Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Should Math Be Taught in Schools?

((Sad to say, this parody is hardly exaggerated at all. A few of the answers are almost verbatim to the actual answers of the Miss USA contestants to "Should Evolution Be Taught in Schools." Go watch that video on YouTube and see for yourself)).

(((There are days I think I am living in the world of Kornbluth's "Marching Morons." Just look at reality TV, and remember the hit show in his story)))

(((I am vastly pleased that the eventual Miss USA winner, and GAME OF THRONES fan, does "believe in evolution." And presuambly in math as well))).



Jul. 5th, 2011 12:21 pm (UTC)
While I admit that evolution does occur, even in humans (ie. humans in areas where knives aren't commonly used as eating utensils develop longer, sharper "canine" teeth), I agree that "Evolution, theory or fact, has nothing to do with the origin of life".

Darwin himself admitted that if the fossil record (comparatively nonexistent at the time On the Origin of Species was written) didn't verify his hypothesis, it would be proven false. So far, science has produced only sizable gaps in the evolutionary chain that supposedly leads from ape to man.
Jul. 5th, 2011 07:16 pm (UTC)
Darwin was a long time ago... As was stated elsewhere (either here or somewhere else, I don't remember) just because Darwin was the person who realized what evolution was doesn't mean he was the end all, be all when it comes to explaining how it works. So saying anything along the lines of "Even Darwin said!" is a little silly. There's been a TON of work done by competent and talented scientists in the last 150 years.
Jul. 6th, 2011 12:35 am (UTC)
Yeah! Every time they find a new fossil, there you go: two new gaps!
Jul. 6th, 2011 10:06 pm (UTC)
Snarky response. I like that. The gaps in the evolutionary chain I referred to are what evolutionary scientists refer to as the "missing link". If the evolution from primate to homo sapien were as conclusively proven as most in this discussion seem to believe, the search for said missing link would have ended long ago.
Jul. 6th, 2011 10:41 pm (UTC)
the missing link?
Jul. 6th, 2011 11:51 pm (UTC)
Re: the missing link?
Excellent video, George. I guess we'll have to disagree. I'll give you micro-evolution (no debate there), but I just don't buy one species turning into a completely different species. Truth be told, this isn't a topic that plagues my mind, and honestly doesn't matter much to me in the grand scheme of things. We may end up as some new species in a far distant future, and I would be wrong, but at thatpointneither you nor I would be around to worry about who won the debate. Thanks for providing a place where people can engage in honest conversation. Congratulations on the HBO series; it was excellent. And I can't wait to read Dance in less than a week.
Jul. 7th, 2011 04:33 pm (UTC)
Re: the missing link?
This is a common mistake that people make when discussing evolution. One species has never 'changed' into another. Rather, two (or more) species were created by mutations in the genomic code of a single species and were not allowed to breed together for one reason or another (physical separation is usually the cause).

Here's a simplification example of the mechanism of the evolution of multiple species:

You are only related to a chimpanzee by the most vague of relations. Some large number of millions of years ago there was 1 species that is the ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans. Then, one day, for some reason that population was split into two groups, probably because a giant volcano exploded and half the population got ejected onto a small island in the ocean.. like Madagascar :) Now you have two separate groups of 1 species that cannot interbreed. Each goes about its own business, and slowly has genetic mutation after genetic mutation; some are kept because they are beneficial, others cause early death and are therefore lost. Eventually, over 10s of millions of years, you have 2 unique species with a common ancestor that cannot interbreed.

So, no, one species does not just change into another. Chimps never became humans, and the ancestors of chimps never became humans. Both chimps and humans uniquely evolve from the same species.
Jul. 7th, 2011 04:55 pm (UTC)
The search for the "missing link" did end long ago. Find me one legitimate evolutionary scientist who has used the phrase "missing link" seriously in the past several decades. It's a phrase whose continued popularity is fueled entirely by the media and by creationists, but which is completely unheard of in the actual academic literature.
(Suspicious comment)
Jul. 8th, 2011 04:54 pm (UTC)
If you're going to try an argument from authority, perhaps you've heard of Project Steve, a list of scientists who have endorsed the theory of evolution by natural selection and who are named Steve. Steves are only about 1% of scientists, yet they outnumber the Discovery Institute's list by a substantial margin.


So evolution by natural selection still overwhelmingly wins on that fallacy.

Nobody has ever proposed a reason why "micro-evolution" works and "macro-evolution" doesn't, other than we happen to have directly observed more contemporary examples of "micro-evolution" in action. Nobody has ever proposed a dividing line, a change so big evolution stops working. There's no difference between the two other than time. Anybody who thinks there's a difference has been misled by the creationist community.

As for "comprised of fully formed, fully functional creatures" - anyone who thinks evolution predicts anything different simply does not understand the theory. That is precisely what evolution by natural selection predicts - any successful mutation leads to a fully formed, fully functional individual. The overwhelming majority of unsuccessful mutations lead to a miscarriage or stillbirth. Why would anything other than fully formed, fully functional creatures live long enough to fossilize?

Anyway, anybody who relies entirely on the fossil record for their evidence is also poorly informed. The fossil record is simply the icing on top of the genetic, chemical, and logical evidence. Without the fossil record, evolution would still be true and we'd still know it to be true.

Anyway, all your "objections" so far have been tiresome, long-disproved cliches, so I'm done explaining to you. If you really want to educate yourself, read Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or Dawkins's The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution. They expertly cover all the evidence that creationists conveniently pretend doesn't exist.
Jul. 9th, 2011 11:59 am (UTC)
As you have said, the fossil record would be the "icing on the cake", but unfortunately the cake you are offering has no icing. As for the difference between the lists: within the science community, as within many sectors, people make decisions with regard to their well being. The scientific elite controls the release of information, grant requests, etc. and are overwhelmingly neoDarwinian evolutionists. The people on my list are risking their profession by standing up against the accepted norm. It is always easier to agree with the standard than stand up to it. To turn an idea on it's head, think of the sailors who decided not to believe in the accepted norm and attempted to sail around the world. The only difference is that the flat-earthers didn't start telling those sailors that the disproof of their theory was wrong because it went against those accepted beliefs. As evidence I cite two experiments, I am certain there are more but I've already wasted too much time debating with people whose rebuttals tend to be little more than name calling. First is an experiment conducted on bacteria, a simple organism which quickly reproduces to show a large number of generations over a short period of time. Observation over a period of years subjecting the bacteria to differing variables to encourage mutation/evolution yielded no new strains of the tested bacteria. The second test involved fruit flies - also with a short life span to observe generational change over a large number of generations. Variables produced mutations but no lasting evolutionary changes. At the end of the thirty-five year experiment, accounting for thousands upon thousands of generations, all they had were fruit flies. Lastly, I did a little research on theories and it seems that the best theories are testable and refutable. Two tests, two refutes. My citations on these experiments are on a separate post. NeoDarwinism has taken what was an excellent theory, albeit a faulty one, and replaced it with a theory that discredits dissention by earplugging and name calling. While this is my opinion it is shared and supported by many within the scientific community, more even than were rave enough to sign my above referenced list.


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner