Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[As to GM's link, I don't recall reading anything like that. What I saw was very reasonble and dispassionate. If you want to repost the one you are pointing out I would be glad to read it. [/B]

Thanks, Cirdan - here it is.
GM's link
The "freaked out" is right after the letter by Majerus, the other two are closer to the beginning.

BTW, one more thought on "quote-mining" - we have to remember, IMO - and this is extremely important - that scientific data is neutral!. So please don't automatically assume deceitful quote-mining if an evolutionist quotes a creationist to support evolution, or vice-versa. Do you see what I mean? I saw someone on this thread object to a creationist using data gathered by an evolutionist to support creationism. There's nothing wrong with that! Data is NEUTRAL! Now if he did quotes out of context, that's a different thing. Neither side should do that. But if DATA is being used, one scientist is certainly free to draw logical conclusions, just as well as another scientist, no matter WHO gathered the data. Would you agree?

[Cirdan]

You mean this:

The above was posted to the Calvin listserv in Donald Frack's detailed investigation of Wells' claims (e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolut...9904/0103.html). In his response, Wells freaks out and calls Majerus (who had previously been Wells' main source for his "peppered myth" claims) a fraud:

BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980'S THAT PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that every time those staged photographs have been re-published since the 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous.

I know what I'm talking about. I spent much of last summer reading the primary literature (email me if you want the references). Frankly, I was shocked by what I found -- not only that the evidence for the moths' true resting-places has been known since the 1980's, but also that people like Majerus and Miller continue to deceive the public.

Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is. (caps original, http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolut...9903/0348.html)

Frack says of this,

Note the complete irony of the capitalized sentence. Majerus is the foremost proponent (in the literature I've seen) of the idea that the moths most commonly rest higher in the trees. His data are the only ones I have seen cited as evidence of [what] happens "in the wild." Majerus is attacked as "dishonest" and "text-book writers are lying to biology students", their behavior is "scandalous." [...] If Wells is right, he hasn't demonstrated it here. He attacks both Michael Majerus and Bruce Grant. If Grant's frequent co-authors, such as Cyril Clarke, are added to the ridicule list (and I don't know why they wouldn't be), then Wells is well on his way to rejecting all the well-known researchers on this subject. An awesome, and, at face value, an incredibly arrogant, claim.

You don't want to know who's side I would rather be on... Throwing around perjoratives like "fraud" and "lying" and printing all-caps is unprofessional and quite hysterical. The characterization of Wells' response to Majerus is not without merit, IMHO.

[Rían]

No, Wells doesn't call Majerus a "fraud", as claimed, but says that whenever the staged photographs are re-published it's a fraud. He says Majerus is being "dishonest", which is different, IMO. And Wells is made the point of many other subjective evaluations, too, throughout the article.

Well, at this point, since the emotions are getting really ramped up on both sides in those articles, why don't we just head back to the data. I still stand by what I said earlier, that because of major flaws in technique, such as the PEPPERED moths being nocturnal, and they were released during the day, and the predation that happened was un-natural, etc., that the experiment should always have notes attached to it, or discussed as an interesting historical event, altho flawed. It looks like you disagree with this, and I'll give you the last word on it.

[HOBBIT]

actual if you want to go there rian, you started your evidence back in october of last year. Then IP completely refuted everything you said - and you still didn't waver from it. It was about the second law of thermodynamics.

But then I don't believe you posted anything further on it.


It was so many pages back, but did you see the link I posted on those footprints? Or have we dropped that subject?

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
[B]actual if you want to go there rian, you started your evidence back in october of last year. Then IP completely refuted everything you said - and you still didn't waver from it. It was about the second law of thermodynamics.

No, IP did NOT completely refute everything I said - why in the world do you think that? Just because you believe in evolution? IP and I had different opinions, both supported by qualified physicists. Please don't think disagreement means that the creationist is automatically wrong. Didn't you see my responses to him? Why should I waver from an opinion that I think is correct and is supported by qualified physicists? I think IP should change HIS opinion - why don't you think HE should change if there is a disagreement?

It was so many pages back, but did you see the link I posted on those footprints? Or have we dropped that subject?

I don't remember if I saw yours, specifically, but I think I read pretty much everything on the footprints. Could you remind me what your point was, please; I don't recall.

[Rían]

ps - I started the new thread : here - could I please get the opinions of the veterans of this thread as to how we should run it? Thanks.


Oh, and Hobbit's post reminded me of something - when he said something like I was dug in deeper than Gwai thought I was - um, so what? Is there something wrong with holding an opinion that you believe to be true? Why are YOU guys so "dug in"? Since I disagree with you, shouldn't you change your opinion? Obviously not, of course, unless you think I present sufficient evidence. If I think the evidence supports creationism more than evolutionism, then why shouldn't I stay with my opinion? Of course, the implication was, IMO, that I was "dug in" in an unreasonable way. But I disagree with this, and actually, I think evolutionists are often "dug in" in an unreasonable way.

Like I said earlier, I'd rather be accused of stupidity (being WRONG about how I interpret the data) than deceit (either supporting creationism solely because I'm a Christian, or supporting creationism because I won't look at the evidence). I think I am neither stupid nor deceitful, but you guys might have a different opinion

[Rían]

(but the REALLY important question is : do you think I'm pretty? ) j/k!

How about - do you think I demonstrate personal integrity, from what you can tell of my posts and PMs? Do you think I show an ability to think logically?

[HOBBIT]

well, you were going on about how those footprints proved something, so I posted this weeks ago:

As for the footprints thing, well by the end of the old topic everyone was in agreement that they were false - even the main person for creation (quickbeam, the guy who started the topic). It was also shown well that a great deal of creationists even view these as false. So rian, that gives you the red light to actually consider it j/k

I encourage everyone to look at this site on the matter if they care about this issue:

http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm - this site is pretty interesting

And yes, he completely refuted your points on the send law of thermodynamics because you interpreted it wrong - or rather your references did (the same book on Creation?). This is nothing against them. I do trust IP more because he always knows what he is talking about and is a very smart fellow.

And I do believe that that Creation Science book that you listed earlier is not a very good source for real evidence, just my opinion. I have already made more detailed posts on this and many others as well. Is that where you are getting a majority of your info? :P

Well since I am not in your head, I have just observed that you genuinely believe in creation and think it is because of all the 'scientific evidence' supporting it more than evolution. It seems like you closed your mind to that stuff and picked what reflects your beliefs - AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
well, you were going on about how those footprints proved something, so I posted this weeks ago:

Hobbit, my ONLY point about the footprints was the following: when I was reading thru various links on the subject, I came across a quote from an evolutionist that said something like "those CAN'T be human footprints, because humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time". I objected strenuously (sp?) to this, because of the terribly un-scientific mindset it showed. It was making a conclusion based on the prediction of the theory! instead of impartially analyzing new data. It doesn't even MATTER if they were footprints or not - what matters is that the evolutionist had, a priori (BEFORE analyzing the evidence), made a conclusion that they were not footprints, BECAUSE it fit their theory. That is absolutely opposite to what should be done! An important thing about theories is how accurately they can predict new finds. If a prediction says one thing, and then new data shows up, and it looks like it MIGHT go against the theory, then the worst thing to do is say "no, it can't be that, because my theory says it can't!" Do you see what I'm saying? Any scientific methodology book would agree with that, don't you think? That was my SOLE objection, and I think that attitude has cropped up more than once in evolutionism.

The current consensus appears to be that they are NOT human footprints, and those that thought they were have stated that they agree that there is enough doubt to make them invalid for use. And that is a proper procedure, just like when National Geographic admitted their mistake about the faked bird fossil.

Perhaps you confused me with someone else? But again, my point was that when analyzing the links on the subject, I came across the quote from an evolutionist demonstrating an improper analysis. Would you agree that his statement was improper? IOW, that it's invalid to eliminate possibilities before analysis?

And yes, he completely refuted your points on the send law of thermodynamics because you interpreted it wrong - or rather your references did (the same book on Creation?).

I interpreted it wrong? That's IP's opinion. I think he did an unwarranted extrapolation of the formation of crystals (I don't think he ever named exactly the mechanism he was talking about, but I think it was the formation of crystals). But we should probably shelf this subject until it comes up in the new thread, because I will bring it up again.

And I do believe that that Creation Science book that you listed earlier is not a very good source for real evidence, just my opinion. I have already made more detailed posts on this and many others as well. Is that where you are getting a majority of your info? :P

I have about 5 or 6 books on the topic, and I read websites too

Well since I am not in your head, I have just observed that you genuinely believe in creation and think it is because of all the 'scientific evidence' supporting it more than evolution. It seems like you closed your mind to that stuff and picked what reflects your beliefs - AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Remember, we're talking about interpretations of data. The data is there; there are different interpretations. I still claim that there is no DATA, for example, to support macro evolution; it is a mere logical inference from micro evolution (and I'm being polite when I say "logical", because really I think it is very illogical )

[Rían]

Reminder - I started a new thread called "Evidence for Creationism" in GM - whoever is interested, please sign in and give us your opinion on how to run the thread (see my first post)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

[Rían]

Just 2 more quick notes, then I need to get dinner going -

re the eye example -
I really hope some people read that link where it talks about the computer simulation that went from a simple eye to a complex eye. The way it's written, it sounds like a big proof for the evolutionary development of the eye.

However, as a person with a degree in computer science, specializing in math and SIMULATION, it really almost made me laugh to see it presented as a proof. There's a HUGE fault in it, IMO, as a person with a university degree in this field - the little statement about that the only constraint was that ALL mutations were to be beneficial.

First of all, there's that whole problem of MUTATIONS are typically (and I'm being generous by using "typically") NOT BENEFICIAL! It's a hugely improper assumption to make, IMO. As I said a long time ago at the very beginning of this thread, I'm willing to grant a few beneficial mutations that cause gain of information, even tho I don't think it's possible, but the billions required by evolution just stretch credibility, IMO. Anyway, that point will be discussed in the creationism thread in more detail. I would absolutely LOVE to see how many beneficial mutations it took; I imagine the number is quite large!

Secondly, the PROGRAMMERS defined "beneficial" themselves. They HAD to, that's how programming works! And what would their definition of beneficial be? I can't see how it would be anything other than: a change that makes the current simulated eye MORE LIKE a real eye! So naturally it will end up like a real eye.

Well, that's pretty much loading the deck in a big way, IMO. Any other opinions out there?

re : O of S
And the second note is that I'm more than halfway thru Darwin's Origin of Species. Has anyone else read it? Very good in many areas. I like the way he writes, and his careful observations. The only thing I object to so far is his hugely improper extrapolations, IMO, as far as variations going all the way up the ladder from species on up to genus, and so on. As I discussed before (and will cover again in the new thread), IMO, change has boundaries. And the change that Darwin observed was always bounded - dogs stayed dogs, cats stayed cats, and those pigeons that he studied stayed ..... PIGEONS! (such funny names some of them had, too!) But he does seem to be a careful scientist, as some creationist scientists noted. I"m not afraid to complement where I think it's due, but I'm also not afraid to note where I think things are illogical.

[HOBBIT]

Maybe you don't realize what you are coming off as?

A lot of your posts sound as if you are trying to discredit evolution and it's scientists. Oh no, ONE evolutionist wasn't being objective. Like 'creation scientists' are the best scientists!

You ARE only drawing straws here, trying to nitpick. It's not working though.

[Sheeana]

I haven't read the simulation, but I would like to add that most mutations (90%+) are NEUTRAL. They don't do jack squat.

[Lizra]

I would think natural selection and *time* are the main ingredients of evolution. Mutations are the "spices" that make the recipe interesting. (In my rudimentary, unprofessional opinion ) As far as intermediate species, gee, it seems like they are living all around us! The platypus, dolphins, coyotes, chimpanzies, frogs...anything that blurs the lines between living creatures...Everything leads to something else in this world. They don't call it "The Web of Life" for nothing! I'm oversimplifying (or over stupifying perhaps ) but surely you see my point. Of course there is minimal fossil record, how is something recorded that (usually) happens in tiny increments, gradually....generation by generation? I guess it just takes a "non-brainwashed" (by religious doctrine) mind to see this. I don't mean that in a smarmy way either!

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just 2 more quick notes, then I need to get dinner going -

re the eye example -
I really hope some people read that link where it talks about the computer simulation that went from a simple eye to a complex eye. The way it's written, it sounds like a big proof for the evolutionary development of the eye.

However, as a person with a degree in computer science, specializing in math and SIMULATION, it really almost made me laugh to see it presented as a proof. There's a HUGE fault in it, IMO, as a person with a university degree in this field - the little statement about that the only constraint was that ALL mutations were to be beneficial.

First of all, there's that whole problem of MUTATIONS are typically (and I'm being generous by using "typically") NOT BENEFICIAL! It's a hugely improper assumption to make, IMO. As I said a long time ago at the very beginning of this thread, I'm willing to grant a few beneficial mutations that cause gain of information, even tho I don't think it's possible, but the billions required by evolution just stretch credibility, IMO. Anyway, that point will be discussed in the creationism thread in more detail. I would absolutely LOVE to see how many beneficial mutations it took; I imagine the number is quite large!

Secondly, the PROGRAMMERS defined "beneficial" themselves. They HAD to, that's how programming works! And what would their definition of beneficial be? I can't see how it would be anything other than: a change that makes the current simulated eye MORE LIKE a real eye! So naturally it will end up like a real eye.

Well, that's pretty much loading the deck in a big way, IMO. Any other opinions out there?

[

There're so many pages, I don't know where the eye link is.

but from what I've read on similar programs , the definition of beneficial is just that: something that benefits the organism.

If the designers of the eye program only allowed for beneficial mutations, then obviously their programs were wrong.

However, AFAIK, the evolution simulating design programs don't operate that way. They take the original structure or program and use RANDOM changes.

Obviously most will be either harmful or neutral, but the program is set up to eliminate the harmful mutations and preserve the beneficial ones. Is that cheating?

No, because that is precisely the way natural selection works.

If, for example, you are trying to design a wing, you take a rectangular structure and make random changes.

Then you eliminate the less aerodynamically sound variations and preserve the better flyers as the stock for the next generation.

This is not a case of the programmers putting the end results in and trying to direct the program to it- it is simply saying that which works is preserved; that which fails is discarded- the definition of natural selection.

In the case of the eye, the programmers would make random changes and preserve those ones that see better- not because they are aiming at a modern eye, but because the assumption is that seeing better is advantageous

[GrayMouser]

And for a more temperate description of the peppered moth, see

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

[cassiopeia]

I like the analogy of a monkey tapping away at a typewriter till he produces one of Shakespeare's plays. It seems almost impossible, right? But, imagine that if the monkey taps out the wrong letter, it's eliminated, so only correct letters remain. Then it's almost a certainty that the monkey will produce a play after a time. This is analogous to evolution.

[MasterMothra]

did noah bring a peppered moth on the arc with him? if not then how did they come about?

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I like the analogy of a monkey tapping away at a typewriter till he produces one of Shakespeare's plays. It seems almost impossible, right? But, imagine that if the monkey taps out the wrong letter, it's eliminated, so only correct letters remain. Then it's almost a certainty that the monkey will produce a play after a time. This is analogous to evolution.

I don't understand this, cass - I must be missing something? Are you saying that once, for example, a 'z' is incorrect, it's thrown out? Then certainly after a very short time, there would be no letters left at all... Could you please re-word or something?

Plus that example does NOT take into account that there are differing frequencies of letters. By the mechanism of chance, all letters would be chosen approx. the same amount of time, so there would be NO WAY you could produce a language sample of any length at all. There's a good reason, after all, why we all choose roughly the same sequence of initial letters in the game of "Hangman".

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
did noah bring a peppered moth on the arc with him? if not then how did they come about?

I would think, since moths exist today, that a moth or moths of some type were on the ark. How many types, I don't know. But variation WITHIN species can produce many changes, altho the changes ALWAYS stay w/in species (moths produce moths always, don't they? )