Evolution In The Classroom

[tjm190]

Originally Posted by reggieM

That giraffes evolved because they had to stretch their necks to reach leaves at the top of trees.

I believe the current theory is that it had more to do with some bizarre mating ritual- most giraffes feed at around 50% of their height anyway.

That evolution explains the origin and therefore destiny of human life.

Evolution only explains the diversity of life

[gearhead]

Originally Posted by reggieM

That human beings do not possess free-will.

How would you know if you didn't?

Originally Posted by reggieM

That giraffes evolved because they had to stretch their necks to reach leaves at the top of trees.

I don't know where you got this, but it wasn't the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by reggieM

That evolution explains the origin and therefore destiny of human life.

This isn't from the theory of evolution either.

Sounds like you've based your opposition to evolution on a caricature.

[reggieM]

“We know nothing about the evolution of cognition. We are missing the fossil record of human cognition. So we make up stories.“
From Harvard evolutionist Richard Lewontin’s presentation to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

... First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing 'out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09...ty_a_repl.html

[tjm190]

If you want to show that something is an element of the theory of evolution, then take a quote from the theory of evolution. I can write a book that says hatred of Buddhists is an essential element of our faith, but that doesn't make it so.
The speaker was representing nihilism- not evolution.

[hugh miller]

Originally Posted by liquidpele

You claim to have dug up fossils, but claim that C-14 dating on a fossil is valid???

C-14 dating only works on organic material... FOSSILS ARE STONE. Not to mention that it only works for up to about 30k-50k years due to the half life of C-14. I suspect you are blatantly lying about your experience or unable to realize you are ignorant on the subject.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

Fossils are not all stone as field paleontologists well know. Even bones like the Seismosaurus contains 2 % carbon in the solid sandstone bone I have helped analyze. That carbon in mg. can be RC dated directly. For your edification I am a research chemist with 40 years of experience and am still a practicising chemical consultant. Oh Yes, Direct dating of diamond has given C-14 dated at 55,000 to 80,000 RC years. Do you know that diamonds are supposedly 1-3 billion years old by evolutionary assumptions? Do you want the reference?

The proceedings of an international conference on evolution will shortly be published including a 22 page report on radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bone collagen. Catholic scientists from Germany, Italy, US, Poland and France presented papers. The title of the conference and the nine papers that will be published in the proceedings are: "Evolutionary Theory: A Critical Analysis." The papers will include: (1) "The second law of thermodynamics excludes evolution", (2) "Experiments in stratification do not support evolution", (3) "Is radiometgric dating reliable? (4) "Recent C-14 dating of fossils including dilnosaur bone collagen." (5) "The concept of evolution in biology," (6) "Race formation and mutations do not constitute steps in evolution, (7) "Critical reflections of evolutionism as a scientific or pseudo-scientifc theory and as an atheist ideology," (8) Philosophic-theological prerequisits of the evolution theory." (9) "The Negative Impact of the evolutionary hypothesis on scientific research."

The abstract of the paper in which I am a coauthor is:

RECENT C-14 DATING OF FOSSILS INCLUDING DINOSAUR BONE COLLAGEN. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words

Radiocarbon dating, dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone bio-apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
Here are some immediate references for the benefit of CA readership and for students of all ages. Thes links need to be provided to all schools so as to provide a balance to the one sided teaching of evolution by schools systems and the media.

(1) Fossil human and dinosaur footprints together in Cretaceous strata allegedly 108 M years old: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related >> cat scan conformation of the co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

(2) Evidences for recent formation of the geologic column in 1000's not millions of years including more RC dates for dinosaurs: www.earthage.com or .org

(3) Photos of fossils footprints and many other anomalies such as dinosaur depictions world-wide that reduces the theory of evolution to a mere hypothesis. http://www.omniology.com/ModernHumanFootprints.html
and http://www.dinosaursandman.com/

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a bit of fresh air for all to breath

[tjm190]

Originally Posted by hugh miller

(1) Fossil human and dinosaur footprints together in Cretaceous strata allegedly 108 M years old: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related >> cat scan conformation of the co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

(2) Evidences for recent formation of the geologic column in 1000's not millions of years including more RC dates for dinosaurs: www.earthage.com or .org

(3) Photos of fossils footprints and many other anomalies such as dinosaur depictions world-wide that reduces the theory of evolution to a mere hypothesis. http://www.omniology.com/ModernHumanFootprints.html
and http://www.dinosaursandman.com/

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a bit of fresh air for all to breath

Be sure to throw in these links
1. http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm
2.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
3. Just have them google "hobbit foot"


'1) "The second law of thermodynamics excludes evolution"'

The second law of thermodynamics applies only to heat transfer- this is like bringing up Heisenberg when a sports announcer says that a team's victory is a "sure thing"- a complete misapplication.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by gearhead

How would you know if you didn't?

I would not be able to freely choose among options and no one would expect me to have any responsibility for my actions.

I don't know where you got this, but it wasn't the theory of evolution.

I fully realize that the best way to deflect critcism from evolutionary theory is to claim that any previous evolutionary claims which are refuted by facts and common sense "were never really part of evolutionary theory at all".

That works very well because that way evolutionary theory can never been seen to be false. The great thing about evolutionary theory is that there can be no amount of contradictory evidence or falsification brought against it that an active imagination cannot fix.

It's interesting also that you've never heard that particular evolutionary myth about giraffes before. Perhaps you never encountered the idea. It can be found in a book entitled, "The Origin of the Species" written by a evolutionist:

The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.... By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe. (Darwin 1872, pp. 177ff.)

It's pretty simple. An ordinary quadruped is converted into a giraffe.

Perhaps you missed the reference to giraffe evolution in your high school biology textbook. Or, perhaps you never had a biology textbook.

Stephen J. Gould decided to survey high school textbooks and found this:

I made a survey of all major high-school textbooks in biology. Every single one—no exceptions—began its chapter on evolution by ... presenting Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a preferable alternative.
All texts then use the same example to illustrate Darwinian superiority—the
giraffe’s neck ... We therefore prefer the Darwinian alternative, consistent with the
Mendelian nature of heredity, that giraffes with fortuitously longer necks (in a varying
population with a large range of neck lengths among individuals) will tend to leave
more surviving offspring that inherit their genetic propensity for greater height. This
slow process, continued for countless generations, can lead to a steady increase in
neck length, so long as local environments continue to favor animals with greater reach
for those succulent topmost leaves.
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes...est%20Tale.pdf

So, there is Gould saying that Darwin's explanation of the genetic mutations in the giraffe's neck, permitting it to have more surviving offspring because it could reach higher branches, is the preferrable evolutionary explanation (preferrable to the other "more certain than gravity" version of evolution that said that giraffes stretched their necks and transmitted that behavior to offspring".

Both the Lamarkian and Darwinian views on the evolution of the giraffes neck have been proven false since there was no survival advantage to eating leaves at the top of trees.

Now I realize that evolutionists will deny that this has any meaning at all, and even if it did, it's not a part of evolutionary theory, never was, and even though it was published in every highschool textbooks, that really didn't mean anything either.

We could look also at Darwinian explanations for the so-called evolution of something like the relationship between the blue-streak cleaner wrasse and predatory fish that allow it to enter their mouths and clean parasites out -- and then swim out unscathed.

The Darwinian claims (for which there is zero evidence) would be that step by step simultaneous mutations occurred in both fish - allowing one to enter the mouth of the predator and the other to not eat the helper fish.

The Lamarkian view at least would claim that the learned behavior was transmitted to offspring -- even though that notion was proven false also.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by hugh miller

The proceedings of an international conference on evolution will shortly be published including a 22 page report on radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bone collagen. Catholic scientists from Germany, Italy, US, Poland and France presented papers. The title of the conference and the nine papers that will be published in the proceedings are: "Evolutionary Theory: A Critical Analysis." The papers will include: (1) "The second law of thermodynamics excludes evolution", (2) "Experiments in stratification do not support evolution", (3) "Is radiometgric dating reliable? (4) "Recent C-14 dating of fossils including dilnosaur bone collagen." (5) "The concept of evolution in biology," (6) "Race formation and mutations do not constitute steps in evolution, (7) "Critical reflections of evolutionism as a scientific or pseudo-scientifc theory and as an atheist ideology," (8) Philosophic-theological prerequisits of the evolution theory." (9) "The Negative Impact of the evolutionary hypothesis on scientific research."

That sounds very good. I think there are many more Catholic scientists who would support such work, than what most people think. It's interesting to see them from European countries also.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by reggieM

That giraffes evolved because they had to stretch their necks to reach leaves at the top of trees.

Reggie, I'm afraid you're about a century behind the times in your knowledge base!

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by hugh miller

The abstract of the paper in which I am a coauthor is:

RECENT C-14 DATING OF FOSSILS INCLUDING DINOSAUR BONE COLLAGEN. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.

I cannot find any relevant information on this paper. What journal published it? If none, then where can I find it?

As for your claims, well... I'm glad that you're actually doing some research to try and back them up. If you're right, I hope you find success.

Until then, I'm going to trust the evidence when I have access, and the scientific community when I don't.

[reggieM]

WINNING BY A NECK: SEXUAL SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF GIRAFFE
ROBERT E. SIMMONS AND LUE SCHEEPERS
Department of Zoology. Uppsala University. Villavägen 9. S-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Submitted October 14. 1994: Revised January 10. 1996: Accepted January 18, 1996
Abstract.—A classic example of extreme morphological adaptation to the environment is the neck of the giraffe (Giraffli camelopardalis). a trait that most biologists since Darwin have attributed to competition with other mammalian browsers. However, in searching for present- day evidence for the maintenance of the long neck, we find that during the dry season (when feeding competition should he most intense) giraffe generally feed from low shrubs, not tall trees: females spend over 50% of their time feeding with their necks horizontal: both sexes feed faster and most often with their necks bent; and other sympatric browsers show little foraging height partitioning. Each result suggests that long necks did not evolve specifically for feeding at higher levels. Isometric scaling of neck-to-leg ratios from the okapi Okapiajohnswni indicates that giraffe neck length has increased proportionately more than leg length—an unexpected and physiologically costly method of gaining height. We thus find little critical support for the Darwinian feeding competition idea.

... never heard of this before and it had nothing to do with evolution. Interesting.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Reggie, I'm afraid you're about a century behind the times in your knowledge base!

True. Stephen J. Gould must have died sometime in the late 1800's. That's when he conducted his survey of textbooks finding 100% of them teaching that giraffe's needed to eat leaves on the top of trees.

Simmons commented in 1994 that every evolutionist since Darwin (and up to his time) believed in the tree-top story.

Evolutionary theory was "more certain than gravity" back in 1994 also.

[liquidpele]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

I cannot find any relevant information on this paper. What journal published it? If none, then where can I find it?

As for your claims, well... I'm glad that you're actually doing some research to try and back them up. If you're right, I hope you find success.

Until then, I'm going to trust the evidence when I have access, and the scientific community when I don't.

Don't bother.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

The "soft tissue" discovered in some fossils during the last few years is hardly of any concern, although it's certainly jumped all over by creationists. What was found in the fossils consists of several fossilized cells resembling blood cells and also some proteins left over.

C14 dating still has no effect on such old things though, as the half life is short enough that it is unreliable after only about 40k years. I stand by my statement that the poster is either lying or simply ignorant about his own knowledge. The fact that he brought up thermodynamics proves it beyond doubt.

[liquidpele]

Originally Posted by reggieM

That human beings do not possess free-will.



That giraffes evolved because they had to stretch their necks to reach leaves at the top of trees.



That evolution explains the origin and therefore destiny of human life.

Strawman.

How is that an "atheistic fantasy with no real meaning or value" exactly?

Origin, but not destiny (if you believe in that sort of thing).

[tjm190]

Originally Posted by reggieM

True. Stephen J. Gould must have died sometime in the late 1800's. That's when he conducted his survey of textbooks finding 100% of them teaching that giraffe's needed to eat leaves on the top of trees.

Simmons commented in 1994 that every evolutionist since Darwin (and up to his time) believed in the tree-top story.

Evolutionary theory was "more certain than gravity" back in 1994 also.

So there was false speculation on why a particular trait arose.