Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology teacher resource help
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 81 (453704)
02-03-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
02-03-2008 6:50 PM


Re: May want to read....
Randman, You've been around enough to know how to take care of long urls.
type:
[url=http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help -->http://EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help -->EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help< !--UE-->]this message has a link that is too long[/url]
and it becomes:
this message has a link that is too long
Long urls force the page to be wider than the screen, and thus make reading each of the posts difficult. Please edit the one you have in Message 60 so we can read the page.
Those all accept some sort of evolution but strongly reject Darwinism.
By calling it something else? By defining evolution and Darwinism to suit their argument instead of how the terms are used in science?
Are you answering fishboy's question -- or what you WANT his question to be?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : thinking

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 6:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 7:36 PM RAZD has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 62 of 81 (453708)
02-03-2008 7:18 PM


Just a word to the wise.
Fish, be advised. John Davison is a class A loony. I don't mean I disagree with his gobbledygook. I mean the man is crazy. Even the creos kicked him off their sties. Google him if you doubt me.
Pierre Grasse died 23 years ago. I wouldn't accept a paper at face value if it was 23 years old. (There are exceptions, of course. Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion, for example.) Much less the opinions of a a "biologist" that said:
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre_Grasse
I have no idea who "Goldschmidt" and "Broom" are. Pretty tough to google too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 7:32 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-03-2008 7:39 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 81 (453711)
02-03-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by molbiogirl
02-03-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Just a word to the wise.
I have no idea who "Goldschmidt" and "Broom" are. Pretty tough to google too.
Professor Robert Broom (November 30, 1866, Paisley - April 6, 1951) -- also see biography
Richard Benedict Goldschmidt (April 12, 1878 - April 24, 1958) -- also see Comments on Goldschmidt
Both before the modern "neo-darwinian" unification of genetics with darwinism.
Both are also commonly misrepresented by creationists (quotemined?).
Nuff said?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added info

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 7:18 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 7:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 64 of 81 (453712)
02-03-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
02-03-2008 7:09 PM


Re: May want to read....
Just giving him some references to check out some reading material. I am sure he's capable of making up his own mind about what they have to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 7:09 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 65 of 81 (453713)
02-03-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by molbiogirl
02-03-2008 7:18 PM


Attention: Fishboy
Fish, be advised. John Davison is a class A loony. I don't mean I disagree with his gobbledygook. I mean the man is crazy. Even the creos kicked him off their sties. Google him if you doubt me.
John Davison is Professor of Biology. He opposes evolution based on scientific facts. Of course these objective facts (Professor of Biology/opposes evolution based on evidence) is not seen in the above rant.
When we remember that the person who wrote the blue box comment is an Atheist evolutionist the misrepresentation and omission of facts is instantly explained.
You need to ask yourself, Fishboy: "Why do evolutionists misrepresent those who oppose evolution in the manner seen above?" The only logical answer is anger caused by the inability to refute.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 7:18 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-03-2008 7:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 81 (453714)
02-03-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
02-03-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Just a word to the wise.
A cursory review of the Modern Synthesis can be found here. Note: wikipedia is not always accurate but can nevertheless be useful.
This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936-1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.
Modern synthesis - Wikipedia
Grasse's comments, an evolutionist that agreed with many criticisms of NeoDarwinism that some IDers and creationist make, come from a book published in 1978, well after the origin of the modern synthesis.
Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.31 - Google Search
Wiki makes this comment about him.
Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) was a French zoologist. He was one-time president of the Academie des Sciences and author of the influential 35-volume Traite de Zoologie.
In 1959 Grassé introduced the concept of stigmergy to describe the indirect communication among individuals in social insect societies. This he derived from observing the actions of termites when building nests.
Grassé was an opponent of Darwinian evolution, because he believed it to be in conflict with numerous experimental findings. He disagreed with Darwin's central tenet of evolution regarding the combined effect of mutation and natural selection. Grassé proposed an evolutionary theory in which living matter contains an undiscovered "internal factor" that compels life to evolve along predetermined lines. However, he did not believe these unknown factors to be of a mystical nature, as in the case of 19th-century vitalism.
Pierre-Paul Grass - Wikipedia
Goldschmidt, another evolutionist that disagreed with NeoDarwinian mechanisms, disagreed the Modern Synthesis on scientific grounds.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 7:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 8:24 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 81 (453715)
02-03-2008 7:54 PM


Leo Berg
Besides Goldschmidt, Grasse, Broom and Davison (the latter mainly worth reading because he synthesizes some of their earlier thoughts), you may want to read some of Leo Berg.
They all disagree with NeoDarwinism on factual grounds.

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 68 of 81 (453716)
02-03-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
02-03-2008 7:39 PM


John A. Davison is an old Earth evolutionist
My understanding is that JAD fully accepts the mainstream thoughts of the Earth's 4.5 billion year age.
He also accepts that biological evolution has happened in the context of that time frame. But, as I understand it, he thinks that evolutions pathways were pre-programed to end up where we currently are. He also thinks that evolution is no longer happening. I keep meaning to ask him when evolution ceased.
But all this is (shame on me) pretty off-topic. I suggest you track down JAD somewhere and ask him about positions.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-03-2008 7:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-04-2008 11:31 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 81 (453718)
02-03-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
02-03-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Just a word to the wise.
Grasse's comments, ... 1978, well after the origin of the modern synthesis.
I was not talking about Grasse.
Goldschmidt, another evolutionist that disagreed with NeoDarwinian mechanisms ...
Goldschmidt is the (1940) author of the phrase "hopeful monster" and thus his major work predates the synthesis. His hypothesis is interesting - see Gould's comments (it doesn't necessarily violate any basic element of evolution) - it comes down to a question of what you define as big change:
quote:
... Steven M. Stanley, like Gould, suggests that some of Goldschmidt's views, while apparently extreme, deviate little more from the neo-Darwinian synthesis than the current punctuational model and seem to err mainly in exaggerating the importance of "chromosomal rearrangements" leading to "rapid changes in growth gradients or developmental sequences, and on what we now call quantum speciation."
What is "rapid change" - and how does it occur - are the real questions eh?
Don't you have any modern references?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 7:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 8:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 81 (453719)
02-03-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-03-2008 8:24 PM


Re: Just a word to the wise.
You must have missed the DI link for "modern" references and Davison. It's a silly request anyway because the basic set of facts haven't really changed that much in this regard except some are taking hopeful monsters more sriously, as one of the science writers of the NYTs points out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 8:46 PM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 81 (453725)
02-03-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
02-03-2008 8:38 PM


wandering way off topic but ...
... except some are taking hopeful monsters more sriously, as one of the science writers of the NYTs points out.
Well gosh, randman, that sounds like what I was asking about. Where are those references? Where's the modern work that builds on the stuff that is 50 years old?
You must have missed the DI link for "modern" references ...
I liked "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," - published in a magazine that states: "Authors need not feel confined to non-fiction: we will consider humor, poetry, fiction, and art forms not yet invented." There's some real journal cred.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : journals not equal

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 8:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 8:51 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 81 (453727)
02-03-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
02-03-2008 8:46 PM


Re: wandering way off topic but ...
I think within the ID camp is where I would look, and I provided some references. FB wants to learn more so reading those guys, reading guys like Behe who echoes arguments made by Grasse, and comparing that with what Darwinists say ought to get him off to a good start understanding the issues being debated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 8:46 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 02-03-2008 10:36 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 81 (453739)
02-03-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
02-03-2008 8:51 PM


Re: wandering way off topic but ...
Hi Randman,
I don't understand why you're posting in this way here. I made a typo in my previous post where I said, "You can even start the thread and post what you would like to say here, then post here to refer Fishboy over there," but it's obvious what I meant from context. You were supposed to stop obstructing the presentation of the accepted understanding of evolution in this thread.
I'm suspending you for 48 hours this time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 8:51 PM randman has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 74 of 81 (453833)
02-04-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Minnemooseus
02-03-2008 7:59 PM


Re: John A. Davison is an old Earth evolutionist
My understanding is that JAD fully accepts the mainstream thoughts of the Earth's 4.5 billion year age.
Agreed.
He also accepts that biological evolution has happened in the context of that time frame. But, as I understand it, he thinks that evolutions pathways were pre-programed to end up where we currently are.
Yes, Davison advocates a "perscribed" evolutionary hypothesis, which means a theory totally foreign to Darwinian evolution.
He also thinks that evolution is no longer happening.
Yes. He says all we see today is extinction with no replacements.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-03-2008 7:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 02-04-2008 2:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 75 of 81 (453871)
02-04-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object
02-04-2008 11:31 AM


Re: John A. Davison is an old Earth evolutionist
He says all we see today is extinction with no replacements.
This reminds me of a theory that I've had for some time. We're running out of famous people.
Famous people die every week, sometimes several in a week. But who's the last famous person that was born? I can't recall any, although I certainly admit I might have missed one or two along the way. I'd venture to guess that for any given month, the number of famous people who died outnumbered those who were born by perhaps a factor of as much as ten. At that rate, we're bound to run out of famous people sooner or later.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-04-2008 11:31 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024