Basically my original point is that we can see examples of micro evolution around us and yet there are still those convinced that evolution is completely false.
Like Christians who get flu shots.
Or own labradoodles.
But those were intelligently designed by us God-image folk.
The "man on the streets" only matters when the actual subject is decided by the man on the street in some way such as in politics or most forms of religion. Using "the man on the streets" when it applies to something like medicine or other thing mostly decided by a relatively small group of practicioners is insane.
The "man on the streets" only matters when the actual subject is decided by the man on the street in some way such as in politics or most forms of religion. Using "the man on the streets" when it applies to something like medicine or other thing mostly decided by a relatively small group of practicioners is insane.
I couldn't even get past the opening "on the streets" segment, which is just "let's strawman the process of evolution and make it look ridiculous because no one has an exact answer for every step".
Well, off the top of your head, could you explain evolution to a guy on the street? Could you refute a Chick comic if someone handed this to you?
I couldn't even get past the opening "on the streets" segment, which is just "let's strawman the process of evolution and make it look ridiculous because no one has an exact answer for every step".
Well, off the top of your head, could you explain evolution to a guy on the street
I would probably be able to, but only because I have read a few books on the matter and attended lectures. I mean for the average Joe, yeah, they are going to hit a lot of holes when they get down to the details or (loaded) questions.
Yeah that opener was underhanded but I am willing to bet a lot of people would stumble pretty badly when talking about the specifics.
Tasteticle on
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
I couldn't even get past the opening "on the streets" segment, which is just "let's strawman the process of evolution and make it look ridiculous because no one has an exact answer for every step".
Well, off the top of your head, could you explain evolution to a guy on the street
I would probably be able to, but only because I have read a few books on the matter and attended lectures. I mean for the average Joe, yeah, they are going to hit a lot of holes when they get down to the details or (loaded) questions.
Yeah that opener was underhanded but I am willing to bet a lot of people would stumble pretty badly when talking about the specifics.
I'm of the opinion that if you're going to believe in something, you should be able to at least recite the basics. Understanding the basics is a plus but I'm not that picky.
*looks at previously posted Chick tract* .... because how can you believe in evolution if you don't know anything about chemical evolution ... o_O
Just what does the US education system do exactly?
According to Texas, it teaches creationism last I heard.
Seriously, can we drop the fucking Texas shit.
There are, last I recall, 15 to 25 states much more ignorant than we are by educational standards. Hell, we even beat California. Fuck the rest of you all.
And seriously, I went to school in Bumfuck, Texas and they didn't even remotely to attempt to jam creationism down my throat.
Do you have a link to this cause I would be VERY excited to read about this
Wouldn't an easier explanation be these elephants grow wimpy tusks because they are malnourished? I'm no elephant expert but they're competing for territory against people, right?
The spike in smaller tusks began to happen after the poaching started
Also tusk size has been shown to be a genetic-based issue that is passed in families and not one that is connected to level of food, as tusks are instrumental in food acquisition.
thats a tough one to pin down definitively. Logically elephants would eventually get smaller tusks as a species if the advantages of not getting shot balanced out the disadvantages of having smaller tusks to get food.
It boggles my mind that such a powerful country could have so many people ignorant, or wilfully ignorant, of such basic scientific facts.
You should have seen the shit I dealed with in high school, surrounded by the idea that we "came from monkeys." Shit, at least read up on evolution before you insult it. Fuck.
It's a well-known fact that North Korean children are significantly shorter than their South Korean counterparts because a small size means they're better able to evade baton blows from NK police. :P
emnmnme on
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
holy shit, I figured the country wasn't in that bad of a shape on teaching this in schools because I'm from south carolina and just assumed that other states would do a better job.
Hot damn, my state managed to not fail me on something.
holy shit, I figured the country wasn't in that bad of a shape on teaching this in schools because I'm from south carolina and just assumed that other states would do a better job.
Hot damn, my state managed to not fail me on something.
My high school's only mention of ID was right before a detailing of thew evolution of eyes. Yes, my school actively attacked ID.
holy shit, I figured the country wasn't in that bad of a shape on teaching this in schools because I'm from south carolina and just assumed that other states would do a better job.
Hot damn, my state managed to not fail me on something.
My high school's only mention of ID was right before a detailing of thew evolution of eyes. Yes, my school actively attacked ID.
Stuff I learned about evolution in high school:
1. Mendelian inheritance
2. Punnet squares
3. I guess stuff about DNA and how it works
holy shit, I figured the country wasn't in that bad of a shape on teaching this in schools because I'm from south carolina and just assumed that other states would do a better job.
Hot damn, my state managed to not fail me on something.
My high school's only mention of ID was right before a detailing of thew evolution of eyes. Yes, my school actively attacked ID.
Stuff I learned about evolution in high school:
1. Mendelian inheritance
2. Punnet squares
3. I guess stuff about DNA
I forgot all about DNA. Luckily all I need to know is... nothing. I need to know absolutely nothing about DNA to do my job well. Knowing about DNA would do nothing to my life at all.
All the schools I've gone to have all handled evolution pretty well. Even my catholic middle school taught it. The principal of that school came in one day and gave a lecture on how God created evolution.
I couldn't even get past the opening "on the streets" segment, which is just "let's strawman the process of evolution and make it look ridiculous because no one has an exact answer for every step".
Well, off the top of your head, could you explain evolution to a guy on the street? Could you refute a Chick comic if someone handed this to you?
Yup, the fossil strata failure thing is the easiest point to refute, since it's primarily based on trees poking through layers. No scientist would include such an intruded layer in his work, and such intrusions are usually found in geologically active layers. The same for the 'older' rock layers over younger ones, by looking over a larger area you can easily see where geological or human action has damaged the arrangement of the rock strata. Such contradictory regions are rare compared to well ordered regions, and most good fossils come from well ordered regions. Carbon dating also requires no such order to the layers, and easily allows us to age any biological matter we find. Even with no assumptions at all, using only ice layers to estimate solar activity per year to give the basic amount of C-14 present we reveal fossils of immense age and can place fossils in a relatively sensible order.
While it is true only the final 'type' of evolution has been observed (not true if you include viruses and bacteria any more, bacteria exist which can only live in nuclear reactors) the only reason we haven't observed the previous types is because they take thousands or millions of years in more complex animals, they also require huge amounts of accurate information because say the cow they had in 20000 BC was likely very very similar to the ones we might have today, but I'm sure with genetic tests you could tell the difference. Furthermore the division into six stages is absurd, as is the statement that it is based on faith. Evolution has nothing to do with 'stage 1' ie the formation of the first life form. And it's not based on faith, only on rational interpretation of the evidence. We have seen strong evidence for new species and features arising, and evidence that entire ecosystems existed which totally dominated the earth on multiple periods which are all totally gone today (dinosaurs, permian triassic extinction, devonian, cambrian etc) Each removed pretty much the entirety of pre-existing life on earth and we see only new species beyond it.
His gluons comment there is so absurd that it's not even worth addressing. The gluon was discovered in 1979, his point seems to be that noone has seen it with their eyes. Well then, I guess dust grains don't exist, nor oxygen.
edit - The teacher is also vaguely wrong about gluons too. It's not gluon exchange which holds the nucleus together, instead it's the residual strong force created by the fact that the nucleus is lighter than the sum of its parts. This creates a stable well which holds the nucleus together. In a nucleus like Iron for example the distance from nuclear core to the outermost nucleon orbit is far too large for a gluon to cross. The residual nuclear force is actually mediated by the exchange of pi mesons (discovered in 1950)
His gluons comment there is so absurd that it's not even worth addressing. The gluon was discovered in 1979, his point seems to be that noone has seen it with their eyes. Well then, I guess dust grains don't exist, nor oxygen.
It's remarkable even for a Chick comic.
I mean, they're talking about evolution and vestigial organs and shit and then all the sudden,
"Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?"
Like,
a) what the fuck does this have to do with evolution
b) WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION
c) why would a biology professor be teaching or be expected to interact with the idea of gluons
I guess it's possible that some panels about radioactive decay had to be cut. I can see how this gluon broadside could disprove radiometric dating in a creationist's eye.
Los Alamos' Omega West is a swimming-pool-type research reactor whose fuel rods are suspended under 25 ft. of water, which acts not only as coolant and moderator but also shields its human operators from radioactivity. In the spring of 1958, physicists peering down through it saw that the water was getting cloudy. They called Chemist-Bacteriologist Eric B. Fowler of the laboratory's radioactive-waste disposal group, who found that it was swarming with microorganisms, about i billion per quart. The bugs turned out to be rod-shaped bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas, which were feeding on resin and felt in the water purifying system.
The fierce radiation in the reactor appeared to bother the bacteria hardly at all. When the reactor was shut down but still highly radioactive, they multiplied fast. Even when it was running full blast, they held their own. Since they normally divide every 20 minutes or so, this meant that radiation was killing only about as many as managed to live and divide. Just how much radiation the Pseudomonas got is hard to estimate, because the water circulates at varying distances from the core of the reactor, but Dr. Fowler thinks they may have absorbed more than 10 million rep (roentgen equivalent physical) in an eight-hour day, which is 10,000 times the dose that is fatal to man.
Many other microorganisms must have got into Omega West's deadly water; only the Pseudomonas survived. Perhaps the Pseudomonas have natural resistance to radiation. More likely, under the bombardment of Omega's radiation, normal Pseudomonas underwent mutation, producing a special strain capable of surviving in this atomic blast.
His gluons comment there is so absurd that it's not even worth addressing. The gluon was discovered in 1979, his point seems to be that noone has seen it with their eyes. Well then, I guess dust grains don't exist, nor oxygen.
It's remarkable even for a Chick comic.
I mean, they're talking about evolution and vestigial organs and shit and then all the sudden,
"Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?"
Like,
a) what the fuck does this have to do with evolution
b) WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION
c) why would a biology professor be teaching or be expected to interact with the idea of gluons
I guess it's possible that some panels about radioactive decay had to be cut. I can see how this gluon broadside could disprove radiometric dating in a creationist's eye.
In that he is trying to say we don't understand nuclear physics, so how can we do carbon dating? Well, that might make sense, except for the fact that it's the weak interaction which governs nuclear decays. He'd need to claim we hadn't observed the W and Z boson (both discovered in 1983) And even if we haven't we have observational values for the way nuclear decays work over MANY half lives
Los Alamos' Omega West is a swimming-pool-type research reactor whose fuel rods are suspended under 25 ft. of water, which acts not only as coolant and moderator but also shields its human operators from radioactivity. In the spring of 1958, physicists peering down through it saw that the water was getting cloudy. They called Chemist-Bacteriologist Eric B. Fowler of the laboratory's radioactive-waste disposal group, who found that it was swarming with microorganisms, about i billion per quart. The bugs turned out to be rod-shaped bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas, which were feeding on resin and felt in the water purifying system.
The fierce radiation in the reactor appeared to bother the bacteria hardly at all. When the reactor was shut down but still highly radioactive, they multiplied fast. Even when it was running full blast, they held their own. Since they normally divide every 20 minutes or so, this meant that radiation was killing only about as many as managed to live and divide. Just how much radiation the Pseudomonas got is hard to estimate, because the water circulates at varying distances from the core of the reactor, but Dr. Fowler thinks they may have absorbed more than 10 million rep (roentgen equivalent physical) in an eight-hour day, which is 10,000 times the dose that is fatal to man.
Many other microorganisms must have got into Omega West's deadly water; only the Pseudomonas survived. Perhaps the Pseudomonas have natural resistance to radiation. More likely, under the bombardment of Omega's radiation, normal Pseudomonas underwent mutation, producing a special strain capable of surviving in this atomic blast.
I can't help but have the uneasy feeling that we're looking at the species that will eventually replace us.....
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
On the Chick comic:
I love how the professor is getting all riled up and shouting 'HOLD IT, YOU FANATIC' in ALL CAPS and how he's already sweating in the first panel where we hear the calm Christian student politely disagreeing.
Exceptionally interesting, though I don't see where it says that they can only live in reactors.
Well, they have a massive evolutionary advantage for living in reactors which would be a huge disadvantage for living outside of them. You could have cheetas live in the Jungle, but they would be terrible at it compared to everything else. This particular type of bacteria is only observed in nuclear reactors.
On the Chick comic:
I love how the professor is getting all riled up and shouting 'HOLD IT, YOU FANATIC' in ALL CAPS and how he's already sweating in the first panel where we hear the calm Christian student politely disagreeing.
This is totally how it goes done, people.
Chick's the king of strawman arguments. All of his pamphlets consist of him debunking a view or a position that is completely of his own creation.
It's easy to win every argument if you create your opponent's position for them.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
Chewbacca is a wookie.
He's from Kashyyyk, but he lives on Endor!
It makes no sense!
Why am I up here talking to you about Chewbacca! It doesn't make sense!
Now think about the square root of 2.
It makes no sense!
Mathematics works!
Or wholly dishonest, take your pick.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, off the top of your head, could you explain evolution to a guy on the street? Could you refute a Chick comic if someone handed this to you?
I would probably be able to, but only because I have read a few books on the matter and attended lectures. I mean for the average Joe, yeah, they are going to hit a lot of holes when they get down to the details or (loaded) questions.
Yeah that opener was underhanded but I am willing to bet a lot of people would stumble pretty badly when talking about the specifics.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
I'm of the opinion that if you're going to believe in something, you should be able to at least recite the basics. Understanding the basics is a plus but I'm not that picky.
*looks at previously posted Chick tract* .... because how can you believe in evolution if you don't know anything about chemical evolution ... o_O
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
thats a tough one to pin down definitively. Logically elephants would eventually get smaller tusks as a species if the advantages of not getting shot balanced out the disadvantages of having smaller tusks to get food.
Who can say if thats what's going on though
It boggles my mind that such a powerful country could have so many people ignorant, or wilfully ignorant, of such basic scientific facts.
EDIT: On the tusks things. I would guess that the poaching acted as artificial selection (as Tasteticle said)
You should have seen the shit I dealed with in high school, surrounded by the idea that we "came from monkeys." Shit, at least read up on evolution before you insult it. Fuck.
Hot damn, my state managed to not fail me on something.
My high school's only mention of ID was right before a detailing of thew evolution of eyes. Yes, my school actively attacked ID.
I live in SC, and our treatment of it, even at the college level, is ANYTHING but "Very Good/Excellent"
Stuff I learned about evolution in high school:
1. Mendelian inheritance
2. Punnet squares
3. I guess stuff about DNA and how it works
Stuff I learned about evolution in high school-
"It's only a theory"
I...don't...know?
What did you forget, exactly?
SON OF A BITCH TOTP (for cognisseur)
So I'm not too cut up about forgetting it all.
"Yes."
Well, it is a chick tract.
Which somehow has to do with evolution.
Yup, the fossil strata failure thing is the easiest point to refute, since it's primarily based on trees poking through layers. No scientist would include such an intruded layer in his work, and such intrusions are usually found in geologically active layers. The same for the 'older' rock layers over younger ones, by looking over a larger area you can easily see where geological or human action has damaged the arrangement of the rock strata. Such contradictory regions are rare compared to well ordered regions, and most good fossils come from well ordered regions. Carbon dating also requires no such order to the layers, and easily allows us to age any biological matter we find. Even with no assumptions at all, using only ice layers to estimate solar activity per year to give the basic amount of C-14 present we reveal fossils of immense age and can place fossils in a relatively sensible order.
While it is true only the final 'type' of evolution has been observed (not true if you include viruses and bacteria any more, bacteria exist which can only live in nuclear reactors) the only reason we haven't observed the previous types is because they take thousands or millions of years in more complex animals, they also require huge amounts of accurate information because say the cow they had in 20000 BC was likely very very similar to the ones we might have today, but I'm sure with genetic tests you could tell the difference. Furthermore the division into six stages is absurd, as is the statement that it is based on faith. Evolution has nothing to do with 'stage 1' ie the formation of the first life form. And it's not based on faith, only on rational interpretation of the evidence. We have seen strong evidence for new species and features arising, and evidence that entire ecosystems existed which totally dominated the earth on multiple periods which are all totally gone today (dinosaurs, permian triassic extinction, devonian, cambrian etc) Each removed pretty much the entirety of pre-existing life on earth and we see only new species beyond it.
His gluons comment there is so absurd that it's not even worth addressing. The gluon was discovered in 1979, his point seems to be that noone has seen it with their eyes. Well then, I guess dust grains don't exist, nor oxygen.
edit - The teacher is also vaguely wrong about gluons too. It's not gluon exchange which holds the nucleus together, instead it's the residual strong force created by the fact that the nucleus is lighter than the sum of its parts. This creates a stable well which holds the nucleus together. In a nucleus like Iron for example the distance from nuclear core to the outermost nucleon orbit is far too large for a gluon to cross. The residual nuclear force is actually mediated by the exchange of pi mesons (discovered in 1950)
I mean, they're talking about evolution and vestigial organs and shit and then all the sudden,
"Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?"
Like,
a) what the fuck does this have to do with evolution
b) WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION
c) why would a biology professor be teaching or be expected to interact with the idea of gluons
I guess it's possible that some panels about radioactive decay had to be cut. I can see how this gluon broadside could disprove radiometric dating in a creationist's eye.
Can you provide links to some information?
That sounds interesting as fuck and I'd like to read more about it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894282,00.html
In that he is trying to say we don't understand nuclear physics, so how can we do carbon dating? Well, that might make sense, except for the fact that it's the weak interaction which governs nuclear decays. He'd need to claim we hadn't observed the W and Z boson (both discovered in 1983) And even if we haven't we have observational values for the way nuclear decays work over MANY half lives
Rigorous Scholarship
I love how the professor is getting all riled up and shouting 'HOLD IT, YOU FANATIC' in ALL CAPS and how he's already sweating in the first panel where we hear the calm Christian student politely disagreeing.
This is totally how it goes done, people.
Well, they have a massive evolutionary advantage for living in reactors which would be a huge disadvantage for living outside of them. You could have cheetas live in the Jungle, but they would be terrible at it compared to everything else. This particular type of bacteria is only observed in nuclear reactors.
It's easy to win every argument if you create your opponent's position for them.
Rigorous Scholarship