Howard Baker passes

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths



No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.



I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

yeah, people say scientists say we descended from monkeys, but i've never heard a scientist say that.
apparently tho at some point in time, we had a common ancestor.

if anything, as more has been found, it's only strengthened the theory of evolution. they found another fossil in the last week or two of an animal a scientist had predicted. like halley and his comet, the guy got it right.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, people say scientists say we descended from monkeys, but i've never heard a scientist say that.
apparently tho at some point in time, we had a common ancestor.

if anything, as more has been found, it's only strengthened the theory of evolution. they found another fossil in the last week or two of an animal a scientist had predicted. like halley and his comet, the guy got it right.

Yeah, I don't understand why Science says, "common ancestor" and Average Joe hears "monkey is your uncle."

It's interesting you mention fossil discovery- one of the things evolutionary biologists and scientists do is make predictions, and yeah, another cool thing is that very often later on fossil or DNA discoveries support the prediction.

And when they don't support it, rather than being pissy about it, scientists are excited about the new possibilities for exploration of our origins:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...3/s3905527.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths



No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.



I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

Sigh. Here's something new for you, Rupert (and I don't mean that nasty; a lot of people don't know this)- headlines to articles are not written by the same person who wrote the article. They're written by a different person, whose job it is to craft the headline so that someone will click on the article. Whether they then read the article or not is not as important as getting the click. I know reading is boring for lots of people, but you really have to read the entire article if you're going to use it to defend your position. Because the article didn't dispute that evolution happens at all; just whether natural selection is the primary engine. And that's not new news in evolutionary theory.

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

I would be curious to know what you're using for your Google search terms.

Evolution is a law; it has been observed in labs; we've observed it in real life. We can do it artificially ourselves (see: dog breeds). Where you're getting hung up is that you don't understand the difference between A) theory and law and B) scientific theory and colloquial "theory." I like you, Rupe, I do, and I want to help. Here's a good piece giving you a summary of 5 things people misunderstand about evolution, with explanation. And it's mostly pictures!

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/top-five-m...sci-1597926769

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

Non-religious? Did you spend any time on the site you linked to? Here's from their "About" page for the School of Biblical Apologists:

"The Institute for Creation Research School of Biblical Apologetics provides graduate-level training in biblical education and apologetics. SOBA’s foundation is Scripture, which the school and its faculty hold as inerrant, accurate, and authoritative. Biblical creation, with a special emphasis on Genesis 1-11, is a significant focus of all SOBA degrees, majors, and minors, which sets ICR’s program apart from other graduate level apologetic programs."

(Also: please note "apologetic" does not mean in a debate sense what it means in a colloquial sense.)

I also looked at that first page and it's chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Sigh. Here's something new for you, Rupert (and I don't mean that nasty; a lot of people don't know this)- headlines to articles are not written by the same person who wrote the article. They're written by a different person, whose job it is to craft the headline so that someone will click on the article. Whether they then read the article or not is not as important as getting the click. I know reading is boring for lots of people, but you really have to read the entire article if you're going to use it to defend your position. Because the article didn't dispute that evolution happens at all; just whether natural selection is the primary engine. And that's not new news in evolutionary theory.



I would be curious to know what you're using for your Google search terms.

Evolution is a law; it has been observed in labs; we've observed it in real life. We can do it artificially ourselves (see: dog breeds). Where you're getting hung up is that you don't understand the difference between A) theory and law and B) scientific theory and colloquial "theory." I like you, Rupe, I do, and I want to help. Here's a good piece giving you a summary of 5 things people misunderstand about evolution, with explanation. And it's mostly pictures!

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/top-five-m...sci-1597926769



Non-religious? Did you spend any time on the site you linked to? Here's from their "About" page for the School of Biblical Apologists:

"The Institute for Creation Research School of Biblical Apologetics provides graduate-level training in biblical education and apologetics. SOBA’s foundation is Scripture, which the school and its faculty hold as inerrant, accurate, and authoritative. Biblical creation, with a special emphasis on Genesis 1-11, is a significant focus of all SOBA degrees, majors, and minors, which sets ICR’s program apart from other graduate level apologetic programs."

(Also: please note "apologetic" does not mean in a debate sense what it means in a colloquial sense.)

I also looked at that first page and it's chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEIMQ42-oU

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEIMQ42-oU

I can live with that. It could have been worse. You could have compared me to Chuck Wepner.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can live with that. It could have been worse. You could have compared me to Chuck Wepner.

Look in todays 9th at Belmont. I had no idea when I posted that link. if that isn't worthy of a hunch play, nothing is.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Look in todays 9th at Belmont. I had no idea when I posted that link. if that isn't worthy of a hunch play, nothing is.

If that horse was named "Down Goes Rupert" I would have loaded up.

[Danzig]

for more evolution examples, look at the horse. from eohippus to the modern horse is a great example of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

'popping a splint' is a term we've all heard. a splint bone is one of two ones on either side of a horses lower leg. it's the remnants of the horses other two toes that were once a part of the foot. the hoof is made of the same material as your hair and fingernails, and evolved from their toe-horses essentially stand on tip toe.
i took a picture of the back of a horses leg when in charleston-they have a full horse skeleton on display.

also, check out 'ashfall' in nebraska, a fantastic fossil site. we were taught in school that the first horses came to north america with the european explorers..

not quite.
among the remains at the fossil site are both one and three toed horses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashfall

also camels and rhinos. there were rhinos here once upon a time. i hope to go there next year, along with a couple other sites in wyoming, i have the route mapped out on my work computer.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I didn't read the whole article. That was a long article. I skimmed over it. The title was "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong."

I have a question for you. Do you think evolution has been proven or is it just a theory? From my searches on google, everything I'm seeing says that it is still just a theory. There may be parts to it that are proven but there are still way too many parts that are unproven. That is why it is still referred to as a "theory".

Here is a page that gives a non-religious summary of the scientific evidence for both creationism and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-s...-for-creation/

groan.

yeah, it's just a theory the same way gravity is 'just a theory'.

risk said it quite well, scientific theory is not the type of theory you're thinking of rupert.

we need to get schools to do a better job in teaching science.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

groan.

yeah, it's just a theory the same way gravity is 'just a theory'.

risk said it quite well, scientific theory is not the type of theory you're thinking of rupert.

we need to get schools to do a better job in teaching science.

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

evolution has nothing to do with how life began. it explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
it's why i don't get the argument that is so often made by creationists, because they argue incessantly against the theory of evolution, and produce creationism or intelligent design as counter arguments-but they aren't. they are guesses as to how life began, and no one knows for sure how it began, what sparked it. the big bang theory is the scientific idea for how the universe began, and all that's in it. as to how life itself began-we may never know exactly how.
that doesn't mean tho, that therefore 'god'.
mapmakers used to write at the edge of the known world 'here be dragons'. they had no idea what was there, so they put the mystical.
some people still like to do that now, i just wish they'd understand that others (such as myself) enjoy life, our brief time here on this little speck of dust, that we feel lucky to be here, and want to leave things better than we found it, without having to believe in something only on faith.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My only question is how human life started. I believe there is a Creator. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in natural selection. I do believe in natural selection. I think it is a fact that species "evolve". But knowing that species evolve does not show how life actually started.

With regards to gravity, I assumed that gravity was more than a theory. We hear about the "laws of gravity". But after doing an internet search, I do see that it says gravity is technically still a theory, so you may be right with your analogy.

As Danzig said below, how the universe came to be is not the purview of evolution. There are three branches of Science- Physics, Biology and Chemistry. It's an easy way to weed out a lot of Creationist sites that insist they're approaching evolution scientifically. If they bring up the Big Bang, they're not talking about Biology; they're talking about Physics and a site that doesn't know the difference is not going to be very informative.

As to whether she "may" be right with her analogy- there's no "may" about it; she is right. Theory with a big T vs theory with a small t. Seriously, look at the link I posted about 5 misconceptions about evolution. It'll make things much clearer to you.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

also, check out 'ashfall' in nebraska, a fantastic fossil site. we were taught in school that the first horses came to north america with the european explorers..

not quite.
among the remains at the fossil site are both one and three toed horses!

That's one of the things I find so interesting about large mammals in North America- horses were here, then died out, then were reintroduced by the Spanish.

It ties into an argument I have will well-meaning animal rights people who opposed carriage horses- despite what they think, we don't have "wild" horses here; the Mustangs are better described as "feral" because 500 years of being loose on a range doesn't counteract 6000 years of domestication. The only truly wild species of horse is Przewalski's. This link is to a fact sheet on them; the first part is about their taxonomy and that, while they are closely related to the domestic horse, the domestic horse is not descended from them:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41763/0

I'm glad evolution was brought up in this thread. I love this sh*t. Biodiversity is incredibly fascinating.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's one of the things I find so interesting about large mammals in North America- horses were here, then died out, then were reintroduced by the Spanish.

It ties into an argument I have will well-meaning animal rights people who opposed carriage horses- despite what they think, we don't have "wild" horses here; the Mustangs are better described as "feral" because 500 years of being loose on a range doesn't counteract 6000 years of domestication. The only truly wild species of horse is Przewalski's. This link is to a fact sheet on them; the first part is about their taxonomy and that, while they are closely related to the domestic horse, the domestic horse is not descended from them:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41763/0

I'm glad evolution was brought up in this thread. I love this sh*t. Biodiversity is incredibly fascinating.

it really is so cool. cosmos touched on it a few times, like when they discussed dogs. i'd never thought about it til they covered it in the show. that's selective evolution, just like cows and horses.

i worked with a woman who didn't believe races should marry, she used the different types of birds to explain why-robins with robins, blue jays with blue jays.
it burst her bubble when i pointed out that birds will mate with birds of other species, and asked her about horses not caring what color the other horse was!
our own pigment differences are due to evolution and geography.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it really is so cool. cosmos touched on it a few times, like when they discussed dogs. i'd never thought about it til they covered it in the show. that's selective evolution, just like cows and horses.

i worked with a woman who didn't believe races should marry, she used the different types of birds to explain why-robins with robins, blue jays with blue jays.
it burst her bubble when i pointed out that birds will mate with birds of other species, and asked her about horses not caring what color the other horse was!
our own pigment differences are due to evolution and geography.

And it's also so interesting how genes will be placed on the DNA thread- like how so many Dalmations are deaf because a gene linked to deafness is located near one that cause piebald coloring in fur.

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel did a great 15 minute piece on dog shows, and had some good images of what we've done to some dog breeds over a century. I was unaware that shorter muzzles make it hard for dogs to cool themselves, which is why Bulldogs and Pekinese and other smooshed-in-face dogs overheat so fast.

We have a Staffordshire mix we got from a shelter, but she looks more like bulldogs from a century ago Evolution is not a straight line, for sure. Not that she'll be contributing anymore; she's spayed.