Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from Georgia.

Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word 'evolution'
with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school textbooks. This
year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad. Considering
that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected, where science has
accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it bewildering to still
question Darwin.

No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the word
evolution?

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics is
a theory?

Schizoid Man wrote:

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from Georgia.

Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word 'evolution'
with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school textbooks. This
year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad.
Considering that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected,
where science has accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it
bewildering to still question Darwin.


I am sure that a category of audiophiles could be tempted to make an easy
analogy and trash a little bit more some "obsolete" technologies. ;-)


No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?

Modern societies have to deal now with interesting existantial questions
about the "progress", "economical growth"...
The bigots get out of their holes and try to get advantage of the confusion
to recycle their outdated theories.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the
word evolution?

So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time' is
misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe evolution.

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics
is a theory?

Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.

I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it comes
to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the
word evolution?

**Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a fairy tale
and does not belong as part of any education system.


This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics
is a theory?

**Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Darwin proposed the Theory of Natural
Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution. Newtonian Physics was proven
incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
the word evolution?

**Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.

No answer to the question that was asked.

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
physics is a theory?

**Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They tend
to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of how or
why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that happened
in the past.

Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a relevant
fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor, shortly
fell to the floor.

Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is a
theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking, Evolution will
never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be factual,
but that is still not the same as being a fact.

Darwin proposed the Theory of
Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can be
facts.

Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.

No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate velocities
are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the identical
same results.

Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That means
that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of Science.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from Georgia.

Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word 'evolution'
with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school textbooks. This
year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad.
Considering that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected,
where science has accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it
bewildering to still question Darwin.

No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?


Why would you mention my name in connection with an anti-evolution effort? I
am on record many times as being opposed to such efforts, and have argued
strenuously with any who try to imply that evolution should not be taught or
that intelligent creation is any kind of science.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the
word evolution?

So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time'
is misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe
evolution.

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics
is a theory?

Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.

I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it
comes to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.


Exactly where did he abandon science? He simply pointed out that both are
theories, which is in fact true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the
word evolution?

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics
is a theory?


Is that like the all competently designed solid state amps sound the
same theory?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the
word evolution?

So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time'
is misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe
evolution.

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian physics
is a theory?

Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.

I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it
comes to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.

In his mind, it was about religion, not politics.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Schizoid Man" wrote in message
:
: Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
: Georgia.
: Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
: 'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
: textbooks.
:
: So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
: the word evolution?
:
: **Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
: fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.
:
: No answer to the question that was asked.
:
: This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.
:
: So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
: physics is a theory?
:
: **Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
:
: Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They tend
: to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of how or
: why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that happened
: in the past.
:
: Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a relevant
: fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor, shortly
: fell to the floor.
:
: Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is a
: theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking, Evolution will
: never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be factual,
: but that is still not the same as being a fact.
:
: Darwin proposed the Theory of
: Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.
:
: No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can be
: facts.
:
: Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.
:
: No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate velocities
: are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the identical
: same results.
:
: Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
: scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That means
: that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of Science.
:

Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
observable
phenomena.

Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several aspects
of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that long,
long
trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it *cannot*
be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
point of view...

(nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
therefore be adopted
Rudy

Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Schizoid Man" wrote in message
:
: Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
: Georgia.
: Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
: 'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
: textbooks.
:
: So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
: the word evolution?
:
: **Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
: fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.
:
: No answer to the question that was asked.
:
: This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.
:
: So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
: physics is a theory?
:
: **Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
:
: Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They tend
: to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of how or
: why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that happened
: in the past.
:
: Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a relevant
: fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor, shortly
: fell to the floor.
:
: Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is a
: theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking, Evolution will
: never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be factual,
: but that is still not the same as being a fact.
:
: Darwin proposed the Theory of
: Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.
:
: No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can be
: facts.
:
: Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.
:
: No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate velocities
: are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the identical
: same results.
:
: Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
: scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That means
: that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of Science.
:

Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
observable
phenomena.

Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several aspects
of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that long,
long
trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it *cannot*
be the only evolution-driving 'force'.

Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
evolution-driving "force" ?
My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
such complex biological organizations.
The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.

Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
point of view...

(nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
therefore be adopted
Rudy

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
: present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
: observable
: phenomena.
:
: Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
: should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several aspects
: of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
: For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
: for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
: from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that
long,
: long
: trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
*cannot*
: be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
:
: Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: evolution-driving "force" ?
: My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: such complex biological organizations.
: The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
:
: Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
: point of view...
:
: (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
: therefore be adopted
: Rudy
:
Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
from environment to biological entity.
Rudy

Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
: present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
: observable
: phenomena.
:
: Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
: should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several aspects
: of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
: For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
: for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
: from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that
long,
: long
: trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
*cannot*
: be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
:
: Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: evolution-driving "force" ?
: My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: such complex biological organizations.
: The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
:
: Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
: point of view...
:
: (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
: therefore be adopted
: Rudy
:
Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
from environment to biological entity.

This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
biologic entity is fast.

The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.

Rudy

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: "Lionel" wrote in message
: ...
: : Ruud Broens a écrit :
: : Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best
of
: : present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
: : observable
: : phenomena.
: :
: : Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific
theories
: : should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several
aspects
: : of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
: : For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to
account
: : for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the
eye:
: : from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along
that
: long,
: : long
: : trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: : So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
: *cannot*
: : be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
: :
: : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: : evolution-driving "force" ?
: : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: : such complex biological organizations.
: : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
: :
: : Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information
theory
: : point of view...
: :
: : (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory
should
: : therefore be adopted
: : Rudy
: :
: Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
: of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
: cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
: many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
: But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
: force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
: from environment to biological entity.
:
: This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
: The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
: biologic entity is fast.
:
: The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
: animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
: I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
:
:
Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...

A 'souped up' version of Lamarck's theory ?
Rudy

Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: "Lionel" wrote in message
: ...
: : Ruud Broens a écrit :
: : Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best
of
: : present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
: : observable
: : phenomena.
: :
: : Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific
theories
: : should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several
aspects
: : of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
: : For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to
account
: : for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the
eye:
: : from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along
that
: long,
: : long
: : trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: : So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
: *cannot*
: : be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
: :
: : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: : evolution-driving "force" ?
: : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: : such complex biological organizations.
: : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
: :
: : Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information
theory
: : point of view...
: :
: : (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory
should
: : therefore be adopted
: : Rudy
: :
: Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
: of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
: cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
: many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
: But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
: force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
: from environment to biological entity.
:
: This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
: The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
: biologic entity is fast.
:
: The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
: animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
: I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
:
:
Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...

I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.

What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
changes ?

A 'souped up' version of Lamarck's theory ?
Rudy

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can be
facts.

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that means that before
we actually 'observed' them, the existence of atoms was a theory too?

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

A theory is a collection of facts, so evolution is a theory.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Therefore, putting stickers that say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is
meaningless since according to you a theory is a collection of facts. Please
explain this conundrum.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
the word evolution?

**Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.

No answer to the question that was asked.

**No need. The word: 'Evolution' more completely describes the changes to
life.


This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
physics is a theory?

**Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They
tend to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of
how or why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that
happened in the past.

**Correct. Evolution has occured. Evolution is a fact. Darwin proposed
'Natural Selection' to explain the fact of evolution. Several other theories
have also been presented to supplement Darwin's orginal theories. Some make
sense, but it is important to recall that the essence of what Darwin
published is now known to be correct.


Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a relevant
fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor,
shortly fell to the floor.

**Nope. Gravity is a fact. How gravity warps space/time is part of the
theory relating to how gravity operates.


Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is a
theory that explains changes over time.

**No. Evolution is a fact. All of the casuitive factors surrounding
evolution have yet to be determined.

Strictly speaking, Evolution will
never be itself a fact.

**No. Evolution has occured. Evolution is a fact. All of the causitive
factors of evolution have yet to be determined.

It will always be a theory. Now it can be factual,
but that is still not the same as being a fact.

**When this planet was formed, 4.5 Billion years ago, there was no life. 3
Billion years ago, the earliest forms of life appeared. Sometime, between
then and now, humans appeared. We MUST have evolved from somewhere.
Therefore, evolution occured.


Darwin proposed the Theory of
Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can be
facts.

**Those facts are described as 'Evolution'.


Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.

No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate
velocities are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the
identical same results.

**Given that nothing in this universe is at rest, Newton got it wrong.


Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That means
that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of Science.

**I agree that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, is still a theory. Much
has been shown to be correct, but some still remains to be proved.
Evolution, however, continues. Evolution is a fact.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can
be facts.

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that means that before
we actually 'observed' them, the existence of atoms was a theory too?

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

**I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry, but electron
microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can manage is to 'see'
are some of the larger molecules. Atoms can only be 'seen' by a
scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far). Invented by IBM, as I recall, who
rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company logo.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Lionel" wrote in message
: ...
: : Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
: : DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
: : with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
: :
: : I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
: :
: : What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
: : Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
: : changes ?
:
: The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
: remarkable
: simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion,
that
: this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion
years!
: Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
: influences
: from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
: mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective
mechanisms.
: Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
: in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
: 'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)
:
: Rudy

The description of the internal workings of such a eukaryot cell easily
matches the size of the printed phone-directory for New York,
so let's not pursue *that* further :-))
But basically, you have socalled introns, then the sequential code that
is transcripted, then exons. The transcripted codesegment is transported
to the factory (by RNA), as blueprint for some protein. One of the mutation
factors are retrovirii, through reverse-transcription of their RNA, causing
the insertion of new code in the DNA. A lot of the unused parts in the
code can be ascribed to retroviral mutation. Dystrofine, for example,
has over 2 million base-pairs, but only rougly 10000 are represented in
the mRNA to code for it.

Rudy

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Schizoid Man" wrote in message
:
: Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
: Georgia.
: Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
: 'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
: textbooks.
:
: So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
: the word evolution?
:
: **Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
: fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.
:
: No answer to the question that was asked.
:
: This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.
:
: So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
: physics is a theory?
:
: **Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
:
: Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They
tend
: to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of how
or
: why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that
happened
: in the past.
:
: Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a relevant
: fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor,
shortly
: fell to the floor.
:
: Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is a
: theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking, Evolution
will
: never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be
factual,
: but that is still not the same as being a fact.
:
: Darwin proposed the Theory of
: Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.
:
: No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can
be
: facts.
:
: Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.
:
: No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate
velocities
: are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the identical
: same results.
:
: Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
: scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That means
: that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of Science.
:

Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
observable
phenomena.

Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
should not lead to contradictory results.
This is where several aspects
of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that
long,
long
trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
*cannot*
be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
point of view...


It's not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the FIT.

(nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
therefore be adopted
Rudy

Since creationist theory works backwards, it starts with a conclusion and
then seeks evidence to make it so. Real science works the other way round,
it starts with a collection of facts and then fashions a conclusion.

Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: "Lionel" wrote in message
: ...
: : Ruud Broens a écrit :
: : "Lionel" wrote in message
: : ...
: : : Ruud Broens a écrit :
: : : Science is the description in some formal language that, to the
best
: of
: : : present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and
predicting
: : : observable
: : : phenomena.
: : :
: : : Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific
: theories
: : : should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several
: aspects
: : : of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not
hold.
: : : For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to
: account
: : : for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as
the
: eye:
: : : from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point
along
: that
: : long,
: : : long
: : : trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: : : So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element,
it
: : *cannot*
: : : be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
: : :
: : : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: : : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: : : evolution-driving "force" ?
: : : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: : : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have
produce
: : : such complex biological organizations.
: : : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
: : :
: : : Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information
: theory
: : : point of view...
: : :
: : : (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory
: should
: : : therefore be adopted
: : : Rudy
: : :
: : Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a
notion
: : of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
: : cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
: : many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
: : But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a
driving
: : force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
: : from environment to biological entity.
: :
: : This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
: : The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
: : biologic entity is fast.
: :
: : The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
: : animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
: : I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
: :
: :
: Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
: DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
: with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
:
: I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
:
: What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
: Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
: changes ?

The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
remarkable
simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion, that
this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion years!
Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
influences
from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective mechanisms.
Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)

Hey, that's not fair... Wait for me ! ;-)

Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Lionel" wrote in message
: ...
: : Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
: : DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
: : with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
: :
: : I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
: :
: : What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
: : Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
: : changes ?
:
: The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
: remarkable
: simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion,
that
: this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion
years!
: Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
: influences
: from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
: mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective
mechanisms.
: Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
: in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
: 'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)
:
: Rudy

The description of the internal workings of such a eukaryot cell easily
matches the size of the printed phone-directory for New York,
so let's not pursue *that* further :-))
But basically, you have socalled introns, then the sequential code that
is transcripted, then exons. The transcripted codesegment is transported
to the factory (by RNA), as blueprint for some protein. One of the mutation
factors are retrovirii, through reverse-transcription of their RNA, causing
the insertion of new code in the DNA. A lot of the unused parts in the
code can be ascribed to retroviral mutation. Dystrofine, for example,
has over 2 million base-pairs, but only rougly 10000 are represented in
the mRNA to code for it.


Go ahead don't wait...
I will join you on the top as soon as they will have installed a ladder
for me. :-)

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be facts.

The irrelevant and wrong response:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Bad science. Bad, bad science. The first Electon Microscope was built in the
1930s.

This is the first article that came up when I searched google on "first
electron microscope".

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom...e4/258-261.htm

"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
microscope."

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

If irony killed you'd have been dead years ago, Schizoid Boy.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Schizoid Man said:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
atoms was a theory too?

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

What good would that do? His textbooks lied to him.

Actually, Schizoid Boy told you a whopper of a false claim, and in your
ignorance and arrogance, you didn't catch it!

LOL!

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be facts.

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
atoms was a theory too? You need to take a science class again, Arny.

**I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry,

Nicely said, Trevor!

but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules.

Agreed.

Furthermore as I showed in another post, the Electron Microscope was
invented in the late 1930s, about a half a century earlier than Schizoid Boy
thinks it was.

Atoms can only be 'seen' by a scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far).
Invented by
IBM, as I recall, who rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company
logo.

Again agreed that the scanning-tunnelling microscope can view and manipulate
atoms.

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/STM/text.html

"The same principle was later used in the scanning tunneling microscope. The
remaining barrier to the development of that instrument was the need for
more adequate vibration isolation, in order to permit stable positioning of
the tip above the surface. This difficult problem in mechanical design was
surmounted through the work of Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Research
Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, who in 1986 shared in the Nobel Prize in
Physics for their discovery of atomic resolution in scanning tunneling
microscopy. In their announcement of the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences recognized the pioneering studies of Russell Young."

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Since creationist theory works backwards, it starts with a conclusion and
then seeks evidence to make it so. Real science works the other way
round, it starts with a collection of facts and then fashions a
conclusion.

Hmm, that backward methodology sounds like pcabx methodology!

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:06:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be facts.

The irrelevant and wrong response:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Bad science. Bad, bad science. The first Electon Microscope was built in the
1930s.

Bad, bad science there Arnold. The first Electron Microscope couldn't
"see atoms". So he is correct and you are wrong. I hope that Lionel
won't mind this little bit of pedantry to correct your *incorrect*
pedantry.

This is the first article that came up when I searched google on "first
electron microscope".

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom...e4/258-261.htm

"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
microscope."

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

If irony killed you'd have been dead years ago, Schizoid Boy.

The irony is on you - since you're supposed to know all about science.
Unfortunately, your English language comprehension skills let you down
yet again. If would be frustrating for you if you had the slightest
shred of self-awareness. Fortunately, you've built up a tidy defense.

Will we see an acknowlegement that you were wrong and an apology to
SM? I doubt it but time will tell.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:11:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be facts.

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
atoms was a theory too? You need to take a science class again, Arny.

**I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry,

Nicely said, Trevor!

but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules.

Agreed.

http://www.labonline.com.au/science/...em_112002a.asp

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/images/mos2.jpg

Those are single atoms on there, pals. But more on that in a minute.

Furthermore as I showed in another post, the Electron Microscope was
invented in the late 1930s, about a half a century earlier than Schizoid Boy
thinks it was.

He never claimed that it was invented in the late 70s and early 80s.
He said this:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
*that enabled us to see atoms for the first time*.

This is speaking of a specific type of electron microscope. I guess
you stopped reading before the word "that".

Atoms can only be 'seen' by a scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far).
Invented by
IBM, as I recall, who rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company
logo.

Again agreed that the scanning-tunnelling microscope can view and manipulate
atoms.

Then how can you agree with the statement:

"but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules".

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/STM/text.html

"The same principle was later used in the scanning tunneling microscope. The
remaining barrier to the development of that instrument was the need for
more adequate vibration isolation, in order to permit stable positioning of
the tip above the surface. This difficult problem in mechanical design was
surmounted through the work of Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Research
Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, who in 1986 shared in the Nobel Prize in
Physics for their discovery of atomic resolution in scanning tunneling
microscopy. In their announcement of the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences recognized the pioneering studies of Russell Young."

You see, according to Nobelprize.org:

"The Scanning Tunneling Microscope
The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is a type of electron
microscope that shows three-dimensional images of a sample. In the
STM, the structure of a surface is studied using a stylus that scans
the surface at a fixed distance from it".

Ooops, pedantry shot down in flames. Sorry guys, you lose. Trumped by
the good folks who bring you the Nobel prize.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.


So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents the word
evolution?

Of course it does. "Changes over time" could possibly, in a simplistic
way, represent the constantly increasing entropy in the universe, but it
would be way off in terms of the theory of evolution.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Since creationist theory works backwards, it starts with a conclusion and
then seeks evidence to make it so. Real science works the other way
round, it starts with a collection of facts and then fashions a
conclusion.

Hmm, that backward methodology sounds like pcabx methodology!
No, ABX was designed to detect differences.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

A theory is a collection of facts, so evolution is a theory.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.

Therefore, putting stickers that say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact"
is meaningless since according to you a theory is a collection of facts.
Please explain this conundrum.

Take it up wioth the dictionary folks, but don't confuse me with the
creationist folks. IMO they are worse than the eco-scammers.

"Schizoid Man" said:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.
The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal a écrit :
"Schizoid Man" said:


The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
enabled us to see atoms for the first time.


Better make that the early '50s.
The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

That's true.

Lionel a écrit :
Sander deWaal a écrit :

"Schizoid Man" said:


The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.



Better make that the early '50s.
The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.


That's true.

Ooops sorry, excess of enthousiasm... I cannot remember why I have
written that !

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" said:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.

Wrong, late 30s.

http://inventors.about.com/library/i...microscope.htm

The introduction of the electron microscope in the 1930's filled the bill.
Co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931, Ernst Ruska was
awarded half of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1986 for his invention.


http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom...e4/258-261.htm

"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
microscope."


The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

Agreed.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/IlyaSherman.shtml

"In 1926, Hans Busch discovered that magnetic fields could act as lenses by
causing electron beams to converge to a focus. A few years later, Max Knoll
and Ernst Ruska made the first modern prototype of an electron microscope."

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" said:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.

Wrong, late 30s.

Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.

dave weil a écrit :
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
m

"Schizoid Man" said:


The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.

Wrong, late 30s.


Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.

Since you cannot see your dick while you are ****ing, you shouldn't
speak about nanometers things !!!

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:58:07 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
om

"Schizoid Man" said:


The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.

Wrong, late 30s.


Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.

Since you cannot see your dick while you are ****ing, you shouldn't
speak about nanometers things !!!

Yep, got Lionel all freaked out. Right on schedule.

Boy, it's amazing how far the moralist has fallen...