you agree then to defund SETI?
de·sign
to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
–verb (used without object) 7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
- to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
- to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
- to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
- Obsolete . to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.
–noun 9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
- to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
***Origin: ***
- organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
- the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.
- the art of designing: a school of design.
- a plan or project: a design for a new process.
- a plot or intrigue, especially an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.
- designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner’s stock.
- intention; purpose; end.
- adaptation of means to a preconceived end.
1350–1400; Middle English designen < Latin dēsignāre to mark out. See de-, sign
—Related forms out·de·sign, verb (used with object)
o·ver·de·sign, verb
pre·de·sign, verb (used with object)
re·de·sign, verb
self-de·sign, noun
un·der·de·sign, verb (used with object)
—Synonyms
5. See intend. 13. See plan.
K
kbachler
Guest
The thread is not a personal attack on you. It is an attack on your unsubstantiated claims and ideas. The truth withstands such attacks.There is no discussion anymore. This whole page of the thread is a personal attack against me.
It’s time to move on.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.