'South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks'

[STS]

Again, I am not a supporter of ID. Also, I am not here to "prove you wrong". We are just having a conversation. If I had the same attitude towards you then "I don't want to talk to you until you can prove what you have to say" and ask you to prove that "there is absolutely no proof of any gods existence" since it is quite a bold statement.

Anyway, I can only ask you to read up on the various proofs for the existence of God. May I suggest the following article.

If you still don't want to talk to me, that is fine. However, I am still interested to understand how your view of fitness fits in with the current debate surrounding the concept. Welcome to share your thoughts anytime .

funnily enough that fits my views of Allah and the sufi beliefs, it's just not described in as good detail

 

[Geriatrix]

I'm sorry, when I said I meant that and bring us proof before I will interact with you on any subject because the only thing I see is you using the old play the martyr and repeat the questions trick till it fits your prepared fake answer, right out of the ID handbook.

I don't want to talk to you until you can prove what you have to say, the burden of proof is yours not mine or sciences, until then don't ask us to prove facts or to discuss anything with you that is science related.

And no there is absolutely no proof of any gods existence so my arrogance and rudeness is warranted.

Prove me wrong till then, ..............

Dude you're attacking the wrong theist. Techne, believe it or not, believes is evolution. Sure, he believes God was behind it all but he believes the process happens none the less and he wants it taught in schools because it's science and he clearly gets off on it. Hey, Techne?

Now the sad folks who used politics and legislation to try and deny science, who were they? YEC and other evangelical guys.

 

[Techne]

first you want us to agree that our pinkie is useless, which for argument sake i will. then you say it actually is useful after we've agreed that it is is useless? i do not understand what you are trying to say here?

Well, to be fair I suggested we accept for arguments sake that "You can lop it off and it may make no difference". There was no absolute "uselessness". I agree, the first sentence appears confusing, may I suggest it to read as follows:
"Let's for arguments sake agree that your pinkie is a useless bone, i.e. we don't know of any function for it but this does not imply that it useless in any absolute manner. You can lop it off and it may make no difference."

of course a pinkie is useful, you would have been better off using the appendix as as an example as this is evolutionary baggage. whether something is useful or not does not give it teleology. if that is the case then anything in existance has can be said to be goal orientated or have a purpose because at some point something might use it for something.

I disagree, the appendix has well known physiological functions so it would have been a bad example.

Re your remark about functions and teleology. Teleology can be summed up as "every agents acts towards an end". Agent here refers to any substance and it has nothing to do with intelligence or consciousness. If something is functional then it is by definition teleological since it acts for an end (look at your heart example above). An end of agent (in this context) is any natural end that derives from what kind of thing it is. For example, gravity is a force that attracts objects with mass. Its natural end simply is that of attracting objects of mass and it is derived from the kind of thing it is, its nature. Coming back to the "pinky" example. A pinky is an appendage and with that comes its own natural ends e.g. it may assist in feeding or picking up some things. The fact that these natural ends may never be actualized does not change the fact that it still has these potential natural ends.

i agree with you fully, until you said we end up with a teleological concept, why? i understand with wording and metaphors that we make create the illusion of teleology, but it's like rocks being flung out of a volcano with some landing on an island sticking out of the ocean and the rest landing in the water. the fact that we say some of the rocks missed the island while some did not creates the illusion that the island was a target, btu the rocks had no intent of heading towards the island nor of benefitting from landing on it, they simply just did. this is the case with the evolution, there is no goal, the fact that certain mutations benefit the organism or hinder it says nothing about the process.

If fitness is an intrinsic causal propensity then it, by definition, has some potentiality that may be actualized. This is just another way of saying a natural end may be realized at some time.

i don't see how i am forcing metaphysics into this when i have said "this something that evolution makes no use of. outside biology and outside science you can use teleology all you like as it is a man made concept". i have said over and over that there are no goals and that mutations just happen, just as elements join and break up with no intention or direction. i believe i've been trying to stress this and i may not hav been coming across clearly.

The underlined part is where you inject the metaphysics. Science cannot measure goals or purposes. You can't claim that science has demonstrated that things happen without goals or purposes or natural ends. Its metaphysics.

mutations are random. fitness is determined by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce and happens regardless of new mutations or not. some mutations are even useless happen but cause no effect at all in the organism. if mutations happen that cause no results, then how is that teleological and what is the point of mutations other than being random events?

No, mutations are not random. Professor Dan Graur writes in his article “Single-base Mutation” in Encyclopedia of Life Sciences that mutations do not occur randomly throughout the genome and the direction of mutation is not random. The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random relative to the effect variation has on fitness. This study shows otherwise for a particular view of fitness. But, as pointed out, the issue is still that there is a debate to find a proper definition for the concept of fitness. Without it, the claim that "mutation are random" does not make sense.

Re your claim about how mutation can be "teleological". A mutation is just a change in a nucleotide sequence, it is not random in any ontologically interesting sense. When the change occurs, one can simply say that the potentiality of the sequence of DNA to act in a specific manner 9e.g. code for a protein) has changed to a different potentiality. It does not imply that it is useless in any objective sense even if it does not contribute to the fitness of the organism (whichever way you want to define it).

 

[Techne]

Dude you're attacking the wrong theist. Techne, believe it or not, believes is evolution. Sure, he believes God was behind it all but he believes the process happens none the less and he wants it taught in schools because it's science and he clearly gets off on it. Hey, Techne?

Now the sad folks who used politics and legislation to try and deny science, who were they? YEC and other evangelical guys.

Gets off on it... I have no idea what you are talking about ...

 

[Bullvein]

Again, I am not a supporter of ID. Also, I am not here to "prove you wrong". We are just having a conversation. If I had the same attitude towards you then "I don't want to talk to you until you can prove what you have to say" and ask you to prove that "there is absolutely no proof of any gods existence" since it is quite a bold statement.

Anyway, I can only ask you to read up on the various proofs for the existence of God. May I suggest the following article.

If you still don't want to talk to me, that is fine. However, I am still interested to understand how your view of fitness fits in with the current debate surrounding the concept. Welcome to share your thoughts anytime .

For someone that is not a supporter of ID you sure sound like one and sure do use their handbook and talking points a lot and I mean A LOT, you might want to affiliate yourself with them since you obviously fit in.

I can site a lot of sites that debunks everything in that pdf, or I'll let this guy say it, http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Like I said earlier, even the Catholic Church thinks people denying evolution is batty so I hope your guy isn't the pope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

I spent more than the allotted time I have on educating misguided people this year already, that said, here is a nice searchable site that explains evolution in minute detail and quite clearly debunks and refutes any claims the even non ID, ID supporters have.
http://talkorigins.org/

The burden of proof in any discussion is on the person claiming that something is not a fact when the consensus is that it is, so for example.
I claim evolution is a fact, it is proven to be a fact by peer reviewed, published scientific evidence, you claim it is not, it is up to you to prove me wrong with the same level of evidence, not the other way round.

So when you are ready, bring that proof I'll be here, but till then we wont have anything else to discuss and frankly repeating a question right out of the ID handbook is hurting your cause especially when you obviously don't understand the subject that well, so follow my last link please and educate yourself so that we don't have to.

 

[Bullvein]

Dude you're attacking the wrong theist. Techne, believe it or not, believes is evolution. Sure, he believes God was behind it all but he believes the process happens none the less and he wants it taught in schools because it's science and he clearly gets off on it. Hey, Techne?

Now the sad folks who used politics and legislation to try and deny science, who were they? YEC and other evangelical guys.

From what I have seen I'm not sure, the use of the talking points and tactics of the ID and Yec lot kind of makes me disbelieve his sincerity, but hey I'm not an infallible deity so I might be wrong.

I still stand by my assertion that he needs to bring the proof of his beliefs before asking anything of proven scientific fact.

 

[Techne]

For someone that is not a supporter of ID you sure sound like one and sure do use their handbook and talking points a lot and I mean A LOT, you might want to affiliate yourself with them since you obviously fit in.

I can site a lot of sites that debunks everything in that pdf, or I'll let this guy say it, http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Like I said earlier, even the Catholic Church thinks people denying evolution is batty so I hope your guy isn't the pope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

I spent more than the allotted time I have on educating misguided people this year already, that said, here is a nice searchable site that explains evolution in minute detail and quite clearly debunks and refutes any claims the even non ID, ID supporters have.
http://talkorigins.org/

The burden of proof in any discussion is on the person claiming that something is not a fact when the consensus is that it is, so for example.
I claim evolution is a fact, it is proven to be a fact by peer reviewed, published scientific evidence, you claim it is not, it is up to you to prove me wrong with the same level of evidence, not the other way round.

So when you are ready, bring that proof I'll be here, but till then we wont have anything else to discuss and frankly repeating a question right out of the ID handbook is hurting your cause especially when you obviously don't understand the subject that well, so follow my last link please and educate yourself so that we don't have to.

Gosh, did you even read the article/pdf? It does not even argue against evolution or for ID. It argues against ID. It is published in "America Catholic Philosophy Quarterly" so your links above from Catholic site actually demonstrate you did not even open the article to read it. The article is about proofs for the existence of God and there isn't anything that suggests that the existence of God and evolution are opposed. I am not here to prove to you evolution is wrong, in fact we both agree evolution happens so there is no need to be rude or arrogant towards me when it come to evolution. Again, I am still interested to understand how your view of fitness fits in with the current debate surrounding the concept.

 

[Geriatrix]

From what I have seen I'm not sure, the use of the talking points and tactics of the ID and Yec lot kind of makes me disbelieve his sincerity, but hey I'm not an infallible deity so I might be wrong.

I still stand by my assertion that he needs to bring the proof of his beliefs before asking anything of proven scientific fact.

Ok well, one way to find out.

Techne, do you think the South Koreans goofed here?

 

[Techne]

Ok well, one way to find out.

Techne, do you think the South Koreans goofed here?

They could have left the horse evolution and even the Archaeopteryx (even if it is viewed controversial) examples I suppose. But they are right to update/remove Haeckel "recapitulation theory", I thought that was debunked some time ago. Aren't the South Koreans a goofy bunch anyway ?

 

[Geriatrix]

They could have left the horse evolution and even the Archaeopteryx (even if it is viewed controversial) examples I suppose. But they are right to update/remove Haeckel "recapitulation theory", I thought that was debunked some time ago. Aren't the South Koreans a goofy bunch anyway ?

There, see, no creation theory or Bible verses. Update **** because it's been proven wrong or inaccurate. What's wrong with that?

 

[Bullvein]

Gosh, did you even read the article/pdf? It does not even argue against evolution or for ID. It argues against ID. It is published in "America Catholic Philosophy Quarterly" so your links above from Catholic site actually demonstrate you did not even open the article to read it. The article is about proofs for the existence of God and there isn't anything that suggests that the existence of God and evolution are opposed. I am not here to prove to you evolution is wrong, in fact we both agree evolution happens so there is no need to be rude or arrogant towards me when it come to evolution. Again, I am still interested to understand how your view of fitness fits in with the current debate surrounding the concept.

No I didn't read the pdf, as I said, bring me proof before I will expend any more energy on or discuss anything else with you.

This is really the last reply to you on this subject, go and read the talkorigins site about evolution and fitness, it will educate you, I believe there might be a section on the ID's use of philosophy as well.

Just like I don't have to prove anything about anything to anyone so I don't have to use my time and energy to EDUCATE YOU for free.

I reserve the right to be as rude, arrogant, condescending and downright ornery as I like when it comes to important things that ignorant people want to destroy because they don't understand or because they didn't read about it in some old book.
I don't like people that try to use false science as a weapon for religion and against scientists and children in schools nor do I like people that use the ID's handbook, yet claim they are not part of the deluded lot.

Proof then talkie talkie, I'm done.

 

[Techne]

No I didn't read the pdf, as I said, bring me proof before I will expend any more energy on or discuss anything else with you.

The traditional proofs are discussed in the article if you are really interested.

This is really the last reply to you on this subject, go and read the talkorigins site about evolution and fitness, it will educate you, I believe there might be a section on the ID's use of philosophy as well.

Just like I don't have to prove anything about anything to anyone so I don't have to use my time and energy to EDUCATE YOU for free.

I reserve the right to be as rude, arrogant, condescending and downright ornery as I like when it comes to important things that ignorant people want to destroy because they don't understand or because they didn't read about it in some old book.
I don't like people that try to use false science as a weapon for religion and against scientists and children in schools nor do I like people that use the ID's handbook, yet claim they are not part of the deluded lot.

Proof then talkie talkie, I'm done.

Sure, you deserve the right to "be as rude, arrogant, condescending and downright ornery" as you like. I don't know why you want to though, it doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion.

Anyway, the talkorigins site appear to agree with how I currently view fitness. That is "The current understanding of fitness is dispositional." (that was in 1997 though) I.e. an intrinsic causal propensity. This is of course not the only view and there is still a debate about which view is correct. You need to read up on what other people's views are as well. For example the statistical interpretation of fitness. It is a good idea to broaden your literature about evolution beyond the talkorigins site.

 

[boramk]

Dude you're attacking the wrong theist. Techne, believe it or not, believes is evolution. Sure, he believes God was behind it all but he believes the process happens none the less and he wants it taught in schools because it's science and he clearly gets off on it. Hey, Techne?

Now the sad folks who used politics and legislation to try and deny science, who were they? YEC and other evangelical guys.

Not really man. He doesn't believe mutations are random nor believe certain phenotypes contribute to beneficial fitness. His belief in evolution is facetious at best.

 

[Bullvein]

The traditional proofs are discussed in the article if you are really interested.


Sure, you deserve the right to "be as rude, arrogant, condescending and downright ornery" as you like. I don't know why you want to though, it doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion.

Anyway, the talkorigins site appear to agree with how I currently view fitness. That is "The current understanding of fitness is dispositional." (that was in 1997 though) I.e. an intrinsic causal propensity. This is of course not the only view and there is still a debate about which view is correct. You need to read up on what other people's views are as well. For example the statistical interpretation of fitness. It is a good idea to broaden your literature about evolution beyond the talkorigins site.

Like I said, that is the goto site for me when I'm fed-up trying to drag people 2000 years into the future, it certainly isn't the only information out there, you can't click on a random link without falling over information and disinformation on the subject, that is why I tend to look for the telltale tricks of the sneaky ID lot.

So if you believe the theory of evolution as it stands this second of this day and year is correct as far as published, peer reviewed scientific facts are concerned we don't have an issue do we.
If so then I'm sorry for over reacting, but why the use of the ID tactics and talking points, just bored and trolling or was I mistaken ?

I apologise if you were truly just looking for a discussion on evolution and I took it as something else.
I am done with the subject though, as there isn't anything to discuss since we seem to agree that evolution as it stands is a fact until a real scientist adds or disproves some aspect of the theory and it is amended accordingly.

I and many people here take this very seriously, the ID an Yec are out to corrupt young children in schools all over the world and they are gaining ground, if you think South Korea is an anomaly you are wrong, this idiocy is a contagious disease and it's bread in more churches and classrooms by the day.

If you are sincere in your belief of a god, we still have an issue but not on evolution, since it is a proven fact as it stands now.

I'm not saying you and anyone else don't have a right to self delusion or to your beliefs but keep that in a church and away from us and the laws governing us and don't try to force that crap on our kids, especially when there is irrefutable proof to the contrary.

 

[Geriatrix]

Not really man. He doesn't believe mutations are random nor believe certain phenotypes contribute to beneficial fitness. His belief in evolution is facetious at best.

Sure, he's not your typical evolution theory scholar. But he's not proposing removing it from school curriculums and AFAIK he never suggested adding all those theological stuff to it either. He, like the rest of us, said leave the science in the class room and leave the philosophical implications out of it. But he's more than willing to discuss it if you bring it up.

This thread is not about what certain people believe. You can never change that. This thread is about letting sanity prevail and teaching evidence-based science in schools.
Techne, although his claim that he does not follow the ID doctrine made me scratch my head as well, never proposed replacing evidence-based science with faith or even philosophy.
Those subjects came up when people started questioning him about what he believes or made blanket statements about 'those religious idiots'.

 

[Bullvein]

Not really man. He doesn't believe mutations are random nor believe certain phenotypes contribute to beneficial fitness. His belief in evolution is facetious at best.

Damn where were you a second ago when I pressed reply

I'll just sit and watch while the people that know one another better gets on with this.

 

[Geriatrix]

Damn where were you a second ago when I pressed reply

I'll just sit and watch while the people that know one another better gets on with this.

No man, get to know every one!

But you see that's just the problem. People argue here with what they 'know' about the other person instead of what the other one is saying. That's retarded. So listen(read, whatever) to the argument and counter or answer or agree. Don't assume based on what 'they' are like.

 

[Techne]

Like I said, that is the goto site for me when I'm fed-up trying to drag people 2000 years into the future, it certainly isn't the only information out there, you can't click on a random link without falling over information and disinformation on the subject, that is why I tend to look for the telltale tricks of the sneaky ID lot.

So if you believe the theory of evolution as it stands this second of this day and year is correct as far as published, peer reviewed scientific facts are concerned we don't have an issue do we.
If so then I'm sorry for over reacting, but why the use of the ID tactics and talking points, just bored and trolling or was I mistaken ?

I apologise if you were truly just looking for a discussion on evolution and I took it as something else.
I am done with the subject though, as there isn't anything to discuss since we seem to agree that evolution as it stands is a fact until a real scientist adds or disproves some aspect of the theory and it is amended accordingly.

I and many people here take this very seriously, the ID an Yec are out to corrupt young children in schools all over the world and they are gaining ground, if you think South Korea is an anomaly you are wrong, this idiocy is a contagious disease and it's bread in more churches and classrooms by the day.

If you are sincere in your belief of a god, we still have an issue but not on evolution, since it is a proven fact as it stands now.

I'm not saying you and anyone else don't have a right to self delusion or to your beliefs but keep that in a church and away from us and the laws governing us and don't try to force that crap on our kids, especially when there is irrefutable proof to the contrary.

No worries. You still appear to be a bit condescending and arrogant. I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you claim religious people and people that believe in God are delusional and that there is irrefutable proof against the existence of God. I of course disagree.

 

[Techne]

Not really man. He doesn't believe mutations are random nor believe certain phenotypes contribute to beneficial fitness. His belief in evolution is facetious at best.

You don't need to believe in the randomness of mutations or that " certain phenotypes contribute to beneficial fitness" (whatever this is supposed to mean) to accept that evolution happens and is fact. Mutations happen. To claim they are random in any ontologically interesting sense is in the end a metaphysical issue. To claim that mutations are random relative to fitness (that is the standard claim) depends on a proper definition of fitness, and as you see, a proper definition of fitness is another philosophical issue. better read up on some philosophy....

 

[boramk]

See?

I usually stop once Techne joins. Its the something over and over.