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. 7th, 2011 05:47 pm (UTC)
I would refer you to my post earlier in the forum that contains a link to an article that discredits macro-evolution based on experiments by evolutionary biologists who, when faced with the evidence, had to reconsider their own beliefs in macro-evolution. One interesting section of the article addresses a 35 year observation of fruit flies accounting for thousands of generations of growth, which yielded no quickly reversible mutations. The article also addresses many of the popular misconceptions of evolutionary theorists that have been cited repeatedly as facts by many posters on this forum.
Jul. 8th, 2011 01:10 pm (UTC)
Can’t find your post with the link, what was the date/time of posting please? If it’s a reputable document then I would genuinely love to read it. What is the significance of “quickly reversible mutations”, that sounds suspiciously like creationist pseudo-science babble to me. I assume the paper was peer-reviewed, by independent referees, and published in a respected science journal?

As for posters citing misconceptions about evolutionary theory, I have seen little evidence of that here. What I have seen is people repeatedly posting facts about evolution, then creationists dismissing them because the facts don’t fit with their supernatural beliefs. Putting fingers in ears and denying reality doesn’t make the evidence wrong, it just makes people look even sillier.

And I’m still waiting for an answer to my original question. What mechanism prevents small genetic changes (eg. from different selective pressures and genetic drift) from accumulating to the point where the DNA in two isolated populations becomes incompatible (ie. speciation)? If you are uncomfortable with the fame this may bring then I will gladly present your research as my own ;-)
Jul. 8th, 2011 08:24 pm (UTC)
Strangely, the post with the link seems to have disappeared from the thread. Hopefully, since you've asked about the link it won't disappear again.


As for your question, I don't pretend to be an evolutionary biologist, and so won't offer a quick argument. There may be something in the article that deals with your question. I really don't know. I've read bits and pieces carefully, but the majority of the article I've only skimmed. There is a site: www.dissentfromdarwin.org in which scientists discuss the shortcomings of evolutionary theory. The site even has a downloadable pdf of a large multinational list of scientists who support my own opinions regarding the improbability of macro-evolution/speciation. I don't pretend to know each individuals philosophical beliefs, but some are from countries where christianity, the primary religion under fire in this forum, isn't as widely practiced. Some on the site still believe in evolution, but find the current explanations for evolution lacking.
Jul. 9th, 2011 12:16 pm (UTC)
Xmalanthax – you do realise that that article is, and there’s no polite way of putting this, utter drivel? It’s nothing more than a piece of trashy creationist propaganda, published on a creationist site, that’s designed to win-over the gullible. It’s full of misinformation, outright lies and every logical fallacy going. Seriously, how can you read stuff like that and not question the details? Eg. on the way evolution works:

“…To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal”

And another beauty:

“The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.”

Whaaaaat!!!! Some dim-wit obviously wasn’t listening in primary-school science class, or maybe they were home-schooled by bible-thumping parents. I note that they’ve even come up with their own theory to replace plate tectonics (they think it explains the flood)! Please, go and read some independent literature, not articles written by people who worship sky pixies. You have to remember that all those hundreds of thousands of real scientists would just love to find a chink in evolution’s armour, they would be made for life and go down in history. The fact that they can’t fault it speaks volumes.

With regard to your list of creationist scientists, and my other post, I have to ask how many Steves are on that list? ;-)


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

Latest Month

April 2018


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner