Kansas approves evolution-friendly science standards.
By on Feb 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Kansas approves evolution-friendly science standards.
MSNBC is reporting that the Kansas school board, “long ridiculed for its resistance to teaching evolution,” today rebuffed social conservatives and approved “science guidelines that embrace Charles Darwin’s mainstream theories.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nice to see that Kansas is finally acknowledging reality. Perhaps the students of Kansas schools now have a chance to escape permanent damage to their critical thinking skills.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pmWelcome to the 21s century Kansas!
I’m guessing the lack of medicine, electricity and other science based technology in your 1506 ’science free’ existence last year was a real bitch for your state…
Well, at least we got the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of it.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pmFinally! The dawn of enlightenment returns from a trip into the Twilight Zone by neanderthals who would prefer the dark ages/medieval era.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pmNow can we start working on the Reps they vote in? Sheesh, there’s a lot of work to do.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pmOh jeez, we can rip Kansas a new one for doing something positive. They are really flat too.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:21 pmOH MY god! There is intelligent life in Kansas after all.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pmKansas is trying to be normal. I’m whelmed.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:24 pmI wonder how many times they will flip flop in my lifetime? Anti-evolution, pro-evolution, etc. etc. etc.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pmThis IS good news. It also proves that some people have evolved in Kansas.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:33 pmSanity has a long long long loooonnngg way to go yet: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v227726hEHmFWsm&source=embedVideo
February 13th, 2007 at 7:36 pma belated birthday present… welcome none the less…
Happy Birthday Mr. Darwin
February 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pmThey’re also going to make the switch from gas lighting to electric! Wonders never cease!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pmHappy Birthday Mr. Darwin
Comment by katy
I didn’t get him anything…. :(
February 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pmTwo points on this topic:
1) Darwin over-reaches by titling his book “Origin of Species”. His observations are clearly evidence of natural selection and diversification within families, but, after decades of tests on fruit flies, scientists have never produced a new species through simple breeding. It is these and other flaws to his theories that people, Christian and non-Christian alike object to.
2) Having attended Catholic parochial schools, and taught creationism as well as Darwinism, I was able to appreciate aspects of both without conflict, so we should be comfortable teaching both to everyone, and not favor one over the other.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:48 pm“There’s this, I think, political agenda to just ensure that evolution is the driving, underlying notion that has to be accepted in Kansas science standards in order for Kansas to keep its head up in the world, which is just bizarre,â€
–Republican board member Ken Willard
I don’t know what is more scary about this statement: If the belief that teaching sound science is part of a political “agenda”, that Mr. Willard is oblivious to the importance of a science-based curricula, or the fact that a nincompoop like him can be a member of a state’s Board of Education.
Or perhaps it’s the combination of all of the above.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pmTwo points on this topic: 1) Darwin over-reaches by titling his book “Origin of Speciesâ€. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Your old professor would tell you to sit down and be quiet son. You’re once again speaking out of your ignorance. A place where all of your childish comments seem to come from.
2) Having attended Catholic parochial schools, and taught creationism as well as Darwinism Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Not in conflict? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Except for the fact that evolutionary theory, and physical evidence proves the bible to be a silly little myth!!! Wow, and you call yourself a scientist! A BAD ONE maybe!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pmI don’t have the time to put Jason in his place. I will leave it to …. everyone else on TP.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm2) Having attended Catholic parochial schools, and taught creationism as well as Darwinism, I was able to appreciate aspects of both without conflict, so we should be comfortable teaching both to everyone, and not favor one over the other.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Well, yeah, except one is an unprovable fairy tale and the other is actually POSSIBLE!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:54 pmActually, the full title of Charles Darwin’s book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
February 13th, 2007 at 7:57 pmHis observations are clearly evidence of natural selection and diversification within families, but, after decades of tests on fruit flies, scientists have never produced a new species through simple breeding. It is these and other flaws to his theories that people, Christian and non-Christian alike object to. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Dear Jason, just because you are ignorant of a scientific fact, doesn’t make you an expert, or that ignorance an authoritative fact. We keep telling you, that you should listen to that old professor of yours when he told you to shut your mouth about topics you aren’t trained in.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
This is the kind of kid that comes from being taught that evolution is a fraud. So sad:
Kans. ed board OKs evolution-centered science
The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,†who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
The intelligent design concept holds that life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher authority.
DANIEL!’s Note: Right… it “must” have been created by a higher authority. Just like people thought the sun “must” revolve around the earth since they saw it rise from one side and set behind the other. Just like the world “must” have been flat, since they saw land far into the distance. Just like in the bible, they “must” have been able to touch heaven when building the tower of babel. “Must” doesn’t always mean “fact”. Welcome to the 21st centruy, Kansas.
This is the kind of people we’d be seeing more of, if kids were taught the ID theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4Y-1gsjv8
February 13th, 2007 at 8:01 pm#20, VVGFU,
Um, if cross-breeding different species creates a third non-viable species, then you haven’t succeeded in supporting Darwin’s thesis that new viable species spontaneously arise from existng species. I thought you understood that ….
Moreover, if that is the only thing you were able to Google, then you have no evidence – whereas creationism has all of creation as evidence.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pmJason,
I seem to recall a post of yours about people who, after receiving a degree, feel they are experts at everything.
About your statement that speciation has never been observed, check this link: Observed Instances of Speciation. Or this one: Some More Observed Speciation Events.
Someone else alreayd took care of your asinine claim about the Drosophilla.
we should be comfortable teaching both to everyone, and not favor one over the other.
For someone who claims to have an advanced degree, you are particularly thick-skulled.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism or ID is not.
You can teach the former in a science class, you should teach the other in a theology course.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pmWow, my copy and paste did NOT do what I wanted it too. I am VERY sorry about that. It’s all over the place! Sorry, sorry.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:05 pmThis is the only theory of evolution supported by Southern Republicans.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:06 pmGregor,
Again, I see no harm in providing context to Darwin’s theory, including creationism and intelligent design. I would seem incomplete not to provide context and contrast …
February 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm“Darwin’s thesis that new viable species spontaneously arise from existng species.”
Darwin never said that evolution was spontanious. Just the opposite, he says life evolves over billions of years!
February 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pmGregor, Again, I see no harm in providing context to Darwin’s theory, including creationism and intelligent design. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
You have no skill in doing so either.
I would seem incomplete not to provide context and contrast …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
The word you were looking for was incompetent not incomplete. Because your expertise is incomplete, making you incompetent.
Now that I’ve thoroughly debunked your myth about no new species of fruit-fly. How else are you planning to embarrass yourself today little child?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm26 -
There is no harm in presenting both sides so long as you tell people that creationism has absolutely no evidence, while evolution has loads of it.
Also mention that the all scientists support evolution, and a majority religious leaders support creationism.
…then there is no harm. Because otherwise you’d be lying – and that does do harm.
Look at the harm it did to you! You can’t seem to tell what is right and wrong! That’s really bad.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pmApparently Jason has no concept of geological or anthropological timeframes.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:12 pmUm, if cross-breeding different species creates a third non-viable species, then you haven’t succeeded in supporting Darwin’s thesis that new viable species spontaneously arise from existng species. I thought you understood that …. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Stanford must not have grades, because anyone without reading comprehension like yourself couldn’t possibly graduate from college.
The cross breeding produced a new viable species. When that separate species was bred back, it produced hybrids that were sterile. This is common in speciation – think Horse+Donkey=Mule that is sterile.
Moreover, if that is the only thing you were able to Google, then you have no evidence – whereas creationism has all of creation as evidence. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Why didn’t you google, before you made such a blatantly false statement? Were you intentionally lying, or did you just refuse to go check for yourself if you believe this is something that exists in the ‘google-world’?
You said there were no cases, I proved you wrong. Therefore your expertise is shown to be as high on this topic as every other you blather on about. For someone with an ivy-league (cough) education, you’re not very bright are you?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:14 pm#27, Anonymous,
Wow, diversification within a family can be fast or slow, but speciation could only be spontaneous, because, at some point, the genetic code must change enough to become a new species, and such a change is only instanteous / spontaneous. One moment, it is one species, another moment, it is another.
Evolution is the accumulation of countless speciations and family diversifications to create all the varied lifeforms we see today.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:15 pmWow, diversification within a family can be fast or slow, but speciation could only be spontaneous, because, at some point, the genetic code must change enough to become a new species, and such a change is only instanteous / spontaneous. One moment, it is one species, another moment, it is another. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
As I already stated, there are over a half dozen documented cases of speciation events in lab fruit fly work. Speciation occurs as a combination of breeding and mutation – something covered by Darwin. Over time, mutations naturally occur, even in a lab. From those mutations, speciation can be controlled and manipulated by breeding.
Evolution is the accumulation of countless speciations and family diversifications to create all the varied lifeforms we see today.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
A speciation is just an accumulation of diversifications. They occur naturally as a species adapts to its environments.
When did you say you learned evolution, grade school?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pm#31, VVGFU,
Ah, you are right, I misread that article.
For an observation to be confirmed, was this experiment replicated by an independent observer? or was this a one time occurrance that no one could replicate?
Seems this observation, if it was truly verified, could be replicated, and then there would be no argument.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI see no harm in providing context to Darwin’s theory, including creationism and intelligent design.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
It is a disservice to both religion and science to “contrast” a theological argument with a scientific one. Both science and religion lose in the process, because you cannot use science to “prove” the existence of your god -or any god for, that matter. You would have to “tweak” science in order to do that, bastardising it in the process.
If you are going to contrast ID to anything at all, it would be more fitting to compare it other religious versions of creation, while the Theory of Evolution should be contrasted with other scientific theories -if there are any.
Really Jason. Religion is about faith, about believing in spite of the lack of evidence, and sometimes in spite of it.
If you need proof then you have no faith. And if you have faith then you need no proof. Stop waddling beteen the two.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:24 pm#31, VVGFU, Ah, you are right, I misread that article. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Of course you misread it, because you aren’t competent without someone sitting over your shoulder.
For an observation to be confirmed, was this experiment replicated by an independent observer? or was this a one time occurrance that no one could replicate? Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
You really don’t know anything about evolution do you? Species evolve because of random mutations. Do you expect the species to randomly mutate on demand?
Seems this observation, if it was truly verified, could be replicated, and then there would be no argument. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Seems if you knew anything about evolution, you wouldn’t have made this comment. The only thing that needs to be replicated, is whether or not the species are in fact new. Over a half dozen instances of new fruit fly species evolving in labs has been documented. This occurs because differentiation happens naturally, and speciation occurs do to pressures in selection, natural or man made.
For instance, the species I sent the info on, came about because of a single female that mutated sufficiently to differentiate into a separate species. All instances of this species can trace itself to this eve. This is the nature of speciation.
You are one of the most arrogant people posting on this blog, considering how consistently ignorant you are on every topic there – heat island hendler.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pmIf you are going to contrast ID to anything at all, it would be more fitting to compare it other religious versions of creation, while the Theory of Evolution should be contrasted with other scientific theories -if there are any. Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 13, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
The Indian subcontinent religions describe the big bang, parallel universes, the unreal nature of time and string theory as the basis of their creation myths. That really makes the Judaic traditions look like a bunch of ignorant sheep herders in comparison doesn’t it?
If any religions lose the creation myth wars, Judeo/Christian myths are some of the biggest losers.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:29 pm#35, Gregor,
Wrong, in many of my math and science classes, the history of the development of the theories were always helpful in fully absorbing the theories – geocentric vs. heliocentric, emergence of calculus referring to earlier Greek mathematics that came close ….
You can’t fear information, regardless of their roots …
February 13th, 2007 at 8:29 pm#36, VVGFU,
Certainly mutations are random, but speciation, if observed once, should be observable again, even if it takes longer and is realized in a different mutation.
Are these speciations reproducible? Science shouldn’t accept them if they aren’t.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pmDo you expect the species to randomly mutate on demand?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 13, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
LOL
Good one….
February 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pmthe history of the development of the theories were always helpful in fully absorbing the theories
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
The history is relevant, not the comparison to non-scientific theories.
You are moving the goal posts.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:37 pmCertainly mutations are random, but speciation, if observed once, should be observable again, even if it takes longer and is realized in a different mutation. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
I’ll be sure to share with the experts on evolution, your opinion. I’m sure they’ll give it the weight it deserves.
Are these speciations reproducible? Science shouldn’t accept them if they aren’t. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Now that’s FUNNY!! Hendler wants a random mutation to be reproduced on demand!!!!
You should have listened to your old professor skippy. His comments were obviously aimed at you!
February 13th, 2007 at 8:38 pm#42, VVGFU,
Ah, now I get it …
Those “occurances” of speciations weren’t the goal of the observations, just an accident in an environment in which the proper conditions to confirm such an “occurance” were not in place. When others tried to replicate such “occurances” and failed, they said, “Hey, it was a fluke, can’t replicate a fluke.” – there ending the science.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pmGregor,
Not moving the goal posts. Teach all theories, allow students to determine for themselves which are true.
I was taught both geo-centric and helio-centric theories, and based on the evidence and arguments provided, saw that the helio-centric solar system was more valid, even though there were many adaptations to the geo-centric theory to make observations match rather closely. Even after acceptance of the helio-centric theory, it wasn’t until relativity theory was offered were ALL observations of the planets apparent positions explained.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pmWhen others tried to replicate such “occurances†and failed, they said, “Hey, it was a fluke, can’t replicate a fluke.†– there ending the science.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Did you follow the links I provided to the observed instances of speciation?
You wouldn’t be arguing this point if you had.
Really, you might as well be arguing that the Universe is geocentric.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:52 pmTeach all theories, allow students to determine for themselves which are true.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Those with no background cannot decide for themselves which one is true or accurate and which one isn’t, your story about your own education notwithstanding.
ID is not a scientific theory, end of story.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pmJason M. Hendler sez:
Jason here’s a simple (in deference to you) experiment you can perform yourself to illustrate the idiocy of your statement:
Get yourself an ordinary deck of playing cards. Shuffle them well, then record the order of the cards.
Then shuffle them again…and again…and again…until you hit on the same random arrangement of cards you originally recorded. Let us know how many shuffles it took.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pmBeing a Kansan by birth, I can attest that there are a lot of
mutants there. I left at 18 and would never live there again.
Did you know that at one time Kansas stopped drinking on trains while crossing the state and airliners in state airspace?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:19 pmAh, now I get it …
Those “occurances†of speciations weren’t the goal of the observations, just an accident in an environment in which the proper conditions to confirm such an “occurance†were not in place. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Both mutation and Speciation is a random event. Both are proven to exist – as I demonstrated. You don’t form a new species on demand, you observe it’s creation out of random events. That observation did occur, and it was reproduced in the sense that other scientists could confirm there was a new species.
This is the heart and the core of Evolution – a fact that a child can grasp, but that seems completely out of the reach of an ‘ivy-league’ graduate. You’re a waste of an education.
When others tried to replicate such “occurances†and failed, they said, “Hey, it was a fluke, can’t replicate a fluke.†– there ending the science. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
A random event is always a fluke – that’s why evolution is on a million year scale. The fact that we’ve observed both differentiation and speciation in a short window of time is a remarkable achievement that you aren’t capable of understanding.
Breeding only breeds the characteristics that are already in the genome. You like many of those with the mind of a child think you can breed a new species, without recognizing the role of mutations within that process. It’s just your ignorance – no more.
So let me help you out again skippy.
A random event can’t be repeated, it can only be observed and if you’re lucky confirmed. In the case of several species, speciation has occurred. Sometimes that speciation occurred within the context of a lab experiment, sometimes naturally.
The correct sequences of differentiation occurs, you get speciation. You can’t just ‘breed’ for speciation – it’s as much of an oxymoron, as a conservative intellectual.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmLately, I’ve never seen an ape produce a human nor an ape progress into a human. Something must have been mentally wrong with Charles Darwin. I’ve questioned my high school teachers, even a professor, about the Evolution Theory. I want some type of substance that proves that this occured.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmBeing a Kansan by birth, I can attest that there are a lot of
mutants there. I left at 18 and would never live there again.
Did you know that at one time Kansas stopped drinking on trains while crossing the state and airliners in state airspace?
Comment by EL CHUPACABRA — February 13, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
It’s one of the few states destined for blessings. Regardless of society’s views, they continue to follow biblical standards.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pmLately, I’ve never seen an ape produce a human nor an ape progress into a human. Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
That’s Ironic, because humans are apes.
If you mean you haven’t seen ape species evolve, that’s because it takes millions of years
Something must have been mentally wrong with Charles Darwin. Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Unintentional irony. You conservatives describe yourselves so well, when you insult others.
I’ve questioned my high school teachers, even a professor, about the Evolution Theory. I want some type of substance that proves that this occured. Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
DNA maybe? That’s a substance, and it shows the genetic paths of evolution and divergence. That’s why we share 99% of our DNA with Chimps for instance.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pmIt’s one of the few states destined for blessings. Regardless of society’s views, they continue to follow biblical standards. Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
As opposed to the ’state of denial’ that you live in? No blessings there!
Did you hear, there’s a gay alumni chapter of Oral Roberts U., you really should join to work out some of your self loathing hostilities.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmThe notion that science and religion are incompatible is rediculous and shallow. Progression means to move forward. Repubs would like to believe that being a progressive is a bad thing. How sad for them to be so… close-minded and immobile.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pmDaryll sez:
Don’t be an idiot. John 2:1-11
February 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pmI’ve lived in Kansas all my life. Contrary to what many seem to believe, not all people in this state are dumb backwards bible thumping hillbillies. Granted, we have our share.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pmBut, there are plenty of us who are right up in the 21st century with the rest of ya. Me being one. :)
I completely support evolution being taught in schools, I completely support intelligent design (creationism) NOT being taught in schools.
For one thing, evolution is science, there are loads of evidence pointing to its truth, and so it belongs in a science class. There is no evidence of intelligent design, so why would you put an idea that has no backing evidence in a science class?? Thats not science at all.
Secondly, isn’t there an amendment about seperation of church and state?? Now, I know that its been run through the mud and dragged through the sh*t for the past 7 yrs, but I’m pretty sure that amendment still exists…and on that alone the religious idea (which it is, its creationism dressed up as science) of intelligent design should not be taught in public schools.
I homeschool my kids BECAUSE I don’t think that there is enough seperation of church and state in the schools. I’m an atheist, I don’t want ANY religion in my children’s education. Well, I also homeschool because I believe I can give my kids a better education than the government…but thats another issue.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that there are liberal, progressive, rational, scientific people in Kansas. Surprise surprise.
#42, VVGFU, Ah, now I get it … Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Doubtful, you seem to not be very scientifically inclined. You should have picked a different career more suited to your skills, assuming you have any other than hating minorities and intellectuals.
Those “occurances†of speciations weren’t the goal of the observations, just an accident in an environment in which the proper conditions to confirm such an “occurance†were not in place. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Species is a random event. Only people ignorant of the theory, or its principles make the argument of ‘breeding for speciation’. Now that we all know you’re ignorant of the scientific method and evolution, let me explain both to you.
1) The theory says that mutations randomly happen, and that over time and typically in an isolated population a new species occurs that is differentiated from the original species.
2) Random means just that – random. Your comment of repeatability is pure unadulterated ignorance.
3) The random mutation was observed, in separate and multiple random events that prove this theory to be true. New species that were genetically differentiated enough to not breed correctly have been identified in multiple plant and animal species.
When others tried to replicate such “occurances†and failed, they said, “Hey, it was a fluke, can’t replicate a fluke.†– there ending the science. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
May I suggest a spell checker. Reading your bad spelling hurts my eyes.
Now as for your childish claim, it just demonstrates your ignorance of what the observation was. The concept of Darwinism is that differentiation occurs – check, and that on occasion that differentiation becomes so significant speciation occurs – check. Others have observed and succeeded in cataloging speciation in isolated lab models and the real world.
Therefore speciation is proven.
Your delusional belief that speciation occurs through selective breeding is just a childish misunderstanding of the theory in specific, and science in general. You have a scientific education? Stunningly implausible.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pmafter decades of tests on fruit flies, scientists have never produced a new species through simple breeding.
Your shallowness is quit measureable by this nonsense. Darwins claims of adaptive mutation (if you knew ANY of Darwin’s work, you would have know the name of this!) is applicable only over THOUSANDS of years of breeding, YOU FOOL!
so we should be comfortable teaching both to everyone, and not favor one over the other.
Agreed, and anyone with 0.1 ounce of sense can appreciate the fallacy of creationisms “miracles”, and understand and accept the diversity of species.
I’m really feeling dumber by wasting time responding to your ignorant bliss.
Enjoy it, cause it’s all you’ve got.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:42 pm2) Having attended Catholic parochial schools, and taught creationism as well as Darwinism, I was able to appreciate aspects of both without conflict, so we should be comfortable teaching both to everyone, and not favor one over the other.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
You act as if there are only two options. There are not.
Creationism (ID) and Evolution are opposites – therefore, if you have no conflict over them, it is because you don’t understand one or both of them.
ID supposes a perfect god made a perfect universe. Evolution shows how imperfect we actually are. Care to tell us what exactly you use your appendix for? Or your pseudogenes? Or your nipples?
ID is not in any shape of form Science – therefore it has no place in the Science classroom.
And you just prove how inferior private religious schooling is…
February 13th, 2007 at 10:42 pmSeems this observation, if it was truly verified, could be replicated, and then there would be no argument.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
You can’t be serious…
The results will not yield identical results everytime because the initial flies used are not identical to the subsequent flies used. Environmental factors changed.
You can get similar results however… To a crude degree, it’s why some siblings coming from the same two parents are sometimes different and other times alike….
February 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pmAnd you just prove how inferior private religious schooling is…
Comment by unbelievable
I resemble that remark, but my schooling wasn’t Catholic, but still private religious, so please focus the attack on Christian private schools, cause they are scary.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pmIf you need proof then you have no faith. And if you have faith then you need no proof. Stop waddling beteen the two.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 13, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
That’s part of my argument for their incompatability : )
February 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pmYou have a scientific education? Stunningly implausible.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
More like, substantially impossible.
I’ve got my Bachelor of Science degree, but I think JMH ended up with a Bull Sh*t degree from Cracker Jack U.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pmThen shuffle them again…and again…and again…until you hit on the same random arrangement of cards you originally recorded. Let us know how many shuffles it took.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — February 13, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
LOL… If nothing else, it’ll keep him too busy to post.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler
There’s more to learn in an empty ziploc bag than in his posts.
No, SERIOUSLY.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:54 pm#48, Trip,
I clearly stated that these observations should be reproducible, not in the same way, nor in the same amount of time, but a speciation should be easily reproducible.
If you take a sorted deck and shuffle it, you should find a near random distribution of the cards. If you take a second sorted deck and shuffle it, you should again find a near random distribution of cards. The order of the cards in the two decks will be different, but they both will be shuffled. That is all I ask these scientists to do. Simply create a controlled setting in which speciation is the only goal, and do it. It doesn’t matter how the speciation is achieved, it merely needs speciation.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:02 pmLately, I’ve never seen an ape produce a human nor an ape progress into a human.
Lately? You mean you have prior?
This is a strawman. Evolution never suggests any such thing.
Something must have been mentally wrong with Charles Darwin.
When you say this we know you mean ’smart’.
I’ve questioned my high school teachers, even a professor, about the Evolution Theory. I want some type of substance that proves that this occured.
Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
You are in luck. I have the answer.
Are you ready?
Here’s your proof:
Daryll, you personally evolved from a single cell (your mother’s egg) into a full grown adult in just 18 short years and 9 months.
And in the process, you passed through the same evolutionary phases as our ancestors did…
Cool huh? Definitely way cooler than just “Poof! You exist.”
February 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pmYou have a scientific education? Stunningly implausible.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 13, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
He does. Science Fiction.
You cleaned the floor with him on that one!
He’ll be back tomorrow or the next day to regurgitate whatever pseudo-science he can find on the matter… LOL
February 13th, 2007 at 11:06 pmI resemble that remark, but my schooling wasn’t Catholic, but still private religious, so please focus the attack on Christian private schools, cause they are scary.
Comment by wake-n-bake — February 13, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Seriously – don’t take my comments to Jason personally.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm#66, unbee,
Great ploy, post under two names so that you can compliment yourself – pathetic …
February 13th, 2007 at 11:10 pmIf you take a sorted deck and shuffle it, you should find a near random distribution of the cards. If you take a second sorted deck and shuffle it, you should again find a near random distribution of cards.
Wrong. Clearly you’ve never studied statics.
Each time you shuffle the deck – you start over with the exact same percentages you do every time of drawing any card.
In this case, you have a possibility of 52 different cards, so the equation for drawing a specific order of cards would always be:
52*51*50*49*48*47*46*45… all the way down to 1.
Basically the same applies to the possibility of genes.
The order of the cards in the two decks will be different, but they both will be shuffled. That is all I ask these scientists to do. Simply create a controlled setting in which speciation is the only goal, and do it. It doesn’t matter how the speciation is achieved, it merely needs speciation.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
They already have. The fact that you refuse to open your eyes to actually look at it doesn’t change the fact that it exists.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:14 pmGreat ploy, post under two names so that you can compliment yourself – pathetic …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
If you’re taking the word of the resident insane troll – it REALLY explains a lot about your mental state.
I’m only me. Live with it.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmstatics should have been statistics…
It’s way past bedtime…
February 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#69, unbee,
Wrong.
First of all, you didn’t really take time to understand what I wrote. Shuffling isn’t a perfectly randomizing operation – casinos have strict rules as to the number of times and ways a single deck is shuffled between hands in a poker game, because it creates an agreed upon type of distribution. Some players even complain when a deck is over-shuffled, perturbing the flow of play.
Second, my example was to only show that the decks were shuffled with the goal of achieving some amount of randomization. To prove Darwin’s theory, I only ask for speciation to occur, not a specific result of speciation, much like expect the two decks to be shuffled, but not identical outcomes.
Take a breath and think …
February 13th, 2007 at 11:21 pm#71, unbee,
I am highly adept at discreet function statistics, such as coin flipping or card playing, and can produce equations for the games that I play. The first step to producing the right equation is understanding the correct conditions, operations and intended / unintended outcomes.
Now continuous function statistics was always more difficult for me, but doable none the less.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pmWrong.
Nope.
First of all, you didn’t really take time to understand what I wrote.
I understand exactly what you wrote – I just reject it.
Shuffling isn’t a perfectly randomizing operation – casinos have strict rules as to the number of times and ways a single deck is shuffled between hands in a poker game, because it creates an agreed upon type of distribution. Some players even complain when a deck is over-shuffled, perturbing the flow of play.
Jason – since you know MORE than the college professor with his PhD in Math who taught me Statistics in a REAL Engineering University – you should immediately call MIT and tell them my professor was miseducated at their institution…
Second, my example was to only show that the decks were shuffled with the goal of achieving some amount of randomization. To prove Darwin’s theory, I only ask for speciation to occur, not a specific result of speciation, much like expect the two decks to be shuffled, but not identical outcomes.
Again – it’s been repeatedlypointed out to you that this HAS occured. And repeatedly, you keep ignoring it. Why is that?
Take a breath and think …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Unlike you, I can do both simultaneously…
Though, I’m not convinced yet you do the latter at all… ever…
February 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pmOnce again, I am able to refute your statements, but TP has deleted my answers. It seems that TP only wants to record your side of the argument, so there is no point in trying anymore.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pmI am highly adept at discreet function statistics, such as coin flipping or card playing,
Apparently not.
Now continuous function statistics was always more difficult for me, but doable none the less.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Again, apparently not…
Later Jason… As much as I just love debunking you, I really need to go to sleep.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pm#48, Trip, I clearly stated that these observations should be reproducible, not in the same way, nor in the same amount of time, but a speciation should be easily reproducible. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
When you create your own theory, then you can decide a premise like this. A random event doesn’t require frequent reproducibility if that isn’t what the theory says.
This is just a ridiculous claim on your part to avoid reality. The theory of evolution simply states that speciation occurs, not that they should occur frequently enough to satisfy the he-man woman hater known as Hendler.
If you take a sorted deck and shuffle it, you should find a near random distribution of the cards. If you take a second sorted deck and shuffle it, you should again find a near random distribution of cards. The order of the cards in the two decks will be different, but they both will be shuffled. That is all I ask these scientists to do. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
BAHAHA, those are completely unrelated. The random event of mutation is random. The Genome is huge. A mutation significant enough to produce speciation in a specific species is enormous. Just because you believe this is how speciation should work, doesn’t mean it’s even related to evolution.
Your whole statement above is just the ramblings of the brain of a child that shows complete ignorance of evolution.
Simply create a controlled setting in which speciation is the only goal, and do it. It doesn’t matter how the speciation is achieved, it merely needs speciation. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
This posting is based on a fundamental set of flaws and ignorances. I corrected you before, you obviously have the intellect of a child, so I’ll reiterate.
1) The speciation is based on a random event. How can you have the goal to create a random event.
2) The speciation only needs to be observed having happened naturally to qualify for the theory of evolution – check.
3) Breeding doesn’t produce speciation if no random mutation events.
4) You can non-randomly speciate through genome manipulation, or allow nature to do it – those are your options.
But no matter how you slice it. Speciation has been observed – the debate is over. Evolution is a proven fact, whereas your 8000 year old earth is a disproven superstitious myth – just like your claim to have an Ivy League education.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pmOnce again, I am able to refute your statements, but TP has deleted my answers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
When you resort to vulgar name calling, you get monitored and deleted whenever you sound remotely offensive. Keep it up and you’ll get banned permanently.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pm#71, unbee, I am highly adept at discreet function statistics, such as coin flipping or card playing, and can produce equations for the games that I play. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
That’s nice, but in the world of genome plays, you can’t readily predict whether a mutation will occur or not. You don’t even have enough information to know when the coin is flipped, therefore you can’t create a formula for when something comes next.
For someone that claims to understand games, this basic premise disproves the theory of an intellect within Hendler.
The first step to producing the right equation is understanding the correct conditions, operations and intended / unintended outcomes. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
When you come up with an equation to predict when cosmic energy will produce a cellular mutation – then that will be interesting. Until them all of your posts on this topic are just blah, blah, blah – nothing.
Now continuous function statistics was always more difficult for me, but doable none the less. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
So’s adding 2+2 apparently.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pmOnce again, I am able to refute your statements, but TP has deleted my answers. It seems that TP only wants to record your side of the argument, so there is no point in trying anymore.Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
You aren’t arguing, you’re just posting nonsense opinions on what the theory of evolution ’should-be’.
Differentiation is proven.
Speciation is proven.
Sorry, but the debate is over skippy, and Genesis lost the debate.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pmLately, I’ve never seen an ape produce a human nor an ape progress into a human.
Comment by Daryll — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Strawman borne out of the ignorance of what is known about human evolution.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Something must have been mentally wrong with Charles Darwin.
Coming from you, this is actually a compliment.
We have all seen what passes for “mental sanity” in your deluded mind.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:16 amspeciation could only be spontaneous, because, at some point, the genetic code must change enough to become a new species, and such a change is only instanteous / spontaneous.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Er, no.
I had to go back to this one comment because it was nagging me. You don’t know what a species is, nor what speciation means.
Please read about speciation, what it is, and the processes that lead to it.
In a nutshell, it is caused by genetic drift, which can take many, many generations. It doesn’t happen instantaneously, don’t be ridiculous.
Evolution is the accumulation of countless speciations and family diversifications to create all the varied lifeforms we see today.
Evolution is not synonimous with speciation. Speciation is a very particular instance in the evolutionary process.
In a nutshell, all the changes that occur within a population of any given species over time is evolution -aka, descent with modification. With enough time, these changes will eventually lead to speciation.
Check this site to get the basics on evolution.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:30 amIt’s one of the few states destined for blessings. Regardless of society’s views, they continue to follow biblical standards.
Comment by Daryll
Where in the Bible does it say “Thou shalt not consume alcohol?” Let us know, cause Jesus must have missed it too.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:15 amTo the Jason M. Hendlers of the world: Not every issue has two sides. Really!
February 14th, 2007 at 9:02 amI can’t understand how an otherwise smart people like the americans could fall so easily to this mindtrap. Boggles my mind… And he talks about being taught creationism… which one? This is the only example I can think of of an issue that has at least a thousand sides: Creationism with all the different myths all over the world.
#22 – “whereas creationism has all of creation as evidence.” Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 13, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Well, if it were able to be replicated, then it would be proven to be true. All we need it for God to re-create all of creation and then we would know that it was true.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amMaybe Bobby Henderson had some sway in this issue. His letter to the Kansas school board was quite adamant about the role of ID in the school system. High piracy on the A B C’s…
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
February 14th, 2007 at 11:07 amArgueing with Jason Hendler is pointless, I see. He’s like a stubborn donkey that clings to his position regardless of facts presented to him, is never satisfied with any answer he’s given, refuses to accept that he’s wrong, can’t believe anyone else is right, and is guilty of the same deadly sin that sent Lucifer to Hell…Pride. Folks, stop argueing with him. Same with Mighty Aphrodite, Daryll, and the rest of them. Ignore them, show them that they’re not welcome here. Honest to goodness Conservatives who wish to debate our positions and offer alternatives, who acknowledge when we have a point and who are willing to debate honestly and with any chance of coming to a consensus or even an agreement to disagree should be welcomed. Moralist ‘Abortion is Wrong’, ‘Evolution is a lie’, ‘America, love her or leave her’ and so on so-called ‘debaters’ should just be ignored.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pmYay. They vote for it. AGAIN. After voting against it, again.
Oh and by the way, I really want to punch as hard as I can the next person that says: “The kids should use their own judgment and choose what’s right.”
THAT’S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. ok?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#89 I found that out a long time ago. Did you know that he hates women?
February 14th, 2007 at 8:40 pmI believe that life has resulted from design rather than by chance. While I am far from suggesting that a day or two was necessarily enough time to make the Grand Canyon, it must be noticed that hundreds of millions of years weren’t enough time for random processes to devise the first cell.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWell Shannon, how do you explain how that designer came to be then? Surely it couldn’t have come about due to chance therefore it must have been designed. So who made the gods?
BTW Natural Selection doesn’t have sh!t to do with randomness.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm“Side Show” … The Kansas Comedy Continues – (Unabated…)
God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith … and there is a tea pot in orbit around Mars.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pmSo who made the gods?
Other gods, according to Creationism. And they had to have gods who created them, and soon and on and on… Until it demonstrates that Creation is not logical…
BTW Natural Selection doesn’t have sh!t to do with randomness.
Comment by Jason M. Sheeplovin — February 15, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Of course it does.
The fact that you say it doesn’t shows you, once again, don’t know what you’re talking about.
Otherwise – if you were correct, weather people would be accurate a hell of a lot more often.
If you’d just READ the actual words of the actual Scientists themselves rather than someone else’s misguided interpretation of them, you’d understand why you can not win an argument here.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:33 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm