-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
GA schools to remove term "evolution" from curriculum <<Update2: Gov. says leave the word, but teach creationism too >>
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
I'm not trying to prove the theory is valid, I'm just saying what it states.
FWIW, I'm agnostic on whether or not the theory is true. Occam's Razor suggests to me it's plausible, however.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
The fossill records DISPROVES evolution. Darwin was embarassed of the fossill record. There are no gradual progressions evident in the fossill record.
Damn...did you guys just swallow this BS from your teachers without a struggle?
Damn...did you guys just swallow this BS from your teachers without a struggle?
no, but apparently you've swallowed a bunch of creationist BS...
the fossil record at the time of darwin was just starting out, we have more fossils now.
as mentioned earlier, fossilization is a decently rare occurance, and even then we have to chance upon them. add in the fact that evolution does not occur at a constant rate, but just every once in a while, and that is why you don't see many gradual progressions in the fossil record.
It does not. Evolution occurs in relative jumps (punctuated equilibria) where changes happen very quickly in response to changes in environment. Despite the fact that this happens over thousands of years, it is fast enought that the fossil records don't notice it. Why? Because only an extremely small percentage of bones ever make it to the fossil stage, and only a small percentage of those will ever be dug up.
I would highly recommend that you read some of Stephen J. Gould's work before jumping to criticism.
Edit: I should note that there are progressions in the fossil record. For example, signs of feathers have recently been discovered in recent fossil prints of many bird-hipped dinosaurs. It is now hypothesized that even our favorite T. Rex had rudamentary feathers.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
The events of Genesis Chapter 7 might have something to do with it.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
Ah...convenient. It just so happens man hasn't witnessed such an evolution in any species throughout our tens of thousands of years of recorded history. So the change isn't quite so quick as you implied meaning there should be ample examples.
But you are, in fact, saying that if we all moved into the ocean and had our kids there and they had their kids there, that we'd some day develop flippers and fins?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
No, merely that they only took two of each. 🙂
No. First of all, such developments are too drastic to be made in one jump, and would likely result in the death of humanity. I'm saying that if all of humanity was forced to live on the edge of the sea for millions of years, then we would. This is how whales here formed from cow-like creatures (and yes we do have the appropriate fossil record with intermediate stages to support this).
the other poster suggested gould, i would suggest dawkins 😛
anyways, ten thousand years (do we have that much recorded history?) is a drop in the bucket. not quite sure how you arrived to the conclusion that the change isn't so quick...?
and no, nobody is saying that we would develop flippers and fins. however, that *might* happen, if swimming somehow led to a greater chance of reproducing and having your progeny survive. and it would take a while.
and yea i'm assuming you don't mean we actually live IN the sea, because it's obvious that we would drown.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
It actually doesn't. Lack of positive evidence doesn't disprove; it means no positive evidence has been found.
Ironically enough, this reasoning can also be applied to the Creation/existence of God issue, which is one of the reasons I'm agnostic.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
Since they've only found a handful, there could be limitless explanations. Natural aberration. Atmospheric alteration. Discovery of an extinct species. Isn't it science's job to explore and rule out all possibilities? Piltdown man or Nebraska man, anybody?
I like science. Science is great. But science is completely independent of creation theories. Teaching it or not teaching it, as with Creationism, doesn't affect the ability to teach science.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
Because, to be taught, learned, and to progress, science does not require that evolution be true. That's why evolution is serarate...it's not an integral part...it's an unproven theory about history that doesn't need to be true to prove anything about science in general.
I'm baffled as to why people think you can't believe evolution is false and also be a scientist.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
Actually, science has been used to prove much of the Bible. The creation theory was created in the Bible and can be proven through science. The evolution theory was created by Darwin and can be proven through science.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
