galiel

I thought it was too much fiber.

Buffman

... all the while spreading the Big Lie about some "secular humanist"conspiracy to eat their young and steal their women, or something.

Oh my, YES! Of course it is important to mention that anyone that disagrees with anything they say is a "secular humanist"...including the Pope. But their children do go so well with fava beans and a nice chianti.

Best wishes, Hannibal

dk

Well I didn’t want to get into this discussion, but let me offer a few general criticisms, on what passes for evidence, and this is from your chosen reference.

• Evidence: Genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance. ----- from link provided
  Rebuff: This describes micro, not macro evolution. Micro evolution was explained by Gregor Mendel from pea plants independent of Darwin’s Theories. Interestingly enough Mendel’s publication lay buried for almost 40 years while established science was enthralled with Darwin’s exotic but trivial finches. People have been genetically engineering dogs, carp, plants and domestic animals for well over a 1,000 years to establish tremendous variation amongst species. It was clearly Mendel’s Genetic Laws that lead to the discovery and verification of DNA independent of evolutionism.
• Evidence: A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have emigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. ----- from link provided
  Rebuff: Compelling my ass. The link didn’t offer a single reference. What peppered moths or Darwin’s finches demonstrated about macro-evolution has nothing to do with evolutionary science. I offer a kindly comment from the University of California San Diego, “Darwin's Finches, though a weak example of speciation and evolutionary radiation themselves45, could never provide evidence for anything more than the slightest example of microevolution. Microevolution, or minor change within a species is also a well documented fact, readily accepted by creationists and evolutionists alike. Some of Darwin's Finches may be considered to be different species simply because they are reproductively isolated, however, this is a constructed definition of species which doesn't necessarily imply any significant transformation has occurred. Unlike microevolution, macroevolution--the ability to turn hominids into humans, reptiles into birds, or evolve complex biological structures--relies upon generally undocumented evidence. Even evidence for speciation might exist which still doesn't validate macroevolution, as it has not been observed to any large degree and biological complexity works against it. As opposed to temporary miniscule changes in the sizes of finch beaks, macroevolutionary claims of common ancestry and transitions between very different types of organisms are the controversial part of Darwin's theory. “ ---- <a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nofraud.htm" target="_blank"> "Icons Still Standing" Jonathan Wells Comes Up Clean, Despite Harsh Criticism </a> . Copyright © 2002 Casey Luskin. All rights reserved.
• Evidence: So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed. ----- from link provided
  Rebuff: Cool, I suppose if we can in some sense reclassify the entire fossil record as intermediate forms, I guess that solves the problem. This is one of the silliest propositions I’ve ever read.

I’m going to quit here having demonstrated the inadequacy of dogma as a source of science. Evolutionism has nothing to do with evolutionary science. I repeat myself, but such cartoonish portrayals of evolutionary science are a far greater obstacle to evolutionary science than creationism. When someone asks do I believe in evolution, I have to respond “Which theory of evolution?”
dk: - I mean evolutionism creates, determines and orders the concepts, structures and forms taken by the social sciences. For example Margaret Mead in studying the Samoan Culture scientifically proved a positive link between child psychology, social norms, and cultural anthropology. The link was forged using evolutionism as the connective media. Today no evolutionary scientist, neuroscientist or geneticist worth a tablespoon of salt would agree with Mead. The problem is that Mead’s findings were appropriated by the Civil Rights Movement to become the basis of Positive Law. This goes a long way to explain why Civil Rights Laws have failed miserable to promote racial or sexual equality, but where the rubber meets the road when the courts rule on a fact of law their is no appeal or petition of grievance. Its clear “de jure segregation” and “de jure integration” are both founded on spurious pseudo believes. This has left modern liberalism in the postmodern world up a creek without a paddle. The ad hominem attacks at me on this thread, and more generally PC are a defense mechanism. Quite frankly I have made some very outrages statements, its a very sad note that most are easily justified.
dk: - I’ve already given several examples to illustrate the point, but here’s another: “Folk Psychology: In recent philosophy, it is sometimes supposed that the basis of our ability to explain and predict what other people will do, using terms like 'believes' and 'desires', is a theory which we know implicitly, acquired as we came to gain psychological understanding. The question can be raised how this theory, named folk psychology, relates to others - in the first instance how it relates to scientific psychology, and then how it relates to neuroscientific theories of brains' workings. Traditional questions about the relation between mind and body come to be recast as questions about relations between different theories; and eliminativism can be stated as the doctrine that folk psychology is a false theory.” ---- <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=552079&secid=.-" target="_blank"> The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, © Oxford University Press 1995 </a> The pulp put into the social sciences is dogma, and has nothing to do with science.
dk: - When social scientists are dependent upon democratic processes to run huge bureaucracies then the consensus of the voting public becomes the vision of social science. I’ve already established with several sources the visceral link and hierarchy between evolutionism and the social sciences.
dk: Let me think,,,,, pause, oh yah WW I, WW II and the Cold War. WW I ended with Versailles Treaty that carved up Europe to be plundered and pillaged by the victors, and was the primary cause of WW II. Then at the end of WW II the US and USSR began a Cold War that carved the whole world up like a fatted calf. We can view these as three wars, or one continuous conflict with intermissions to repopulate armies and retool the military industrial complex.
dk: - Nothing, that’s my point.
dk: - First, evolutionism presides over the social sciences as a godhead. Second, secular public education is an epiphany of the social sciences. Third students are the lambs sacrificed on the alters of secular public education under the direction of university clerics and visionaries. Fourth public education is an establishment of the federal government justified by “an impenetrable wall between church and state”. In fact over the last 50 years public education has degenerated from the crowned jewel of the Great Society to a crisis that threatens and burdens the whole society. No matter I’m told, evolutionism is the maker of all things good, and cure for all things bad.
dk: - Hey you needn’t be so critical of Command Style Communism. A first installment paid to utopia. Communism was a glorious empire founded upon the revelation of Scientific History and dialectic materialism. The politically correct response is to blame the fall of communism on the corrupt influence of bourgeoisie Christians.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

pz

It depends on how it is done. I don't spend much time dealing with creationism in my biology classes, but I have found it useful to read the creationist arguments, especially when they organize it so nicely, as in "20 questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution". They represent nice lists of common misconceptions about evolution, so it's useful as a guide to topics I ought to bring up in my lectures.

dk

Ok pz, I have a challenge for you. List three practical (as opposed to theoretical) problems evolution solved.

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Ok pz, I have a challenge for you. List three practical (as opposed to theoretical) problems evolution solved.

I'm sure pz will have plenty, but since I'm here at the moment, may I give a few hundred examples?

Let's start with the insights that evolutionary theory has given us into the epidemiology of disease. Evolutionary theory has given us key insights into how disease organisms reproduce and spread through populations; this is one reason why we're so much better at dealing with epidemic diseases today than we were in the past. Check out the writings of Paul Ewald, such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0195111397/theatlanticmonthA/102-8443487-9036142" target="_blank">Evolution of Infectious Disease</a>, for instance.

The modern field of plant and animal breeding is heavily dependent upon evolutionary theory. Plant and animal breeders use quantitative genetics and evolutionary theory to improve milk yield in cows, and protein yield in rice (the world's most important food grain), for example. Modern-day plant and animal breeders use sophisticated genetic analyses combined with evolutionary principles to deliberately create varieties with the desired properties. If you want to see a bunch of people laugh themselves silly, go to any decent university with an Animal Sciences and/or Plant Sciences department and ask the people there what they think of the notion that evolutionary theory has no practical applications. (While you're at it, look up <a href="http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html" target="_blank">Lysenkoism</a> and see how the denial of Darwinism devastated Soviet agriculture for an entire generation.)

How about the pharmaceutical industry? The use of animal testing for medical and pharmaceutical research is founded upon the assumption that there are evolutionary relationships between organisms -- specifically, between humans and other animals. There's not much point in using animals as models for drug treatment if we're not related to those animals. Degree of relatedness matters too, of course, which is why mammals are much better models than are reptiles or amphibians, for example.

Cheers,

Michael

Quetzal

I'm morally certain pz will have lots of examples. However, I thought you'd be interested in some nice, concrete examples of real-world applications of evolutionary theory. Here’s a few examples, from an ecology standpoint, of the value of evolutionary biology.

1. Research into host selection in Striga hermonthica. The research has centered around geographic variability of Striga populations in an effort to determine selection effects by variously resistant strains of Sorghum asiatica with an eye toward developing long-term resistance stability. Striga parasitism costs an estimated $8 billion annually in Africa (1986 dollars) through destruction of vital cereal crops. Pure evolutionary biology in action.

2. Research into the lifecycle and evolutionary adaptation of the cassava mealy bug (Phenacoccus manihoti) lead to the discovery of a parasitic wasp (Apoanagyrus lopezi) from South America that was able to save an estimated 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa from starvation. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa – the mealy bug threatened total destruction of the crop, with up to 80% average losses in every field effected. Introduction of the wasp brought the scourge under control. Again, pure evolutionary biology in action.

3. Research into the lifecycle and evolutionary biology of the European green crab (Carcinus maenas), a significant threat to US Pacific coast crab fisheries, determined that it was INAPPROPRIATE to introduce the parasite Sacculina carcini as a method of biological control because of its ability to jump species and be nearly as lethal to native crabs as it is to Carcinus. Once again, evolutionary biology triumphs – this time by preventing what could have been a serious error.

[edited to add sacrifice to the goddess Typo]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

theyeti

True, buy you're a college professor, and you have a great deal of autonomy that highschool teachers don't. Plus you don't have to worry about angry parents telling you what to teach and not to teach -- the students are there of their own accord. Of course, one thing that teachers at any level should do is dispel misconceptions about evolution, and if creationists highlight those misconceptions, then they make a convienient source. However, it's possible to address those misconceptions without introducing and debunking the creationist arguments themselves.

Mostly, what I'm concerned about is the whole "teaching the controversy" angle that the neo-creos are pushing, and how it would turn biology class into one long, extended creation/evolution debate. Plus you would have ignorant dipshits claiming utterly ridiculous things like evolution being responsible for the Cold War. It's just not germane to biology.

theyeti

theyeti

You must have been educated in a cave. Evolutionary psychology, and its forerunner sociobiology, did not exist 50 years ago. Sociologists and anthropologists, rather than being complicit in building some evil evolutionary edifice, have traditionally been very antagonistic to the idea. Evolutionary ideas have only made real headway into the "secular" social sciences (as opposed to the Christian social sciences?) in the last decade.

Then you give a quote talking about how sociobiologists rejected the cultural relativism of Mead et al. Does this mean that you support cultural relativism? If so, you're the first creationist I've seen do so, as it basically undermines any Christian claim to a position of moral superiority. But what does a little thing like consistency matter when you're on a holy crusade to slander and ridicule?

theyeti

dk

I'm sure pz will have plenty, but since I'm here at the moment, may I give a few hundred examples?
dk: The modern age of epidemiology began with the accidental discovery of penicillin by Fleming in 1929. Evolutionary theory played no part. I suppose one might describe the immune response to pathogenic microbes, and microbes response to miracle drugs as evidence for evolution, and I would agree, but the nuts and bolts of immunology science remains an iterative trial and error time consuming process. I would actually submit MDR pathogens caused by the abuse of miracle drugs demonstrate just how inept modern medicine has become in the treatment of contagious disease.
dk: I’ve already posted the story of Gregor Mendel the father of genetics, he was the abbot of an Augustinian Monastery. . Mendel’s discoveries were developed independent of Darwin, and even after being published were lost then rediscovered 20 years after death. I would submit that one of the great failures of evolutionary philosophy entails a blatant disregard for the men of science that made the discoveries. Clearly biology in any practical sense builds upon the Laws of genetics to solve practical problems. Even the discovery of DNA has its roots in the science of genetics.
dk: I really don’t know what practical problem you’re referring too. But drugs like AZT were discovered doing cancer research over 35 years ago , but found too toxic for approved. It was tried on AIDs patients on a trial and error basis. The relationship between human and animal anatomy dates back at least to the High Middle Ages. For <a href="http://www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/Museum/Usowski/animal.htm" target="_blank"> example </a> where I found, “The 1543 publication of the De humani corpious fabrica, written by Andrea Vesalis, was the first anatomy text with detailed dissection of the human body. This document substantiated and expounded upon the work of Galen and bridged an anatomical similarity between humans and animals.”

Perhaps pz can do better, I’m afraid the examples pprovided only illustrate the difficulty of the cchallenge.