Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[stephen4785]

Are you more into Gradulism or Punctuated Equilibrium?

"Well, simply, not really. As I mentioned earlier, the Science proposed by the two major contributors to the Geomagnetic Field Decay Theorem had some shady science and conclusions at best. Peer review has shown a wealth of arguments against this. I can't say I'm 100% conclusive either way, but in the timeless words of the magic eightball, "All signs point to no."

What part of my statement is "Shady science"?

Also if the universe as a whole is a closed system...then wouldn't you assume everything is running toward decay in accordance with 2LOT? How is it that everything else is breaking down but the earth is becoming more complex? In the long term there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

Creationist Duane Gish comments:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) How's that for validity MadHater?

[Denny]

I'd like to point out that I know of noone who thinks the earth is 600 billion years old. It is ~4.3-4.5 billion years old.

LMFAO! Fucking genius, I tell ya.

[racrguy]

I'd like to point out that I know of noone who thinks the earth is 600 billion years old. It is ~4.3-4.5 billion years old.

[exlude]

1.The formation of the fossil record took place in the unobserved, unrepeatable past. Thus, any claim as to how it came about (ie: "macroevolution", "progressive creation", etc.) was also not subject to direct observation. Not testable. Not a theory.
Just so I'm clear...can you post a link to the instances of speciation you are referring to?

Well, you're right in that we have to make a few assumptions. The largest being that the fossils are the bones of a creature that once walked the Earth and weren't just placed there by God. But seeing as, again, this is Science. We can't rest on a supernatural cause.

Assuming this, we can see transitional fossils morphologically by varying expressions in certain phenotypes. The rates of change in these phenotypes can also be tested when paired against expected rates of change depedent on the strength of natural selection. We already know the rate of change with mutations, the success of certain mutations will simply depend on the strength of natural selection. This we can also compare to known geological events to tell a fuller story behind some transitional fossils. We can also date the fossils to give us an idea how old they are. Building this tree, along with related fossils, we can trace an approximate timeline toward a extant organism.

2.Do you consider the universe as a closed system? Do you believe in the Big Bang?
Also, do you believe simply adding energy to a closed system will produce life?

That first question is impossible for me to answer. If we define our universe as everything in existence then yes, it is closed. There is no more energy entering into the pool that already includes everything. That is governed by the 2LOT. Now, if we want to not include the possibility of parallel or overlapping dimensions, then no the universe as we know it is NOT a closed system. Until we have definitive answers either way, the answer could be yes or no.

Toward your second question, no, easily. There are plenty of systems on Earth that have energy introduced to them daily and don't come alive. You can electrify a rock all day and it won't wake up. But any example of life is far from a closed system. Any organism must consume energy (be it from the sun, from plants, or from other animals) and it also loses energy (be it from excretion, heat, vibration, sound, and work) A closed system would have neither of these traits. In reality, a closed system is something of a hypothetical or a very carefully crafted situation. The only real possibility of a closed system is the universe and in it, eventually, over time, increase to a maximum entropy.

3.Biological increase in complexity is exemplified by a seed becoming a bush or flower or tree, or a fertilized egg becoming a person. However, the design is already present in these beginnings of life. The DNA is there from the beginning, along with whatever might be "sparking" it, and the rest is simply a matter of following instructions. It is not a random ordering from a non-ordered condition. It is a design being executed.

If your definition of complexity is "more cells" then yes. But the DNA as a whole is no more complex in a bush than it is in a seed. This argument does not an anyway lead to an intelligent design base, however. The "design" of this organism was created by the parent organism, and it followed its parent organism along with any germ line modifications it may have had. I think your above point more reinforces how it is driven and, along with life being an open system, is not influenced by the 2LoT but more along the lines of basic physical forces.

4. Crystallization happens to specific elements at specific times under specific conditions. It is a phenomena that is intrinsic to the atomic structure of the element or compound being considered. It is not a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, but rather the result of a specific design involved in the material and can be counted on to happen every time under the prescribed conditions. What is interesting about this particular thing is that there is a heat transfer involved in crystallization and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated therein. Heat is diffused.

You seem to be getting my point. You have said here that crystallization is not restricted by the second law of thermodynamics because heat is being defused. That is, the crystal is not a closed system. How in the same breath can you claim life is. Does not all life defuse heat? Intake energy?

I want to say that I appreciate someone who can debate and disagree civilly. We may never agree but it's nice to have someone who doesn't inevitably resort to childish name calling and personal insults. Let me ask you something...Do you believe in Geomagnetic field decay? If the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a predictable rate decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years, then using that equation and going back 20,000 years, the heat produced would have liquefied the Earth. How can the Earth be 600 billion years old?

Well, simply, not really. As I mentioned earlier, the Science proposed by the two major contributors to the Geomagnetic Field Decay Theorem had some shady science and conclusions at best. Peer review has shown a wealth of arguments against this. I can't say I'm 100% conclusive either way, but in the timeless words of the magic eightball, "All signs point to no."

[stephen4785]

Well, first, the fossil record is not the only evidence to evolution. For example, observed instances of speciation are about the best evidence for evolution we have. Second, saying that the fossil record is untestable is another misconception. Can we not already date the fossil records through several different means?
I've already proven this wrong. The "2LOT" explicitly states that it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Life is very obviously not a closed system.
Not only that, but your misinterpretation of the 2LOT would lead us to believe that we could not find order anywhere in nature. If that's true then why do proteins shape and behave so predictably? Why do snowflakes have very ordered structures?
When I give you very specific reasons why things won't work (for example, applying the 2LOT to living/open systems) and you simply ignore them and I must restate myself, who do you thinks feels like they are arguing with a wall?
Difference being, science is designed to self correct and become more true over time. Seeing as how the religious side already has the conclusion and all evidence must be described/spun to fit that conclusion, it's hard to say that truth is the desired endstate.

1.The formation of the fossil record took place in the unobserved, unrepeatable past. Thus, any claim as to how it came about (ie: "macroevolution", "progressive creation", etc.) was also not subject to direct observation. Not testable. Not a theory.
Just so I'm clear...can you post a link to the instances of speciation you are referring to?

2.Do you consider the universe as a closed system? Do you believe in the Big Bang?
Also, do you believe simply adding energy to a closed system will produce life?

3.Biological increase in complexity is exemplified by a seed becoming a bush or flower or tree, or a fertilized egg becoming a person. However, the design is already present in these beginnings of life. The DNA is there from the beginning, along with whatever might be "sparking" it, and the rest is simply a matter of following instructions. It is not a random ordering from a non-ordered condition. It is a design being executed.


4. Crystallization happens to specific elements at specific times under specific conditions. It is a phenomena that is intrinsic to the atomic structure of the element or compound being considered. It is not a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, but rather the result of a specific design involved in the material and can be counted on to happen every time under the prescribed conditions. What is interesting about this particular thing is that there is a heat transfer involved in crystallization and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated therein. Heat is diffused.

5.I was referring more to madhater.....not you specifically.


I want to say that I appreciate someone who can debate and disagree civilly. We may never agree but it's nice to have someone who doesn't inevitably resort to childish name calling and personal insults. Let me ask you something...Do you believe in Geomagnetic field decay? If the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a predictable rate decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years, then using that equation and going back 20,000 years, the heat produced would have liquefied the Earth. How can the Earth be 600 billion years old?

[The King]

I'd just like to point out that not only are you a liar, but you also haven't read anything in this thread. You just came in and started letting bullshit spew forth from that gaping maw you call a mouth.

Racrboy has selflessly graced this thread with yet another outstanding post.

[Maddhattter]

No, exlude was the only one to address my breakdown with out a blanket "nu-uh" statement.

Except that I didn't respond to your timeline with "nu-uh". I didn't even say your timeline was wrong. I simply stated that there was no reason to believe that Moses meant anything other than day when he said day or that a god/gods had a hand in the process. Something you've still ignored repeatedly.

You just summarily dismissed the comment implying that it was not serious. I never stated my response was not serious, just that it required no effort because I only had to point out the lack of evidence presented, and the fallicies that were given.

[Denny]

No, exlude was the only one to address my breakdown with out a blanket "nu-uh" statement.

[Maddhattter]

That's probably why the Bible isn't discussed in high-school literature classes as well. LOL... OK, maybe not.

Based on what exlude said, that would be the exact reason that the Bible should be discussed in literature classes. I may have misinterpreted, however.

I just find it interesting that the connection can be made. Interesting enough to bring it into a discussion on evolution.

While you may find it interesting, you don't discuss the works of Shakespeare when discussing geology for the same reason the bible and evolution don't mix.

One is science, supported by evidence and the scientific method, the other is literature.

What is weird is that it really doesn't go against, rather puts God directly in the role of making any changes instead of millions of years of these changes that have yet to be proven.

Except the changes have been proven, from a scientific perspective, regardless of your belief. I've even cited scientific papers that demonstrate evolution.

You can believe god/gods/the tooth fairy or anything else was "directly in the role of making any changes", but until you can support your assertion with evidence, there is no place for that discussion in the science classroom.

Thanks for looking into the post!

Ah, so that's how no one has had a problem with your timeline... You only acknowledge those that don't explicitly disagree with you.

That is why you fail at this conversation and probably any other intellectual discussion you try to wedge yourself into.

If you'd have half a brain, you'd notice that the source I cite is the one I am supposed to cite, given my stance.

You don't seem to quite understand how using proper sources work. Your stance is irrelevant to the sources. You cited sources that have different interpretations of the same book, yet provide no evidence to show for anything, in that regard. You're still making fallacious appeals to popularity and tradition.

All you've done is assert your stance then show that others assert different stances, and state that it's OK.

Now, if there is something that was said from that source that would go against any scientific claims, I'd be all ears to hear about it, although I seriously doubt it would be coming from you.

There is something that goes against all scientific claims, by definition. Your "Moses hypothesis", right along with all the other interpretations invoke the supernatural, which cannot exists.

What I did do, however, is show how Creation can be used in an evolutionary discussion in or out of a classroom.

No, you just showed how you can assert your position with no evidence to support it when others are discussing science.

You also seem to think that declaring that your assertion does not disagree with science, when it does by invoking the supernatural, somehow increases it's validity in the context of any discussion on science.

You can feel free to think that God magicked up everything from nothing. That is fine.

Until religion can be shown to be scientifically credible, it has no place in any scientific discussion, or in the science classroom. Or any public classroom for that matter, as all religions would have to be given equal time and there would be no way to cover them all.

[Denny]

You know, I had to let this post sit in the back of my head for a day before responding. That's because, mostly, I don't disagree with it directly. My main issue is that the Bible just isn't specific enough. And while you have some very good interpretations and ideas, it's near impossible to conclude on whether or not that is what the author meant. For the same reason, I hated high-school literature classes.

That's probably why the Bible isn't discussed in high-school literature classes as well. LOL... OK, maybe not.

I really don't have any argument against any of this. As it is the commonly accepted order of events and has been for a long, long time. But we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here in terms of explicit text. There is just so much it doesn't say that it makes it hard to include the Bible in the discussion of evolution. Although, using scientific knowledge is a certainly interesting way to fill in the blanks, imo.

I just find it interesting that the connection can be made. Interesting enough to bring it into a discussion on evolution.

I don't think that this necessarily goes against any evolution theory. The Genesis creation story only covers the first "days", whatever those time periods may mean. It simply doesn't say that an organism could not evolve after man. And the whole building man of clay and breathing life into him could correlate some (albeit rudimentary) evolution story. That may be a stretch though.

What is weird is that it really doesn't go against, rather puts God directly in the role of making any changes instead of millions of years of these changes that have yet to be proven.

Thanks for looking into the post!

It was addressed as well as it should be. When you post something worthy of being serious about, then we'll take it seriously. You've stated your beliefs, with no evidentiary backing, therefore we can just dismiss it as being wrong without having to disprove any of your beliefs. But given your ability to do research, or provide sources that are valid, I doubt I'll be doing anything other than just summarily dismissing anything you say. But I hold hope that you'll be able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. After all, that's what your supposed creator did.

That is why you fail at this conversation and probably any other intellectual discussion you try to wedge yourself into.

If you'd have half a brain, you'd notice that the source I cite is the one I am supposed to cite, given my stance. Now, if there is something that was said from that source that would go against any scientific claims, I'd be all ears to hear about it, although I seriously doubt it would be coming from you.

What I did do, however, is show how Creation can be used in an evolutionary discussion in or out of a classroom.

[jw33]

Chevy builds the best damn truck, period.

[Hobie]

I think it's more that humans started out as a more ape-like species. We're still ape-like. A couple of small physical changes and a lot more body hair and you're not far off from a modern day ape.

We're something like 98% the same at the genetic level, but you remember what Patrick Ewing looked like? (posting from phone so I won't snag a pic)

That dude was at least 98.1% the same, practically a living breathing missing link.

[racrguy]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

I'd just like to point out that not only are you a liar, but you also haven't read anything in this thread. You just came in and started letting bullshit spew forth from that gaping maw you call a mouth.

Considering evolution is a process that works over many generations, no one could show you evolution on a forum. There are some wonderful scientific studies that have been performed that demonstrate the validity of evolution.

Such as
2008 Strauss, S.Y., J.A. Lau, T.W. Schoener and P. Tiffin. Evolution in ecological field experiments: implications for effect size. Ecology Letters 11: 199-207

and

Wielgoss, S., J. E. Barrick, O. Tenaillon, S. Cruvellier, B. Chane-Woon-Ming, C. Médigue, R. E. Lenski, and D. Schneider. 2011. Mutation rate inferred from synonymous substitutions in a long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics: in press.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?p=329739#post329739

There is your evidence that proves evolution. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got other matters to attend to.

If that was your best attempt to address it, I'll just wait to hear from someone who is serious about it.

It was addressed as well as it should be. When you post something worthy of being serious about, then we'll take it seriously. You've stated your beliefs, with no evidentiary backing, therefore we can just dismiss it as being wrong without having to disprove any of your beliefs. But given your ability to do research, or provide sources that are valid, I doubt I'll be doing anything other than just summarily dismissing anything you say. But I hold hope that you'll be able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. After all, that's what your supposed creator did.

[exlude]

See, this is the main reason why neither of us will see eye to eye on this. You base your BELIEF on these hypotheses to come to a stretch of a conclusion. My BELIEF is based on faith.

It is funny, though; the last time there was a discussion on this I brought up how the biblical order of creation was right in line with science, but I don't remember if it was ever addressed by anyone else. I may have to go find it (thinking it was in Canada somewhere). But for arguement's sake, I can post it up again. If we can verify "Moses' hypotheses" (if we need to refer it as such for this scenario) through "scientific fact," then can we conclude that he is right?

You know, I had to let this post sit in the back of my head for a day before responding. That's because, mostly, I don't disagree with it directly. My main issue is that the Bible just isn't specific enough. And while you have some very good interpretations and ideas, it's near impossible to conclude on whether or not that is what the author meant. For the same reason, I hated high-school literature classes.

Just use "day" to mean a length of time, since my personal BELIEF is more in line with the "day-period" theory. It could also not necessarily mean consecutive days, again it doesn't say for sure.

Order of Creation:
Genesis 1:1 was before the first day. It states "in the beginning." If you look at the wording, the heavens and the earth were already created. Now, what happened before that, I don't know, but I'm not going to say "millions and billions of years ago, this was here and this was happening." since I have nothing to back those claims up. If you look carefully, though, verse 1:2 talks about the earth being formless AND it was covered with deep waters.

Could there have been something prior to "Day 1" of Creation on earth? Could the earth had some sort of thriving life before "this" Creation? How far back was "In the beginning?" He flooded the earth during Noah's day. He said it would be the last time, but was it the first? I take every word of the Bible as having a specific meaning. Ya, it has been butchered and re-translated several times over, but I also belive that He got His Word to me in a specific way for a specific reason.

OK, so we have the heavens and a water-filled earth to bring us to Day 1. Now, as most things that I've read pertaining to scientific order of events, this hunk of rock started life out in water as well, so I'm still cool here.

Day 1- God made light upon the earth and separated it from darkness.

OK, since I have said that I believe that the heavens and earth were already around at this point, then the sun was already doing its thing, BUT no light shown on the earth yet. Now, science has stated that the earth could have started off with a heavy layer of gasous clouds and water vapor (possibly blocking any sunlight?). So, I'm still cool, y'all.

Day 2- The separation of the midst of waters from waters and the accumulation of land.

So, with the heavy gases and water vapors parting to allow sunlight, it allows water to collect in the form of seas, making room for land (getting that whole evaporation, condensation, precipitation thingy-muh-gig going). That process would be needed to start any sustainment of life on earth, scientifically speaking, of course.

Day 3- Vegetation, plantlife, seeding, etc.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I reckon that one of dem edumucated fellers in dem big schools would agree that the vegetation came before the chicken and the egg, so I think we still cool, here.

Day 4- Separation of the light from the night and order of sun, moon and stars.

This gets a little tricky, as I'm merely just a simpleton, trying to understand the Creator of everything. I believe that the solar system (even galaxy, for that matter) finally aligned itself into the order and positioning (timing) we have today. Notice that now living creatures were named yet, so who knows what went on when it was just plantlife... but then again, this is just what I gather from reading the Bible.

Day 5- Sea creatures and birds.

From just plants and vegetation to sea creatures and birds perfectly describes the transition of the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras. Am I still correct, here? If so, that's about right in order with science as well, so we're still cool.

I really don't have any argument against any of this. As it is the commonly accepted order of events and has been for a long, long time. But we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here in terms of explicit text. There is just so much it doesn't say that it makes it hard to include the Bible in the discussion of evolution. Although, using scientific knowledge is a certainly interesting way to fill in the blanks, imo.

Day 6- All the other "beasts of the earth" and LASTLY, man.

While that kinda loses the other orders of eras in a vague generality, it doesn't go against anything scientifically stated either, especially man being a very young creation, compared to everything else.

I don't think that this necessarily goes against any evolution theory. The Genesis creation story only covers the first "days", whatever those time periods may mean. It simply doesn't say that an organism could not evolve after man. And the whole building man of clay and breathing life into him could correlate some (albeit rudimentary) evolution story. That may be a stretch though.

[exlude]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

Well, first, the fossil record is not the only evidence to evolution. For example, observed instances of speciation are about the best evidence for evolution we have. Second, saying that the fossil record is untestable is another misconception. Can we not already date the fossil records through several different means?

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I've already proven this wrong. The "2LOT" explicitly states that it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Life is very obviously not a closed system.

Not only that, but your misinterpretation of the 2LOT would lead us to believe that we could not find order anywhere in nature. If that's true then why do proteins shape and behave so predictably? Why do snowflakes have very ordered structures?

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

When I give you very specific reasons why things won't work (for example, applying the 2LOT to living/open systems) and you simply ignore them and I must restate myself, who do you thinks feels like they are arguing with a wall?

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

Difference being, science is designed to self correct and become more true over time. Seeing as how the religious side already has the conclusion and all evidence must be described/spun to fit that conclusion, it's hard to say that truth is the desired endstate.