FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Loch Ness Monster is real, therefore, Evolution is false.





quex
Wow, that subject line is flamebait.

But this is insanely stupid:
Quote:

A state in America is paying for children to attend fundamentalist schools where the existence of the Loch Ness monster is taught as fact in an effort to disprove the theory of evolution. (click for article)


SERIOUSLY?

I mean, really?

First of all, HOW DOES THE LOCH NESS MONSTER DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION? o____o

Secondly, it's now okay to lie to kids in a school setting if it makes them believe in a religion?

I hate my country so much sometimes.

Hey England, talk some sense into these idiots, will you? OH WAIT:

Quote:
Around 6,000 schools teach the controversial curriculum in more than 140 countries, including the UK, although they are not funded by the state. In 2009, a UK government agency ruled ACE's exams - International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) - were equivalent to A-levels.


....so now you guys are infected, too. Great.
Quote:

Material on the course includes:

* The Loch Ness monster disproves evolution
* Apartheid was beneficial to South Africa as segregated schools meant different heritages could be passed on to children
* Unquestionable proof exists for creationism


WHY ARE WE SO DUMB Brick wall
dharmin
i thought i saw the lochness monster once, but i may have been drunk!! Laughing Laughing

on the question of how it affects the theory of evolution,
The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long surviving plesiosaurs.. and plesiosaurs lived during the jurassic period..

hence, darvin's theory of evolution is somewhat proved wrong as the large sized body animals from the jurassic period are supposed to get extinct or evolve into a smaller body structure to adapt!

P.S. i am somewhat of a believer!!! Cool
kelseymh
dharmin wrote:
i thought i saw the lochness monster once, but i may have been drunk!! Laughing Laughing

on the question of how it affects the theory of evolution,
The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long surviving plesiosaurs.. and plesiosaurs lived during the jurassic period..

hence, darvin's theory of evolution is somewhat proved wrong as the large sized body animals from the jurassic period are supposed to get extinct or evolve into a smaller body structure to adapt!

P.S. i am somewhat of a believer!!! Cool


Yup, we can tell you're a "believer" because of how ignorant you are.

Natural selection doesn't say anything about "trends" in evolution. Life forms evolve to adapt to changing local environmental conditions. Some get larger, some get smaller. Some get more fur, some get less.

If you know what selection pressures are in force, then it is possible to predict (and there are hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers which do predict) how a given species will change.

Nothing in natural selection says that large animals "are supposed to get extinct."
quex
kelseymh wrote:
dharmin wrote:
i thought i saw the lochness monster once, but i may have been drunk!! :lol: :lol:

on the question of how it affects the theory of evolution,
The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long surviving plesiosaurs.. and plesiosaurs lived during the jurassic period..

hence, darvin's theory of evolution is somewhat proved wrong as the large sized body animals from the jurassic period are supposed to get extinct or evolve into a smaller body structure to adapt!

P.S. i am somewhat of a believer!!! 8)


Yup, we can tell you're a "believer" because of how ignorant you are.

Natural selection doesn't say anything about "trends" in evolution. Life forms evolve to adapt to changing local environmental conditions. Some get larger, some get smaller. Some get more fur, some get less.

If you know what selection pressures are in force, then it is possible to predict (and there are hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers which do predict) how a given species will change.

Nothing in natural selection says that large animals "are supposed to get extinct."


Well said, and thank you for it. :3
Bikerman
I am thinking of adopting a simple policy with regard to this type of (evolution is wrong) posting.
Quite simply, if the poster is prepared to demonstrate that they have at least a basic knowledge of evolutionary theory then I'm willing to debate it.
They can do this very easily by trying a little quiz I've put together on my site. If they manage 15 out of 20, or more, then I'm prepared to accept that they have at least a working knowledge of evolution. If not then I don't really think that they merit the time needed for proper discussion.
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/index.php/learning-zone/evolution-test-your-knowledge
Bondings
Bikerman wrote:
I am thinking of adopting a simple policy with regard to this type of (evolution is wrong) posting.
Quite simply, if the poster is prepared to demonstrate that they have at least a basic knowledge of evolutionary theory then I'm willing to debate it.
They can do this very easily by trying a little quiz I've put together on my site. If they manage 15 out of 20, or more, then I'm prepared to accept that they have at least a working knowledge of evolution. If not then I don't really think that they merit the time needed for proper discussion.
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/index.php/learning-zone/evolution-test-your-knowledge

I took the test and it seems quite hard (I think I got 11 by a very quick pass, although there were some problems I think). Also, it includes some questions about trials that might be related to evolution but have nothing to do with biologic knowledge.

By the way, why don't you display the correct answers after the question or after the test (that's the only reason I clicked through all the questions hoping to get the results at the end)? Or did I skip them somewhere?
Bikerman
Bondings wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I am thinking of adopting a simple policy with regard to this type of (evolution is wrong) posting.
Quite simply, if the poster is prepared to demonstrate that they have at least a basic knowledge of evolutionary theory then I'm willing to debate it.
They can do this very easily by trying a little quiz I've put together on my site. If they manage 15 out of 20, or more, then I'm prepared to accept that they have at least a working knowledge of evolution. If not then I don't really think that they merit the time needed for proper discussion.
http://www.bikerman.co.uk/index.php/learning-zone/evolution-test-your-knowledge

I took the test and it seems quite hard (I think I got 11 by a very quick pass, although there were some problems I think). Also, it includes some questions about trials that might be related to evolution but have nothing to do with biologic knowledge.

By the way, why don't you display the correct answers after the question or after the test (that's the only reason I clicked through all the questions hoping to get the results at the end)? Or did I skip them somewhere?

Hi bondings - the reason for including the questions which aren't directly related to the theory is that I think, when arguing evolution vs creationism, a knowledge of context is essential. I have come across people who do have a reasonable grasp of the basic theory, but have a completely wakko view of the context - either they genuinely believe that there is serious dispute amongst biologists about the theory, or they believe that ID is genuinely an alternative explanation.
The reason for not displaying the correct answers is simple - it makes it more difficult to cheat. I've allowed that people can take the test several times. If the correct answers were given they could simply note them down and pass the test on the next attempt. There is a bank of questions, so different questions will be presented each time, but that bank is limited and inevitably many of the same questions will appear.

I take your comments about the difficulty on board. I honestly didn't think the questions were that difficult. If you have the time, have another go and give it your full attention......It may be that I need to either reduce the 'pass' score or include some simpler questions...

For information - the scores registered to-date are:
19, 18, 16, 15, 14, 12, 12, 11, 11, 9, 4
ninjakannon
I took your quiz Bikerman and got 15; similar to Bondings I think it would be pretty difficult for someone who didn't have much scientific experience, but did have a fair understanding of the general principles of evolution and natural selection. I'd never heard of some of the terms before though I found it pretty easy to see what they meant. (Also: hah, of course you didn't find the questions that difficult!)

It's a shame that it's come to creating a quiz for you (though I do understand).

Onto topic: bad arguments have always surrounded evolution so to hear another is no surprise and I don't really think it needs paying attention to here. However, children being taught a lie. And such a lie - I cannot believe the teachers believe this themselves, even if you think there's a grain of chance that the Loch Ness Monster does exist, you don't believe it's a fact, right? Values more important than spreading their faith have been eroded here. Where are trust, integrity, tolerance?

If someone really wants to give an example of dinosaurs that are alive concurrently with man why not at least use any of crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, certain species of turtle (or tortoise?), etc. At least that'd start with a straight fact!


Also, lol: "Material on the course includes: Unquestionable proof exists for creationism". Surely the important parts of any religion are not things which require proof (or can be proven)? If a major part of your religious belief is something as irrelevant to being good in this world as the age of the planet, surely that needs thinking about. (This can remain rhetorical unless someone disagrees.)
quex
17. c:

I like this test. Mind if I link to it on future occasions?

Wish I knew which ones I got wrong, though. Probably Lamarck's giraffe. -_-;
Bikerman
quex wrote:
17. c:

I like this test. Mind if I link to it on future occasions?

Wish I knew which ones I got wrong, though. Probably Lamarck's giraffe. -_-;

Feel free to link to it.
I looked through the results - I think you got the following wrong:
Q4 - mutation lies at the heart of all evolutionary theory (Correct answer is 'completely true'. You said 'mostly true')
Q14 Which of the following is NOT a component of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? (Correct answer is 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' (that would be Lamarkian evolution). You said variation amongst species)
Q19 Scientists consider the theory of evolution a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth. (Correct answer is 'completely true' - you said 'mostly true').

17 is a good effort - a very respectable score - and the ones you got wrong were 'only just' wrong Smile
quex
Bikerman wrote:
quex wrote:
17. c:

I like this test. Mind if I link to it on future occasions?

Wish I knew which ones I got wrong, though. Probably Lamarck's giraffe. -_-;

Feel free to link to it.
I looked through the results - I think you got the following wrong:
Q4 - mutation lies at the heart of all evolutionary theory (Correct answer is 'completely true'. You said 'mostly true')
Q14 Which of the following is NOT a component of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? (Correct answer is 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' (that would be Lamarkian evolution). You said variation amongst species)
Q19 Scientists consider the theory of evolution a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth. (Correct answer is 'completely true' - you said 'mostly true').

17 is a good effort - a very respectable score - and the ones you got wrong were 'only just' wrong Smile


Oh, thanks! (Did know you were logging answers....eep!)

Q4 - Aren't there important corollaries to evolutionary theory that state some non-genetic advantages play a superior role in determining the success of some species (butcher bird's selection of thorns, use of tools among apes, human technological progress)? But honestly, the things that kept me from picking "completely true" was the line "at the heart of" (metaphor gives wiggle room) and "completely" (nothing is ever absolute). You can just write me off to paranoia and too much multiple-choice testing in childhood. -_- That said, you write your questions like a professor who has been through a considerable number of quality psychology lectures. XD

Q14 - Did you mean variation between species, or really variation amongst species? Either way, I concede.

Q19 - Here I should like to argue. The theory of evolution does not ultimately address genesis (how life first developed from non-life). I propose that a firm theory of genesis for the establishment of those mechanisms by which mutation occurs (genetics) and evolution depends is crucial for a "complete explanation" of the development of life on Earth. Therefore, the theory of evolution is, at present, not complete.
Bikerman
I'm not logging the answers to a particular poster (ie, the results are anonymous) - but given your score, and the rough time, I was able to guess which results were yours...

Q19 - what does the question say?
"Scientists consider the theory of evolution a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth"

It does NOT say 'how life arose'. Abiogenesis is a completely different issue. Evolution requires some sort of replicating organic system - whether you call it 'life' or not is actually quite arguable. Creationists and IDiots frequently try to conflate evolution and abiogenesis and you have, to a small extent, fallen into this trap by saying that the theory of evolution is not complete until it explains abiogenesis. I would just point out, amongst friends, the fact that such a view is COMPLETE HORSESHIT Smile
Evolution does not set out to explain abiogenesis and stands completely distinct.

To see why this apparent nit-picking is actually CRUCIALLY important, pose yourself the following question:

Does the theory of evolution work, regardless of how the first replicating molecules arrived on Earth? Does it depend, in ANY way, on that episode/event ?

If the answer is No/No then the theory is distinct, and conflating the two issues is wrong.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth"

I'd still say you're on questionable ground here, even with the word 'developed'.

It may just be a matter of opinion, but I'd expect any complete explanation of how something developed to include how the thing began.
(Take an explanation of the development of a stalagmite in a cave. I'd expect any complete explanation to include the very beginning of its formation, as the first water drop hits the floor -- and in fact, I'd even expect it to mention where the water drop came from, and where it picked up the minerals inside it along the way.)
(For another example, would you consider a description of the development of a fetus complete if it didn't include a description of the sperm and egg cells before fertilization occurred?)

(And if you take that interpretation, then evolution does NOT provide a complete explanation, since it only describes how the process goes on, not how it began. --Nor, for that matter, how it ends.)

At any rate, I'd suggest changing the question to read 'how life develops on Earth', which would alleviate this concern.


Though if we want to get really technical, I'd say the most accurate interpretation of
"Scientists consider the theory of evolution a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth"
Could be satisfied as true simply if more than one scientist consider it so, since the statement doesn't specify which scientists, or how many. (Nor does it define who is or is not a scientist... providing an excellent breeding ground for 'no true scotsman' fallacies. ^.^ I suppose I could find at least two people in the world who consider themselves scientists and who 'consider' just about anything you ask.

Try "Scientists consider creationism a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth" To make that statement (at least arguably) true, I only need to find two scientists (from any discipline, or even just random crackpots claiming to be scientists) who consider it true.)
Bikerman
I just disagree.
'Developed' doesn't imply genesis, and in this case it is obvious that development and genesis are completely separate and distinct 'things'. There is almost no overlap between studying how life arose and studying how species developed, apart from at the margin - where 'non-living' self-replicating molecules became 'life'.
Also, because of the fact that creationists deliberately try to confuse by conflating these two fields of study - evolution and abiogenesis - I think it is important to make the point, hence the language is deliberately chosen.
As for 'Scientists' vs another form, such as 'most scientists' or 'the majority of scientists' - again this is mostly deliberate. Creationists often say there is a dispute amongst scientists about evolutionary theory. The point I am making is that there isn't. Any dispute is on a par/level with dispute about other established theory - Relativity, Quantum dynamics and mechanics etc. We don't find it necessary to say that 'most' scientists think that the universal law of Gravitation - M1M2G/r^2 - is correct. There are, in fact, a few dissenters from this, but they are generally considered insignificant - the same is true of evolutionary theory.
busman
Bikerman wrote:
quex wrote:
17. c:

I like this test. Mind if I link to it on future occasions?

Wish I knew which ones I got wrong, though. Probably Lamarck's giraffe. -_-;

Feel free to link to it.
I looked through the results - I think you got the following wrong:
Q4 - mutation lies at the heart of all evolutionary theory (Correct answer is 'completely true'. You said 'mostly true')
Q14 Which of the following is NOT a component of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? (Correct answer is 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' (that would be Lamarkian evolution). You said variation amongst species)
Q19 Scientists consider the theory of evolution a complete explanation of how life developed on Earth. (Correct answer is 'completely true' - you said 'mostly true').

17 is a good effort - a very respectable score - and the ones you got wrong were 'only just' wrong Smile


Isn't there situations where Lamarkian evolution has been proven right? In a species of insect if the mom lived under constant threat the babies will come out with a natural defense system if not then they come out with no defense system. It's somewhere in my newsweek I'll have to find it lol.

Edit: I scored a 16 on your test and NEVER have taken a single biology class in my life. It was pretty easy all ya have to do is read the questions carefully and understand the word usage. Smile I wish it was 20 but I got a B so I'm happy Smile
Bikerman
Yea - epigenetics is the broad term - change in DNA expression (but not in sequence) which are heritable.
You'd need a biologist to give a full description, but it's not really Lamarkian methinks - at best a sort of neo-Lamarkian mechanism which we are still working out.
mgeek
How do you know that you know?
Bikerman
'Know' is too loaded. We know that we have a good handle on something when we can use our model of it to predict what will happen when we muck around with it. If you have a model that has survived repeated prediction and testing then that, as the wise man said, will do for now..
ocalhoun
Hm... I wonder if this might be the result of someone working on the inside to subvert their message?

If you get their message to say "If the loch ness monster is real, evolution is false", then perhaps some who hear that message will think, "The loch ness monster isn't real, therefore..." ^.^

...A way of sneaking in the opposite message perhaps?
busman
ocalhoun wrote:
Hm... I wonder if this might be the result of someone working on the inside to subvert their message?

If you get their message to say "If the loch ness monster is real, evolution is false", then perhaps some who hear that message will think, "The loch ness monster isn't real, therefore..." ^.^

...A way of sneaking in the opposite message perhaps?


I so hearteningly wish but @ocalhoun the masses in America tend to be really really really stupid so ya...
Radar
I don't agree with evolution, but I am very willing to agree that teaching people false ideas in order to back up your thinking... isn't just deceptive, it's probably going to make it all that much easier for the rest of the thinking to be destroyed at some point later in life. You might be able to incorporate false ideas when you're teaching children, but at some point the children grow up and start to question those ideas, and you need things to be able to stand up to strict scrutiny.

I'm assuming of course that there people teaching don't actually believe the Loch Ness monster is real. If they do, well... I guess there are many people on our planet who believe many interesting things.
quex
Bikerman wrote:
Does the theory of evolution work, regardless of how the first replicating molecules arrived on Earth? Does it depend, in ANY way, on that episode/event ?

If the answer is No/No then the theory is distinct, and conflating the two issues is wrong.


I think you meant Yes/No, right? Smile

Really, it all hinges on the words "complete" and "developed". Without invoking any of Creationsists or IDiots, I maintain that to compose a "complete explanation of how life developed on Earth", genesis must be addressed. If the description were only changed to "a complete explanation of how life differentiates into new forms on Earth", I would concede.

Meanwhile, I do agree entirely that the theory of evolution, without genesis, is a perfectly valid. The lack of genesis does not discount it as a working model (the Creationism thing), just sliiiightly pushes it outside of the boundaries of what I am willing to describe as a "complete" explanation of life on Earth.

Personally, I'm also still waiting for the fundamental definition of life to be settled on the part of viruses and prions. Shall we tackle that? Very Happy
darthrevan
Eh I have never believed in the loch ness, nor big foot. I also don;t believe in evolution either. I am a Christian and I believe that evolution never happened and the theory, in my opinion/view, tries to displace God.
kelseymh
darthrevan wrote:
Eh I have never believed in the loch ness, nor big foot. I also don;t believe in evolution either. I am a Christian and I believe that evolution never happened and the theory, in my opinion/view, tries to displace God.


Then you need to move your discussion to a non-science forum. Your belief is nonscience (by construction).
quex
darthrevan wrote:
Eh I have never believed in the loch ness, nor big foot. I also don;t believe in evolution either. I am a Christian and I believe that evolution never happened and the theory, in my opinion/view, tries to displace God.


._.

*looks at the "Ubuntu Linux" line*

<_<

I think you're trollin', son.
kelseymh
quex wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
Eh I have never believed in the loch ness, nor big foot. I also don;t believe in evolution either. I am a Christian and I believe that evolution never happened and the theory, in my opinion/view, tries to displace God.

._.
*looks at the "Ubuntu Linux" line*
<_<
I think you're trollin', son.

They're all trolling, son. Check out the IDiot's Web site (http://www.discovery.org/) some time.
darthrevan
what I said may not be science but opinion, everyone has an opinion no matter the subject just because somebody tells you their opinion doesn't mean they're trolling.
kelseymh
darthrevan wrote:
what I said may not be science but opinion, everyone has an opinion no matter the subject just because somebody tells you their opinion doesn't mean they're trolling.


Claiming religious literalism in a scientific discussion is trolling, pure and simple. Please read these guidelines before continuing.
saratdear
Not related to the OP - but Bikerman could you check the link you posted? It gives a 404 now. Would like to give the quiz a try.
zaxacongrejo
LOCH NESS MONSTER is real ive been with him at the military Very Happy our sargeant it was the big foot
anf captan the Yeti
testsoc
It's best not to try to apply logic to illogical people, in my experience. You'll just end up with a headache...
mgeek
No connection between the Loch Ness monster and Evolution.
kelseymh
mgeek wrote:
No connection between the Loch Ness monster and Evolution.


Yes, obviously. However, did you read any of the postings in this topic? Did you read the original posting which explained the title?

After you've done so, and especially after you've read the responses, please feel free to come back and post your own original thoughts on the matter.
fuzzkaizer
sorry to awake this thread, BUT somehow
"No connection between the Loch Ness monster and Evolution."
indeed makes sense.

if someone wants to come to a conclusion like "Loch Ness Monster is real, therefore, Evolution is false." with a logical argument, he would have to accept a row of statements within the theory of evolution, which somehow prove that this theory negates the possibility of the existence of a creature ("CREATURE") like Nessie. Well, I have not done the test, but I doubt that one can prove that without using some external statement. (external to the theory of evolution).

And IF it was possible, still he would have to identify it clearly as a creature defying the theory of evolution,
AND and also prove the actual existence of the Loch Ness Monster, which is another list of statements that have to be accepted.

The latter originally in all probability has NOT MUCH to do with the Evolution Theory statements, and just is combined with it to come to this weird conclusion.
so the whole thing without the implicated statements listed is rather pathetic, but not a logic argument.

bikerman, did you compose a test about logic argumentation somewhere?
coolclay
If the Loch Ness monster did in fact exist and there did happen to be an extant population of breeding plesiosaurs somewhere it certainly wouldn't "prove" evolution one way or the other.

Topics like this just help reinforce the lack of education on both of the sides of the topic.
Related topics
Tall tales you were told as a child?
ALIENS AND UFOs
Does Bigfoot exist?
Monster of Loch Ness
Do you believe in Aliens ?
Other life forms in the universe
Just look at all the things caused by global warming!
Where I Work
Bigfoot
Would You Help A Stranger?
Provide evidence of the Supernatural (God et al.)
Santa vs God
Which phenomenon do you think is real?
What's your most compelling evidence for unproven phenomena?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Education

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.