"Science" textbook for fundamentalist homeschoolers

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually, anyone who would say that there is "no debate" when it comes to science, obviously doesn't believe in science. Anyone who says there is consensus in science, doesn't believe in science.


But, let's have some fun. Since you say there is no debate that man in his present form is 100% a product of evolution, then you and science can answer a few questions for me.

1) How did the human eye evolve?
2) What came first the ability to see or the ability to hear?
3) When did man develop the ability to convert ATP to ADP?

Thanks in advance for your contribution to the advancement of science.

Dude......you're like about 7 years to late....we've been over this before.....and before....and before.....please don't make me go through this again. I get tired of beating my head against the wall with lay people who write this kind of nonsense about evolution. But if you want answers to your questions.

#1. Very slowly over a very long period of time.
#2. Irrelevent. What does that have to do with biological evolution?
#3. Again, irrelevent. What does that have to do with biological evolution?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hasn't anybody ever told you about quantum mechanics? How the fuck do you think it is possible to build CPUs which have transistor count of billions without understanding how electricity works??

Seems like you need to go back to 1st grade and learn the difference between "how" and "why" because you obviously can't tell the difference.

 

[leaningright]

I didn't cite a beef. I just disagreed wtih you about the peformance of faith based schools in teaching math and science. The data I've seen would indicate that you are wrong. The data I've seen indicates that private Catholic high schools teach math and science about as well as public schools do and that evengelical and conservative christian privates schools perform significantly lower than public schools and Catholic schools in math and science.

I really am interested in this thread as a bystander and have enjoyed reading a lot of the responses. I appreciate the serious posters and the debate thus far. I really have no stake in this other than as a public school teacher. I am pro voucher but am not a big charter school fan. If I lived in a metropolitan area my kid would go to private school or be home schooled. I would not teach in an urban public school either.

But to my point. After reading the debate here on public verses private on scores and such I have read for the past bit several articles, research papers and such on the topic. It appears to me it depends on the source one chooses as to the what results of the 'research' is. If it is a public education source, then public schools do slightly better, private school source, then private schools do better. If it is a reasonably neutral source then it seems that they do about the same with the slight advantage going to private schools on test scores only. Success in and after college are about the same. I'll go with the latter. I really believe both public schools and private schools produce about the same results....and that stems from several years of looking at it from a public school teacher's point of view. Oh, in the 'neutral' studies I refer to, the only schools that were at a significant advantage academically were some few Catholic schools that were overseen by something called a holy order, not to be confused with the normal ones run by the local diocese.

Other than these special Catholic schools from what I can read yoiu are always going to find that some schools are better than others in both the public and private sector. That is the way it always will be I think.

Tis response is just some general information and not necessarily in direct response to Mott but rather to the point of his and Dixie's overall discussion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

#1. Very slowly over a very long period of time.

You say this, but it defies our understanding of logic. A human eye has design elements that disable it from functioning without each other. It is impossible to reduce complexity of the human eye, because of the design elements which have to function in unison together. Any reduction in complexity, renders a useless organ, which would have had no reason to exist. Because you have found undersea life that exhibits some evolutionary characteristic over long periods of time, doesn't mean you have explained how the human eye can evolve, because the fundamental elements are completely different.

 

[Rationalist]

You say this, but it defies our understanding of logic. A human eye has design elements that disable it from functioning without each other. It is impossible to reduce complexity of the human eye, because of the design elements which have to function in unison together. Any reduction in complexity, renders a useless organ, which would have had no reason to exist. Because you have found undersea life that exhibits some evolutionary characteristic over long periods of time, doesn't mean you have explained how the human eye can evolve, because the fundamental elements are completely different.

You're talking about "irreducible complexity" and it has already been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

For example, it has been demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum can function as either as a secretion system (essentially a syringe) or a simpler flagellum.

The problem with ideas such as IC is that they dismiss the possibility of future discoveries. As it so happens, several discoveries have been made that refute IC. Sorry to burst your bubble. I suggest you educate yourself, because you clearly know very little about evolution, geology, and a number of other fields.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well actually we do have a pretty good idea of why electrons do what they do. We just don't have a good understanding of what they are and where they come from and what "electricity" is. Yea I'll stand by the statement that was shown as being factually correct given that it was shown with pretty much no context.

Exactly, and the point that it's a single page from a book, and it is being presented in a Christian witch-hunt, has to also be considered.

It's important to note what we have here, is not Christians being intolerant and hateful or trying to impose their beliefs on you, but the exact opposite. Anti-Christian antagonists taking a hateful swipe at those who believe differently than they do. Who ARE the intolerant bigots here?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're talking about "irreducible complexity" and it has already been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

For example, it has been demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum either as a secretion system (essentially a syringe) or a simpler flagellum.

The problem with ideas such as IC is that they dismiss the possibility of future discoveries. As it so happens, several discoveries have been made that refute IC. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm well aware of what I am talking about, and it most certainly hasn't been refuted.

TALKORIGINS.ORG hmmmmm.... Sounds like a fair and honest evaluation source to me! *gulp*gulp*gulp

The argument can't be refuted, because there is no answer to this. Science can't determine what happened or why, and you speculate that the eye must have 'evolved' as you've theorized, but it doesn't make sense when we look at how the eye works, it can't have 'evolved' this way. It's as if you are attempting to argue the Pyramids were carved out of a huge stone in the desert. As much as that might explain the rather LARGE slabs moved into precise positions, it's impossible they were constructed this way because of other things we can also observe. The human eye is an amazing organ, you should study up on it. You can't tell us how the eye could have 'evolved' because there is no use for the optic nerve without the other parts of the eye, it wouldn't function. The thing that transmits to the optic nerve, the cornea, can't work and has no purpose without the retina, lens, iris, and other parts. Evolution can not predict what will be needed and make it available, so an optic nerve would have no need to produce a cornea, which has no use unless there are other unforeseen parts to go with it.

It is INDEED a very compelling argument, and one that science can't explain... but again, you want to proclaim science has been definitive! (see sig)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I really am interested in this thread as a bystander and have enjoyed reading a lot of the responses. I appreciate the serious posters and the debate thus far. I really have no stake in this other than as a public school teacher. I am pro voucher but am not a big charter school fan. If I lived in a metropolitan area my kid would go to private school or be home schooled. I would not teach in an urban public school either.

But to my point. After reading the debate here on public verses private on scores and such I have read for the past bit several articles, research papers and such on the topic. It appears to me it depends on the source one chooses as to the what results of the 'research' is. If it is a public education source, then public schools do slightly better, private school source, then private schools do better. If it is a reasonably neutral source then it seems that they do about the same with the slight advantage going to private schools on test scores only. Success in and after college are about the same. I'll go with the latter. I really believe both public schools and private schools produce about the same results....and that stems from several years of looking at it from a public school teacher's point of view. Oh, in the 'neutral' studies I refer to, the only schools that were at a significant advantage academically were some few Catholic schools that were overseen by something called a holy order, not to be confused with the normal ones run by the local diocese.

Other than these special Catholic schools from what I can read yoiu are always going to find that some schools are better than others in both the public and private sector. That is the way it always will be I think.

Tis response is just some general information and not necessarily in direct response to Mott but rather to the point of his and Dixie's overall discussion.

Well you have a particular prejudice in your mind of an urban school being smack dab in the middle of the ghetto with an apathetic student body and even more apathetic parents who are on the low end of the socio-economic scale. That's a pretty commen misconception many of my urbanely challenged friends back in Coldwater have. The fact is, most of the schools in the metropolitan area I live in are substantially superior to their rural and small town counterparts. My urban friends tend to think of rural schools as mysanthropic backwaters that are good for teaching voag, shop, basketball and not much else. They're equally as wrong.

I attended both urban and rural/small town schools and to be quite frank with you I recieved the better education at the urban school. The urban school had far more resrouces, both human and material, which provided for far more educational opportunities that the rural/small town schools I attended. The urban schools also had better educators and better educated educators across the board too. I also found the curriculam was significantly more demanding and challenging and that I had to work harder to get good grades then at the rural school I attended.

In fact my experience is the exact opposite. For example, I would have no problem what so ever sending my kids to the local public school here where I live in the big city but if I was living in the small farm town I grew up in I would be very concerned about sending my kids to the local public school with it's over emphasis of athletics over academics and it's lack of highly qualified math and science educators.

 

[Rationalist]

I'm well aware of what I am talking about, and it most certainly hasn't been refuted.

TALKORIGINS.ORG hmmmmm.... Sounds like a fair and honest evaluation source to me! *gulp*gulp*gulp

The argument can't be refuted, because there is no answer to this. Science can't determine what happened or why, and you speculate that the eye must have 'evolved' as you've theorized, but it doesn't make sense when we look at how the eye works, it can't have 'evolved' this way. It's as if you are attempting to argue the Pyramids were carved out of a huge stone in the desert. As much as that might explain the rather LARGE slabs moved into precise positions, it's impossible they were constructed this way because of other things we can also observe. The human eye is an amazing organ, you should study up on it. You can't tell us how the eye could have 'evolved' because there is no use for the optic nerve without the other parts of the eye, it wouldn't function. The thing that transmits to the optic nerve, the cornea, can't work and has no purpose without the retina, lens, iris, and other parts. Evolution can not predict what will be needed and make it available, so an optic nerve would have no need to produce a cornea, which has no use unless there are other unforeseen parts to go with it.

It is INDEED a very compelling argument, and one that science can't explain... but again, you want to proclaim science has been definitive! (see sig)

Well, you obviously didn't read the article. Your bullshit arguments have been refuted, including the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

You truly are unteachable.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You say this, but it defies our understanding of logic. A human eye has design elements that disable it from functioning without each other. It is impossible to reduce complexity of the human eye, because of the design elements which have to function in unison together. Any reduction in complexity, renders a useless organ, which would have had no reason to exist. Because you have found undersea life that exhibits some evolutionary characteristic over long periods of time, doesn't mean you have explained how the human eye can evolve, because the fundamental elements are completely different.

Dixie, irreducible complexity has been falsified a long, long time ago. Give it up.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, you obviously didn't read the article. Your bullshit arguments have been refuted, including the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

You truly are unteachable.

I read that, I saw a one-sided opinion based on one tiny part of the argument, with no counter-rebuttal allowed.

Do you base your entire opinion on that? I'm sorry, I can't.

Ironically, it's just like the OP... you run with some snippet, and fail to try and understand the whole. You presume a position based on whatever you want to hear, and disbelieve everything else.... which is probably why you once believed the earth was hollow and inhabited by gnomes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, irreducible complexity has been falsified a long, long time ago. Give it up.

Uhm, no it has not been falsified. It may be your OPINION that it was, but there is nothing conclusive about this.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Exactly, and the point that it's a single page from a book, and it is being presented in a Christian witch-hunt, has to also be considered.

It's important to note what we have here, is not Christians being intolerant and hateful or trying to impose their beliefs on you, but the exact opposite. Anti-Christian antagonists taking a hateful swipe at those who believe differently than they do. Who ARE the intolerant bigots here?

No I agree with you there Dixie. I saw nothing intrinsically wrong with that statement in the OP and could not criticise their teaching of science based on one page about electricity being posted out of context. Not exactly what I would consider being fair minded.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Uhm, no it has not been falsified. It may be your OPINION that it was, but there is nothing conclusive about this.

Uhhmmm yea it has been. All you need to do is subtract one step, part, stage, whatever you want to call it from a complex biochemical reaction and have a reaction of any sort continue to operate and you falsify the concept of irreducible complexity. That's been done. It's old news.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Uhhmmm yea it has been. All you need to do is subtract one step, part, stage, whatever you want to call it from a complex biochemical reaction and have a reaction of any sort continue to operate and you falsify the concept of irreducible complexity. That's been done. It's old news.

But that does not defeat the argument concerning the human eye. You are applying something observed in biochemical reaction, to something much different, and while you falsified the theory here, doesn't mean you have completely disproved it.

I have said that the human eye is too complex to have 'evolved over time' as you claim. You should be able to explain the evolution process on this, correct? Okay... how did the optic nerve function originally, and what came next? Explain the hierarchy to me, was the cornea formed, only to find it needed a retina? Then a retina evolved to find it had no reason to exist without a lens? Take me step by step through how you surmise the human eye evolved, please?

 

[cancel2 2022]

But that does not defeat the argument concerning the human eye. You are applying something observed in biochemical reaction, to something much different, and while you falsified the theory here, doesn't mean you have completely disproved it.

I have said that the human eye is too complex to have 'evolved over time' as you claim. You should be able to explain the evolution process on this, correct? Okay... how did the optic nerve function originally, and what came next? Explain the hierarchy to me, was the cornea formed, only to find it needed a retina? Then a retina evolved to find it had no reason to exist without a lens? Take me step by step through how you surmise the human eye evolved, please?

The first thing to be said is that an eye is made from soft tissue so there is nothing in the fossil record to show the intermediate steps in the evolutionary process.

Therefore, we can only make statements about eye evolution through inference from comparative anatomy. Human eyes are basically the same as dog eyes, fish eyes and cow eyes. So in terms of human evolution, we would conclude that there really has been no important evolution of the eye. In this case, you would want to explore the evolution of the eye itself. The “seeing organ” has evolved at least 11 different times in the history of life on earth. The evolution of the eye is basically a transition from photosensitive cells to an organ that specialises in focusing light rays and interpreting their images.

I was just watching a wildlife programme earlier about a cricket that was found in a cave in the side of a mountain in the Pantanal region of South America. What's unusual about that? Well it was almost totally blind and it was swimming in the water inside the cave, it was a totally new species.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The first thing to be said is that an eye is made from soft tissue so there is nothing in the fossil record to show the intermediate steps in the evolutionary process.

Therefore, we can only make statements about eye evolution through inference from comparative anatomy. Human eyes are basically the same as dog eyes, fish eyes and cow eyes. So in terms of human evolution, we would conclude that there really has been no important evolution of the eye. In this case, you would want to explore the evolution of the eye itself. The “seeing organ” has evolved at least 11 different times in the history of life on earth. The evolution of the eye is basically a transition from photosensitive cells to an organ that specialises in focusing light rays and interpreting their images.

I was just watching a wildlife programme earlier about a cricket that was found in a cave in the side of a mountain in the Pantanal region of South America. What's unusual about that? Well it was almost totally blind and it was swimming in the water inside the cave, it was a totally new species.

"Therefore, we can only make statements about eye evolution through inference from comparative anatomy. "

Exactly. Which is a very strong argument for common descent. It can be inferred mainly through the homologies observed in comparative anatomy and physiology.

What's really interesting about that cricket is that it could be a good example of Gould/Niles punctuated equilibrium. I just say that in passing as US Stephen Jay Gould was a very famous science popularizer here in the US. He was also a rabid Red Sox fan. He was a professor of anthropology at Harvard. I enjoyed his editorials in Nature magazine a lot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The evolution of the eye is basically a transition from photosensitive cells to an organ that specialises in focusing light rays and interpreting their images.

This has not been proven. I keep hearing it claimed, I have never seen proof that this happened.

I want to know how that process developed, and how an optic nerve, cornea, retina, and lens, all managed to evolve over time?

You're telling me what you think happened, but I don't believe you, because photosensitive cells in animals, do not function the same as a human's optical nerve.
Let's imagine a house, with grass and flowers growing where there should be carpet. You can argue that the house was built around the grass and flowers, or you can argue the flowers and grass must have been planted after the house was built. Both are valid hypothesis, but the fact that bulldozers had to clear land, water and sewage pipes laid, and foundations poured, it becomes very unlikely that the grass and flowers existed before the house was built. Because we understand how houses are built, we can conclude that such an anomaly can only happen after the fact. The same can be said for the human eye. There is no explainable evolution from photosensitive cells to what we know as a functioning human eye. There are foundations that had to be poured and pipes laid, before an eye could function as anything at all. The retina is covered by the cornea, it is not able to transmit light signals to the optic nerve through photosensitive means, but it is vital in the way the eye functions. It can't do what it does without a lens, iris and pupil. This is why you can't explain how it evolved.

 

[CanceledB]

This has not been proven. I keep hearing it claimed, I have never seen proof that this happened.

I want to know how that process developed, and how an optic nerve, cornea, retina, and lens, all managed to evolve over time?

Then go enroll yourself in a college-level Physical Anthropology course, you stupid fucking rube. Your hair-splitting bullshit has contributed NOTHING constructive to the actual topic of the thread, but then, derailing and deflection was your primary goal, anyway. Right rube?

 

[Rationalist]

Then go enroll yourself in a college-level Physical Anthropology course, you stupid fucking rube. Your hair-splitting bullshit has contributed NOTHING constructive to the actual topic of the thread, but then, derailing and deflection was your primary goal, anyway. Right rube?

If I could thank this post a dozen times, I would. Dixie does not care about evidence or reality. He just likes arguing for the sake of arguing, even when it makes him look like a moron.