Texas Board Of Education Unanimously Rejects Creationist Textbooks

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


i never called you names, neither did i use any fallacies.

lucy is still taught as a pre human form, when all the bones aren't even from the same organism. all the pre human forms that have been found have similar flaws. you want children to be taught this, even when i showed you it isn't true, erego, you want to teach them things that are untrue.

just go research some of the things i brought up, you will find that what you believe isn't science nor fact. truth is all that matters.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


How about you do some research? The Lucy argument of creationists has been debunked long ago:
www.talkorigins.org...

The same with rarity of beneficial mutations and other arguments you used. You can find the complete list here:
www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by Maslo


oh talkorigins...lol. lots of information on there is incorrect at best.

have you read the transcript of the discussion? talkorigins says johanson misunderstood the question, but in the qualifying statement about the knee, we can see that he didn't, and that lucy's knee was obviously the thing being discussed.

"Then why are you so sure it [the knee-joint] belonged to Lucy?" Johanson answered, "Anatomical similarity."

and talkorigins answer for the rarity of beneficial mutations?

Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful

then goes on to postulate that beneficial mutations "last longer" because theoretically those with disadvantageous mutations don't survive as long. which is just a rehash of "the strongest survive". hardly an answer. oh yeah. it also says something to the effect of "beneficial mutations are rare, but not as rare as people think". and then tries to quantify this statement with a study on e.coli (and mutations within organisms like that are classified as "micro evolution" which isn't the same as "macro evolution")

i'm guessing you just tossed my arguments into google, hit enter, and then said "ooooh, look, here is a website that refutes them".

Originally posted by insanedr4gon
They should have two different classes, one follows the science course, and the other religion. It should be the childs choice as to which of the classes he/she chooses to follow. I know that this intrudes on the seperation between church and state, but we shouldn't force kids to abandon their beliefs just because we disagree.

Kids are not forced to abandon their religious beliefs. They are simply expected to learn about religion in church or at home.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


What the... How? When... Who are they and what did they do with the real Texas Board of Education? Is this the Onion?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

have you read the transcript of the discussion? talkorigins says johanson misunderstood the question, but in the qualifying statement about the knee, we can see that he didn't, and that lucy's knee was obviously the thing being discussed.

Do you have a transcript?

then goes on to postulate that beneficial mutations "last longer" because theoretically those with disadvantageous mutations don't survive as long. which is just a rehash of "the strongest survive". hardly an answer.

Why is it not an answer? Negative mutations get supressed in a population, positive get promoted. That explains why positive mutations accumulate and negative dissapear over time. Why do you think it doesnt?

and then tries to quantify this statement with a study on e.coli (and mutations within organisms like that are classified as "micro evolution" which isn't the same as "macro evolution")

Its the same, just takes longer - distinction between micro and macro is purely artificial, or only in scale, as the names suggests. I think this picture explains it pretty good:

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


You know that "Lucy" is not the only specimen of Australopithecus afarensis we have, correct? Nor is afarensis the only species of Australopithecus we know of?

in my original post, the source i gave includes the two questions asked. the two questions that show he understood the question, and his answer applied to lucy's knee.

Why is it not an answer?

it isn't an answer because talk origins admits that beneficial mutations are very rare, and then theorizes as to how rare beneficial mutations could account for evolutionary effects. it isn't an answer because they confirm the original point, that beneficial mutations are rare.

micro evolution and macro evolution are different. poodles are dogs. they are the product of selective breeding, not the creation of a new species of dog. their original genes came from wolves that were captured and bred in captivity. they're still dogs, not a new species. micro evolution has been observed. macro evolution is the theory that one species can become a different species with mutation and time. this has not been observed.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


clearly anyone can come up with any creature they wish if using any bones found in the vicinity is allowed. did you know lucy walking upright is based only on a knee from a different area and depth, and footprints (lucy's feet weren't found) that dated 3.6 million years old that were found near most of her? lucy was dated to 3.2 million years old.

all of the other forms are based on similar shoddy evidence. a fragment of a skull (said to be of a different species than lucy because of a molar. "robustus" its called), a toothless jawbone is one specimen, and another skull piece is the other (aethiopicus).

people see what they want.

i'm going to stop responding because soon i will be overwhelmed by multiple people responding to just me, and we are getting a little off topic (yes, i know i started it).

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

it isn't an answer because talk origins admits that beneficial mutations are very rare, and then theorizes as to how rare beneficial mutations could account for evolutionary effects. it isn't an answer because they confirm the original point, that beneficial mutations are rare.

The original point was not that beneficial mutations are rare (or comparatively rare, to neutral and harmful mutations). The point was that this is somehow incompatible with evolution, or invalidates it - that is what talkorigins article refuted. The rate of beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations poses no problem for evolution.

micro evolution and macro evolution are different. poodles are dogs. they are the product of selective breeding, not the creation of a new species of dog. their original genes came from wolves that were captured and bred in captivity. they're still dogs, not a new species. micro evolution has been observed. macro evolution is the theory that one species can become a different species with mutation and time. this has not been observed.

Speciation (splitting of one species into two - or creation of a new species) has been observed many times, in nature and in laboratory:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

So if you define macroevolution as speciation, then it has been directly observed.

Just to prevent confusion, here is the definition of a species:

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

If you want to use different definition, please specify it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
all of the other forms are based on similar shoddy evidence. a fragment of a skull (said to be of a different species than lucy because of a molar. "robustus" its called), a toothless jawbone is one specimen, and another skull piece is the other (aethiopicus).

people see what they want.

Is that desperation I'm hearing . . . . ?

"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue

John Roach - for National Geographic News - December 3, 2007

Scientists today announced the discovery of an extraordinarily preserved "dinosaur mummy" with much of its tissues and bones still encased in an uncollapsed envelope of skin.

Preliminary studies of the 67-million-year-old hadrosaur, named Dakota, are already altering theories of what the ancient creatures' skin looked like and how quickly they moved, project researchers say.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Would you want to live in a world where evolution was the reality?

It seems fairly logical that even if benificial mutations were rare that they would accumulate very rapidly over a million years. We also have to take into account that the earth wasnt always a magical happy green globe... there might have been points in the development of its current eco systems that made mutations that are now detrimental.... benificial.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm showing how the scientific method isn't used in evolution, which makes it not science. what WOULD invalidate the theory for you? seems to me like alot of people want evolution to be true, instead of looking at the evidence itself.

I'm not sure you're looking at the evidence for evolution. You seem solely focused on slightly controversial cases within evolutionary science in order to maintain a denial of the truth of the theory.

I would doubt that he's read this : The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. It's a hefty tome unlike his more popular writing. Perhaps he should check out this as well.

Keep up the good work traditionaldrummer

evolution is dependent on alot of beneficial mutations. the rarity of mutations directly effects the validity of evolution. as i've said, talkorigins uses already debunked/wrong evidence at best.

speciation has never been seen.

fruit fly: www.icr.org...

In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary

primrose: creation.com...

(as i said, talkorigins uses already debunked examples)

Faeroe Island house mouse: breeding with the parent stock hasn't been tried.

cichlid fishes: "new species" won't mate with old because of changed coloration and its influence in their complex mating rituals. it isn't that they CAN'T mate, they just won't.

almost all of the plants on the first page you gave are hybrid breedings that result in infertile offspring, like breeding a lion and a tiger. the resultant offspring are infertile. it isn't a new species.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
all of the other forms are based on similar shoddy evidence. a fragment of a skull (said to be of a different species than lucy because of a molar. "robustus" its called), a toothless jawbone is one specimen, and another skull piece is the other (aethiopicus).

people see what they want.

Is that desperation I'm hearing . . . . ?

"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue

John Roach - for National Geographic News - December 3, 2007

Scientists today announced the discovery of an extraordinarily preserved "dinosaur mummy" with much of its tissues and bones still encased in an uncollapsed envelope of skin.

Preliminary studies of the 67-million-year-old hadrosaur, named Dakota, are already altering theories of what the ancient creatures' skin looked like and how quickly they moved, project researchers say.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

yes it is. the desperation of evolutionists.

we were discussing pre human forms, and the sorry evidence they are based off of. a jawbone with no teeth has been called a new species of man?! no supporting evidence. hmm...it seems i remember evolutionists making a similar mistake quite awhile ago... it turned out to be an ape's jaw. and another "species" of man was discovered with the finding of a tooth, that turned out to be from a pig.

and the article you gave supports evolution how?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


we were discussing pre human forms, and the sorry evidence they are based off of.

Sounds like you need to read some Ian Tattersall as well as Stephen Jay Gould.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

What the... How? When... Who are they and what did they do with the real Texas Board of Education? Is this the Onion?

Heehee, ya know I was a little surprised too honestly.

Thanks everyone for the replies and I figured this subject would get interesting and become debated a bit. I appreciate both sides and the sources/proof provided. It is always good to learn how others arrive at their conclusions before chastising them, imo. Then by discussing it, hopefully both parties may learn something.

Peace,
spec

In response to your reply to me, Bob, actually, you can't just whip up a critter whole-cloth out of "whatever's laying around." Even if you freak out over the notion of evolution, I trust physiology and anatomy are uncontroversial to you? sometimes mistakes do happen (putting a camerosaurid head on an apatasaur body and calling it "brontosaurus" for instance) but the great thing about the scientific method is, it's self-correcting.

Aethiopicus is known from portions of skull and jaw. Amazing thing is, these are the parts of a mammal's body that tell you the most about what it looked like. You can, in fact, reconstruct a very accurate skull from portions of it. Add in an intact jawbone, and you might as well have the whole skeleton. Robustus has well over two hundred specimens; we have more evidence for this creature than we do for for many living species of birds! Boisei has most of a skull, and several fragments matching up with it from all around Eastern Africa. We have several near-complete skeletons of africanus as well, including hte "Tuang child" - we even know the cause of his death (he was killed and eaten by an eagle)

So no, we're not taking about things just getting made-up. And this is just one clade of hominins. There's about a half-dozen more, several of which are MORE well-known. Really, the human family tree is probably hte most well-documented line of descent we have - for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
evolution is dependent on alot of beneficial mutations. the rarity of mutations directly effects the validity of evolution. as i've said, talkorigins uses already debunked/wrong evidence at best.

speciation has never been seen.

fruit fly: www.icr.org...

I had to pause when reading that after it misrepresented the goals of the Lenski experiment after outright lying about the results.
And then this;

They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution

Yes it is. Tee hee. Man. Watching creationists talk about evolution is an awful lot like watching Hollywood depicting computer hacking.

primrose: creation.com...

(as i said, talkorigins uses already debunked examples)

Another fine example of not actually understanding what evolution is. Did change occur? TIf yes, then evolution has occurred.

Faeroe Island house mouse: breeding with the parent stock hasn't been tried.

It's a subspecies of the common house mouse.

cichlid fishes: "new species" won't mate with old because of changed coloration and its influence in their complex mating rituals. it isn't that they CAN'T mate, they just won't.

Then that is speciation. Do you know what the definition of "species" is? While i'm the first to admit that "species" is a very shaky category of classification, the main definition is "a population of an organism that does not interbreed with another population." These fish will not breed with one another, therefor they are separate species. You could probably mix up their eggs and roe and get fish out of it, but it's the populations htemselves that matter.

almost all of the plants on the first page you gave are hybrid breedings that result in infertile offspring, like breeding a lion and a tiger. the resultant offspring are infertile. it isn't a new species.

Not all hybrids are sterile, actually. Some may actually qualify as new species. or, at least, subspecies (As in the case of the africanized honey bee, for instance)

reply to post by N3k9Ni


That is the first time I've ever seen any of the belief systems of any Amozonian peoples, in any concerns or interest about them I have tended to concentrate on their contempary problems. Cultural ignorance on my part there. This does indicate though the cultural influences and (though not in a disparaging way), narrow focus of mythological based creation myths. The modern theists would dismiss these sort of creation myths whilst following an Old Testament that has Unicorns in. Such a narrow focus is damaging to inquiry and the broad basis of knowledge we need in the modern world. To both understand it and for problem solving to deal with our present problems and concerns.
I still have difficulty even teaching comparative religions in school as this could more point out differences in a mixed class rather than the neutral grounds should it be kept out altogether.
I do however accede the point that an understanding of other belief systems and creation myths helps with an understanding of different cultures and what the hell a few Unicorns and mahogony Anacondas can't do their imaginations too much harm.
Like I said the only problem being the re-inforcement of their cultures at home, re-inforcement by parents who feel only their belief system has any merits playing out the adult world of belief strife in the classroom. Always the parents fault I believe is the maxim.
Notwithstanding those concerns the idea of teaching the myths in comparative classes and or social science based courses would seem to be the way to go. After all we cannot ignore these myths totally because of the impact they had and continue to have throughout the World in shaping and informing that World.
One could say that putting them at a cultural disadvatage can be as debillitating as putting them at a scientific advantage. I had to admit my misgivings whilst agreeing with you.