1194 Responses to “Kansas School Board Responses to the Open Letter”

1. 201 - November 11th, 2006 at - Cap'n Saucy Says:
   
   

   I have to add my two cents. Leucine, it seems to me that you have mistakenly confused FSMism with evolution. You wrote, “ID, FSM and evolution are all subject to scientific critique, or they are to be rejected by the scientific method as being non-scientific.” Of the three, only evolution should be subjected to scientific critique because it is the only scientific theory of the three. Many of us are evolutionists, but Pastafarianism is a religion, not a science. Of course, there is science involved in creating the perfect alfredo sauce, but that’s a different matter altogether. Maybe what you are referring to is the proof offered by Pastafarianism. Yes, you may criticize the global warming-pirate data, yet that will not diminish our faith, just as scientific criticism of Christian “facts” about the timeline of the earth, all animal life being transported and maintained on a huge boat, etc. seems to have no effect on many Christians’ beliefs in God and the veracity of the Bible. I don’t worry about evolution being criticized. As has been previously mentioned, the theory of evolution has been scientifically investigated, analyzed, pulled apart, and put back together again, and it has only become more solid as a result.

2. 202 - November 11th, 2006 at - leucine Says:
   
   

   Thank you all for the replies. I want nikkiee to understand that I was not raising ID to the level of science. In fact, I don’t think ID should be taught in school as science. Mad John Kid and Cap’n Saucy also seem to fall into the same trap about defending evolution with a not quite complete understanding of the shortcomings in the extrapolation from so-called micro evolution (proven natural selection within a species) to so-called macro evolution. It is here that there are no “mountains of evidence” merely examples of conjecture very much like the one so eloquently illustrated by the pirate global warming correlation. It is that (evolution theory problems) which should be debated by students of evolution. Having debated this issue ad-nauseum, it always comes back to “it must be evolution because there is no other possible explanation” and the shortcomings of evolution theory are glossed-over so belief in evolution becomes much more of a faith than a science.

3. 203 - November 11th, 2006 at - One Eyed Jack Says:
   
   

   leucine,
   .
   Please give some examples of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory. I accept that it is not without flaw. All theories have the potential to be improved as our understanding increases. However, I also know that evolution is the best theory out there that fits the evidence we have.
   .
   So, rather than simply saying that evolutionary theory is flawed, give some specifics that can be discussed.
   .
   OEJ

4. 204 - November 11th, 2006 at - J Says:
   
   

   Hi, leucine,
   .
   Thanks for the nice, clearly written post.
   .
   I’m not persuaded by this ‘yes, there’s intra-species microevolution, but there’s no evidence for species-changing macro-evolution’ argument. We are talking about hundreds of millions of years, here. Microevolution, added to microevolution, added to microevolution over the eons… At some point, this (quite obviously, it seems to me) adds up to the sort of macroevolution of which you speak.
   .
   I’m no biologist, but it strikes me that the animal kingdom did not arrive in a neat filing system carefully divided into ’species’. The term ’species’ is a human-made distinction to help us to say meaningful things about different life forms. At what point does something become a different species? This is a matter of quite fine distinction even taking a synchronic perspective - ie, when dividing up the natural world as it appears before us today.
   .
   But once we try to take a diachronic perspective, things get really messed up. It’s easy enough to say that a dinosaur is a different thing from a chicken. But suppose we find found a family of million-year-old polar bears perfectly preserved in a block of ice. How different from today’s polar bears would they have to be for us to count them as a different species?
   .
   A verbal illustration from a Dawkins book pops back to mind. It was something along these lines: imagine you were to hold hands with your mother, and she with hers, and she with hers, and she with hers in a long line. You are standing on the west coast of Africa. We’d reach a common anscestor with modern-day chimpanzees somewhere in the middle of the continent (if I remember rightly). From that common ancestor, we pursue the generations back towards the modern day as we move east, but this time taking the chimpanzee lineage. Modern chimpdom stands on the east coast.
   .
   Now, if you or I were to walk along this line of apes, there’s no reason to suppose that at any point we’d suddenly see a massive change from one person to the next. Height, posture, skull shape, hairiness, hand and foot morphology - these things may change so gradually from one generation to the next that we can barely spot the difference. Even craning our neck from side to side, taking in tens of generations at once, we’d be hard pressed to see a difference. But, sure enough, by the time we’ve crossed Africa, we’re looking at a chimp. Like watching a cloud change shape in the sky - so slowly that you can barely tell it’s happening, until suddenly it’s no longer a big grey whale but a weasel.
   .
   Anyway. Fancy the job of trying to divide our millions of apes across Africa into seperate species?
   .
   Last thing. It might not be all quite as smooth I’ve suggested. If you doubt macroevolution, I guess you doubt macromutations - the sudden big, visible changes from one generation to the next that’ll either die off fast or push a species in a new direction. Well, they do happen. There’s a photo in ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ of a toad with its eyes in the roof of its mouth that was found surviving wild in a Canadian garden. I personally have a friend who was born with an extra finger on each hand (at midnight, in a thunderstorm no less!). As I remember, Ripley’s Believe It Or Not have spent years basing their marketing on some poor fellow with two pupils in each eye. And perhaps check out this book for more human macromutations:
   .
   [http://www.]
   [amazon.com/Mutants-Genetic-Variety-Human-Body/]
   [dp/0142004820/ref=pd_sxp_f_r/002-5481250-8866405]
   (Remove square brackets and stick the whole lot together)
   .
   Big mutations leading to big survival advantages or disadvantages, leading to more noticeable steps forward in evolution. Suppose our mouth-eyed toad somehow enjoyed a strong survival advantage owing to his mutation. Mouth-eyed toads would begin to spread and prosper over the course of a few generations. Would you call this a new species? I’d be tempted.
   .
   Cheers.

5. 205 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
   
   

   leucine
   “a not quite complete understanding of the shortcomings in the extrapolation from so-called micro evolution (proven natural selection within a species) to so-called macro evolution.”
   .
   These extrapolations are well and truely supported by molecular investigations of genetic homologies between different species.
   Macroevolution is the accumulation of mutations within a population which are benefical to survival & reproduction of that organism within its particular range of hebitation. Macroevoluion is continuously supported by analysis of homologous DNA sequences and gene function across different species.
   Micro evolution refers specifically to the genetic mutations.
   The extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is so well supported, that it is the basis upon which most biomedical research is conducted. In fact, it is the reason we are able to pinpoint and explain why and how a particular mutation, or abherrant gene function, results in a genetic disease. Genetic diseases are inherited. Research is conducted via analysis of the function and structure of homologous genes in vastly diverse species. Commnly used are fruit flies, earthworms and rats, due to these having conserved closely related DNA sequences to humans. Other reasons include ethics, short generation periods, low cost of maintainence and ease of handling.
   Enviromental selection pressures for macroevolution may include a sudden change in a populations range (habitat), an example being an earthquake.
   New survival pressures come into play and those with a beneficial mutation (probably an extreme phenotype in the past), one which aids survival in a different habitat, will survive, breed and reproduce, therefore passing this mutation on to offspring. The accumulation of such mutations over large periods of time results in diversion into a new species from the old.
   A new disease may also result in culling of those without an adequate genetic toolbox.
   Time requires that I only provide these few examples of macroevolutionary pressures out of the vast array which has been observed.
   I’m not sure what sort of education you have recieved/are recieving, but I feel yopu have not been exposed to any of this information. It is common knowledge to those with any schooling in microevolution in Australia.
   As stated above, biomedical research has been carried out sucessfully, based on our knowledge of macroevolutionary relationships, for many years now. (since it was found that denatured DNA would re-anneal under the right conditions in the mid- sixties)
   I am often tempted to warn those, who are not a result of macroevolution, to inform their doctor, lest they be they be directed to take/undergo some medical preparation which has been developed as a result of such research and findings. These people would have a different physiology to the rest of the planets population and therefore anything produced, based on evolutionary relationship, could be harmful to them!
   Appologies if I’ve repeated any of the above posts, but as usual, I am mean’t to be doing something else!

6. 206 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
   
   

   leucine
   “…so-called micro evolution (proven natural selection within a species) to so-called macro evolution….”
   The word “so” has no place in that statement.

7. 207 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
   
   

   Perhaps we should look into getting health warnings, for those that are not a product of macroevolution, put on prescriptions.

8. 208 - November 11th, 2006 at - Davey Jones' Slacker Says:
   
   

   Oh, I *so* love it when she talks moleclar biology…. ;-)

9. 209 - November 11th, 2006 at - Mad John Kidd Says:
   
   

   nikkiee…

   So would these unique individuals who are not the result of macroevolution be classified as subhuman?…or am I just being rude, crude, and socially unacceptable? Then again, I am a pirate. Arrgh!

   RAmen and pass the Parmesan

10. 210 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
    
    

    The subhuman tag would likely offend them, Mad John. Perhaps “less evolved”?

11. 211 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
    
    

    Non-evolutionary?

12. 212 - November 11th, 2006 at - nikkiee Says:
    
    

    Ahh……..”Genetically chalenged”

13. 213 - November 11th, 2006 at - Davey Jones' Slacker Says:
    
    

    Y’know, whenever I’m confronted by the nice, fluffy, “watchtower”-style Christian propaganda, I always think of the Eloi from H.G.Wells “Time Machine”. The Eloi were a genetically distinct sub-species of human, with a peaceful, calm, beautiful society. They also happened to be utterly without curiousity and free will, and were basically food animals for the other humans, the Morlocks.
    .
    Have none of our Christian guests ever wondered why their saviour refers to himself as their “shepherd”, and them as the “flock”.
    .
    Speciation, I’m all for it (licks lips).
    .
    Do we get barbeque with the beer volcanoes, d’you think?

14. 214 - November 11th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    DJS - I’m totally with you on the HG Wells reference, but I can see the Godist headlines now: ‘Atheists Indulge Cannibal Fantasies’…
    .
    I don’t care, so long as they taste okay.

15. 215 - November 11th, 2006 at - Mad John Kidd Says:
    
    

    “Genetically challenged” I lurve it!

    .

    @Davey…I love Christians, they taste like chicken and go great with pasta…and beer.

16. 216 - November 11th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    @ DJS and nikkiee,
    .
    ‘Oh, I *so* love it when she talks moleclar biology…. ;-)’
    .
    You took the words right out of my mouth…
    .
    Glad you’re here to hit ‘em with the hard science, nikkiee. As an arty sort, I’ve only got verbiage to play with. But when you bring out the real big cannon, I tell you what, you could hear a pin drop on my galleon.

17. 217 - November 11th, 2006 at - Davey Jones' Slacker Says:
    
    

    @J:
    .
    “you could hear a pin drop on my galleon.”
    .
    That’s not a euphemism for something furtive, is it? ;-)

18. 218 - November 11th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    DJS, we’re on the same wavelength a lot of the time, but you need to anchor down that imagination, Jim lad.

19. 219 - November 11th, 2006 at - Reloj Checador Says:
    
    

    Hola. muy buen sitio, felicidades desde Mexico !!
    Espero sigas trabajando en tu sitio web !!!

20. 220 - November 12th, 2006 at - Kathy's Common Sense Says:
    
    

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” — 1 Timothy 2:12

    Think about it, Kathy Martin. It is a serious offense to mock the Bible. Stop being a hypocrite and resign your post, or lighten up and grab a bowl of spaghetti. Start being honest with yourself, then you might be able to be honest with others. Oh, and familiarize yourself with the Establishment Clause. That’s just embarrassing.

Leave a Reply