Evolution In The Classroom

[reggieM]

I don’t see where my links mentioned PNAS, perhaps you can point it a specific source in my link that was refuted?

TalkOrigins is a newsgroup for Darwinist apologetics. It’s not a primary source for scientific papers. So, for those who complain about links to places like Answers in Genesis, its hypocritical to link to TalkOrigins. The site carries its own bias and is therefore untrustworthy. Although it does provide a good reference for the ardent, evolutionary position. For example, a “Post of the Month” on TalkOrigins argues that Irreducible Complexity is actually predicted by Darwinian theory.

Herman Muller, in 1918, indicated that an expected result of evolutionary processes was the development of what he called “interlocking complexity”. Muller was one of the great geneticists of the twentieth century. He went on to win a Nobel in 1946 for work in mutations.
Muller’s definition of “interlocking complexity” is exactly the same as the definition of “irreducible complexity” – a system of mutually independent parts that requires all those parts to be present for the system to work. However, Muller’s claim is that this is an EXPECTED result of evolution.
talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html

 

[StAnastasia]

And God saw that His creation was good. Idvolution - God created the language of DNA and set it into the kinds. From there we see the diversity of life. Are these bacteria always harmful of just under certain conditions and to certain species. We have to factor in the consequences of the fall.

Buffalo, you know this is just more YEC nonsense. You admitted you made up the word “idvolution,” which has no meaning in public discourse. The mythic “Fall” had nothing to do with the creation of bacteria or alteration of their behavior. As long as you perpetuate this nonsense your influence will not extend outside the cyber walls of Catholic Answers.

I appreciate the work of Catholic biologists who are actually striving to understand God’s creation, not to make up lies to throw roadblocks in the way of scientific knowledge.

StAnastasia

 

[liquidpele]

Buffalo, you know this is just more YEC nonsense. You admitted you made up the word “idvolution,” which has no meaning in public discourse. The mythic “Fall” had nothing to do with the creation of bacteria or alteration of their behavior. As long as you perpetuate this nonsense your influence will not extend outside the cyber walls of Catholic Answers.

I appreciate the work of Catholic biologists who are actually striving to understand God’s creation, not to make up lies to throw roadblocks in the way of scientific knowledge.

StAnastasia

Hey, you know biologists right? What do they think of Buffalo’s link?

designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

It’s beyond my expertise when two biologists start arguing.

 

[reggieM]

I also liked how he refuted the refutation of ID with evolution…

He accepts microevolution. His main criticism is with claims about how evolutionary mechanisms supposedly worked.

 

[liquidpele]

TalkOrigins is a newsgroup for Darwinist apologetics. It’s not a primary source for scientific papers. So, for those who complain about links to places like Answers in Genesis, its hypocritical to link to TalkOrigins. The site carries its own bias and is therefore untrustworthy. Although it does provide a good reference for the ardent, evolutionary position. For example, a “Post of the Month” on TalkOrigins argues that Irreducible Complexity is actually predicted by Darwinian theory.

So once again, the contradictions among evolutionary propagandists (especially the amateurs on TalkOrigins) are made clear for all to see:

Herman Muller, in 1918, indicated that an expected result of evolutionary processes was the development of what he called “interlocking complexity”. Muller was one of the great geneticists of the twentieth century. He went on to win a Nobel in 1946 for work in mutations.
Muller’s definition of “interlocking complexity” is exactly the same as the definition of “irreducible complexity” – a system of mutually independent parts that requires all those parts to be present for the system to work. However, Muller’s claim is that this is an EXPECTED result of evolution.
talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html

No, it’s a collection of **cited **explanations. I simply used it because it’s convenient. You might as well say I’m not allowed to use an encyclopedia that says Iraq is run by Saddam.

 

[reggieM]

No, it’s a collection of **cited **explanations. I simply used it because it’s convenient.

I am fine with that, but you didn’t take the same attitude once when I posted a link to discovery.org – you said that it hurt the credibility of the links it contained.

 

[liquidpele]

He accepts microevolution. His main criticism is with claims about how evolutionary mechanisms supposedly worked.

Micro evolution IS macro evolution. If you accept one you accept the other. Period.

That said, irreducible complexity is a separate topic. The claim is that it would should that something besides evolution had to account for things, but in reality it’s just filling an “I don’t know” gap with God again instead of saying “We don’t know exactly how it happened”, and even if there were no explanations at all for how the flagellum evolved, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of other things that we do understand how they evolved or all the other evidence for evolution?

 

[liquidpele]

I am fine with that, but you didn’t take the same attitude once when I posted a link to discovery.org – you said that it hurt the credibility of the links it contained.

That’s because it didn’t support my argument

Seriously though, if your link had citations to papers that had been published and passed peer review then I’m sorry.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hey, you know biologists right? What do they think of Buffalo’s link? designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
It’s beyond my expertise when two biologists start arguing.

I’m not a biologist either, but Behe’s own department at Lehigh University think his work is nonsense, as do most of the other 100,000 working biologists. I’ll go with their consensus

 

[reggieM]

Micro evolution IS macro evolution. If you accept one you accept the other. Period.

That’s what the claim is but something more needs to be shown in order to prove it.
For example, selective breeding uses microevolution to create different varieties of dogs – but macroevolutionary changes do not occur. New species do not emerge even with an intelligent agent manipulating the (name removed by moderator)uts to try to create new results. No matter what breeds of dogs are mixed, they still remain dogs.

So, the knowledge and expertise of intelligent breeders do not create macroevolutionary changes, why should unintelligent, purposeless, unconscious forces achieve more than this?

From that kind of evidence, it appears that there are limits to the changes that can occur and they’re limited to microevolutionary changes within species.

 

[reggieM]

Seriously though, if your link had citations to papers that had been published and passed peer review then I’m sorry.

It was a dialogue with an evolutionary scientist so there was no need for peer review. But if the apology applies to that, then accepted and appreciated.

 

[liquidpele]

I’m not a biologist either, but Behe’s own department at Lehigh University think his work is nonsense, as do most of the other 100,000 working biologists. I’ll go with their consensus

I emailed Miller to see if he’d say anything about it. I’ll post whatever he replies with.

 

[buffalo]

As long as you perpetuate this nonsense your influence will not extend outside the cyber walls of Catholic Answers.

StAnastasia

We will soon see.

 

[liquidpele]

That’s what the claim is but something more needs to be shown in order to prove it.
For example, selective breeding uses microevolution to create different varieties of dogs – but macroevolutionary changes do not occur. New species do not emerge even with an intelligent agent manipulating the (name removed by moderator)uts to try to create new results. No matter what breeds of dogs are mixed, they still remain dogs.

So, the knowledge and expertise of intelligent breeders do not create macroevolutionary changes, why should unintelligent, purposeless, unconscious forces achieve more than this?

From that kind of evidence, it appears that there are limits to the changes that can occur and they’re limited to microevolutionary changes within species.

At what point are you going to call it a different species? Compare a french bulldog to a great dane for instance. We’re just talking about how humans choose to categorize things now. At some point things might not be able to interbreed, and they’ll continue to diverge. It’s a matter of timescale.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not a biologist either, but Behe’s own department at Lehigh University think his work is nonsense, as do most of the other 100,000 working biologists. I’ll go with their consensus

Will you share with me each of the 100,000 working biologists comments/papers? Or is this just more of your typical nonsense?

 

[reggieM]

That said, irreducible complexity is a separate topic. The claim is that it would should that something besides evolution had to account for things, but in reality it’s just filling an “I don’t know” gap with God again instead of saying “We don’t know exactly how it happened”, and even if there were no explanations at all for how the flagellum evolved, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of other things that we do understand how they evolved or all the other evidence for evolution?

Some of that depends. If it’s a matter of “we don’t know, but eventually we will”, then there needs to be some term-limits on how long we’re supposed to wait for the evidence that is claimed to exist. Can someone claim “my theory is correct, but I just don’t have the evidence to prove it yet? I’ve got 40% of the information correct, but all the rest will be here eventually.”

But then again, if it’s not just a question of “we don’t know yet” but really should be “our claim has been disproven” – then that’s a different matter.

How many claims can be disproven while the theory still retains respect and credibility?

Every time an exception is made in the theory, the theory is weaker and can no longer explain things. For example, to say that the same improbably complex feature found in two different organisms means that both organisms are either related (descent) or they’re not related (convergent evolution) is to nullify the theory. It includes both the affirmation and its opposite in the same claim.

Its like saying “I predict that thing will evolve to become this in ten years, or else it will not”.

So the exception kills the value of the prediction. It prevents falsification.

A lot of that is based on the faith and conviction that many have – believing that the Darwinian story is necessarily true and therefore everything we find in nature will fit into it somehow, no matter what we find.

 

[StAnastasia]

Will you share with me each of the 100,000 working biologists comments/papers? Or is this just more of your typical nonsense?

That would surpass the limits of CAF postings. Suffice it to say that the sheep of your ID fantasy find meager forage in the pasturage of professional biologists. IDers, not biologists, are the ones who have to show that they have ideas worth the time of day.

 

[buffalo]

That would surpass the limits of CAF postings. Suffice it to say that the sheep of your ID fantasy find meager forage in the pasturage of professional biologists. IDers, not biologists, are the ones who have to show that they have ideas worth the time of day.

You could email me the info.

These are just staggering arguments. I will now believe. Arguments form popularity. Give me a break.

 

[JackQ]

First day on the forum. Currently debating a coworker about God in the classroom. Reading a book, Case For Creation, that says science is debunking a lot of Darwin’s theory on evolution. Science is showing an intelligence behind our existence versus God playing no role according to Darwin. My argument with him is I think you need to present both sides in the science class. Seems like our society is working hard to take God out of everything. Do you think this is ideology driven keeping God out of the classroom? Thanks!

Chuck

I think God in the classroom and the teaching of evolution are entirely different subjects. I think we’ve gone too far in the United States when it comes to God avoidance. The civil deism of the Founding Fathers seems appropriate for the classroom.

On the other hand, evolution should be taught by itself, without any competition from creationsim or its more educated brother, intelligent design. Creationism is a tangent based on a category mistake. Intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science. Call me old fashioned, but I think only science should be taught in science class.

 

[StAnastasia]

You could email me the info.These are just staggering arguments. I will now believe. Arguments form popularity. Give me a break.

You don’t have to believe the argument just because 100,000 biologists do. But don’t act surprised that ID is not taken seriously by professionals in the field.