Kevin's Watch

Chaco Canyon is supremely cool! Now CALL ME Kins! (My teaching year ends after Memorial Day)

not everyone seems to agree...

www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/656 ... scent.html

The reason for the rather rapid brain size increase is the effects of a dramatic change in diet. Early Homo began hunting more often and cooking as well freeing up skull space for encephalization rather than large muscles for chewing. This sudden shift plus extremely high protein intake has been shown to have a direct influence on cranial capacity.

They're claim about high mutation rates and negative effects of mutation is rather silly given the extreme difference between Homo and non-primates. Primates care for young over a much longer time ensuring better health regardless of negative mutations. Besides the point of how absurdly high the mutation rate they claim really is...How do we survive then?

"Eve theory" only suggests a genetic bottleneck from one line to the next...Where did there eve come from? Mitochondrial dna is the one of the most inaccurate test for genetic material.

Unfortunately there studies have a fatal flaw... they claim that humans are no older than 50,000 years yet anatomically modern humans have been found in so many sites absolute dating as far back as 200,000 years that there study is irelevant. The fact of the matter is that evolution doesn't fit there model. The evolutionary camp accepts no such model that mutations and mtDNA is so narrow.

Ironically enough the article uses evolution to try to disprove evolution. Unfortunately the fail to recognize most aspects of evolution and try and hit the "soft spots" they preceive...Homo erectus began to "die out" around 300,000 yet from the beginnings of homo erectus at 1.8mya to 300,000 is so dramatically different in terms of biology and cranical capacity-many show modern brain sizes that the difference between moderns and erectus in almost nil.

It is an injustice that the title suggests molecular biology has disproven evolution that is ridiculous it has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Most creationists try to use science against itself to disprove one aspect of evolution or another. Typically what happens is they fail to understand even what they are saying much like the article above but they couch it in scientific terms and quote studies they think prove their point but it goes back to their misunderstanding and arrogance. "I'm special I am a beautiful creation of god!" Nope, you're a talking bipedal primate probably with a bad back, near-sighted, and chubby.

Kinslaughterer wrote:The reason for the rather rapid brain size increase is the effects of a dramatic change in diet. Early Homo began hunting more often and cooking as well freeing up skull space for encephalization rather than large muscles for chewing. This sudden shift plus extremely high protein intake has been shown to have a direct influence on cranial capacity.

I disagree with that. While either argument holds weight, it has also been argued that brain development was a product of changing environmental and spinal changes. A climate shift in Africa may have caused the decline of forests along the east coast, which led to the spread of a savannah. Animals located in these regions often have upright necks or the capacity to see over long distances for predators, as opposed to jungle-dwelling animals which have different facilities for detecting prey. Some monkeys/apes may have evolved to stand upright, which allowed them to see predators over large distances in the savannahs. This also freed the hands which meant that our ancestors were able to use tools. To 'accomodate' this function, the frontal part of the brain (the precentral gyrus and associated motor regions especially) would have developed. And, it is the massive frontal lobe that really separates us from the great apes.

Someone before mentioned the difference between human babies and the offspring of animals. Because the human head is so large at birth, birth is more difficult. The development of the brain is very slow, as it so complex, so that humans are more social - babies need to be with their carers/mother and we need to have such strong parental feelings.

There's no reason to say that one or the other example is wrong. Reading both, I see no reason why one would have to be the only that occurred. The early humans bagan walking upright, they began developing their brain to use tools and such. This develpment leads to the change in diet, which in turn allows for the rapid increase in brain size, pushing the species towards what it eventually became.

Some monkeys/apes may have evolved to stand upright, which allowed them to see predators over large distances in the savannahs. This also freed the hands which meant that our ancestors were able to use tools. To 'accomodate' this function, the frontal part of the brain (the precentral gyrus and associated motor regions especially) would have developed. And, it is the massive frontal lobe that really separates us from the great apes.

Yes, you are correct but I was refering to the rapid brain increase in Homo erectus but the reason the frontal lobe can grow is a morphological shift from heavy jaw muscles anchored by a sagital crest to an absence of cresting which frees up more space in the skull for the brain.

Holy god, Loremaster. I dramatically underestimated the negative impact of that foultar.
I am disabled.

Kinslaughterer wrote:1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not fact or a scientific law

2. If Humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

3. Natural Selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive and those who survive are the fittest.

4. Mathematically it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

5. Living things have fantastically intricate features that could not function if they were any less complex. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design.

These are but a few of the rather uneducated questions raised by creationists. There are certainly many more questions but there are an equal number of answers...

Which creationists? Who makes these arguments? Here's an interesting take on some creation arguments:

www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

There's even something about the Archaeopteryx fossil, which I saw was brought up in this thread.

Also, #5 isn't claimed by creationists alone, but by ID proponents. Did you know there's a difference? Michael Behe is not a creationist, but has shown why #5 is true. Alot of evolutionists complain about creationists not understanding evolution, its seems its vice versa also.

Someone asked the question b/w the difference of micro and macro, there is a big difference. Micro, or speciation, is change in DNA. Macro is addition or subtraction, which is where that leap of faith comes in.

Its true evolution doesn't describe the beginning of this universe, it tries to understand how we got here once it began. Its like turning on a basketball game, seeing the score, and guessing how it got there.

Who makes these arguments? Just do a google search for creationism or related topics, comrade. It doesn't really matter what all the creationist lines are, as long as they keep pushing creationism then its simply bunk.

Also, #5 isn't claimed by creationists alone, but by ID proponents. Did you know there's a difference? Michael Behe is not a creationist, but has shown why #5 is true. Alot of evolutionists complain about creationists not understanding evolution, its seems its vice versa also.

Well, I guess I'll just take your word that #5 is true and leave it at that...
Who is Behe and what did he do to disprove evolution?

Its true evolution doesn't describe the beginning of this universe, it tries to understand how we got here once it began. Its like turning on a basketball game, seeing the score, and guessing how it got there

Just because you don't understand evolution does not mean that its wrong or some sort of guess. Apparently no one has any understanding of the scientific community (not archaeology, just science in general). It is the most self-critical field out there and if it takes any "leaps of faith" (a perfect term for evolution considering the alternative is a totally unproveable, creation myth just like all other religious creation myths) it would be attacked and criticized immediately.
I think the best way to disprove evolution is to just stick fingers in ears and start collectively chanting "lah lah lah"

JemCheeta wrote:Holy god, Loremaster. I dramatically underestimated the negative impact of that foultar.
I am disabled.

Hey, just be glad I haven't resurrected the bouncing Wario avatar.

Kinslaughterer wrote:

Also, #5 isn't claimed by creationists alone, but by ID proponents. Did you know there's a difference? Michael Behe is not a creationist, but has shown why #5 is true. Alot of evolutionists complain about creationists not understanding evolution, its seems its vice versa also.

Well, I guess I'll just take your word that #5 is true and leave it at that...
Who is Behe and what did he do to disprove evolution?

I don't believe I said anything about Behe disproving evolution. I don't believe I said anything about taking my word for anything. Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box", you can check it out and take his word.

A guess is a guess, no matter how much evidence there is. Its just a question of how educated is that guess. Many evolutionists believe macro-evolution is a fact. As if its been tested and proved true.

Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been completely countered and disproved in Scientific American, July 2002.

Macroevolution on the other hand, while being to expansive to witness in single generation. However the results are directly viewable and have been empiricially tested. One tests what he expects to find based on a multidisciplinary approach, much like my profession--archaeology, paleoclimatology, adaptive fitness of the parent species, and so on then checks the fossil record, generally by digging, or looking for DNA ancestors of the species in question. Amazingly this guess has been exactly right time and again...
Certainly all the details aren't exactly right, we are still learning about the past. Evolution is not a closed subject in terms of who things became what they became but its certainly for real.

Kinslaughterer wrote:Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been completely countered and disproved in Scientific American, July 2002.

Really? How can I see the article? Here's some answers Behe has to some critiques of his work:

www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index. ... 8c1985dc94

Maybe he answers that article.

This was an interesting bit about the Kansas school board and its vote against evolution:

www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index. ... view&id=50

What is it about the topic of evolution that drives so many people nuts? Why does a change in a farm state's high school examination policy call forth damning editorials all the way from London, England, and have normally staid editors threatening children? The answer is convoluted, but several tightly intertwined factors can be teased apart. The first, of course, is religion. Some nonbelievers and adherents to minority faiths hold Christianity in contempt, and fight frantically to minimize the public influence of America's majority creed. The second factor is politics. Since activist opponents of evolution are as a rule politically conservative, any move against Darwinism is treated by some overwrought folks as the first step on the path to fascism, with a flat tax and a ban on abortion soon to follow. So the camel's nose must be shoved back with the same vigor and tactics as was the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. A final factor is more fundamental than the others, and more fateful. It's a question about knowledge itself a clash over what we think we know and how we think we know it. Although seemingly esoteric, it can spark real trouble. People can get supremely irritated when other folks just won't listen to reason, especially if they think they have the unvarnished facts on their side. One reason for agitation is that a person's self image is often wrapped up in what he thinks he knows about the important questions of life. Richard Dawkins, the prominent Darwinian popularizer, wrote that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and few people give up their intellectual fulfillment quietly. At a more banal level, many manage to feel good about themselves by feeling superior to creationists. While one may not have a clue about the subtleties of the evidence for or problems with Darwinism, he is automatically part of the smart set when he accepts evolution.

My italics.

Edit: I should've italicized the last two lines also.

Also:

Two objections are most frequently raised against teaching alternatives to Darwinism in the public schools. The first is that science classes should teach only what scientists think about scientific topics, and few scientists doubt evolution. Science classes, however, should not limit themselves to what most professional scientists think any more than English classes should teach only what the Modern Language Association approves. Experience shows that entire professions can get stuck in an intellectual rut. In order to prepare schoolchildren to be citizens overseeing competing segments of society, the scope of a class should intentionally be wider than the mindset of its professional practitioners.

A variant of this objection is that it's okay to discuss evolution alternatives in social studies class, but not in science class. (This seems to be the spot where Vice President Gore landed after unexpectedly announcing his support for teaching creationism.) That, however, is intellectual compartmentalization at its worst. The point of study is to seek the truth, or at least to become aware of what other people think may be true. If the topic of a class is how life on Earth arose, then all ideas about that question should be discussed in any class where the subject is raised. To do otherwise would only teach students that knowledge has to conform to bureaucratic guidelines. A second objection is that discussing alternatives to evolution would open the floodgates to innumerable theories on the origin of life, with every person's pet idea requiring equal time. But this objection is just a scare tactic. Other classes cope with the situation all the time. For example, there are countless political viewpoints. Nonetheless, for the most part high school history classes manage to discuss the major ideas that have shaped nations without getting bogged down in, say, Warren Beatty's personal political theories.

I would object stenuously to religion being taught in my children's science classes.

If it were part of a comparative religion class, or even a humanities class (provided that creation stories from a variety of religions were included) I would have no problem with that.

Again -- evolution only describes how life forms change over time.

It is not an attack on religion, and it does not state anything one way or another about whether or not there is a God or Gods involved.

I see my children being taught about evolution as being no different than them being taught about how gravity works.

And just as religion has no place in a physics class that teaches about light, gravity, etc. -- religion has no place in a biology class, either, IMHO.

Like it or not -- this is a world -- (and a nation if you are an American) where people practice many different religions, faiths, and ideas about God/gods (including those who do not believe at all). I honestly believe that these beliefs should be taught in the home or church/mosque/temple/etc. rather than in science classes in public schools. And just as I would be INFURIATED if my children were to be taught religious doctrine from a religion I do not believe in in a science class in a public school -- I think that children who belong to families who do not practice Christianity -- or non-Fundamentalist Christianty as my family does -- should also have the right to have their children not be indoctrinated in that sort of religious beliefs in public school.

but it's ok to tell children that God doesn't exist? seems that folks all for calling for an exclusion to beliefs that many folks hold dearly, for something that hasn't been proven.

Like it or not, any teaching on the origin of man can only be theory. Why would you be more upset about the teaching of Creation rather than the theory of evolutionism?

Although I can to a certain extent see where you're coming from... if a particular theory were taught as undisputed fact - I would be horrified if my children were taught Darwinism as an undisputed 'scientific' reality.

Edge wrote:Like it or not, any teaching on the origin of man can only be theory. Why would you be more upset about the teaching of Creation rather than the theory of evolutionism?

Once again, evolution is not about the origin of life or man on this planet. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. Further, evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Creationism and evolution really shouldn't be compared. If you want to compare, then use abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life.

Edge wrote:Why would you be more upset about the teaching of Creation rather than the theory of evolutionism?

It doesn't upset me. But if a teacher is going to wholeheartedly teach Creationism in science class, then you might as well teach the stork theory as an alternative to child birth.

dennisrwood wrote:but it's ok to tell children that God doesn't exist? seems that folks all for calling for an exclusion to beliefs that many folks hold dearly, for something that hasn't been proven.

Again: evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

Edge wrote:Although I can to a certain extent see where you're coming from... if a particular theory were taught as undisputed fact - I would be horrified if my children were taught Darwinism as an undisputed 'scientific' reality.

Two points: evolution is a proven reality, and that is not open for debate (you can debate it, but it's like debating that the earth is flat). Secondly: Darwinism is not evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is not evolution, just as the theory of the sun orbiting the earth is not the sun orbiting the earth. Darwin's theory could be hopelessly wrong, but evolution would still exist/occur without it.