It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

page: 36
42
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: dude1

It would sound better in a music class though.



I can see this as the successor to "Book of Mormon" on Broadway... "Creationism, the Musical". I surprised it's not a South Park or Family Guy episode(unless it is and I just missed out on it)!




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
New mechanisms have been discovered and have long been substantiated. So why haven't they been added?


Why do you think that new mechanisms are not added? Why do you feel epigenetics is ignored? Where do you get your information from?



It's getting more complete? When was the last time it was updated?


It gets updated whenever new info comes out. For example the recent fossil discoveries of a previously unknown hominid species. I reckon it was updated this year. What makes you think they don't add new discoveries and information to it? You've said this numerous times in the past, but I have yet to see this actually being the case. What is your justification for this view?



edit on 16-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Your assumption that I don't believe in evolution is incorrect.



OK, lets put some numbers on things and see how inflation stacks up.

At time zero, the universe was supposed to be a space-time singularity so, being generous, it was the Planck volume of 4.2217 × 10−105 m3. Its diameter therefore would be a Planck length 1.616 199(97) × 10−35 m. Since the Planck length is indivisible, it makes no sense to define radius as 1/2 of it. As this is incredibly tiny in comparison with the post inflation universe size, we can approximate that the starting radius was zero, for the purposes of our calculations.

As energy cannot be created or destroyed, the proto-universe must have had the same mass as it does now. The density of the observable part of universe has been estimated at 3 x 10-30 g/cm3. Extrapolating this out to a universe that has expanded to about 13.7 light years (or more), the mass is in the vicinity of 3 × 10^52 kilograms or 4 × 10^69 Joules at a minimum (mass-energy equivalence). (Just added this paragraph for completeness of definition of initial conditions)

Wikipedia states the period of inflation was from 10^−36 sec to around 10^−33 sec (or 10^−32 sec) after Big Bang. This period was well before the establishment of the cosmic microwave background radiation and so is entirely theoretical. We have NO evidence for it. The CMB established about 379,000 years after time zero when the universe became transparent to photons and we DO have real data on it.

At the time that the CMB established, the radius of the observable universe has been estimated to have been greater than 13.7 light years. We can say that with confidence because we can see the photons of the CMB, and we are fairly confident that they have traveled 13.7 years at the speed of light to reach us (data from WMAP and Planck Surveys).

So, using the figures we do have confidence in, and evidence for, the outer parts of the universe traveled 13.7 billion light years (= 13,700,000,000 x 9,460,528,400,000,000 = 12,9609,239,080,000,000,000,000,000 meters) in a period of 379,000 years (= 31,536,000 seconds). Velocity = distance traveled / time taken, so the outer reaches of the universe (volumetrically the largest part of it) traveled at 4,109,882,010,400,811,770.7 meters/sec, which is 13,709,090,741.7 times the speed of light.

Suggesting that something was traveling away from us at even the tiniest fraction of that velocity and then reversed its direction and is now traveling towards us (blue shifted) due to the effect of any of the known forces (including gravity) is equally preposterous.

How could anyone believe such nonsense?

Here's a paper that tries to determine the size of the universe immediately after inflation: Susskind's Challenge to the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal and Possible Resolutions


edit on 16/7/2015 by chr0naut because: Please feel free to correct my math. I may have made mistakes.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

so what does any of that have to do with creationism?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
New mechanisms have been discovered and have long been substantiated. So why haven't they been added?


Why do you think that new mechanisms are not added? Why do you feel epigenetics is ignored? Where do you get your information from?



It's getting more complete? When was the last time it was updated?


It gets updated whenever new info comes out. For example the recent fossil discoveries of a previously unknown hominid species. I reckon it was updated this year. What makes you think they don't add new discoveries and information to it? You've said this numerous times in the past, but I have yet to see this actually being the case. What is your justification for this view?



There is a subtle difference between the general philosophy of evolution and the actual taxonomy that is taught in schools and universities. You may argue that evolution is malleable in definition to include whatever one wants, but such is not the case. That some may propose that, say, ancient aliens should be integrated into MES, does not make it so.

A more practical example would be to examine public definitions of MES such as textbooks and encyclopedic sites like Wikipedia. Now understand that I am not vouching for the absolute accuracy of Wikipedia, but it should at least reflect the most standardized, accepted and up-to-date definitions of general scientific terms, even more 'up-to-date' than the texts taught from in schools and universities, due to Wikipedia's dynamic nature.

A search through the Wikipedia article on MES does not return any search results for the word "epigenetic". i.e: the most accessed and up-to-date public definition of MES does not include epigenetics as a mechanism.


edit on 16/7/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: dude1

It would sound better in a music class though.



I can see this as the successor to "Book of Mormon" on Broadway... "Creationism, the Musical". I surprised it's not a South Park or Family Guy episode(unless it is and I just missed out on it)!


I wonder if they'll be able to get Morgan Freeman to don the white suit and play God again?




edit on 16/7/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Why do you think that new mechanisms are not added? Why do you feel epigenetics is ignored? Where do you get your information from?

I get my information from researching.

Epigenetics has not been assimilated into the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. For that matter, neither have any of other theories, like Neutral Theory for instance... Actually nothing has changed with the MES, since the mid 60's. Unless you can provide reputable references that explicitly state the contrary.

This is not to say that there haven't been advances in our understanding. Clearly there have been, but the MES still maintains a central framework formulated from an outdated perspective of evolution. It doesn't reflect what we know today, yet it's still considered to be the prevailing theory.

ETA here- in fact many new discoveries go against and call into question what the MES previously established as fact. For example - that phenotypes, including disease, must have a genetic basis or that evolution must happen gradually (gradualism)


It gets updated whenever new info comes out.

Where do YOU get your info from? Talkorgins?

True, our understanding certainly has changed, but the theory itself has not changed with it.


For example the recent fossil discoveries of a previously unknown hominid species. I reckon it was updated this year. What makes you think they don't add new discoveries and information to it? You've said this numerous times in the past, but I have yet to see this actually being the case. What is your justification for this view?

Oh, you "reckon", do you?

What makes me think it doesn't get added is quite simple really - the actual theory itself hasn't been adjusted. New fossil discoveries have nothing to do with this discussion since the MES already accounts for this. This was part of the founding principles of the theory.

If you're going to keep clinging to this notion that it always gets updated, then perhaps you can explain why scientists have been calling for an extension to the synthesis? Please, help me and these biologist understand. Or start posting references to justify your view.

edit on 16-7-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




A search through the Wikipedia article on MES does not return any search results for the word "epigenetic". i.e: the most accessed and up-to-date public definition of MES does not include epigenetics as a mechanism.


Exactly, and neither will anything else.

Better yet, google epigenetics and modern synthesis and see what comes up.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well the idea is that everything that governs the universe, and I mean everything - laws, constants, particle relationships etc etc. - came to be in the literal split second of inflation. In a sense, I suppose, this signifies the moment of "creation" from a cosmological perspective, although I could have this wrong.. I think chr0naut is only trying to show how uncanny it really is...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

so what does any of that have to do with creationism?


Little to do with Creationism. It isn't about being 'ismist'.

But myth (cosmic inflation) is clearly being taught as science.


edit on 16/7/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If they do, I would definitely go see it!



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Let's just cut to the chase:


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
What makes me think it doesn't get added is quite simple really - the actual theory itself hasn't been adjusted. New fossil discoveries have nothing to do with this discussion since the MES already accounts for this. This was part of the founding principles of the theory.


How do you know the theory hasn't been adjusted? I've asked you this before and never got a good answer. I'm really just trying to figure out where you are reading the theory and how you actually KNOW this. I'm not saying you are wrong. Theories pretty much are our understanding of something, so if our understanding is updated, it should reflect the theory, as far I understand it. If this is not correct, I'd like to know about it. I didn't think there was some official written 'dogma like' theory with the exact points and discoveries that document all of MES, that excludes numerous mechanisms and never gets changed. If there is, I cannot find it anywhere, so I'd be interested if you have a link to it. I would imagine that this type of thing would take books on top of books. Remember modern synthesis doesn't refer to a literal synthesis. It's a combination of several facets of evolution. A synthesis of many evolutionary concepts in biology put together.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

so what does any of that have to do with creationism?


Little to do with Creationism. It isn't about being 'ismist'.

But myth (cosmic inflation) is clearly being taught as science.



still a better fiction than creationism.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You seem to think you now about evolution......can you elaborate on how it requires creationism?...


Oh I don't know.....Maybe because there needs to be a reason for something to exist before it can evolve....That's a good start! We may have evolved, but God created us before we could evolve.....


God did not create us...he is a mythical being...you as a human, have thoughts that make him real to you. no critical-thinking or logical reasoning makes god real.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well the idea is that everything that governs the universe, and I mean everything - laws, constants, particle relationships etc etc. - came to be in the literal split second of inflation. In a sense, I suppose, this signifies the moment of "creation" from a cosmological perspective, although I could have this wrong.. I think chr0naut is only trying to show how uncanny it really is...



i see that. but ignorance is no reason to eschew standard investigative protocol in favor of "feel good" hypotheses. particularly when said hypotheses are then presented as being equal to theories which HAVE braved the trials of standard investigative protocol. that is the point we have been trying to make. we fully admit that we are still ignorant in many areas but we have the self-respect to treat the journey with all the dignity it requires to do the job properly.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The Modern Synthesis is explicit in its framework and has not changed since the 60's. If you insist that it has you will have to provide the source(s) that show this to be the case (e.g. that epigenetics has been incorporated into the framework.) Simply assuming that it has gets us nowhere in this discussion.

It's true that our understanding has come a long way since the synthesis was last reformulated by Mayr. However, many scientists are pushing for an extension.

This article sums it up nicely:

The revision of these fundamental concepts indicates that the Modern Synthesis is no longer a viable framework for evolutionary biology, and a “postmodern synthesis” will have to replace it. Eugene Koonin
Towards A Postmodern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology

This a more in depth article by the same author.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

...and electrons don't orbit little nuclei in pretty little patterns but the broad strokes are accurate and digestible enough for secondary schoolers to understand.

None of this is an argument against teaching evolution in school or for allowing pseudoscientific beliefs to be taught alongside it.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Of course, once again I type a long response and it gets cut off because my account magically gets logged out of ATS while replying.

www.hindawi.com...

Read this. It specifically talks about how they are working to integrate epigenetics into modern synthesis. They are calling it the extended synthesis. Basically it's an expansion of Modern Synthesis, it doesn't go against any of it. You quoted a paper from 2004 written by plant biologists that appears to be a summary of the evolutionary evidence. It wasn't an official theory, nor did it say anything about it not being updated since the 60s. I still find the claims that it isn't being integrated and that MES hasn't been updated, to be completely unfounded. What do you think these scientists have been doing all these years?

Besides, gene expression can't happen without the gene originating via mutation in the first place, so I don't see where you are getting your complaint from. Epigenetics is an expansion of the process. If you are suggesting it is being ignored by scientists you are barking up the wrong tree. Epigenetics isn't an additional mechanism of evolution. It is an expansion of what can happen after these genes have already emerged. So calling it a different mechanism is wrong. It is not different and relies on the same process that everything else in MES relies on. It's an expansion of how genes can be expressed via environmental pressures. It is still very directly linked to genetic mutation and natural selection.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the wiki for Modern Synthesis and it has it's own section for Horizontal gene transfer. It's not ignored, it just hasn't been observed in complex organisms, so it may not play the huge role you want it to today, not that it isn't important overall when looking at evolutionary history.

Is there anything else that you feel is being ignored? I think I covered the big ones.
edit on 22-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sure. And I agree that creationism has no place in a scientific classroom.

But the textbook version of evolution (the MES) is misleading



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
You haven't said anything I don't already know.

I only asked you to provide a source to back up your claim that the MES has been updated to include epigenetic mechanisms, as you've repeatedly (and erroneously) claimed is the case (in this and other threads). What you came up with is an article that I've actually already read (along with several others just like it) which supports what I've been saying all along to you – that the MES needs to be updated! How then, after proving my point and thereby disproving yours, are you in a position to try and school me here?


You quoted a paper from 2004 written by plant biologists that appears to be a summary of the evolutionary evidence. It wasn't an official theory, nor did it say anything about it not being updated since the 60s.

You didn't read them obviously. And so the heck what that it was a plant biologist. Really Barcs, you're grasping big time here.


I still find the claims that it isn't being integrated and that MES hasn't been updated, to be completely unfounded.

Of course you do, because you are misguided by your blind assumptions. I have no idea where you're getting this idea that the MES has been updated, expanded, extended, or whatever. The literature on the synthesis has not changed. It's exactly why for more than a decade now (see Gould) several scientists have been calling for an extension. The central tenets of the MES, which have "hardened" our view of evolution for so many years, actually goes against what the research is currently bearing out. I've said this repeatedly and provided sources, but you continue to dismiss it all.

Recall : The MES paints a picture of evolution (which you have repeated over and over in these threads) that proceeds very slowly via accumulation of genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Essentially, that all phenotypic variation is derived from the gene and mutations. That's it. It gives some recognition to GD, and GF, but NS is the stand out "force". Well okay, but what about what the neutral theory says? There is a world of scientists who feel that GD plays a more prominent role. Guess what, the MES does not agree. This is only one small contradiction. There are many others.


Epigenetics isn't an additional mechanism of evolution. It is an expansion of what can happen after these genes have already emerged. So calling it a different mechanism is wrong. It is not different and relies on the same process that everything else in MES relies on. It's an expansion of how genes can be expressed via environmental pressures. It is still very directly linked to genetic mutation and natural selection.

Wow, just wow. This couldn't be more off base if you said that the moon is made of cheese. Your lack of understanding is shining through I'm afraid. Try reading the papers I've sourced so far.


en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the wiki for Modern Synthesis and it has it's own section for Horizontal gene transfer. It's not ignored, it just hasn't been observed in complex organisms, so it may not play the huge role you want it to today, not that it isn't important overall when looking at evolutionary history.

Chr0naut was nice enough to mention the same wiki page just a few posts up. Did you think I haven't been on that page? Please quote from that article anything that says epigenetics, and for that matter HGT (which is not an epigenetic mechanism) has become part of the synthesis.

Oh, and HGT has been observed in several species beyond bacteria. All organisms are complex from a biological stand point.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join