Oolon Colluphid

<Blush>

Oolon Colluphid

So, when he’s got a good design, you’d expect him to use it. One basic ‘good idea’ is countercurrent flows, where to maximise efficiency of exchange, a gradient of gas, heat etc is maintained along the length of the exchanger. And, in line with your claim, countercurrent flows are indeed widespread in nature. They are found in such diverse things as fish gills, mammalian kidneys, and penguin feet. Great. And yet cephalopods -- that’s octopus, squid, cuttlefish etc -- have gills that are not countercurrent. They are good despite being ‘designed’ without a very obvious improvement, which god obviously knew of since he used it so much elsewhere.

Wings are another ‘good idea’, and show obvious streamlining design. Yet those of birds, bats and pterosaurs, though made of the same framework of bones, are substantially different in construction (long fingers and skin, short hands plus feathers etc)... and those of insects are completely different.

Similarly, flukes on tails make good propulsion units in water. Yet in fish they are vertical, while in cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and sirenia (manatees and dugongs) they are horizontal. Note that in quadrupeds, the back end tends to move up and down in running, not side to side.

Which reminds me of one I missed off the above list: dolphins show the same sort of aquatic streamlining as fish. Great, a sensible piece of design. It is unclear though why one group having to breathe air is such a good design for something that lives all its life in water. (Cetacean calves -- it’s calves for whales, but is it for baby dolphins? -- are especially prone to drowning.) Gills are available -- ie god knew of them since he used them in everything from fish to mosquito larvae to molluscs -- so why don’t dolphins have them?

TTFN, Oolon

[Darn tpoys]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

K

Teachers like sciteach are the reason my kids won't be going into the public school system. Not so much because he wants to teach some Creationism (although that does indicate a SEVERE lack of biology). I hope they'll be able to spot a charlatan like him. My real gripe is that they will miss time which could be spent on real biology while studying his wacko ancient creation myths. I also have a problem with the fact that he admittedly and demonstrably knows very little biology.

ElectEngr

Scigirl,

A couple of questions.

1. Are yu giving four test and only counting three?

2. If we are happy with our grades at the final, do we have to take the final?

and

3. Is the final comprehensive?

&lt;BEG&gt;

BTW...I'm joking. I said that with tongue firmly planted in cheek(sp?)

ElectEngr

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scigirl:
[QB]sciteach,

Here's a resource for you to get started in your biology education - an online biology book:

<a href="http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html" target="_blank">http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html</a>

Peez

To many Christians it is obvious that we have evolved, but that is another matter. Only someone ignorant of science would suggest that anything other than nature is the final deciding factor in science. By its very definition science is based entirely on nature. Naturally individual humans who are scientists may sometimes allow themselves to make decisions based on various biases, but the scientific community is constantly checking and rechecking. Is it perfect? Of course not. It is merely science practiced by humans, but it has an excellent track record. You can appeal to a god all you want, but that is not science. Science is by definition concerned with empirically testable hypotheses. But there are scientific "facts", and evolution is one of them. Please explain. No, you still seem to think that "evolution" is just one idea. Darwin proposed two important ideas: that we have evolved from common ancestots by descent with modification, and that the main mechanism of this evolution is natural selection. The hypothesis of common descent was not obvious because noby had thought of it before. Similarly, the hypothesis that all masses attract each other (gravity) was not obvious. There is now so much evidence for common descent (and gravity) that these are considered scientific facts.

Note also that the idea of common descent did not occur before examination of the evidence. It was proposed based on examination of the data. Once proposed, more data was used to test it again and again and it has always been confirmed. That is how science works. No, observations of nature are used to test hypotheses that have been generated by theory. This is only possible if some observation could, in principle, falsify the hypothesis. Theories do help to understand facts. The theory of evolution helps us to understand how the fact of evolution occured.

Peez

Starboy

Peez,

We appear to be in close agreement. I have no idea why you disagreed with my post to scigirl. Many Chrisitians do NOT understand that science IS all natural and god need not apply. This was my point in a thread where there appears to be a Christian that doesn't understand this.

Starboy

Neruda

oops....um...I guess that should be "impressionable," huh?

Motorcycle Mama

There are so many quotes that have stimulated this response that I randomly picked on to which to respond. I have a quote from Howard J. Van Till, emeritus from Calvin College. "I have long been sorely vexed at the frequency with which the warfare metaphor has been employed in the discussion of the relationship of natural science and Christian belief." Evolutionists and creationists ..."..resonately encourage one another in their perpetuation of the conflict thesis in the service of their own polemical goals (p. 148 in Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, MIT Press, ed. R. T. Pennock 2001).

This quote came to mind when I was reading the exchange started by sciteach. And I would add a few comments. Where does the eukaryotic cell come from? Endosymbiosis, everybody knows that but there is some confusion on the relationship between evidence (DNA properties, etc.) and interpretation (the eukaryotic cell is the result of endosymbiosis); evidence and interpretation are not the same. What is the origin of those endosymbionts? I saw no answer to that question. Want mine? Self-organization, ultimately.

Is evolution a fact? If a fact is defined as Whitehead does, something that is perceived by the human senses, then no. Evolution is an inference, a strong inference derived from a lot of observation. But then the "fact" we live in a heliocentric solar system is also an inference.

I have a bit of advice for those who chose to comment on the misnamed evolution/creation controversy. Read John Polkinghorne, Denis Lamoureux, Howard J. Van Till, Ian Barbor, Arthur Peacocke, and other theologians who are exploring the relationship between Christian faith and modern science.
Motorcycle Mama

gravitybow

sciteach posted this on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001500&p=2" target="_blank">Creationists angry with Texas Tech professor</a> :

And what about you, Paul? Someone let you in the door, and you're a strong ID proponent. Unless, of course, the school administration has no idea of your plans to sabotage the curriculum. Are you prepared to stand up for your TRUTH in class? With administration blessing? Or are you planning to sneak it in somehow? As an alternative to a discipline you admittedly know little about? (Beats me how you're going to get ID-friendly students' brains functioning at or above normal when you do not know the subject yourself.)

Before you put on the full Armor of God and skate out onto thin ice, you may want to read <a href="http://arnica.csustan.edu/biol3020/courts/court.htm" target="_blank">Seven Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation Issues</a> at the California State University Stanislaus' biology site. You may be opening the school district up to liability, especially if some kid complains that you're violating his constitutional rights.

But if you have TRUTH on your side, what's the worst that could happen? Lose your job? Step on a few earthly rights? Tatter the Constitution a bit? Spend a few taxpayer dollars in litigation?

In the end, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you fought for the Lord in the face of evilution.

(edited for grammar/spelling)

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

Late_Cretaceous

Sciteach, I think you have a moral responsibility to decline this positon. I highly doubt that you are being "forced" into it since you didn't mention the calibre of the gun they pointed at your head.

Since you admit (and demonstrate) to knowing little about biology, and show no inclination to learn the subject how will you answer the students' questions or grade their papers?

I really do beleive that is would be unethical and unprofessional of you to subject young minds to your willfull igrnorance.