Homeschooling? (Read 1985 times)


Fat butt on couch

    The fittest are most likely to score.

     

    One may argue this assumption is no longer true regarding humans and we are evolving backwards.

    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

     


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      The fittest are most likely to score.

       

      You're going in circles here.

       

      Heh.

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

         Fundamentalists are to the Christian world what our disagreements most likely are in the broader scope of topics.

         

        Yeah, I know that.

          ahh...yer all killing me...or else I am evolving into a meathead....

           

          Hard science was the wrong word...I really need to slow down.  Two of the basic tenets of science is that something is observable.  Like when you mix hydrogen and oxygen with a spark, you get wet.  And  reproducible, in that you can do the same experiment and get wet again...and again.  It involves the five senses.

           

          Neither creation or evolution was observed and it can't really be duplicated (or reproduced).  You have two groups of folks looking at fossil records and land formations and coming up with totally plausible theories on how today's current world came to be...but they are only theories.  One comes out of the bible, the other out of Darwin.  Darwin didn't observe any evolution, he just saw the world and drew some conclusions. 

           

          I can believe the bible as it was written by people who were actually there (at least in the second half and supported by lots of 1st century writings) or I can believe Darwin's writings...but in reality, both require a certain amount of faith no matter which one you choose to believe in.  Many folks confuse mutation with evolution.  One flu virus mutating into another isn't evolution (sorry, my science area is chemistry and nuclear, not biology) or so I have come to understand through my readings...right or wrong...I have to leave the biology expertise to Trent.

            Yeah, I know that.

             

            are we having fun yet?

              "There are numerous evolutionary scientists that can go head to head with any evolutionary scientist in a debate. "

               

              Can someone 'splain this one to me?

               

              Taken at face value, this seems to be, well, a 'duh'.

               

              I assume one of those two parties was supposed to be something besides an evolutionary scientist.  But maybe I'm missing something.

               

              snort...

              xor


                That was an actual question.

                 

                You came into this thread all defense regarding an attack that did not happen.

                 

                Now I'm not sure what you are doing.

                 


                Fat butt on couch

                  Neither creation or evolution was observed and it can't really be duplicated (or reproduced).  You have two groups of folks looking at fossil records and land formations and coming up with totally plausible theories on how today's current world came to be...but they are only theories.  One comes out of the bible, the other out of Darwin.  Darwin didn't observe any evolution, he just saw the world and drew some conclusions. 

                   

                  I can believe the bible as it was written by people who were actually there (at least in the second half and supported by lots of 1st century writings) or I can believe Darwin's writings...but in reality, both require a certain amount of faith no matter which one you choose to believe in.  Many folks confuse mutation with evolution.  One flu virus mutating into another isn't evolution (sorry, my science area is chemistry and nuclear, not biology) or so I have come to understand through my readings...right or wrong...I have to leave the biology expertise to Trent.

                   

                  As Trent indicated, evolution can easily be reproduced in microbiology, it is done all the time.  Apply an antibiotic to a petri dish of bacteria and watch the result.  

                   

                  Your understanding of how evolution is studied is dated.  While it used to be done simply by observing the physical characteristics of organisms and inferring how they came to look like that, we now get down to the SNP level (single nucleotide polymorphism), analyze how gene sequences have changed from one closely related organism to another, and use complex analytical software to develop models of how related organisms evolved.  Then we can validate the biological significance of the genetic changes through more detailed biochemical experiments.

                   

                  You can't run an experiment to observe the evolution of a dinosaur into a bird.  But that does not mean we have not learned to verify the fundamentals than enable that process to be understood with confidence.

                   

                  Faith and science are completely separate.  If you really need science to validate your faith.....your faith is not very strong.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   


                  A Dance with Monkeys

                    One flu virus mutating into another isn't evolution

                     

                    Actually, yes it is.  Assuming that the mutation passes to the next generation of the virus.  Which, of course, it typically does.


                    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                       

                       ...One flu virus mutating into another isn't evolution (sorry, my science area is chemistry and nuclear, not biology) or so I have come to understand through my readings...

                       

                      Actually, it is, as long as the mutation passes to the next generation of the virus.

                       

                      I had the vague impression that from a statistician's POV it isn't really evolution until you have a measurable change in allele distribution?

                       

                      (Ok, I had to look up allele -- do we really need to mix double Ls and single Ls in one word?)

                       

                       

                      MTA: I guess if your population is a sample of one flu virus, then ipso facto, the mutation produces a significant change in distribution Smile

                      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                      A Dance with Monkeys

                        Evolution, almost by definition, happens as a single mutation (or mutation set) in a single organism.  If the mutation is spread out through successive generations, then it becomes statistically observable.  But even before that, evolution has occurred.


                        Fat butt on couch

                          Evolution, almost by definition, happens as a single mutation (or mutation set) in a single organism.  If the mutation is spread out through successive generations, then it becomes statistically observable.  But even before that, evolution has occurred.

                           

                          The key is that individuals never evolve....it's a population-based phenomenon.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                          R2E


                          "run" "to" "eat"

                            This is the problem with social Darwinism: it implicitly assumes an form that evolution "would produce" ahead of the actual workings of evolution, and then criticizes social institutions for not producing that form.

                             

                            Trent kinda did that by extrapolating an ideal human body as one without bunions and then assuming that evolution would work towards that, when there is no reason to assume that it would.

                             

                            The path of evolution can't be predicted.

                             

                            thanks for answering my Q, jeff.

                            i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams

                            MrH


                              The Theory of Evolution just isn't hard science - it doesn't pass the definition for it...as it is not reproducible...in a way..it is just another religious belief.  There are numerous evolutionary scientists that can go head to head with any evolutionary scientist in a debate. 

                               

                              Your not very tolerant of folks different than you are you?

                               

                              Bingo!

                               

                              The process is the goal.

                              Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.


                              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                                w.r.t. "Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time"

                                 

                                Is a single mutation a change in the gene pool?

                                 

                                (Serious question.)

                                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.