|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 11:15:07 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If they are rejecting papers, the question is can they justify to students why those papers are being rejected.
Again, 9th graders are not the arbiters of science.
quote:
If they reject criticisms and opposing views of evolution then they should have a valid justification for doing so.
I totally agree. However, there is a reason that 9th graders are not part of the peer review process. Scientists do not have to justify rejection of papers to 9th graders. They have to justify their actions to other scientists.
quote:
Students should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views and then the secular community is free to explain to students why those criticisms and opposing views are rejected.
What type of quality control do you propose? Can any nutjob (I am not saying that you are a nutjob) get his complaints about a scientific theory inserted into the curriculum? Why should our science classes be held hostage by those who have little scientific training, or lack scientific support? What is wrong with the current system where ideas must first pass through the gauntlet of research, peer review, defense, acceptance, and finally reviewed as a possible science standard for high school curriculum? What is it about these criticisms that allow them to skip the entire process and be inserted into high school classes without peer review?
quote:
Then the students can determine for themselves if the alleged reasons for rejection are valid. If the reasons are valid then this would be a beneficial experience for students to further their education.
It would seem that the validity of the criticisms needs to be established before they are taught.
quote:
I never said that 9th graders are the arbitrators of science, just that they should be exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
You have stated quite often that the theory and non-peer reviewed criticisms should be given to 9th graders for them to judge. That is making them the arbiters of science.
quote:
If your beliefs are correct then exposing those students to criticisms and opposing views and then justifying why they are rejected would only further their education. The problem is that you know the reasons for rejection are invalid.
I know no such thing. In fact, I know the opposite. However, my thoughts on the issue have nothing to do with the ultimate fate of these criticisms. They are judged by the scientific community as a whole. Exposing students to bad science is bad. We seem to be talking in circles so I will leave it there and let you have the final word.
quote:
I am not running away from scientists, I encourage them to read Darwins black box and other books criticizing evolution.
That's not how it works. Scientists actively push their work onto other scientists through peer reviewed papers and presentations. That is how it is done.
quote:
Again, science welcomes academic freedom and open inquiry. Maintaining evolution by method of brainwashing students with it and censoring criticisms and opposing views is not science, it's dishonest.
It's not brainwashing if a theory is well supported, accpeted by more than 99% of scientists in the field, and if the theory is being used by biologists in their original research.
quote:
Doing their job includes teaching critical thinking skills and that includes critical thinking against evolution.
That's the whole point of this thread, asking for valid criticisms of evolution that involve critical thinking.
quote:
Taxpayers are the ones paying for public schools so tax payers as a whole should decide what their jobs are, not a select few.
No matter how taxpayers feel they can not force public school teachers to violate the Constitution as happened in the Dover fiasco.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 11:21:17 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1433
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Again, 9th graders are not the arbiters of science.
I never said they were, but they are the arbitrator of their own beliefs and they should be given the tools to make informed decisions. If they are exposed to evolution they should likewise be exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
I totally agree. However, there is a reason that 9th graders are not part of the peer review process. Scientists do not have to justify rejection of papers to 9th graders. They have to justify their actions to other scientists.
Introducing criticisms and opposing views of evolution to those who are exposed to evolution and then introducing those alleged justifications would only further the education of those who are exposed to evolution regardless of whether or not the alleged justifications are valid.
quote:
What type of quality control do you propose? Can any nutjob (I am not saying that you are a nutjob) get his complaints about a scientific theory inserted into the curriculum? Why should our science classes be held hostage by those who have little scientific training, or lack scientific support? What is wrong with the current system where ideas must first pass through the gauntlet of research, peer review, defense, acceptance, and finally reviewed as a possible science standard for high school curriculum? What is it about these criticisms that allow them to skip the entire process and be inserted into high school classes without peer review?
It is taxpayers as a whole (and not a select few) that should decide whether or not these criticisms and opposing views should be taught and I encourage taxpayers to decide that they should be taught and then to try and enforce their decision. Again, the peer review process should be free to justify to students why criticisms and opposing views allegedly fail peer review.
quote:
It would seem that the validity of the criticisms needs to be established before they are taught.
If the criticisms and opposing views are invalid then those that decide they are invalid should have no problems justifying their decision even after students are exposed to those criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
You have stated quite often that the theory and non-peer reviewed criticisms should be given to 9th graders for them to judge. That is making them the arbiters of science.
No, it is making them the arbitrators of what they believe. Again, one doesn't have to label it "science."
quote:
I know no such thing. In fact, I know the opposite. However, my thoughts on the issue have nothing to do with the ultimate fate of these criticisms. They are judged by the scientific community as a whole. Exposing students to bad science is bad. We seem to be talking in circles so I will leave it there and let you have the final word.
Again, if it's bad science, the secular community should be able to justify why it is bad science to students even after those students are exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
That's not how it works. Scientists actively push their work onto other scientists through peer reviewed papers and presentations. That is how it is done.
Again, I encourage them to read Darwins black box and other books criticizing evolution and they are free to put those criticisms and opposing views through peer review. If they allegedly don't pass, students should still be exposed to those criticisms and opposing views and then the secular community is free to explain to students why they allegedly don't pass. Showing students why evolution allegedly passes and criticisms and opposing views don't (by presenting those criticisms and opposing views to students) would only further their understanding of evolution.
quote:
It's not brainwashing if a theory is well supported, accpeted by more than 99% of scientists in the field, and if the theory is being used by biologists in their original research.
If the hypothesis is as valid as you claim it is, then it should have no problems defending itself against criticisms and opposing views even after students are exposed to those criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
That's the whole point of this thread, asking for valid criticisms of evolution that involve critical thinking.
Yep.
quote:
No matter how taxpayers feel they can not force public school teachers to violate the Constitution as happened in the Dover fiasco.
Fairly teaching different sides of the issue does not violate the constitution. Teaching only that which is consistent with the naturalistic religion does.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/10/2008 11:36:11 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 12:09:31 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Again, 9th graders are not the arbiters of science.
I never said they were, but they are the arbitrator of their own beliefs and they should be given the tools to make informed decisions. If they are exposed to evolution they should likewise be exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
Yes, indeed they should. But only if those criticisms and opposing views are themselves scientifically valid.
This is the problem with ID and creationism. They do not offer any scientifically valid criticism.
The criticisms they offer are philosophical and theological and should be dealt with, if at all, outside of the science class.
Currently, all that can be said about these in science class can be summed up in 2 minutes.
1. Creationism: "Some people believe that the theory of evolution contradicts the bible. If you have questions on this, consult with your parents and the teachers in your church."
2. ID: "Some people believe that certain complex features found in living organisms could not have evolved, but must have had a different sort of origin that involves a conscious designer. They believe that we will find evidence of such design in nature. Currently there is no agreement that such evidence exists."
End of scientific lessons on creationism and ID, until one or the other can produce valid scientific criticisms of the theory of evolution.
quote:
Teaching only that which is consistent with the naturalistic religion does.
I agree. Any science teacher who teaches explicitly or implicitly that science (any science, including evolution) requires a naturalistic view of reality should be called on the carpet. Teaching evolution does not require teaching naturalism. Evolution is not consistent only with naturalism. It is equally consistent with theism.
Students should know, and it should be made clear from day one, that many theists, including many Christians, hold that evolution is not contrary to belief in God or the bible.
Are you willing that such a statement accompany the statements on creationism and ID above?
< Message edited by gluadys -- 7/10/2008 12:22:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 12:25:40 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 890
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
16% of US science teachers are creationists
These people deserve the right to present their views to students without being fired or in any other way dishonestly discriminated against.
No, they have the responsibility to teach their class in accordance with their state's science standards. It's called 'doing your job'.
That said, many science standards show a "disturbing and dangerous" trend by states to water down the teaching of evolution in response to religious and political pressure. So there is hardly a rigid orthodoxy of evolutionary indoctrination - many teachers can, within the standards, ignore evolution.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 12:36:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7059
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Kids also know that Great Danes can't breed Chihuahuas. Does this mean that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not dogs?
I found this to be a particularly ignorant statement. One can crossbreed a Chihuahua and a Great Dane (though I suggest using a male Chihuahua and female Great Dane unless you enjoy watching a Chihuahua explode) but one cannot cross a human with any ape. So if this is the criteria (though I am sure you will change the criteria upon reading this) then humans aren't necessarily apes.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 12:46:01 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 82
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
One criticism of evolution I have heard is that certain structures such as the bacterial flagellum could not have come into existence by a step-by-step process, which evolution teaches. They came into existence all at once.
That is the ID critique. But the claim that it must have all come into existence as a whole is not well-supported. There is some evidence that parts of the flagellum did, or at least could have, existed before the flagellum and been co-opted into the flagellum when it was formed. It is not a clear case that this is how the flagellum formed, but it is enough to indicate that the claim the flagellum could not have formed incrementally is not solid either.
Some other structures have also been put forward with this claim, but various incremental pathways to their formation have also been proposed with evidence that these are probable. Another thread on this forum, for example, refers to new evidence of a transition in the formation of the vertebrate eye.
Below is a response to the co-option argument taken from this website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-miracle-of-co-option/
1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.
2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.
3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one can’t just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.
4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.
Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.
There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 1:14:16 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 82
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
16% of US science teachers are creationists
These people deserve the right to present their views to students without being fired or in any other way dishonestly discriminated against.
No, they have the responsibility to teach their class in accordance with their state's science standards. It's called 'doing your job'.
That said, many science standards show a "disturbing and dangerous" trend by states to water down the teaching of evolution in response to religious and political pressure. So there is hardly a rigid orthodoxy of evolutionary indoctrination - many teachers can, within the standards, ignore evolution.
Do you think that public school teachers should be allowed to present any scientific evidence that might be against evolution without teaching creationism or intelligent design?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 1:17:40 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Below is a response to the co-option argument taken from this website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-miracle-of-co-option/
It appears this is only in regard to the bacterial flagellum. Co-option (exaptation) is well-established in other situations, so it is not out-of-bounds that it might be involved with the development of the flagellum as well. I would agree that we currently do not have enough information to establish with certainty that co-option was a factor, but we don't have enough information to rule it out either.
quote:
1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.
Nor that it could not have been the case.
quote:
2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.
Replicating organisms normally produce many variations of every feature. Is it your contention that out of trillions of bacteria, not one would produce a "nut" to fit the "bolt"?
quote:
3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one can’t just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out.
Nor does evolution suggest any such thing. Shades of the tornado in the junkyard argument.
quote:
4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.
Again, replicating organisms can create many alternate "assembly instructions". That is the role of regulatory genes which evolve in the same manner as other genes.
One of the main problems I have with ID is that they consistently seem to forget that living organisms reproduce and that they reproduce with variation. Given this obvious fact, I don't see a huge problem with evolving complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 1:19:05 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 82
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: online
|
I have heard that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce fertile offspring. Is this what the book of Genesis means by "kind"? If not, what does it mean? It seems like the "kind" mentioned in Genesis has to do with the limitations of biological change. Organisms cannot change beyond certain boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 1:45:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
I have heard that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce fertile offspring. Is this what the book of Genesis means by "kind"? If not, what does it mean? It seems like the "kind" mentioned in Genesis has to do with the limitations of biological change. Organisms cannot change beyond certain boundaries.
Until the mid-20th century, creationists and non-creationists alike understood "kind" in Genesis to refer to "species". Scientists still understand "species" to be the basic biological unit. Around 1940, the idea that "kind" in Genesis refers to a larger (unspecified) unit than "species" gained ground among creationists and is pretty much the standard today.
Evolution also sets limits to biological change. No population can evolve out of its own history. Whatever "kind" an ancestral population belongs to, all its descendant populations will also be part of the same "kind".
(In science, the technical term is "taxon".)
This limit to biological change is what creates the nested hierarchy. Changes always occur within an existing taxon. They do not move a descendant from one taxon to another.
Furthermore, except when species are closely related (i.e. belong to the same relatively small taxonomic unit), you will not even get hybrids between different taxons.
What we do get with evolution are new smaller taxons being generated within an older taxon.
Creationists contend that many of these smaller taxons ("kinds") were produced by independent creation without reference to the older taxon.
To see the difference, consider squirrels and rats. The biologist would see squirrels and rats as being descendants of an older taxon/kind called a rodent, just as modern spaniels and terriers are descendants of an older undifferentiated creature called a dog. The only difference is that spaniels and terriers, being more closely related, can still interbreed and produce hybrids. But squirrels and rats are much more distantly related and can no longer do so.
The creationist, on the other hand, would probably say that squirrels and rats are not related at all. Both are independent creations and are grouped together as rodents solely for the convenience of classification.
Except for the assertion that each kind was created independently, there is really not a lot of difference between the creationist term "kind" and the biological term "taxon". Both require all evolutionary change to occur within the group with no cross-over from one group to the other.
The challenge to creationism is to find solid evidence than any proposed kind was actually created independently of an earlier existing kind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 2:00:56 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Teaching criticisms and opposing views does not unfairly marginalize evolution. The only reason it should marginalize evolution is if evolution does not stand up to those criticisms and opposing views. If evolution does stand up to those criticisms and opposing views then teaching those criticisms and opposing views would only enhance evolution because it would show students that evolution is capable of defending itself in the face of scrutiny. If it does weaken evolution it's only because students are seeing that evolution is incapable of defending itself in the face of scrutiny.
Well it all depends on what those criticisms are doesn't it? Actually, that is what this thread is for, and so far I don't think there's been a solid criticism that isnt baseless on its face.
So what criticisms would those be?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 2:25:14 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 890
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Do you think that public school teachers should be allowed to present any scientific evidence that might be against evolution without teaching creationism or intelligent design?
Assuming there were any such evidence, that's still very borderline.
I can't see myself forbidding physics teachers from discussing the Pioneer Anomaly, but the effect is ambiguous. I would like to see it presented as something interesting. Possibly a mundane explanation will be found, and our theory of gravity will remain unchanged. Possibly it is a real effect, and our theory of gravity is incomplete. But the possibility that it would show that Newton and Einstein were totally wrong is incredibly remote.
Similarly, I think the theory of evolution has been so well established by tons of evidence that it is exceedingly unlikely to be completely trashed by any anomolous scientific evidence.
So, speaking of evolution as a scientific theory is certainly okay, meaning that it is always a tentative (but well-supported) conclusion. Saying that scientists disagree about particular mechanisms is okay. It would be okay to present a particular piece of evidence as a challenge for evolutionary theory, pointing out that this evidence might:
A) be flawed, or have an explanation within evolutionary theory
B) indicate that the theory of evolution is incomplete, and this evidence may lead to a stronger theory of evolution
C) overthrow the theory of evolution, but this case is very unlikely given the strong positive evidence in favor of evolution.
What would clearly be forbidden (by me) would be a weeklong series of lessons intended to throw every anomaly at the students in a bid to make them uncertain about the theory of evolution.
Or worse yet, a week of lessons derived from pseudoscientific material from Answers in Genesis or the like.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 2:31:52 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I found this to be a particularly ignorant statement. One can crossbreed a Chihuahua and a Great Dane (though I suggest using a male Chihuahua and female Great Dane unless you enjoy watching a Chihuahua explode) but one cannot cross a human with any ape. So if this is the criteria (though I am sure you will change the criteria upon reading this) then humans aren't necessarily apes.
When given the chance Great Danes and Chihuahuas can not interbreed. It requires a lot of manipulation by humans. Also, I really don't know of anyone who has tried in vitro fertilization for these two breeds so there is an outside chance that a hybrid would not be viable. And according to Carico's criteria (humans do not produce chimps), if a Great Dane does not pop out a Chihuahua then they are separate, and one of them can not be a dog.
Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans also do not crossbreed. Does this mean that they are not apes?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 2:37:18 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7059
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
When given the chance Great Danes and Chihuahuas can not interbreed. It requires a lot of manipulation by humans. Also, I really don't know of anyone who has tried in vitro fertilization for these two breeds so there is an outside chance that a hybrid would not be viable. And according to Carico's criteria (humans do not produce chimps), if a Great Dane does not pop out a Chihuahua then they are separate, and one of them can not be a dog.
Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans also do not crossbreed. Does this mean that they are not apes?
Well, first off you equated Chihuahuas and Great Danes with chimps and humans - the reason the former don't interbreed is because of size - but they can be cross-bred. The reason the latter don't interbreed is because they are gentically incapable of cross-breeding, as are presumably gorillas, orangutans, and chimps. So the comparison is invalid.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 2:48:46 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
When given the chance Great Danes and Chihuahuas can not interbreed. It requires a lot of manipulation by humans. Also, I really don't know of anyone who has tried in vitro fertilization for these two breeds so there is an outside chance that a hybrid would not be viable. And according to Carico's criteria (humans do not produce chimps), if a Great Dane does not pop out a Chihuahua then they are separate, and one of them can not be a dog.
Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans also do not crossbreed. Does this mean that they are not apes?
Well, first off you equated Chihuahuas and Great Danes with chimps and humans - the reason the former don't interbreed is because of size - but they can be cross-bred. The reason the latter don't interbreed is because they are gentically incapable of cross-breeding, as are presumably gorillas, orangutans, and chimps. So the comparison is invalid.
quote:
New Messages
And according to Carico's criteria, that means gorillas, orangutans, and chimps are not animals.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 3:04:19 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7059
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
And according to Carico's criteria, that means gorillas, orangutans, and chimps are not animals.
Well, I don't really give a rip what Carico's 'criteria' may or may not be, I just know the case of two dogs isn't the same as the case of an ape (of any species) and a human.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 3:24:33 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
And according to Carico's criteria, that means gorillas, orangutans, and chimps are not animals.
Well, I don't really give a rip what Carico's 'criteria' may or may not be, I just know the case of two dogs isn't the same as the case of an ape (of any species) and a human.
Well, if you want to be really picky about it, the ape/dog comparison falls down on the level since "Dog" isnt a family like "Great Ape" is a family. Canidae is the family, and several of the species within that family most definitely cannot interbreed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 3:51:00 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7059
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, if you want to be really picky about it, the ape/dog comparison falls down on the level since "Dog" isnt a family like "Great Ape" is a family. Canidae is the family, and several of the species within that family most definitely cannot interbreed.
Actually, to be even more nitpicky, both 'ape' and 'dog' are colloquial equivalents to various taxa - which themselves are somewhat arbitrary.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 4:40:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, first off you equated Chihuahuas and Great Danes with chimps and humans - the reason the former don't interbreed is because of size - but they can be cross-bred.
Size is still an effective genetic barrier. Lack of offspring is lack of offspring.
quote:
The reason the latter don't interbreed is because they are gentically incapable of cross-breeding,
Has that been established? Obviously no one is running these experiments (and no one should). However, I would not expect viable chimp/human hybrids.
quote:
So the comparison is invalid.
The comparison is valid per Carico's criteria which is what I was responding to in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 4:44:34 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 471
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
When given the chance Great Danes and Chihuahuas can not interbreed. It requires a lot of manipulation by humans. Also, I really don't know of anyone who has tried in vitro fertilization for these two breeds so there is an outside chance that a hybrid would not be viable. And according to Carico's criteria (humans do not produce chimps), if a Great Dane does not pop out a Chihuahua then they are separate, and one of them can not be a dog.
Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans also do not crossbreed. Does this mean that they are not apes?
Well, first off you equated Chihuahuas and Great Danes with chimps and humans - the reason the former don't interbreed is because of size - but they can be cross-bred. The reason the latter don't interbreed is because they are gentically incapable of cross-breeding, as are presumably gorillas, orangutans, and chimps. So the comparison is invalid.
quote:
New Messages
And according to Carico's criteria, that means gorillas, orangutans, and chimps are not animals.
That's a lie. Only humans aren't animals which I've said many times. So you are falsely accusing me. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 4:51:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
That's a lie. Only humans aren't animals which I've said many times. So you are falsely accusing me.
Are gorillas animals? Yes or no.
Do chimps breed gorillas? Yes or no.
If the first answer is yes and the second answer is no, then chimps are not animals and are not apes, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 5:06:34 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
By your claim, since giraffes can't breed tigers, then giraffes aren't animals.
No, that would be your argument.
"Sorry but again, making up new definitions of humans and animals does not make man capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes with apes or any animal."--Carico
Giraffes are not capable of interbreeding or exchanging genes with tigers so they are not animals, right?
quote:
what part of "each animal breeds its own kind" do you not understand?
Humans breed humans so that makes them animals, right?
quote:
and if you don't understand that each animal breeds its own kind, then I'm afraid you're not qualified to discuss biology.
Evolution predicts that each animal will breed its own kind. There is no conflict here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/10/2008 8:40:50 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1352
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Again, 9th graders are not the arbiters of science.
I never said they were, but they are the arbitrator of their own beliefs and they should be given the tools to make informed decisions.
The point that Method is trying to make is that within the scope of a 9th grade science class, they CAN'T be given the tools to make informed decisions. Unless you've got some kind of genius kids, the subject matter is too broad and too deep to cover well enough to equip them to make this decision. That's why these sorts of discussions are generally relegated to later on in college - because the knowledge and understanding necessary to evaluate these argument takes time to acquire and maturity to comprehend.
quote:
It is taxpayers as a whole (and not a select few) that should decide whether or not these criticisms and opposing views should be taught and I encourage taxpayers to decide that they should be taught and then to try and enforce their decision. Again, the peer review process should be free to justify to students why criticisms and opposing views allegedly fail peer review.
Should taxpayers also decide whether we teach kids astrology, the existence of ufo's, racism, etc?
-Dan.
_____________________________
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
what part of "each animal breeds its own kind" do you not understand? 
and if you don't understand that each animal breeds its own kind, then I'm afraid you're not qualified to discuss biology. 