In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
So that is your point?
I would guess that you didn't receive any serious responses because you make these two statements in the first paragraph, which shows how extrordinarily hypocritical you are and that discussing anything with you is pointless because you aren't anywhere near open minded enough to listen to anyone. If you held creationism to the same standards you hold evolution to then you shouldn't believe in either. I think if you took a poll and asked if the use of a magic wand more closely described creationism or evolution, you know what the vast majority of people would pick.
It doesn't have to do directly with evolution, but what do you know about the Higgs boson discoveries that happened this summer?
Seriously?!? Here are just a couple that span my career.
Late 1970's - Carl Woese's development of 16S/18S rRNA sequencing as a method to show the evolutionary relationship of ALL living organisms. Learning about Woese's discovery in my courses at MSU inspired me to pursue my PhD in microbiology.
2000's - MSU's very own Richard Lenski's brilliant work following the evolution of E.coli for over 50,000 generations and showing the acquisition of beneficial traits.
Right now I'm reading a great new book about what we have learned about evolution by studying microbes.
This post was edited by Green Genes 23 months ago
Research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doing - Werner von Braun
Your post is fundamentally flawed, as were your previous posts. You keep expecting some kind of scientific back and forth when you don't even grasp the concept of what you are posting.
This is why no one is bothering with your continued chatter. Also, you are probably a schtick.
Not to mention specifically human evolution discoveries in relation to our common ancestor with the apes. Genome sequencing of ape and man have yielded tons of cool discoveries about our evolutionary tract.
I have no idea why I bother but I guess I like a good challenge and I'll do just about anything to avoid prepping for tomorrow's lab.
Here's your point by point response. There are so many issues I can't address all of them without writing a dissertation - I've already done that once and don't plan to do it again - so I will address the major issues.
Regarding your description of development. Your major error is describing a caterpillar as an "adult". A caterpillar is an immature intermediate in the development of the butterfly. There was no point in history where a caterpillar was a mature organism that eventually evolved the ability to develop into a butterfly.
Not only is it possible to explain metamorphosis with evolution, it is impossible to explain metamorphosis without evolution. How do you explain the millions of insect species that undergo some type of metamorphosis - each one slightly different than the next? As will be covered next, the power of evolution is the ability to explain diversity.
As has been stated over and over, evolution is NOT about a trait becoming stronger over time. Evolution is about diversity. Species evolve because of natural diversity. Individual traits don't have to get "stronger", they just have to be different. Most evolution occurs because of the acquisition of NEW traits, not necessarily stronger traits. In addition, if "stronger" is always better then why do the "weaker" traits still exist?
Of course a process is a trait. Traits aren't just a physical entity. A trait such as pea color comes about because of a biochemical process in which chemical intermediates are modified by enzymes, eventually producing a yellow or green pigment. Slight changes in that process can lead to other colors or similar variations. Looking at your eyeball question, how does an eyeball form? Isn't that a process? Cells in a certain part of the embryo undergo cell division, differentiate based on their location and adjacent cell types and eventually take on their final form. The eye that forms early in development is very different from the eye in the adult. Slight changes in that developmental pathway can lead to variations we see in the eyes of different animals. It is evolution of the process that leads to those differences.
Once again, a caterpillar did NOT one day "completely dissolve and become a butterfly". Let's say metamorphosis evolved in a "simpler" organism (just to use your terminology) and let's look at your eye issue. Let's say that organism has a relatively complex eye but not quite as complex as the butterfly. As that organism goes through it's developmental pathway, the eye has to undergo development just like the rest of the animal. That means the early eye is immature and can only process in black and white (just like, as hands form, the immature hand of the young embryo doesn't have fully functional fingers) but as the eye matures it gains full function (just like the fingers eventually become fully functional once development is complete). In the early simple insect, the process of metamorphosis begins to evolve such that the immature form with the incomplete eye can live on it's own while both the body and eyes of the organism continues to develop eventually developing into the mature adult. This simple, pre-metamorphosis insect then evolves a stage where it becomes encased in a chrysalis like structure before becoming a mature adult and development of the body and eyes is completed within the structure. So now we have a simple insect which has a free living immature form with simple eyes. That free living form eats and grows while it continues to develop. As it nears maturity, it becomes encased in a chrysalis like structure to finalize development. This will all happen in small changes and entirely feasible. This organism is nothing like the caterpillar/butterfly but it's developmental process is similar. This "simple" first metamorphosing organism is now the common ancestor of metamorphosing insects. As that organism continues to undergo small changes we eventually see the traits seen in the various types of insects such as butterflies.
Check your time lines. Life began about 3.5 billion years ago. Free oxygen in the atmosphere didn't become significant until about 2 billion years ago and multicellular life after that.
Science does not work by debate and answering "tough" questions. Science works by asking questions, forming testable hypotheses, conducting the experiment to see if the results support your hypotheses and then presenting your results to the scientific community for scrutiny.
That you are not aware of something is no surprise to anyone. Your confusion of the metamorphosis of a butterfly and evolution made that quite obvious.
Very nice...good work sir.
Lurking on tRCMB since 1996
Again I'll ask you...please explain your theory of how man came into existence....surely you must have a very well thought out answer to this question given your position on evolution.
After seeing this line a couple more times in the responses from other people, it just dawned on me that you think discoveries in microbiology somehow refute evolution. I would love to hear your explanation because that could not be farther from the truth. Microbiology provides arguably the strongest arguments in support of evolutionary theory and most creationists dismiss those phenomena as "microevolution" as if that somehow makes it irrelevant.
He's an idiot.......I wouldn't bother trading posts with him.......
"No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio
Reply to Duke Silver....
You were the first response. The hook may still be in your mouth.
The following questions just go to show how the it is no suprise that the B
This post was edited by Rogue Leader 23 months ago
youngblood96/viggo martyr/jargon: tRCMB's answer to Vidkun Quisling and Fred Phelps.
I know, but it's good practice to get ready for dealing with the creationist here in MO who now have the right to refuse any assignments that "conflict with their religion".
Dude, you need a new state to work in.......
Unfortunately, yes. It was hidden in a misleading ballot measure called the "Right to Pray" Amendment. Here is the language:
"No student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs."
What is incredible is the measure was put on a primary ballot which had no significant Democratic races so the vast majority of voters were Republican (the same geniuses who voted for Akin as their Senate candidate).
Can't you just fail them then? You don't have to participate, but if you don't, you get a F.
Doesn't this put them at a major disadvantage in standardized testing? If so, does that blow back on you?
And this is true for k-12 public education as well as higher ed?
Why haven't the teachers stood up to this ridiculous law?
And we wonder why we're falling behind the rest of the world in academics...
Natural selection was probably foaming at the mouth when that law passed.
It doesn't specify so it would apply to all levels of education. I think it is going to be a bigger issue in K-12 and may inhibit K-12 teachers from covering evolution. We've discussed how to deal with it in faculty meetings. Hopefully, we are blowing it out of proportion but we'll see what happens.
It is actually a constitutional amendment. People are still trying to figure out the ramifications and as far as I understand the amendment is being fought in the courts.
A lot of people were not even aware of the amendment. The day after the primary, most of my colleagues were stunned to hear that the amendment was even on the ballot and what the outcome would mean. The summary statement simply focused on the "right to pray" aspect and nothing was mentioned about the education element. I almost didn't vote and even when I looked at the measure I only saw the "right to pray" summary. I voted against it simply because it is absurd to pass an amendment for a right that already exists.
holy crap.........what a messed up state that would even allow it on the ballot......
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports