I'm not sure some of these chicks even know what the question is actually asking... Sad. Just one more step towards the dumbing of America, like Jersey Shore...
I watched the whole thing hoping that at least one would have a clue, but alas..
I was impressed that the last chick (Miss Minnesota?) knew about Jean Paul II's views on evolution though!
Regardless, I'm sure I could work through the mental pain and anguish of listening to them speak and allow each and every one of them the opportunity to play with my gonads.
Im an equal opportunities kinda guy.. fairs fair and all that.
To be fair, they're pageant girls, they're not necessarily stupid so much as trying to win. This means being more of a shill for judges/voters than any politician. So, whether or not they believe what they say is at least equally in doubt.
Miss Alabama is dead against evolution. No surprise there. But we don't see all fifty respond, so hopefully there were some sensible responses too.
The common traps most of them fall into is that evolution is described as a 'theory' only in the common sense of the word, and that lots of different beliefs should be given equal weighting. Which is an admirable belief in some circumstances, here it is were not, for the fact that some ideas are distinctly more valid than others based on evidence.
Scorpionov wrote:lol no wonder eveyone laughs at most anti-evolutionists i mean really? They wish to believe a book over facts....
We live in a world in which people are increasingly told that their opinion is important and valid all the time. Many of these claim that evolution is a belief, and creation is a belief, so they are at least equal. They were probably brought up believing in it, so it's hardly a surprise that they keep it as adults. But if you look at TV, you are always being told that your opinion is important there too. So many TV programmes now ask for audience participation, you have to call in to vote, you can text/tweet them and get your opinions read out or printed on screen. Your opinion, however inane, is considered valuable.
It's no wonder then that people increasingly think that everything on TV should pander to them all the time. The BBC has a charter for example, that they must create programming to cater for all, even minority groups. If a programme upset a member of the audience in the past, they could write a letter, and that was about it. Today, people have been raised with the belief that it's all some huge democracy and that their opinions should directly shape what is on TV, and that by jumping up and down shouting they get exactly what they want all the time regardless of the needs of others. They also get a wonderful feeling of power because they are used to influencing TV by expressing their opinion and often this is the case with many TV programmes. This is why you get programmes that get a series of complains from people who have not even watched it, they read about it second hand and immediately express their opinion for action to be taken, because it's just one more way for them to have their opinion valued and see large organisations, like TV channels, bend to their whim. Which is what happens when you get a flood of complaints, even if they are stupid or misconstrued in nature, an apology is issued.
My thoughts echo the title, I have no idea how this could even be debated. Would you consider not teaching kids about gravity in school? How about the earth orbiting the sun?
I think my own intelligence has suffered by watching the videos on this page. ¬¬
The Vatican didn't disapprove evolution when Darwin wrote his thesis, they just accepted it and said that most of the bible is just metaphisical. Funny how many Christians choose to ignore this and come up with inane reasons against the subject.
Wyrmalla wrote:I think my own intelligence has suffered by watching the videos on this page. ¬¬
The Vatican didn't disapprove evolution when Darwin wrote his thesis, they just accepted it and said that most of the bible is just metaphisical. Funny how many Christians choose to ignore this and come up with inane reasons against the subject.
You are now aware that not all Christians particularly care what the Vatican has to say.
There was a bit of a spat about this back in 1517.
That made my evening! I'm suffering from a severe bout of Man Flu right now (although because I'm a man it's not a cold, it's Ebola) and that cheered me up no end!
I really enjoyed Miss Idaho ( I think) and her useless attempts to swerve the question. Also, I can't remember which one it was, but the young lady who said that Evolution should not be taught in schools because of the various scientists differing ideas of what it actually is! Genius, pure unadulterated genius!
Could I also add that, as usual, Matty has cut too the heart of the matter! Good show sir!
corpsesarefun wrote:My thoughts echo the title, I have no idea how this could even be debated. Would you consider not teaching kids about gravity in school? How about the earth orbiting the sun?
These are the same people that want to change the mathematical constant of π to 3, essentially desiring to alter the fundamental laws of geometry because they invariably suck at math and science and want to impose their religious views on others even when it is directly contradicted by reality.
“You can't wish away reality. You can't ultimately ignore it. You can't bribe it off, reason with it or make a deal with it. You can curse it; condemn it as immoral and evil; you can make it illegal — but reality just Will. Not. Care. If your ideology or religion contradicts reality, well so much the worse for you and your ideas. Reality won't shift just to accommodate you.“
Just waiting for engineers to start to build bridges using the constant of 3 instead of Pi.
As others have said, evolution is like gravity. It's a theory with overwhelming evidence and scientific support. I think that if we don't teach evolution in schools, we shouldn't teach gravity.
"The Earth rotates the sun because God is holding the earth with an invisible hand and making it go in circles."
Pffft! What a joke. Of COURSE evolution should be taught in schools. Geeze, even my grandparents think that evolution doesn't conflict with the bible, and my grandfather is a preacher.
I think the whole reason Christians have problems with evolution is this: it seems that a lot of popular atheist scientists and thinkers (think Richard Dawkins) take every opportunity to say that as all species have evolved from a single cell, there can not possibly be a chance that there is a god/great being. Now, I am fine with that point (and I can see the logic behind that stance), but they make their point so forcefully that it seems as though they are just trying to piss religious people off. And then Christians get all pissed off back, and proceed to say stupid stuff like that found in the OP video, as they feel that evolution is a threat to their religion.
That's easy enough to say, but honestly it's also because quite a few people honestly believe in the "the world is 7000 years old) malarkey and other crap spouted by preachers down there. Probably moreso because of this than overactive atheists, as most of those "devout atheists" aren't likely people most of these girls have even heard of.
I go by the belief that God created evolution. That it is all his work. I'm all for evolution, doesn't mean God isn't behind it. I also don't take the Bible literally.
corpsesarefun wrote:My thoughts echo the title, I have no idea how this could even be debated. Would you consider not teaching kids about gravity in school? How about the earth orbiting the sun?
These are the same people that want to change the mathematical constant of π to 3, essentially desiring to alter the fundamental laws of geometry because they invariably suck at math and science and want to impose their religious views on others even when it is directly contradicted by reality.
Now that is just stupid, on the other hand replacing 2π with τ is something I can get behind.
biccat wrote:There are some good reasons not to teach evolution in schools. None of them have anything to do with religion.
Care to name some?
Evolution is too complicated of a concept to be teaching grade school kids.
Most professions don't need a working knowledge of the theory of evolution.
There are better things to spend time teaching children. Like math, or writing.
That's not saying that there's no value in teaching evolution, or any other subject, rather that schools have a limited amount of time in the day and there might be value in reducing the subjects students study from day-to-day.
There is nothing about evolution that's 'theory' anymore, and I love how they keep talking about how they should 'avoid the theory' part.This isn't the 19th century, evolution is nothing new.
Dunno why I'm stating what everyone already knows on a wargaming forum. I'm sure we're all thinking the exact same thing.
corpsesarefun wrote:Schools run from 9 to 3 here with 1 hour break for approximately 190 days a year from ages 5 to 16, that's around 10,000 hours in total.
Does it really take that long to teach kids nothing more than functional maths and writing?
I don't know about you, but I spent that 9-3 period of time during my school years horsing around in the back of the class with my friends, and the vast majority of kids in my classes were doing the same, or at least not paying attention. Grade school is nothing more than day care for children.
corpsesarefun wrote:Schools run from 9 to 3 here with 1 hour break for approximately 190 days a year from ages 5 to 16, that's around 10,000 hours in total.
Does it really take that long to teach kids nothing more than functional maths and writing?
I don't know about you, but I spent that 9-3 period of time during my school years horsing around in the back of the class with my friends, and the vast majority of kids in my classes were doing the same, or at least not paying attention. Grade school is nothing more than day care for children.
And you refusing to learn is the school's fault how?
corpsesarefun wrote:Schools run from 9 to 3 here with 1 hour break for approximately 190 days a year from ages 5 to 16, that's around 10,000 hours in total.
Does it really take that long to teach kids nothing more than functional maths and writing?
I don't know about you, but I spent that 9-3 period of time during my school years horsing around in the back of the class with my friends, and the vast majority of kids in my classes were doing the same, or at least not paying attention. Grade school is nothing more than day care for children.
You spent 5 hours doing bugger all for 5 days a week for 13 years?
I'm gonna assume you meant just primary school (assuming grade school=primary school). Little point to teaching evolution to anyone under 10 years of age. Save it for secondary school...
I agree that evolution is best left to the over tens but if children without learning disabilities have reached the age of ten and are unable to do basic maths, read or write then something has fethed up bigtime.
corpsesarefun wrote:I agree that evolution is best left to the over tens but if children without learning disabilities have reached the age of ten and are unable to do basic maths, read or write then something has fethed up bigtime.
True...
That said if you can't do that you are probably gonna be put into the lowest groups in secondary school...
Math is unnecessary beyond basic statistics, algebra and geometry. I wasted two whole years on trigonometry and advanced algebra, and more or less was just happy to be rid of it. For any profession that requires math, the required skills will be taught to you.
English is also important. One must be able to competently read and write to hold a job, unless they expect to be earning minimum wage the rest of their life.
Beyond that, I think science and history are the most important things to teach children. They teach perspective, and generally keep ignorance at bay. I learned the basics of government and foreign policy my sophomore year of high school, and I thought that was great. I also spent a whole year learning about biology, which really made me think differently about the natural world, and I'm glad I took it. Of course, some people just have 0 aptitude for science. Some people have 0 aptitude for anything. Clearly there is no all encompassing teaching method.
If the goal of teaching was simply to help students get and keep jobs, we could just send them off to work in internships and apprenticeships and have them learn about financial responsibility and job skills.
I learned Evolution in school at a very early age (about 3rd grade), and even before that, I knew the general idea of it. It wasn't shocking to anyone in the class, and the only real objection we got to it was "Aye, I ain't no monkey, hurdurr" sort of statements. Even if you don't believe it, it's nice to keep an open mind.
corpsesarefun wrote:Schools run from 9 to 3 here with 1 hour break for approximately 190 days a year from ages 5 to 16, that's around 10,000 hours in total.
Does it really take that long to teach kids nothing more than functional maths and writing?
Dunno, I'm not an educator.
I'm just saying that there are reasons why some things don't get taught.
For example, I don't know why everyone shouldn't learn calculus and basic economics, but apparently these aren't required in most schools.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
Beyond that, I think science and history are the most important things to teach children.
I don't know about the most important, but certainly important. History in particular is fairly crucial in terms of inculcating children with some form of national identity.
Science is probably more important than history in terms of work related skills, though we teach it so poorly, focusing on the wrong things, that it hardly matters.
biccat wrote:
For example, I don't know why everyone shouldn't learn calculus and basic economics, but apparently these aren't required in most schools.
Much of it has to do with finding teachers that can actually teach the subject matter, at least in the better districts.
biccat wrote:Evolution is too complicated of a concept to be teaching grade school kids.
I learned far more complex things than evolution in grade school. And why should one study biology without studying its basic principles? That'd be like studying algebra without first understanding how to multiply non-representative numbers.
biccat wrote:Most professions don't need a working knowledge of the theory of evolution.
An understanding of science and basic scientific laws/theories (as well as the difference between a scientific theorem and a theory in the common language, IE a hypothesis) is extremely valuable to anyone, as it helps them with critical thinking skills.
biccat wrote:There are better things to spend time teaching children. Like math, or writing.
... which can be taught alongside evolution and the sciences. In fact, most sciences use math.
As for writing... it's much less useful of a skill. If you mean English (or another primary language depending on the nation), then perhaps, but that's already being taught.
A nation where children are not taught science is a nation that will stagnate and die. See the decline of intellectuality in the Islamic world circa 1100 AD.
Melissia wrote:I learned far more complex things than evolution in grade school. And why should one study biology without studying its basic principles?
I don't know, evolution is pretty complicated. To the point where college educated adults, even those with advanced degrees, seem to struggle with it.
I also don't think its a basic principle of biology (to the extent that I think there are basic principles).
Of course, to the extent that school in the United States is about a generalist education, I think it should certainly be taught. After all, we teach kids, really young kids, about all kinds of things they're too young to fully understand or appreciate. One of them being the English language.
corpsesarefun wrote:You were unable to write and use basic maths at 16?
Is the american education system really THAT bad?
Sometimes.
I actually watched this with my wife today; she was a 2nd grade teacher, and now is the Librarian at the same school and teaches research skills as a college librarian...adjunct faculty is kind of a gak job even if it pays well BTW.
As we were watching it she just kept saying, "where DON'T they teach evolution?"
I actually skipped through this the first time after I got the gist. When the one said "they should teach the bible view next to evolution" or somesuch I wanted to reach through the computer and strangle her. You want your goddamned kids taught fairy tales send them to parochial school, but not a Jesuit one, they teach evolution. fething backwards twits. There are days I literally thank God I wasn't born into one of these idiot families/region tha spouts this nonsense.
Hmm that sounds nothing like my wife's experience...her description makes her job sound managerial...plus teaching the odd class when scheduled.
But when she was a grad student getting her Libby masters she got the gak stick like that plenty
Automatically Appended Next Post: She's mostly bored to tears, we are hoping when we move there is a childrens or law library she can move into, rather than academia.
This can be a point of contention because a hell of a lot of scientific issues get turned into culture war issues in the United States. Evolution, climate change, alternative energy research...scientific evidence simply doesn't matter to these people.
I really don't think evolution is too difficult to teach kids. School education is more than what you need for a job in later life. You don't need to know a lot of History, or barely anything about Chemistry, you certainly don't need Art but you still study these in school or you'll turn out pig ignorant. The point of education is not to merely produce number crunching drones or people who can type out documents.
Most things taught at school level are taught in a simple manner. Degree level evolution teaching is far more complex than that at high school, but it builds upon the previous teaching and the general ideas laid down there. Also, without any exposure to a range of topics, how will you know what you like and want to study further? You can't really go from ignorance about a subject straight into degree level learning, you need a basis and that comes in school. Similarly with genetics and DNA. That is taught in school so that people grasp simple concepts of inheritance. But obviously it can be far far more complicated and even at degree level, you are not taught to the same level of complexity as you will encounter at post-graduate level.
Actually I think evolution and general concepts like survival-of-the-fittest are far easier to impart to a room of kids than the complexities of genetic inheritance (though Mendel's pea plants) and many chemical reactions in Chemistry class which just looks like a scrawl of gobbledegook with letters, numbers and arrows.
Both my parents and my wife are teachers (11 years to 18 years) and my mum teaches biology, and my wife teaches chemistry (with some biology); both teach evolution to various years as pupils go through their education. Like any complex subject, like atomic structure, or calculus, you start early with the basics and the "simple lies to children" that will form the basis of their understanding, and gradually build up closer to the truth.
For example, "atoms" start off as single chunks of small stuff that stick together. Then you learn that they have components; a nucleus and electrons that go round it like planets around the sun. Then you learn about protons and neutrons, electron shells, energy levels, etc, etc, etc.
This continues all the way up through education; simple versions of reality to help aid understanding being replaced with more complex versions that are closer to the truth. It is the same with evolution. There is absolutely no reason it should not be taught from almost the first years of "proper" teaching (ie after you have got through the part of school which is essentially all colouring things in and playing in the sand pit and learning the basics of language and maths).
Horst wrote:Actually, I have uncovered new evidence. Evolution SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS!
Here is proof that evolution is wrong. This guy is a true christian.
Spoiler:
Wow Horst i really have to thank you for posting that vid. I laughed my arse off at it. His explanation as to why creatures are buried in the earth was just wonderful. Fish and squid drowning? Lulzy. And WTF is with the Pasta?? I wasnt aware that pasta was a prehistoric creature.
Thanks bud.
See the problem with what hes saying is that hes not necessarily wrong. Sure he's not totally right either. But yes it "could" happen, life could one day spring forth from a jar of peanut butter. The thing is though its just that it wont happen. Its like the Large Hadron Collider. Yeah sure the collider could create a black hole that destroys the earth and life as we know it. But the fact of the matter is that the chances of it happening are so insignicantly small that its not going to happen. I mean sure its not quite as simple as that but that is it in its most basic form.
So in the end it boils down to crushed legumes and a 27km long tube.
Most christians are not against evolution or science. Its representative of a few who have extremist views, like branding all muslims terrorists because the people who flew into the WTC were muslims.
Evolution should be taught not just because its a scientific view, but also because both religion and science agree on it. It's a little thing called not taking the bible literally and applying it for issues within our times. Just sometimes people take it too far.
Most christians are not against evolution or science. Its representative of a few who have extremist views, like branding all muslims terrorists because the people who flew into the WTC were muslims.
Evolution should be taught not just because its a scientific view, but also because both religion and science agree on it. It's a little thing called not taking the bible literally and applying it for issues within our times. Just sometimes people take it too far.
This exactly, there are many people of varying faiths in the UK yet we manage to teach evolution and science in general.
Why are these women asked such a question? I believe in evolution, but I think that they should have asked from someone else expect some fashion models.
Evolution and sciences should be taught in school because in the future I want my planes, bridges and power stations designed by people who can make them work. I want my doctors to understand biology so they can cure my illness.
I've got nothing against aspects of religion being taught in schools within the context of history, sociology and philosophy. I know there is an issue in the USA about religion in public schools.
The problem with taht Kilkrazy is we get nutjobs like the pieces of feces disguised as human beings amonst the Texas Board of Education that basically try to remove non-religious people from history and lie about the religious beliefs of others. The US' founding fathers come to mind.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:This man has no idea that heat cannot pass through a vacuum, does he?
Wait, are you saying that heat can't pass through a vacuum?
Heat is a very dodgy word to use in the context of physics, if you use "heat" to mean thermal energy then it can't travel through a vacuum as it is a property of matter whereas if you use "heat" to mean infra-red radiation then it obviously can.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:This man has no idea that heat cannot pass through a vacuum, does he?
Wait, are you saying that heat can't pass through a vacuum?
Heat is a very dodgy word to use in the context of physics, if you use "heat" to mean thermal energy then it can't travel through a vacuum as it is a property of matter whereas if you use "heat" to mean infra-red radiation then it obviously can.
I was thinking the same thing.
Otherwise that sunlight wouldn't be helping much, moving across ~96 million miles of vacuum.
I think the point biccat was making is that heat normally refers to the property of matter rather than infra-red radiation which is simply the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation often emitted by hot things so obviously heat itself cannot travel in a vacuum.
Melissia wrote:The problem with taht Kilkrazy is we get nutjobs like the pieces of feces disguised as human beings amonst the Texas Board of Education that basically try to remove non-religious people from history and lie about the religious beliefs of others. The US' founding fathers come to mind.
Oh look, it's Melissa. Fancy a cheese with that vintage?
Warboss Gutrip wrote:Tell them they're wrong, watch them jump up and down in protest
But seriously, this is ridiculous. People this stupid should not be idolized.
In all fairness, pageant models aren't people. They're told they're people, they're made to act like people, hell, they may even think they're people, but they're not people.
Warboss Gutrip wrote:People this stupid should not be idolized.
I follow celebrity gossip and pop culture more than is healthy, and I couldn't tell the name of any recent pageant winner.
They're not idolized, and I doubt many of them respond to questions in an honest fashion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DickBandit wrote:
Most of the women gave a straightforward response and did bring up the point that the Theory of Evolution is still changing today.
I think the objection is that a number of them made some variation of the "Its just a theory." argument which, as arguments about evolution go, is about the worst one.
Might as well ask them if the Theory of Gravity should be taught. As others have mentioned. Or whether the "God holds everything down" theory should be taught alongside it.
Melissia wrote:The problem with taht Kilkrazy is we get nutjobs like the pieces of feces disguised as human beings amonst the Texas Board of Education that basically try to remove non-religious people from history and lie about the religious beliefs of others. The US' founding fathers come to mind.
Oh look, it's Melissa. Fancy a cheese with that vintage?
Are you suggesting it's actually a good thing to try and cast history in a manner that's consistent only with your religious beliefs, regardless of the reality of it?
That seems a perfectly valid thing to complain about.
Evolution = Evidence based observation Creationism = Faith.
Science has built the Computer you write you posts on, the internet, your car, your life, everything!. Literally everything mankind has built with mathematics science and engineering, faith creates nothing tangible. Churches are not built by faith, but by money and engineering, by a powerbase giving their money to organisation on the basis of an unspoken tacit agreement they will be ok in the afterlife.
I love discussing religion with so called religious people, who quote the bible. I mean 90% of them don't know about Constantine's changes, and the council of Nicene and the numerous missing books. Man is fallible, Man wrote the Bible, therefore Bible is equally fallible. They often say "Oh wow, thats why that prayer is called the Nicene creed".
We don't understand life , the universe or consciousness completely but lack of evidence at this time doesn't mean we should automatically assume it is evidence of a deity.
To fly in the face of all mankinds achievements, and to have the audacity to write up an anti-scientific standpoint on a PC/MAC/Laptop(built by engineers) on the Internet (Built by scientists) is the ultimate in not understanding the weaknesses in their own argument. I have at least some respect for the Amish in this regard.
Mannahnin wrote:Might as well ask them if the Theory of Gravity should be taught. As others have mentioned. Or whether the "God holds everything down" theory should be taught alongside it.
Mannahnin wrote:Might as well ask them if the Theory of Gravity should be taught. As others have mentioned. Or whether the "God holds everything down" theory should be taught alongside it.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:This man has no idea that heat cannot pass through a vacuum, does he?
Wait, are you saying that heat can't pass through a vacuum?
Uh, yes? It's proven by this crazy thing called Physics.
Having an engineering degree that involved at least 6 credits of Heat Transfer, I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't know what you're talking about.
I've never understood religious arguments against evolution, as an agnostic. There is no reason that evolution can't co-exist as a tool deployed by God to do exactly what was intended, like a shell script. Who are these people, to claim to know the will of God? Where were they, when He created the universe? I mean, when even the Pope doesn't see a problem with this line of thought, then you're just trolling.
Well, someday those mice will have it figured out, and then it will be a moot point.
mattyrm wrote: I was impressed that the last chick (Miss Minnesota?) knew about Jean Paul II's views on evolution though!
Minnesota! Woot!
We have a reputation for quality education for a reason!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:I've never understood religious arguments against evolution, as an agnostic. There is no reason that evolution can't co-exist as a tool deployed by God to do exactly what was intended, like a shell script. Who are these people, to claim to know the will of God? Where were they, when He created the universe? I mean, when even the Pope doesn't see a problem with this line of thought, then you're just trolling.
Because if you are a biblical "Literalist" i.e. everything in the Bible is absolute truth and not just an alagory, you can not allow Evolution to stand, because all creatures were created by God "exactly" the way they were now. Or something like that....
How can 300 years of scientific progess since the renaissance be right when it stands against the weight of a book written by desert dwelling cow sacrificing zealots.
How can 300 years of scientific progess since the renaissance be right when it stands against the weight of a book written by desert dwelling cow sacrificing zealots.
Mithrians?
Your knowledge of obscure religious tradition is heartening. I now have hope for America's future.
With my Christian upbringing, evolution was viewed as simply out of the question to the point that we couldn't watch Ninja Turtles because it taught evolution... somehow. My parents are a bit more open-minded about it now but anecdotal-ly , many people I knew saw it as an extreme form of compromise.
The way I see it, people who think that evolution contradicts the bible are basically underestimating their god, because why would an omnipotent god be limited to blatantly obvious and miraculous acts when s/he could very well simply set the quantum state of the universe at the start so that it would eventually produce human beings naturally?
So much less work and well within the power of a being that is supposedly all-powerful.
I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random. Many religions teach that everything that happens, whether bad or good is for a reason... so yeah...
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random. Many religions teach that everything that happens, whether bad or good is for a reason... so yeah...
Is evolution random?
Roll a D6 on the evolution chart...
I always thought it was reactive. It needs something to drive it, surely.
How can 300 years of scientific progess since the renaissance be right when it stands against the weight of a book written by desert dwelling cow sacrificing zealots.
Mithrians?
Your knowledge of obscure religious tradition is heartening. I now have hope for America's future.
OK, for one I'm British and two how is this for a whacky theory based on obscure knowledge:
Christianity developed from Judaism which was borm from the worship of the Ahten in Egypt. This religion was the subject of what can only be the first religious pogrom wiping a whole city from the face of the earth (only recently rediscovered) and outlawing the very mention of the Pharo Ankhenaten who founded the religion.
Moses was simply the guy who lead the remaining faithful on a dash for survival.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random. Many religions teach that everything that happens, whether bad or good is for a reason... so yeah...
Is evolution random?
Roll a D6 on the evolution chart...
I always thought it was reactive. It needs something to drive it, surely.
No it is not absolutely random.
Would you like a simplified version of how it works on a genetic level?
Medium of Death wrote:I always thought it was reactive.
It is not random, you're right about that.
The members of the species that participate in reproduction propogate their genes to the next generation. The ones most capable of gathering mates for reproduction thus generally are more successful in propogating their genes and influencing the flow of evolution.
How can 300 years of scientific progess since the renaissance be right when it stands against the weight of a book written by desert dwelling cow sacrificing zealots.
Mithrians?
Your knowledge of obscure religious tradition is heartening. I now have hope for America's future.
Medium of Death wrote:I always thought it was reactive.
It is not random, you're right about that.
The members of the species that participate in reproduction propogate their genes to the next generation. The ones most capable of gathering mates for reproduction thus generally are more successful in propogating their genes and influencing the flow of evolution.
There is an environmental level to it. As you encounter environmental factors different genes become expressed as a result. These then become strengthened and less vulnerable to change when a male produces a gamete (sperm) or when formed in the feotus of a female. In either case around 60-70 minor random changes occur. This means that you are evolved to deal with the environmetal stressors of your grandparents.
Mannahnin wrote:Might as well ask them if the Theory of Gravity should be taught. As others have mentioned. Or whether the "God holds everything down" theory should be taught alongside it.
haven't we learned yet? Don't spoil it by talking.
EDIT: Oh look, its another "creationists are evil and dumb huh huh" thread. Well it must be Monday.
Proof of evolution: London underground has its own species of mosquito that has independently evolved to the conditions. It is a distinct species that can not breed with other native species.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: "creationists are evil and dumb huh huh" thread. Well it must be Monday.
I've never heard anyone describe them as evil.
Dumb, of course. If you dont know basic high school biology you are by definition a thick bastard and I am entitled to laugh at you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonophos wrote:Proof of evolution: London underground has its own species of mosquito that has independently evolved to the conditions. It is a distinct species that can not breed with other native species.
There are gak loads of examples of rock solid evidence. Literally hundreds, and evolution has more evidence than gravity. But people don't talk about this very much because it lends credence to the ignorant feth wits that make up the Creationist lobby.
Nylon-eating bacteria is probably the most famous observed evolution though, due to Nylon being invented in the 1930's.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I hope not...
If i did it was cunningly disguised...
More likely either i have utterly failed to grasp it or my teacher didn't explain it very well...
Yeah, I wasn't very interested at school either.. shame education is only mandatory when your at the age when it's not interesting to you because your too busy chasing girls and playing football.
I only got interested in biology in my twenties when I was stuck in places like Iraq and I didnt have anything at all to look at during my time off other than the books in the unit library.
Im a soldier not a teacher, so ill keep it short, but there are several ways of showing that it's non-random. The most simple one can be fit into three sentences.
In any population individual organisms will have a wide range of (random) mutations, and say a small percentage of those individuals have mutations that decrease their fitness and make them gakker at their jobs, they will be selected against with the result being that their genes are taken out of the population’s genome.
Another small percentage of those individuals will have mutations that increase their fitness, and they will be selected for, with the result being that their genes are increased in the population’s genome. So over time, we see that a population will become increasingly adapted to its environment, because positive mutations are selected for and negative mutations are selected against.
Thus we have non random evolution.
A good example would be me, because I am fething awesome at everything. Women love me and thus I shall sire thousands of children, but ugly fethers with wonky faces who look like they drink sat under the dart board wont have any kids. Our faces might have been pretty random, but what happens when we start talking to chicks? They all ignore him and flock to me, and that's not random.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I didn't. It is random, in the form of random mutation. there is no "design" in the process. The ones that are slightly better fit to survive indeed do survive.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I didn't. It is random, in the form of random mutation. there is no "design" in the process. The ones that are slightly better fit to survive indeed do survive.
Yeah, so its not random then is it?!
If I roll ten dice, but then I pick the 5 highest and use them for my to wound rolls, that's not random. That's me picking the best gak out!
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution itself is random but natural selection is adaptive was my understanding.
Yeah mutations are, but the evolution bit is what makes it non random.
Ahh...
This may have been where we have fallen apart.
Natural selection is the process of the indivdual best adapted for survival gets to pass its genes along. Right?
Whereas evolution is the random mutations that may or may not be beneficial?
Either way this thread is an awful lot of fun...
Fafnir wrote:Well, natural and sexual selection are just that, forms of selection.
Mutations are random, but can be carried through natural or sexual selection.
Exactly, so the end result, the evolution, is not random.
Mutations are, evolution isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Evolution itself is random but natural selection is adaptive was my understanding.
Yeah mutations are, but the evolution bit is what makes it non random.
Ahh...
This may have been where we have fallen apart.
Natural selection is the process of the indivdual best adapted for survival gets to pass its genes along. Right?
Whereas evolution is the random mutations that may or may not be beneficial?
Either way this thread is an awful lot of fun...
It is when teacher rewards you with grenades!
Actually.. I'm not smart enough to be teacher, ill phone Albatross and get him to take over.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I didn't. It is random, in the form of random mutation. there is no "design" in the process. The ones that are slightly better fit to survive indeed do survive.
Yeah, so its not random then is it?!
If I roll ten dice, but then I pick the 5 highest and use them for my to wound rolls, that's not random. That's me picking the best gak out!
the process is random. You picking out the best ones is intelligent design. OMG Matty's a creationist!
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I didn't. It is random, in the form of random mutation. there is no "design" in the process. The ones that are slightly better fit to survive indeed do survive.
Yeah, so its not random then is it?!
If I roll ten dice, but then I pick the 5 highest and use them for my to wound rolls, that's not random. That's me picking the best gak out!
the process is random. You picking out the best ones is intelligent design. OMG Matty's a creationist!
Matty you cant kick an image in the crotch and yell obscenities and call that worshiping...that warfare. I know they sound similar but it sounds like someone has lead you astray...again.
purplefood wrote:I think the main problem most religions/religious people have with evolution is that it is random.
It is the exact opposite of random mate.
I got taught it was random and i'm sticking to it...
You didn't go to a faith school did you?
I didn't. It is random, in the form of random mutation. there is no "design" in the process. The ones that are slightly better fit to survive indeed do survive.
Yeah, so its not random then is it?!
If I roll ten dice, but then I pick the 5 highest and use them for my to wound rolls, that's not random. That's me picking the best gak out!
the process is random. You picking out the best ones is intelligent design. OMG Matty's a creationist!
As an aside, mutations are fairly rare and almost never are actually beneficial to the creature who receives them. Judging all of evolution based off of mutations alone is a bit iffy.
Or more accurately, mutations do not often survive the generations unless they have a positive effect, such as sickle cell anemia, the heterogeneous form of which provides immunity to certain diseases.
Melissia wrote:more like great great grandparents. Evolution takes place over dozens of generations, not just one or two.
Although seriously, not even that fast. We're talking millions of years for a single change to come to fruition.
Actually we've watched it in action and documented it. Specifically in species of insects with very short lifespans and thus quick breeding cycles. Certain species of moths (or was it flies?), off the top of my head, changed color over generations to become better adapted to their environment.
Melissia wrote:more like great great grandparents. Evolution takes place over dozens of generations, not just one or two.
Although seriously, not even that fast. We're talking millions of years for a single change to come to fruition.
Actually we've watched it in action and documented it. Specifically in species of insects with very short lifespans and thus quick breeding cycles. Certain species of moths (or was it flies?), off the top of my head, changed color over generations to become better adapted to their environment.
Selective breeding of silver foxes is a decent example of coaxing evolution of a species as well. The foxes who were allowed to breed exhibited behavioral traits that would actually not be beneficial in the wild and would not likely to be passed on in a natural selection setting. As a result of the selective breeding a tame fox was bred that looked and acted much different than its' ancestors. Like the flies a short lifespan/ quick breeding cycles is important here. For nature to do this alone it would take MUCH longer.
Melissia wrote:As an aside, mutations are fairly rare and almost never are actually beneficial to the creature who receives them. Judging all of evolution based off of mutations alone is a bit iffy.
Or more accurately, mutations do not often survive the generations unless they have a positive effect, such as sickle cell anemia, the heterogeneous form of which provides immunity to certain diseases.
There are different sorts of mutations, but single nucleotide mutations are actually quite common, but they are difficult to detect through genetic analysis and usually have no impact upon the organism. It's very much a spectrum, there are beneficial ones, and some distinctly fatal ones, but most are somewhere in between or have no effect.
The other argument from creationists is that "mutations don't create new/more information". I don't really understand this one, because genetic material can certainly be duplicated and then each duplicate can mutate differently so that you end up with two different genes. There are plenty of examples so I don't know where the argument that mutations can't lead to complexity comes from.
Melissia wrote:more like great great grandparents. Evolution takes place over dozens of generations, not just one or two.
Although seriously, not even that fast. We're talking millions of years for a single change to come to fruition.
Actually we've watched it in action and documented it. Specifically in species of insects with very short lifespans and thus quick breeding cycles. Certain species of moths (or was it flies?), off the top of my head, changed color over generations to become better adapted to their environment.
indeed. As the engine of change is mutation it can come slowly or in fits and starts. Or as the boys down at the bar like to say M-U-T-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!
I am so fed of having science bashed by religious nutters, maybe I should descend to their level and have a bumper stick that says "God is a @@@@"
I do deliberately antagonize them, I had an argument with an RN Chaplain once, where he said you shouldn't use Wikipedia because it's not properly referenced.
mwnciboo wrote:I am so fed of having science bashed by religious nutters, maybe I should descend to their level and have a bumper stick that says "God is a @@@@"
I do deliberately antagonize them, I had an argument with an RN Chaplain once, where he said you shouldn't use Wikipedia because it's not properly referenced.
I had an argument with a chaplain once, I wanted his God in a bag kit and he refused to give it to me, Bastard.
I also pitched him my idea to be an Army chaplain as a Jedi, best job ever. You have a whole kit bag of good "scripture" to quote, no one actually takes you seriously, and the BN commander you are supposed to advise will probably never consult you in times of moral dilemma...because you're a Jedi...
mwnciboo wrote:I am so fed of having science bashed by religious nutters, maybe I should descend to their level and have a bumper stick that says "God is a @@@@"
I do deliberately antagonize them, I had an argument with an RN Chaplain once, where he said you shouldn't use Wikipedia because it's not properly referenced.
My response was, neither is the bible.
Actually he's right and you have issues.
Sort of, Wikipedia is just like any source in that you shouldn't trust it. The real controversy that surrounds it is mostly about academics getting antsy over the ivory tower getting that much shorter.
mwnciboo wrote:I am so fed of having science bashed by religious nutters, maybe I should descend to their level and have a bumper stick that says "God is a @@@@"
I do deliberately antagonize them, I had an argument with an RN Chaplain once, where he said you shouldn't use Wikipedia because it's not properly referenced.
My response was, neither is the bible.
Actually he's right and you have issues.
Sort of, Wikipedia is just like any source in that you shouldn't trust it. The real controversy that surrounds it is mostly about academics getting antsy over the ivory tower getting that much shorter.