Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
From	Message
lord_shiva 11-Sep-22, 16:09	Progression from Ape I have never seen that on any classroom wall. Ever. I have never seen it in a public school text. It is possible I have seen a representation of it as a joke on some science professor's door. My daughters graduated from public schools in eastern Washington. They were never taught about evolution, despite a field trip to dig Pleistocene flora fossils, a dig which I accompanied. I do recall one fourth grade girl explaining to me on that trip that evolution was bunk and earth was but 6000 years old. No one endeavored to disabuse her of that notion, despite the fact she was destroying fossils 15,000 years old. According to NCSE, to which I belong, many public school teachers are afraid to teach about evolution. Especially in states like Tennessee, where the subject was flat out illegal from the 1930s up through most of the 1960s. Now, I DID broach the subject of evolution in the astronomy class I taught, though only in the most rudimentary fashion. It was not a primary part of the course, though I did encourage my students to learn the paleozoic and Mesozoic periods and life divisions: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
stalhandske 11-Sep-22, 19:57	Thumper <Isn't transitional phases non-value added and almost universally fatal in nature? > I am sorry that I misunderstood your earlier comment. First, about the term 'species'. This is, of course, a term invented by us humans and it has become clear over time that it is really not always very clearcut. The case of H. sapiens and H. Neanderthaliensis is one example. Certain details about the male Y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is inherited only maternally strongly suggest that even though the two forms of humans definitely mated and produced offspring, that was infrequent and/or many of the offspring were sterile. Now to your question. May be it helps to look at what today is thought to happen. Two different species living today (say humans and apes) are distant cousins. This implies that they have a common ancestor at some point back in time. It does not imply that humans evolved from apes! The poster you were referring to (which seems generally available everywhere) is misleading in the sense that it only shows one branch of the evolutionary tree that leads to humans. Note that - in fact - none of the 'transitional phases' seen in between are apes (they are just drawn to look like apes). The key term here is LUCA (=last universal common ancestor). This is the species from which the evolution branched at least to the two branches eventually producing apes and humans, respectively. There is often (such as in this case) numerous further branching of each of those two branches (also not shown in the poster). Modern molecular genetics techniques have made it possible to construct such 'trees' with high precision. Mutations that lead to sterile forms are obviously never going to contribute as transitional species.
stalhandske 11-Sep-22, 20:25	Vic You wrote to Zorro: <I think the complexity of cells and DNA weakens, rather than strengthens, the validity of Darwin’s theory, and the genetic similarity between humans and animals (and between different species of animals) could just as easily be attributed to a Creator using a similar design.> I don't see why the complexity of cells and DNA weakens (or strengthens) the validity of Darwin'd theory relative to the idea of a Creator. The latter idea is impossible to refute. I would just like to stress the similarities rather than the complexities. The amazing thing is when we look today at the gene products, the proteins, the 3D structures of quite many (thousands) we now have by Xray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy with a few Ångström's resolution. In such comparisons a key enzyme of metabolism, for example, looks and is more or less exactly the same in humans as in....radish (just to give you an example I have used in lectures). This is true even for cases where the formal DNA sequence homology is no larger than - say - 20%. Nevertheless, the overall protein 3D structures are almost identical. Of course, you can say that after the Creator found out one clever way of driving the multitude of catalytic reactuins of metabolism, he used the same principle over and over for all organisms. As I already said, we cannot exclude that. But these facts of structural biology nevertheless give quite independent and strong support for evolution theory. I did not say 'proves it' because scientific theories are never really able to prove anything, but certainly often give a very good hunch about how 'things' work.
victoriasas 11-Sep-22, 20:47	Thank you for your post, stalhandske. I do think the complexity of DNA and cells weakens the theory of evolution because this is yet another very complex entity that needs to be “built” through random mutations and natural selection.
stalhandske 11-Sep-22, 21:37	Vic <I do think the complexity of DNA and cells weakens the theory of evolution because this is yet another very complex entity that needs to be “built” through random mutations and natural selection.> I now understand what you mean. However, there is one feature of the evolution of proteins with catalytic activity (i.e. enzymes, the real 'secrets' of life!) that is not yet very well adopted/understood by the general public. To put it briefly, it is the use of already existing structures to do entirely different things! In other words, the evolution process does not need to 'invent' an enzyme (for example) for a distinct chemical or physical purpose from scratch! Instead, evolution has turned out to use an existing protein structure, adapted for an entirely different chemical or physical task, by just tinkering with it a little (by mutations) to make it 'do' something entirely different. Of course it doesn't work in that order, but I hope that you see what I mean. Random mutations of seemingly null value can suddenly be utilised for another entirely unrelated (or only marginally related) function. For this reason the 'task' is far far simpler than one would spontaneously think at first glance, along the lines of your comment. Let me give just one example. The rotary mechanistic principle of bacterial flagellae (that work like outboard motors and allow the bacteria to move after food or light, for example) is utilised in a completely different 'machine', which produces ATP (adenosine triphosphate) the energy currency of all lifeforms. In some ways this principle is like humans don't need to reinvent the wheel each time that entity is used for entirely different purposes.
stalhandske 11-Sep-22, 21:59	Vic and Thumper...and Neanderthal May I wind the discussion just a little bit to also include criticism of creationism? I suppose we may look at that critically just as much as we should look critically at the theory of evolution. Let me emphasis that with this I am NOT attempting to criticise Christianity or a belief in God! As I have stated numerous times, science cannot decide on that. One question that comes to my mind then is about the Neandertals (and Denisovans), may be because I was actually involved in one of the original studies on Neandertal mtDNA conducted by Svante Pääbo www.sciencedirect.com I would state that we actually know that these humanoids, with whom representatives of our ancestors sometimes mated of which there is solid evidence, died out approx. 40,000 years ago. Would you agree with me that this rules out the major principles of the so-called Young Earth Creationists? If you think not, please let us know why. Perhaps more interestingly (and especially to Vic, who I think favours a literal interpretation of the Bible, and Genesis in particular), how would you place the Neanderthals and Denisovians in the Biblical context?
thumper 11-Sep-22, 22:23	Stål If you want to criticize creation it may be better to start a new thread with that topic. I would prefer for these subjects remain in their own category. That makes it far easier to review and source later IMO.
stalhandske 12-Sep-22, 03:09	Thumper <If you want to criticize creation it may be better to start a new thread with that topic. I would prefer for these subjects remain in their own category. That makes it far easier to review and source later IMO.> I don't particularly 'want to criticize creation', but to bring forward some issues where I think science can help to edit or 'clear up' some of the versions/variants of creationism. Your suggestion is good and would clarify the discussions, so I will re-post my above contribution separately. Of course, I very much hope that you will then respond.
mo-oneandmore 13-Sep-22, 10:09	stalh Your (I want) bring forward some issues where I think science can help to edit or 'clear up' some of the versions/variants of creationism. Well said, and I agree --- Physical Science and God Science can work together on these discoveries, and I have no concerns about which forum is used to discuss these matters.
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 10:20	<<I don't particularly 'want to criticize creation', but to bring forward some issues where I think science can help to edit or 'clear up' some of the versions/variants of creationism.>> Not to be a buttinski, but is current science really advanced enough to speak on creation?
zorroloco 13-Sep-22, 10:31	Andrew Science doesn’t speak on anything. But it examines everything and gives us facts and evidence to discuss anything and everything. Knowledge is a continuum. There’s literally nothing we no nothing about snd nothing we’ll ever know everything about. I think what you’re asking is can science currently explain creation, and the answer is clearly not. Therefore we should believe an ancient myth.
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 10:43	What I was actually asking is whether current science is advanced enough to invalidate any part of creationism, not whether it’s advanced enough to explain all of creation. And the language I used was chosen to reflect how stalhandske labeled his thread on the subject (Can science say anything about Creationism?)
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 10:45	<<There’s literally nothing we no nothing about>> I disagree with this. I think there’s quite a bit we know nothing about.
zorroloco 13-Sep-22, 11:00	Andrew Name one thing we know nothing about
zorroloco 13-Sep-22, 11:02	Actually You’re right. There are billions of things we don’t even know exist and therefore know nothing about. I was thinking about stuff we know exist, we always know something…. But of course, you’re right.
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 11:10	I wasn’t trying to be exacting, but the potential for multiple universes, extra dimensions, wormholes in space, white holes in space, etc. would, imo, revolutionize science if they were discovered/confirmed.
bobspringett 13-Sep-22, 16:11	Vic 10:43 <What I was actually asking is whether current science is advanced enough to invalidate any part of creationism...> That depends on what version of 'Creationism' you have in mind. I have read of several versions (including a few non-Christian versions but I expect that you don't mean those). As I see it at the moment, not even Creationists have a consensus Theory of Creation, as I have listed in another thread. I didn't mention 'Flood Catastrophism' in that post because I consider it a variation on 'Gap Theory Creationism', but perhaps you hold to that. It seems to be stronger in the States than elsewhere. Please outline what version you hold to, and I would suggest we discuss that without being distracted by what 'other people' might say.
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 16:26	@Bob You probably know I favor a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis but have no real allegiance on the time issue due to God living in a timeless environment, creating time and being able to manipulate time (and space.) I don’t think humans can imagine what it’s like to live in a timeless environment. I know the Hebrew word for “day” in the creation account is believed by many people to be a 24-hour day, and I don’t know how old earth creationists, which I consider myself, get around that. This seems like a good summary of what the Hebrew word for “day” refers to, and apparently it can refer to “an unspecified period of time.” www.gotquestions.org
bobspringett 13-Sep-22, 20:20	Vic 16:26 <I have no real allegiance on the time issue due to God living in a timeless environment> I agree with that. But although God is outside time, the Universe isn't. Are you of the opinion that Creation happened over no more than an instant? Or billions of years? or during an ad break while watching television? or as half-time entertainment at the football? What I'm asking here is what SCIENTIFIC hypothesis do you suggest, to be compatible with your reading of Genesis?
victoriasas 13-Sep-22, 20:46	<<What I'm asking here is what SCIENTIFIC hypothesis do you suggest, to be compatible with your reading of Genesis?>> I’m not suggesting any scientific hypothesis in support of a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis because I don’t think current science is advanced enough to permit one. We really know very little about the universe - dark matter, wormholes, white holes, the nature of time, extra dimensions, why atomic and subatomic particles behave so strangely and why observation effects them, etc. - all escape our understanding. And if we know very little about the universe, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a creationist to come up with a scientific proposal to support a literal reading of the early chapters in Genesis.
stalhandske 13-Sep-22, 20:52	<And if we know very little about the universe, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a creationist to come up with a scientific proposal to support a literal reading of the early chapters in Genesis. > Well, I think we do know some of the Universe (all is relative), but I agree that it is basically unreasonable for a creationist to come up with a scientific proposal to support a literal reading of the early Genesis chapters. I think matters come much more down to where we arrived in the other thread 'Can Science Say...'.
lord_shiva 13-Sep-22, 23:13	Six? <<I have read evolutionists who’ve said the number of transitional fossils was “several” to “many,” and even on here, one evolutionist says six (though adds there may be more,) while another says millions.>> Fossils? One person LISTED six, but that was only the highlights of fossils found between early horses and modern horses. There have barely been a few million Individuals given the typical horse lifespan between birth and sexual maturity. As for actual intermediary species--Darwin noted pigeon breeders evolved remarkable varieties within short spans of time, reasoning the amount of change possible over gpfar longer periods must therefore be substantial.
lord_shiva 14-Sep-22, 06:04	Haeckels Drawings Haeckels drawings were wrong, and have not been used in biology textbooks for decades. Having said that, some school districts have not updated their textbooks in decades, so it is possible the drawings might be included in some poorer, rural district, especially in Mississippi or other states where education is little valued. I single out Mississippi because their per capita expenditure per student is historically the lowest in the nation, with Idaho hard on their heels. The key facts of Haeckel's work are overshadowed by the drawing errors. It would be like focusing on Newton's work in transmutation to discredit his theory of gravity. Or better yet, noting his failure to account for pertirbations in the orbit of Mercury to insist his theory is wrong. It IS wrong, and to about the same extent Haeckel is wrong. Subsequent work in embryology reveals the hox genes in fruit flies control the same body plan layout and development stages they do in humans. Scientists infer this implies shared ancestry, whereas creationists insist it reveals a lazy God using the same genetic blueprints on all species, just in a manner oddly evocative of evolution.
zorroloco 14-Sep-22, 06:42	Shiva It’s like a get out of jail free card for creationists! Every scientific fraud, error or exaggeration reflects on evolution and shows how flaky and political science is. All scientists are responsible for perpetrating, explaining and defending everything any scientist ever said. On the other hand, any evil, fraudulent or mistaken Christian can just be ignored and brushed away as ‘not a real Christian.’ The No True Scotsman argument. It’s frigging ridiculous
victoriasas 14-Sep-22, 09:45	Christianity is defined by a foundational text, the New Testament, not by the behavior of fallible men. And yes, Christians will still stumble and sin because they are still in the flesh, and the struggle between the spirit and the flesh, as the Apostle Paul wrote about in Galatians and in Romans 7, is real. Are there people who falsely call themselves Christians? Absolutely. I’ve encountered them on the Internet. But anyone who purports to be a Christian and who commits a gross and genuinely horrific crime is not a Christian for the simple reason that every Christian has God’s Holy Spirit indwelling him or her and changing them from the inside out, renewing their mind and transforming their heart. To commit a horrific crime is evidence (at least to me) that that person wasn’t saved to begin with. God’s Holy Spirit is probably the most overlooked and misunderstood part of the Trinity, but His work is vital in the here and now of a believer’s life on earth.
zorroloco 14-Sep-22, 10:11	Andrew “But anyone who purports to be a Christian and who commits a gross and genuinely horrific crime is not a Christian for the simple reason that every Christian has God’s Holy Spirit indwelling him or her…” And any scientist knowingly falsifying results isn’t a scientist because the holy spirit of honest inquisition where ever it leads is absent. These people are charlatans and glory hounds and can be ignored. They represent neither science nor scientists.
victoriasas 14-Sep-22, 11:16	<<And any scientist knowingly falsifying results isn’t a scientist because the holy spirit of honest inquisition where ever it leads is absent.>> If you’re going to engage in this kind of mockery, don’t expect me to participate in conversations with you. <<These people are charlatans and glory hounds and can be ignored.>> I agree. I believe in science. I believe scientists should be curious and skeptical and not dogmatic. And I think dogmatism is why (to cite one example) the fraudulent transitional fossil of Piltdown Man was considered a real transitional fossil for 40 years. Scientists wanted it to be true and didn’t challenge it or scrutinize it to the extent it should have been. They put their worldview above their profession. <<They represent neither science nor scientists.>> Totally agree. Science is an honorable and legitimate field of study, but far too many in that field don’t have the characteristics of true scientists. And this is seen when it comes to the theory of evolution.
zorroloco 14-Sep-22, 11:27	Andrew If you agree, why do you jeep bringing up the same tired issues? You’ve managed to avoid addressing horses, whales and Archaeopteryx. And I’m unsure why you think that was mockery. It was intended to make a salient point. Many/most scientists feel the scientific spirit as a calling. Sacred in nature, no less holy than you see Christianity. Your fervor isn’t yours alone, you know!
victoriasas 14-Sep-22, 12:23	<<You’ve managed to avoid addressing horses, whales and Archaeopteryx.>> Because I’m responding to other posts (specifically on the Bible) that I’m more interested in. But I said anyway that I think we should finish discussing Archaeopteryx first, before moving onto another transitional fossil. The fact I haven’t further addressed Archaeopteryx in 24 hours is hardly a reason to say I’m avoiding it. <<And I’m unsure why you think that was mockery.>> The “holy spirit of honest inquisition” is obviously mockery and if you don’t see that and plan to continue writing posts to me in that style, why don’t we just forget about trying to have a conversation? <>It was intended to make a salient point. Many/most scientists feel the scientific spirit as a calling.>> Scientific spirit? <<Sacred in nature, no less holy than you see Christianity.>> You have no idea how holy I see and believe in Christianity. And to assert that you do is pretty dishonest and offensive. <<Your fervor isn’t yours alone, you know!>> I’m not, nor would I, criticize scientists who are skeptical and curious and open-minded. I criticize ones who are dogmatic, and their dogmatism is readily seen when it comes to the theory of evolution. Why do you think 1,000+ scientists formed an organization (dissentfromdarwin.org) saying there is scientific dissent from Darwinism that deserves to be heard and that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged? If that was already going on, why the need for an organization pleading for it? But it’s interesting that you’re describing science as sacred and holy (and I believe you’re referring to evolutionary science here since that’s the only “science” we’ve been discussing.) And you wonder why I say the theory of evolution is the religion of atheists?
zorroloco 14-Sep-22, 12:42	Andrew When I say sacred and holy, I refer to the spirit of open-minded questioning. It’s dedication and faith in the scientific method. The opposite of dogmatic thought. “Why do you think 1,000+ scientists formed an organization (dissentfromdarwin.org) saying there is scientific dissent from Darwinism that deserves to be heard and that careful examination of the evidence fo” 1000+ out of millions. Don’t you realize that thus letter is a cry in the woods from a tiny, lost minority of scientists?!?! It’s as if I pointed to 2000 Christians who believe Christ was a mushroom! You’d be wise to discount them as fringe dwellers. Like the <1% of scientists who seriously doubt evolution.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.