Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[Donkeytron]

So since it appears all humans are of the same classification, at least when it comes to evolution, we're all undergoing some sort of transition together. No one is being left behind right?

Evolution doesn't work like that, exactly. I'm trying to think about how best to put it to words, but I think someone more knowledgeable can do a better job than I can with it.

 

[david_x]

So since it appears all humans are of the same classification, at least when it comes to evolution, we're all undergoing some sort of transition together. No one is being left behind right?

No, actually we'd be spliting. well at least until you inter mix the DNA. If a group was to go off and not breed with the rest they would not be able to breed with the rest after a long time. Somthin' like that supposibly happend to some frog on one side of the grand canyon and one on the other side.

Others are not yet transitional.

come again?
I've never heard that one.

My point was that there are places where there are lots of animals but few bones, much less fossils. To repeat the claim that every, or even most, transitional species should have left fossils and that we should have already found them suggests to me a failure to think through the problems of fossil formation and preservation.

Now I have a cravy thought! What if humons were in fact made on the seventh day but being as they take care of each other like we do( bury there bones in somthin' other the mud) that they were completly missed by modern "science."

 

[gluadys]

So since it appears all humans are of the same classification, at least when it comes to evolution, we're all undergoing some sort of transition together. No one is being left behind right?

All living humans are the same species of human (Homo sapiens sapiens). But your question seems to assume that you see evolution as a transformation of each individual simultaneously. At least that is what "no one is being left behind" suggests to me.

In evolution, it is not individual humans (or rabbits or parrots, etc.) which transform. It is the species which transforms. Individuals differ from one another. That is what makes for variation in the species.

Evolution occurs when the pattern of variation changes from one generation to the next. And when that pattern of variation continues to change in a specific direction over many generations, the younger generation may be distinctly different from its ancestors.

Now each individual contributes his or her own variation to the pattern for his or her own generation. But s/he does not change her own variation. A person born with blue eyes, blood type A, curly hair will not change over their lifetime to a person with black eyes, blood type O and straight hair. So what is key is not the characteristics of the individual, but how many other individuals in the species share the same characteristics.

In Generation A, what % of the population has blue rather than black eyes? What % have blood type A rather than blood type O? what % have curly rather than straight hair?

Now the people in Generation A reproduce and pass their characteristics on to their children. If all of them are equally sucessful in reproducing, these percentages will be the same in Generation B. (This comes from Mendelian genetics.) But what if they are not all equally successful in reproducing? What if Generation A people with blue eyes have, on average, more surviving children than Generation A people with black eyes? Then in Generation B, the % of blue-eyed people will be larger than it was in Generation A. Same for the other characteristics. In Generation C the percentages change again, and in Generation D, yet again.

Now let us carry this over a thousand generations. Let us suppose that in the first generation 90% of the people have blue eyes, blood type O and straight hair. And in the 1000th generation 90% have black eyes, blood type A and curly hair. That kind of change is evolution.

Now lets also suppose that each of the three new characteristics spreads through the population at a different rate. Suppose that it takes only 300 generations to change the dominant eye colour from blue to black, but 600 generations to change the dominant blood type from O to A and 900 generations to change the dominant hair type from straight to curly.

Now what would a typical transitional form be?

In generation 500 we would expect almost everyone to have blue eyes, somewhat more people with A rather than O type blood, and a lot of people whose hair is somewhere between straight and curly. In other words a mixture of new vs. old traits and/or traits intermediate between the new and the old.

The transformation is not in specific individuals, but in the overall pattern of variation in the species. But specific individuals each stand somewhere in the spectrum between the old dominant pattern and the new dominant pattern. Each will have either all the characteristics of the old dominant pattern, or all the characteristics of the new dominant pattern or a mixture of old and new. Those in the last group are transitional.

But it is not they themselves that are transforming. It is the species that is transforming.


On a still larger scale we can see the same sort of transformation making the differences between species and higher taxa.

 

[david_x]

It is the species which transforms.

or splits, wich would be like a group of people being left behind.

 

[vossler]

In evolution, it is not individual humans (or rabbits or parrots, etc.) which transform. It is the species which transforms. Individuals differ from one another. That is what makes for variation in the species.

I wasn't thinking about an individual human transforming, but the species. If we are derived from apes then the apes were left behind and we continued on, right? Then some of us go one to become another species which then leaves the humans behind and will eventually beconsidered or looked at similarly as we look upon apes, right?

Now what would a typical transitional form be?

In generation 500 we would expect almost everyone to have blue eyes, somewhat more people with A rather than O type blood, and a lot of people whose hair is somewhere between straight and curly. In other words a mixture of new vs. old traits and/or traits intermediate between the new and the old.

The evolution of which you speak doesn't appear to be one that is evident via the fossil record. Wouldn't this be just be called variation or at best micro-evolution?

 

[notto]

If we are derived from apes then the apes were left behind and we continued on, right?

Present day apes and man share a common ancestor. We did not evolve from the ape species that are with us today. The apes continued evolving as well.

There is no 'behind' or 'ahead' in evolution. There is only survival or extinction.

Present day apes have been evolving just as long as we have since they diverged from the common ancestor.

The idea of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' doesn't really apply when talking about evolution. Evolution is about survival and it doesn't have a goal other than the survival of the species. Any species that survives has evolved to fit its environment.

If humans speciated, both lines would continue to evolve, just a present day apes continued to evolve as species independent of humans.

 

[gluadys]

or splits, wich would be like a group of people being left behind.

No. See my response to Vossler.

 

[gluadys]

I wasn't thinking about an individual human transforming, but the species. If we are derived from apes then the apes were left behind and we continued on, right?

We are not derived from apes. We are still apes. When the ancestral ape species split up into separate groups, all of the separate groups continued to evolve. All of them broke up into sub-branches. We are one of the sub-sub-sub-branches of the original speciation in the ape superfamily. We are the only surviving species in this lineage. Other apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas are the surviving species in other lineages.

So, no. The surviving apes of all kinds were not left behind. They have evolved right along beside us. You might say that an extinct group of species, such as the australopithecines were "left behind". But it is not really a helpful concept.

Then some of us go one to become another species which then leaves the humans behind and will eventually beconsidered or looked at similarly as we look upon apes, right?

Depends. Do you think we all look at apes the same way? Remember, as a human, you are also an ape, just as you are also a mammal and a vertebrate and an animal. So any future species which traces itself back to ours as an ancestral species will also be human, whatever else it may be.

The evolution of which you speak doesn't appear to be one that is evident via the fossil record. Wouldn't this be just be called variation or at best micro-evolution?

It is not just variation. It is a change in the pattern of variation (techically, a change in the proportional distribution of alleles.) And that is, by definition, evolution.

There is more to evolution than speciation.

Speciation is one outcome of evolution. But to understand how evolution leads to speciation, you need to understand evolution first.

This is something that often gets buried in the concept of "I agree micro-evolution happens, but I don't accept macro-evolution."

People who make that statement assume they already know what micro-evolution is and just need to be shown a reason to accept macro-evolution. In fact, they often do NOT know what micro-evolution is. And there is no possibility of understanding macro-evolution until micro-evolution is understood.

I didn't take my imaginary example to the point of speciation precisely for that reason: to focus your attention on what is happening in the existing species prior to speciation.

If it is clear how a species changes over time without speciation, then we can look at how speciation comes about.

 

[vossler]

We are not derived from apes. We are still apes. When the ancestral ape species split up into separate groups, all of the separate groups continued to evolve. All of them broke up into sub-branches. We are one of the sub-sub-sub-branches of the original speciation in the ape superfamily. We are the only surviving species in this lineage. Other apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas are the surviving species in other lineages.

So, no. The surviving apes of all kinds were not left behind. They have evolved right along beside us. You might say that an extinct group of species, such as the australopithecines were "left behind". But it is not really a helpful concept.

Depends. Do you think we all look at apes the same way? Remember, as a human, you are also an ape, just as you are also a mammal and a vertebrate and an animal. So any future species which traces itself back to ours as an ancestral species will also be human, whatever else it may be.

It is not just variation. It is a change in the pattern of variation (techically, a change in the proportional distribution of alleles.) And that is, by definition, evolution.

There is more to evolution than speciation.

Speciation is one outcome of evolution. But to understand how evolution leads to speciation, you need to understand evolution first.

This is something that often gets buried in the concept of "I agree micro-evolution happens, but I don't accept macro-evolution."

People who make that statement assume they already know what micro-evolution is and just need to be shown a reason to accept macro-evolution. In fact, they often do NOT know what micro-evolution is. And there is no possibility of understanding macro-evolution until micro-evolution is understood.

I didn't take my imaginary example to the point of speciation precisely for that reason: to focus your attention on what is happening in the existing species prior to speciation.

If it is clear how a species changes over time without speciation, then we can look at how speciation comes about.

Thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed answer. That's a lot to just digest and understand.

 

[Diamonds2004]

Take this in question, where does an academic pursuit intersect in any rightful way with a court unless someone lied about data or stole property.

Courts are a place to evualuate the moral dimensions of human behavior with responsiblity for the consequences of those actions of an individual. a.k.a motives and actions. The bantering about origins is best left in a philosophy class. Period. A judge is not a smart guy if he doesn't leave academia alone and its debating mobs lest their actions be of moral consequnce, (stealing property, lying, murder, adultery). I think you can see the track of thought.

The data on all living things says one thing: life has a common origin. The data is not debated, its the interpretation of the origin.
Evolutionists, ID supporters, or whatever theory of origin is held are simply the interpretation of what that origin specifically is. Let the best supported theories in the field, whether evolutions or ID, be battled in the philosophy class and let students make their own conclusions.

This guy is no judge. He is making a mockery of any court that has any spine in making just decisions concerning moral actions in light of laws in line with God own moral law, the Ten Commandments. It's just simple enough.

Academia is the realm of science debate, the courts are for the moral evaluation of human behavior. Origin theory are entirely in their nature and fine detail a science debate. It's not the courts territory or jurisdiction.

A mockery of the justice system indeed.

 

[notto]

Take this in question, where does an academic pursuit intersect in any rightful way with a court unless someone lied about data or stole property.

When it intersects with a constitutional issue.

A mockery of the justice system indeed.

Only if you don't understand what issues courts can and do address.

 

[Dannager]

Take this in question, where does an academic pursuit intersect in any rightful way with a court unless someone lied about data or stole property.

Courts are a place to evualuate the moral dimensions of human behavior with responsiblity for the consequences of those actions of an individual. a.k.a motives and actions. The bantering about origins is best left in a philosophy class. Period. A judge is not a smart guy if he doesn't leave academia alone and its debating mobs lest their actions be of moral consequnce, (stealing property, lying, murder, adultery). I think you can see the track of thought.

The data on all living things says one thing: life has a common origin. The data is not debated, its the interpretation of the origin.
Evolutionists, ID supporters, or whatever theory of origin is held are simply the interpretation of what that origin specifically is. Let the best supported theories in the field, whether evolutions or ID, be battled in the philosophy class and let students make their own conclusions.

This guy is no judge. He is making a mockery of any court that has any spine in making just decisions concerning moral actions in light of laws in line with God own moral law, the Ten Commandments. It's just simple enough.

Academia is the realm of science debate, the courts are for the moral evaluation of human behavior. Origin theory are entirely in their nature and fine detail a science debate. It's not the courts territory or jurisdiction.

A mockery of the justice system indeed.

Except that this is a constitutional issue and the courts have a responsibility to test the constitutionality of policy and law. Since the school board's decision constitutes government policy (however local), it is subject to the process of judicial review. For more information on judicial review and its history, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review. It would actually have been a mockery of the judicial system for the judge not to have examined this policy.

 

[david_x]

Courts are a place to evualuate the moral dimensions of human behavior with responsiblity for the consequences of those actions of an individual. a.k.a motives and actions. The bantering about origins is best left in a philosophy class. Period. A judge is not a smart guy if he doesn't leave academia alone and its debating mobs lest their actions be of moral consequnce, (stealing property, lying, murder, adultery). I think you can see the track of thought.

how it should work, perhaps.

Except that this is a constitutional issue and the courts have a responsibility to test the constitutionality of policy and law. Since the school board's decision constitutes government policy (however local), it is subject to the process of judicial review. For more information on judicial review and its history, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review. It would actually have been a mockery of the judicial system for the judge not to have examined this policy.

It is inhibiting the bill of rights though, no law for or against a religion. I mean come on, it's like they have doubt that the bible is devine! I could never have enough faith to believe what they do!

 

[Dannager]

It is inhibiting the bill of rights though, no law for or against a religion. I mean come on, it's like they have doubt that the bible is devine! I could never have enough faith to believe what they do!

I'm having trouble understanding your point here.

 

[david_x]

no law for or against a religion.

I mean at least follow your own rules right?

 

[Dannager]

no law for or against a religion.

I mean at least follow your own rules right?

I understand what the Constitution says. What are you trying to apply it to? What's your point? Who isn't following their own rules and how?

 

[david_x]

America! it clearly defines their drifting from their founding father's!

What are you trying to apply it to?

The question asked in this thread.

 

[chaoschristian]

Academia is the realm of science debate, the courts are for the moral evaluation of human behavior. Origin theory are entirely in their nature and fine detail a science debate. It's not the courts territory or jurisdiction. A mockery of the justice system indeed.

Remeber, the court did not pursue this action. It did not reach and out decide that it wanted to make a decision regarding evolution vs. creation.

The plaintiffs felt that their 1st Amendment rights had been abridged by agents of the state and petitioned the court for redress. In order to answer the primary question (were rights abridged) the court also had to answer a secondary question (does ID have a religious component).

If one cannot go to the courts to have these kinds of questions answered, then where to you propose one goes?

 

[chaoschristian]

It is inhibiting the bill of rights though, no law for or against a religion.

What do you think the 1st Amendment means?

 

[Dannager]

America! it clearly defines their drifting from their founding father's!



The question asked in this thread.

Which question? I still have absolutely no idea what you're referring to.