[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Why can’t it be both?[/quote]
No, no, that won’t do. We simply won’t have any of that. There are only two categories allowed. Now, I’m not sure who created them or why, however, they must be forever presented as if they’re in total binary opposition. We must protect this intellectual construct at all cost. Amen. 
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
valid points.
yes I have a grandfather (2 in fact! ) I am the same species.
the info about the swallows is interesting, as well as the interpretation of the placing of blow holes as timelined events.
the swallows (or whichever bird) I will maintain are all individual species with much in common.
the placement of blow holes I interpret much like finger prints, the exact placement does not mean a movement towards another species, the more favorable placements survived.
and regarding evolution of flippers to legs or vice-versa, I will again follow the line acknowledging similarities between individual species.[/quote]
I do see where you’re coming from, and many years ago you could have been right, but other areas of biology all agree on this and really, further study will show why you’re wrong. In a word; atavisms.
In several, this is just one reason why you are wrong. Atavisms are evolutionary “throwbacks”. They are phenotypes occurring where you don’t expect them to. The most famous example is a chicken with teeth. This is an evolutionary throwback to an ancestor which did have teeth. The gene might not be active in chickens, but it remains in the genotype.
In evolution, genes aren’t necessarily thrown away and can remain dormant in the genome. In fact we even have a vast amount of so called “junk” dna which doesn’t do anything (so far as we have ascertained).
Other examples of atavisms are hind legs in whales (which neatly conforms to fossil records) and extra toes on horses.
And yes, you are the same species as your father. This is the point I was trying to make; trace the line back from you, to our ape like ancestor 5 million years ago where we split from chimpanzees and if you “zoom in” to any point on the line, everyone you see will be of the same species. It is only in much vaster spans of time that we can see separate “species”.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
valid points.
yes I have a grandfather (2 in fact! ) I am the same species.
the info about the swallows is interesting, as well as the interpretation of the placing of blow holes as timelined events.
the swallows (or whichever bird) I will maintain are all individual species with much in common.
the placement of blow holes I interpret much like finger prints, the exact placement does not mean a movement towards another species, the more favorable placements survived.
and regarding evolution of flippers to legs or vice-versa, I will again follow the line acknowledging similarities between individual species.
I do see where you’re coming from, and many years ago you could have been right, but other areas of biology all agree on this and really, further study will show why you’re wrong. In a word; atavisms.
In several, this is just one reason why you are wrong. Atavisms are evolutionary “throwbacks”. They are phenotypes occurring where you don’t expect them to. The most famous example is a chicken with teeth. This is an evolutionary throwback to an ancestor which did have teeth. The gene might not be active in chickens, but it remains in the genotype. In evolution, genes aren’t necessarily thrown away and can remain dormant in the genome. In fact we even have a vast amount of so called “junk” dna which doesn’t do anything (so far as we have ascertained).
Other examples of atavisms are hind legs in whales (which neatly conforms to fossil records) and extra toes on horses.
And yes, you are the same species as your father. This is the point I was trying to make; trace the line back from you, to our ape like ancestor 5 million years ago where we split from chimpanzees and if you “zoom in” to any point on the line, everyone you see will be of the same species. It is only in much vaster spans of time that we can see separate “species”.[/quote]
thank you for your polite demeanor, I’m usually called a lunatic and insults instead of information are thrown my way.
I have to admit you are far more knowledgeable than the average person I discuss this with, and I am enjoying the experience.
I will explore atavisms when I get the chance, this is a facet that I had only briefly encountered in the past.
however I’m presently at work, and need to get back to my scheduled rounds 
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
thank you for your polite demeanor, I’m usually called a lunatic and insults instead of information are thrown my way.
I have to admit you are far more knowledgeable than the average person I discuss this with, and I am enjoying the experience.
I will explore atavisms when I get the chance, this is a facet that I had only briefly encountered in the past.
however I’m presently at work, and need to get back to my scheduled rounds :([/quote]
No worries, I reserve my vitriol for Kent Hovind and the like. Most “creationists” are just people who have been failed by the education system and/or there parents.
This is a very good video about exactly our discussion. As the author of the video points out, fossils such as these do more than provide evidence for evolution; they validate the worth of the whole theory. In science, part of what makes a theory a theory is its predictive power. Evolutionary theory predicts that these fossils should occur and the fact that they do is, well, awesome.
Have a good work day, and we’ll continue this later I guess!
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Where do you live that has “mandatory attendance to state run institutions”? I went to a private school. I knew people who were home schooled, and I now know parents who home school. Are you more concerned about the standards forced upon home schooling? Do you not, for example, want to teach about science or something?
Are you perhaps arguing that schooling itself shouldn’t be mandated?
(please read this in the non-argumentative tone it is intended)
private schools must be licensed by the state.
and home schooled children must take standardized tests designed by the state, to ensure proper indoctrination of state approved ideology.
I was home schooled 7th-12th grade btw, and we were required to take these tests annually, while the public schools in our area administered them every four years.
I feel there is a great deal of difference between schooling and education.
parents are responsible for their children for good or ill.
even though both of my parents had to work when I was very young, my mother still managed to teach me how to read and do simple addition before I was 5 years old.
additionally, regardless of where your children are educated (I use the term loosely here) your taxes are still used to pay for public schools.
and yes, I am in fact against the idea of compulsory education[/quote]
Thank you for your polite tone. In essence, you are against compulsory education and any standards that are set on compulsory education. You believe testing (from the state) to be a form of indoctrination as the student must be able to correctly answer the Qs, correct? You yourself were home-schooled, and you see lots of value in that. But you don’t like that the state mandated standards.
Before I go on, am I understanding you correctly?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Where do you live that has “mandatory attendance to state run institutions”? I went to a private school. I knew people who were home schooled, and I now know parents who home school. Are you more concerned about the standards forced upon home schooling? Do you not, for example, want to teach about science or something?
Are you perhaps arguing that schooling itself shouldn’t be mandated?
(please read this in the non-argumentative tone it is intended)
private schools must be licensed by the state.
and home schooled children must take standardized tests designed by the state, to ensure proper indoctrination of state approved ideology.
I was home schooled 7th-12th grade btw, and we were required to take these tests annually, while the public schools in our area administered them every four years.
I feel there is a great deal of difference between schooling and education.
parents are responsible for their children for good or ill.
even though both of my parents had to work when I was very young, my mother still managed to teach me how to read and do simple addition before I was 5 years old.
additionally, regardless of where your children are educated (I use the term loosely here) your taxes are still used to pay for public schools.
and yes, I am in fact against the idea of compulsory education
Thank you for your polite tone. In essence, you are against compulsory education and any standards that are set on compulsory education. You believe testing (from the state) to be a form of indoctrination as the student must be able to correctly answer the Qs, correct? You yourself were home-schooled, and you see lots of value in that. But you don’t like that the state mandated standards.
Before I go on, am I understanding you correctly?[/quote]
that seems like an accurate summation, yes.
please continue =)
How do creationists explain the fossils we have that show species evolve (serious question)?
Personally I believe that God created the universe but that species have evolved all themselves. I kinda doubt he would take the time to create this much diversity on our planet alone, let alone if there is anything else out there.
…a lot of time has passed and we’re damn lucky to find examples of intermediate fossils at all, but they’re there allright. This is perhaps the most famous of them all:
As someone has pointed out before, if a god did create all the species, then he had a peculiar fetish for beetles, of which there are hundreds of thousands of species.
He was also rather the sadist if he created the Ampulex compressa (a species of wasp): http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/02/02/the_wisdom_of_parasites.php
…this is nice:
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
How do creationists explain the fossils we have that show species evolve (serious question)?
Personally I believe that God created the universe but that species have evolved all themselves. I kinda doubt he would take the time to create this much diversity on our planet alone, let alone if there is anything else out there.[/quote]
well, I’m still researching atavisms, but if you see one of my previous posts I addressed my current thought process on the matter.
by the way does anyone have a link to pics of atavisms?
would be much appreciated.
as far as “taking time” I would offer my view of time as a finite construct developed by finite minds. also I would think that an omnipotent being wouldn’t have trouble accomplishing all of it in an instant - considering they are omnipotent.
edit* no matter how delicately I construct my posts, when I re-read them I can see how they might come across as demeaning. I promise they aren’t.
[/thread]
…it’s small but it looks like a thumb on a horse…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/thread][/quote]
we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it’s small but it looks like a thumb on a horse…[/quote]
why yes it does…
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
by the way does anyone have a link to pics of atavisms?
would be much appreciated.
[/quote]
http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf
Here are some of an interesting atavism; that of a tail in humans.
And here is an atavistic dolphin;
The question of intermediary fossils has another problem.
We have species A, and species C. The “missing link” is species B. Evolution predicts that we will find this, and LO we do, we find species B! But ah, what’s this, there are now two more missing transitional fossils; A/b and b/C. And so on and so forth.
I must stress however, that this is not a problem for evolution, but a problem of terminology and the lay understanding of “transitional fossils”, “missing links” and the like.
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]
we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?[/quote]
…many parents are incapable of reasing their offspring properly, i’m even less confident they’ll do a better job at schooling them. A country should think hard if they want a significant amount of children be educated outside of a general curriculum that ensures a broad exposure to information. That is to say, assuming that general curriculum is of quality ofcourse…
…should they have the freedom? In special cases they should, not as a rule though…
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]
we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?[/quote]
It’s a thorny issue. Some education from parents is necessary. But I’m of the opinion that a parent giving their child their religion is tantamount to abuse; children should be allowed to choose a religion when they are, say 18.
So to stay consistent with this, I think that parents obviously need freedoms to teach children, but an intelligent and compulsory education system of some sort, outside of parents is necessary. Children need access to facilities for teaching sciences and other subjects that parents simply can’t provide.
It is clear that something in the US education system is failing judging by how many people think creationism is even a possibility.
Parents need to teach children basic things, but terms of an academic education I think that parents should be supplementary and reinforcing, rather than the sole guiding force.
The word “evolution” is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect what actually is happening in nature. We did not evolve so much as we were brought about thru sexual selection, adaptation, and mutation.
“Intelligent design” almost more accurately describes the process of genetic change. Sexual selection is purposeful behavior which requires at least some intelligence where nature does not act completely randomly – for example plants do not select their own traits but rely on natural forces to reproduce. In a sense we can say they are intelligently designed by other life forms that select those traits in the flora which are advantageous to that particular life form.
Rational creatures not driven purely by instinct or natural forces must choose their mate. I propose sexual attraction is noting more than nature showing us the way for advantage. For example, physical “attractiveness” is an advantage and we (subconsciously) recognize it as such so we choose attractive mates. What constitutes attraction and advantage will change by circumstance.
We are intelligent life forms intelligently “designed” by our long lost ancestors past.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]
we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?
It’s a thorny issue. Some education from parents is necessary. But I’m of the opinion that a parent giving their child their religion is tantamount to abuse; children should be allowed to choose a religion when they are, say 18.
So to stay consistent with this, I think that parents obviously need freedoms to teach children, but an intelligent and compulsory education system of some sort, outside of parents is necessary. Children need access to facilities for teaching sciences and other subjects that parents simply can’t provide.
It is clear that something in the US education system is failing judging by how many people think creationism is even a possibility.
Parents need to teach children basic things, but terms of an academic education I think that parents should be supplementary and reinforcing, rather than the sole guiding force.[/quote]
Exactly. Religion is the root of all evil. A compulsory education system, funded of course by the government, could completely eliminate any mention of God in the schools, thus silencing any dissent to evolution and other popular scientific theories.
We all know parents may be able to teach their children to read and write and do basic arithmetic, but I can only imagine somebody like HH teaching his children algebra. What a joke! If we could only ascertain that public teachers attend government funded schools where they learn everything that needs to be passed on to today’s youth we wouldn’t have any silly litte kids running around proclaiming that a higher being may have played a helping hand in our existence.
Seriously, who in their right mind would leave parents as the sole guiding force of a child’s fragile mind? I think we need to name a special department that will determine exactly what and when children should be taught. Hopefully someday all people will receive the same education and we can rid ourselves of the obvious ignorance of dissenters.
Comrade Tedro