|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:25:39 [Permalink]
|
| i withdraw my statement about the article talking about arguments creationists shouldn't use in relation to Kent Hovind |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:34:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
oh...and what is a "diploma mill"?
Jarrid, a diploma mill is a place where you can get an unaccredited college diploma for money without doing any real work. Hovind got his from a "school" that is located in a duplex home somewhere in Colorado Springs. He did no real academic work, and his "thesis" was basically a series of his ramblins with no real research behind it that he still managed to never complete.
Also you will find that this is more of a message board and not a chat room, (although they do have those from time to time as well) so most people will only post once or twice a day or so. So I don't think it would be very productive to sit here waiting for replies.
Stephan Hawking is a famous physcist.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
As far as Hovind goes, I will gladly dissect is statements about evolution that you wish to present. When it comes to wacky off the wall creationist/anti-evolutionist arguments he wins hands down. Things like, 1/4 of the world's population will die in May 2000, people used to tear the limbs off of T-Rex's, and devils are flying around in UFO's. These comments don't require serious discussion.
Finally his "challenge" is simply a publicity stunt. He won't define evolution in any practical terms, he won't identify who the judges are, and he won't agree to any practical terms presented by the challengers.
Compare in contrast to how James Randi works his challenge.
http://www.randi.org/ |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:35:52 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid, could you present some more examples of frauds and hoaxes of evolution from your biology textbook. So far you haven't presented any valid ones.
Thanks |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:49:36 [Permalink]
|
| jmcginn, unfortunately i don't have my textbook anymore. after graduation i had to return it, but there was a section about the peppered moth experiment stuff and from what i understand the experiment was "faked", but yet my textbook still used it as an example of evolution. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
PitS
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:30:22 [Permalink]
|
Glenco Biology 1994 P. 306-307
--Uses Circular Reasoning: Says that we date rock layers by the fossils we find in them, then on the next page says we use the fossils found in the rock layers to date the rock layers.
I feel the need to point out that the above staement is quite correct, not circular at all.
If you date rock layers from the fossils found within, then it stands to reason that you are using fossils to date the rock layers in which they are found.
Perhaps the quote was mistyped?
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:32:37 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for the Stephen Hawking reference, Jarrid. With his book A Brief History of Time (and the movie based upon it) being so popular a few years back, I assumed he was more or less a household name, but it was an honest mistake. In any case, you seem to know what I was trying to say. 
In reference to your comment about not wanting to start any debates, I would say that's not necessarily something to be summarily avoided at all costs. Debate can be an excellent learning tool. I know I've learned a great deal that way. I've even had my mind changed a time or two - definitely a good thing. I feel it's more important to actually BE correct than to merely convince others that you are.
As for commenting on errors presented as facts in textbooks, as others have already noted, it's difficult for any of us to do so without knowing precisely what it is we're examining. If you could possibly locate another textbook or give us a specific reference we could examine for ourselves, I'm certain someone here could provide you with a reasonable answer to your original question.
Jarrid, to be perfectly blunt, I admit that, based upon what you've stated thus far, I'm proceeding from the assumption that most of what you know about the evolution/creation debate has been garnered exclusively from creationist or intelligent design websites and literature. And I'd wager I'm not alone in that assumption.
In saying that, I'm not condemning you or trying to insult you. It's quite understandable that, if one initially approaches the subject from a religious point of view, one is likely to be exposed first and foremost to those sites friendly to that viewpoint. And, unless one makes a conscious effort to seek out contrasting points of view, it's likely he'll never be exposed to them. By visiting here and Talk Origins, whatever your initial motives, you've taken that first step, and I applaud you for it.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:45:33 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for the applause;) ok this is probably a difficult thing to cover, but can someone break down the evolution thing for me in simple terms? you are correct in assuming that my only influences have been creationistic influences, and also i'm not against debates, as long as they are civil:) i have been in debates over issues before where it ended up as personal attacks rather than a debate, but i agree debating is a good thing as long as it is civil |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 18:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
"Not only that, but we see evolution happening all over the place, today."
How would you define evolution? There are 2 types of evolution:
Eh... No there are not. There is only one type of evolution: Evolution.
Micro- and Macro- evolutions are constructs made by creationists.
Ever since Darwin published "Origin of the Species" theists have been forced to accept that species have adapted to local environments. Darwin didn't know what exactly happened that changed certain physical aspects of the animals he was studying, he didn't know about DNA. But he did realize that something caused changes in appearance, and these changes were hereditary. He also identified Natural Selection as the process weeding out traits that are not beneficial in the environment they were occupying.
These local adaptations can manifest themselves very quickly. Especially if the environment is demanding, like overpopulated or harsh, or if there is an unusually large population of predators.
Given enough time, and changes in the population will become so big that the resemblance between current individuals and the original species becomes so large you can hardly believe they are the same anymore. Another thing that creates confusions is the difference in terminology between Creationists and Evolutionists. The Bible says that God created each animal after its "kind". But the bible doesn't give us any definition what a "kind" is.
And here is where Creationists want to introduce a border, a divide.
They say that evolution can only occur within a kind, and can not make an animal change to a different "kind". By accepting such a change would remove the divine intervention that created different "kinds" of animals. By removing God's direct involvement in the creation of different "kinds", one aspect of the Bible will be proven wrong. Once that happens, any part of the Bible could be proven wrong, and your faith would crumble like a house of cards.
It is this fear that compels Creationists to construct an artificial differentiation of Evolution, in order to be able to accept the irrefutable evidence for (micro)Evolution, yet reject the long term effect of gradual change.
quote:
Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, from my understanding, is the difference between a big dog and a little dog. Both of them are still dogs, though. Macro-evolution cannot be seen as easily. It would be, again from my understanding, that man evolved from apes(i know, generic line, but its the best i could come up with. no need to comment on the ape/man thing). I one hundred percent agree with Micro-Evolution. It is a real thing. It can be observed. But I disagree with Macro-evolution. It cannot be observed.
I think the word you were looking for in regards to man/ape is Hominid. Other pre-historic hominids are Neanderthal and Australopithecus.
It is interesting that you mentioned dogs as example of micro-evolution. Small dogs and large dogs are not created by natural selection, but by artificial selection which is much more powerful because Man has an idea of what end product he desires.
If you want to classify a dog, a biologist will present something like this:
Kingdom Animalia (it's an animal)
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata (it's got a spine)
Class Mammalia (it's a mammal)
Order Carnivora (it eats flesh(?))
Family Canidae (now it gets tricky... it's not feline)
Genus Canis (It's a wolf)
Species Canis lupus (Aha.. a grey Wolf)
Subspecies Canis lupus familiaris (domesticated = dog)
Where do you draw the line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? For arguments sake (and to save space) lets assume that any change beyond a "kind" equals macro-evolution.
Are dog and wolf the same kind? Then "kind" equals Canis, which include Canis Lupus Dingo, commonly known as Dingo.
If you go one step up in the hierarchy to Family: Canidae you can then include into the same "kind" not only dog, wolf, dingo, but also Red Wolf, Fox, coyote, side-striped and golden jackal, Arctic Fox, and Raccoon Dog.
The problem when deciding to put the definition of "kind" on this level is that the Raccoon Dog is very similar to Raccoon which is a different Family. It would be easy for a layman such as myself to mistake a Raccoon Dog as a member of the same family as Raccoon, not having seen enough of the both of them to recognize the typical differences.
quote:
It seems that quite often Micro and Macro evolutions are interchanged, when they are 2 totally different things. Micro evolution is a variation in a species, while Macro evolution is a slow change from one species to another (Apes to man, "The Missing Link", that kind of thing).
To sum up the long and probably very boring example of the Dog's family tree: What is species, and what is "kind" and where do you draw the line between micro- and macro-evolution? Have a good look at the family tree and think about it. Then ask Mr. Hovind how the bible defines "kind". This is a very important to further discussions, because if you believe in the story of Noah, and the Ark and the Flood, the Bible describes what kinds of animals enter the ark to survive.
If the definition of "kind" is too narrow, there will not be enough space on the ark to accommodate all different "kinds" of animals. If you are too loose and general with the definition if what a kind is, then all "kinds" could possibly get on-board. But instead, after the flood, animals like bear will have to micro-evolve from the same bear to Grizzly, Polar Bear, and Red Panda . The Panda is speculated to be omnivore, but is mainly herbivorous while Polar Bear is carnivore.
quote:
"It is not defined as "change for the better." "
If it is not a change for the better, then the new species would die off, according to Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest. For the species to survive as it evolves, it must be a change for the better.
More adapted to survive in the current habitat would be a better description.
quote:
Questions are stated on the assumption that I believe in the evolution theory, such as something like "Since the peppered moth experiment proves evolution to be true, what species do you believe human beings evolved from?" Or something of the like where if I answer what I believe to be true, then I get bad grades.
Then your answers on the exams should be "The theory of biological evolution teaches that human beings evolved from..."
That way you should be able to remain true to your beliefs while still not getting bad grades.
In order to get really |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/29/2004 19:14:48 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 18:46:12 [Permalink]
|
'K, fast and dirty: The Theory of Evolution is is neither more nor less than a description of certain biological process' over time. It does not cover the beginning of life (abiogenesis) nor the 'Big Bang'. It covers what has happened afterward.
"Survival of the fittest" is an often used, but not really a good description of evolution. It would be better to state that a species survival depends upon that species ability to adapt to changes in it's enviorment. Those that do this successfully, produce more offspring; those that do not, go extinct.
Oh, and individuals do not evolve; populations do.
An interesting example is Fea's Viper (Azimeops fae). This little snake has evolved in the cloud forests of China and can live no where else. It is the only species and genera in it's own subfamily. It is so specialized that it is extremely difficult to keep in captivity. If it's environment has any sort of a rapid change, it will die out. a pity, too, as it's a very pretty snake.
On the other hand, non-specialists like the cockroach have come down through the eons with only minor, evolutionary changes. Humble yourselves before the mighty cockroach, you scum; he is vastly our evolutionary superior!
Well, I'm kiddin', but only a little bit.
The fossil record is rife with examples of evolution at work. Whale and horse evolution is very well documented and show huge changes in the forms of both animals over time.
Re dating: sediments are commonly dated by radiometric methods (radioactive decay of certain elements). They might be subjected to any or all of a number of techniques and elements, and if they all agree, the age of the sediments is then known, as is that of the fossils in it. Therefore, if a fossil of a known species is found in a sediment of unknown age, it will neatly date the sediment. If the fossil is unknown, it can often be dated by another of a known species in the same sediment. And now you know as much about it as I do.
Again, a careful study of TO will glean you a vast amount of info; far more than my poor efforts might provide.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 19:07:05 [Permalink]
|
alrighty...so evolution isn't an individual change but a population change...that clears a lot of stuff up.
i would draw the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution at reproduction. a human can mate with another human of the opposite sex and produce a human as its offspring, but a human cannot mate with a goat and get a half human half goat creature, so that is where i would draw the line. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 19:28:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
alrighty...so evolution isn't an individual change but a population change...that clears a lot of stuff up.
i would draw the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution at reproduction. a human can mate with another human of the opposite sex and produce a human as its offspring, but a human cannot mate with a goat and get a half human half goat creature, so that is where i would draw the line.
What about horse and donkey?
To other skeptics: Because of the small difference in DNA, has there ever been any attempts to cross-breed human and Bonobo? (As I understand, Bonobo is the closest relative to humans. And I know someone told me this once, but I need reminding: Is Pygmy Chimpnazee and Bonobo the same spieces?) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 19:53:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
alrighty...so evolution isn't an individual change but a population change...that clears a lot of stuff up.
i would draw the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution at reproduction. a human can mate with another human of the opposite sex and produce a human as its offspring, but a human cannot mate with a goat and get a half human half goat creature, so that is where i would draw the line.
Well, of course! Such a notion is preposterous!
Here, we get into genetics, DNA, and a whole lot of stuff that I am rather poorly educated on. A human X goat hybrid is not possible simply beacuse there is far too much genetic difference. Ridiculous idea! But alas, it is one sort of an example put forth by such as Hovind as a refutation of the ToE, although exactly how it does this is a mystry to me.
Doc, I have no reference for this, but I read of an experiment where human sperm was inserted into a bonobo egg and it took. Of course, all was destroyed immedatly afterward. I don't recall where I read it, and it might have been bullshit. Wish I'd paid more attention.
The bonobo and the pigmy chimp are indeed, one and the same, although one of the macaques is sometimes sold in the pet trade as a 'pigmy chimp'.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 21:24:35 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid wrote:quote:
Ok, lets keep this simple. I'm not here to make fun of you and what you know and I expect the same from you. Do not attack my intelligence. If you want to scroll up you can see that I did state that I am not a wise man. I'm only 19. I'm just trying to find out what all this is about. You haven't really done so yet, I am just stating this before it becomes a situation where you bash me and I try and counter by bashing you.
As you correctly point out, I am not attacking your intelligence. Quite the opposite, sir: I depend on your intelligence. It would be a waste of my time to point out, for example, that every statement you made about evolution, mutation, frauds, and hoaxes on page one of this thread was incorrect if you weren't an intelligent person who could use that information as a cue to say (at least to yourself), "well, perhaps I should reconsider what I've learned about these subjects, before claiming that textbooks have lies in them."
The plain fact of the matter is that every point you brought up on page one was first proposed, and also thoroughly refuted, before you were even born. Your current reading - if you're paging through talk.origins - should be making this clear rather quickly. And so, before you continue to malign the textbooks, you should perhaps strive towards an accurate understanding of evolution (which you are now doing, so more applause from me).
When you have such an understanding, if you still prefer to reject evolution in favor of Creationism, you'll be doing so for the correct reasons, and not because of any admitted lack of knowledge or wisdom on your part. Even if your reason for rejecting evolution winds up being something like, "the idea that people are just animals, and not truly special, scares the pants off me," that's a better reason (at least more informed) for rejecting evolution than, say, "it's all a big hoax," which paints all people who promote the understanding of evolution as liars.
quote:
"Not only that, but we see evolution happening all over the place, today."
How would you define evolution? There are 2 types of evolution: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.
In your earlier post, you said, "There is no evidence for Evolution," without making any distinction between micro- or macro-evolution. You should choose a standard and stick with it, and retract one of the two statements entirely.quote:
Micro-evolution, from my understanding, is the difference between a big dog and a little dog. Both of them are still dogs, though. Macro-evolution cannot be seen as easily. It would be, again from my understanding, that man evolved from apes(i know, generic line, but its the best i could come up with. no need to comment on the ape/man thing). I one hundred percent agree with Micro-Evolution. It is a real thing. It can be observed. But I disagree with Macro-evolution. It cannot be observed. It seems that quite often Micro and Macro evolutions are interchanged, when they are 2 totally different things. Micro evolution is a variation in a species, while Macro evolution is a slow change from one species to another (Apes to man, "The Missing Link", that kind of thing).
There is a species of mosquito living in the London subway today which evolved from the mosquitoes living above ground. They are two different species, yet they are both mosquitoes. Dogs, on the other hand, are all one species.
Where one draws the line between micro- and macro-evolution is fairly arbitrary, since they are, as I understand things, different only in degree. There is no fundamental difference between small changes within a species, and "larger" changes between two species. The larger changes are, in fact, made up of lots of small changes.
If you want to draw the line there (at the species level), that's fine, but there are plenty of instances of speciation which we humans have, indeed, observed.quote:
"It is not defined as "change for the better." "
If it is not a change for the better, then the new species would die off, according to Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest. For the species to survive as it evolves, it must be a change for the better.
"Better" is a relative term which causes confusion.
There can be no consideration of a trait's fitness without considering the environment of a creature carrying that trait. Also, some traits confer neither a reproductive advantage nor disadvantage, and thus have nothing to do with whether or not a creature is "fit." Eye color is, perhaps, a good example of such a trait in humans.
Thus, some changes don't matter to an organism's fitness, and other changes are only advantageous in the right environment. Having a thick undercoat is a "good" trait for mammals living in a cold area, but would kill animals living near the equator. Having gills is definitely a good idea for a fish, but a waste of resources for desert-dwelling scorpions.
Plus, your are also confusing "natural selection" with "evolution": but they are not synonymous. They are two separate concepts, and in fact, evolution can also occur through artifical selection, in which we humans decide what traits are more "fit" than others (this is why we have big, fleshy fruit on the store shelves, and not scrawny pathetic-looking produce). There are also other factors which can drive evolution, but I won't get into more details now.quote:
After typing this, I decided that I don't know enough to argue with you.
I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was trying to show you where the disconnect was between your worldview (that the textbooks have lies in them), and my worldview (in which they don't).quote:
I had a textbook in high school biology that showed the peppered moth experiment or whatever. It has been proven to be falsified, yet in my book it said it was factual and was given as evidence to support evolution.
The peppered moth experiments have never been proven to be false. What is "false" about them - admittedly so - is the photographs used to illustrate the differences in the light- and dark-colored moths. Those photos, like a large percentage of all nature photography used in texts and documentaries, were, indeed, staged.
But so what? The results of the experiment have nothing whatsoever to do with those pictures. The photos aren't evidence, they are simply illustrations. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who understands what the peppered moth experiment demonstrated points to such photos as "proof" of anything. Just like nobody in their right mind points to a Nativity scene near Chr |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 02:54:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
(As I understand, Bonobo is the closest relative to humans.
Same distance as Pan troglodytes ( chimpanzee)
quote:
And I know someone told me this once, but I need reminding: Is Pygmy Chimpnazee and Bonobo the same spieces?)
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 04:29:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(this thread is growing quickly, even as I write and edit this admittedly-long post)
 
I noticed that too. I think the writing and editing time of a post increases exponentially to the length. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
