I think this is a place where people get distracted when it comes to evolution.
Evolution IS directed. It's directed by Natural Selection. The direction it moves in is dictated by the environment and the species fitness to it. Because environments can change, directions also change.
This is a very important distinction because some Intelligent Design proponents (including their top "actual" biologist Michael Behe) believe in Evolution, but not by Natural Selection. They believe in Evolution by Intelligent Design.
I would say that Episodes IV, V and VI were liked enough to carry I, II and III. It's not that the prequels were good movies. It's the originals were loved so much that the prequels sponged off their success.
I normally don't get into these discussions but... midichlorians are the single worse plot device in any major movie franchise.
Yes, I understand the role of mitochondria in human cells. But let's look at this thematically. We're not talking about biology here we're talking about the audience's ability to relate to the characters.
Yoda gives this description of the Force in Empire: "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
This indicates that everyone is connected to the force, that through dedication and faith anyone can become a Jedi. Which is one of the reasons that it's so beloved by people everywhere.
Once mitichlorians are involved, being connected to the force becomes a matter of heredity. You have to be BORN to be a jedi. It doesn't matter how dedicated, faithful, good, etc you are unless you are born into the right family. And this "master race" of jedi decide who gets to be elite based on biological scans - oh, did I also mention they can steal your children based on this data.
It also means that Luke was never an underdog farmboy. He was just member of this master race in hiding.
I think that the issue here is that you're problem is that "macro" evolution (from reptile to bird) can't be proven definitively to be true. It can be falsified (i.e. definitively shown to be false). There is a difference. However, all observable evidence supports evolution. I've mentioned a number of ways that certain aspects and even evolution itself can be falsified, it just hasn't been. All data indicates that it's right. If you see footsteps walking along a path and no straying ones, you assume that someone walked in that direction. If all evidence points to someone walking in direction, you can assume it to be true even if you never saw him actually walk. At least until you have evidence that says otherwise (which there isn't).
Genetically indistinguishable people are twins. They share the same parents. Or are you intentionally disregarding genetics. Also, please cite your google sources on this.
These "almost indistinguishable people" you're talking about... they are different genetically.
Now when we're talking about species, there are traits that make up that species. Then there are common traits throughout. First you can look at observable traits and then look for further more in depth evidence that they share common ancestry. Often they do share genetics in common sometimes they don't. But when they don't you can find another branch on the evolutionary tree "tree of life" where they fit. A good example of this are whales... they have fins but are on a different branch of the tree of life and are significantly different both genetically and evolutionarily from fish. They breathe air without gills, a trait all we mammals share.
This ability to predict placement of organisms on different areas of the tree of life is one of the predictions that evolution makes (and is correct). This is what happened with human chromosome #2.
Intelligent Design makes no such accurate predictions and none that can be tested.
Please be careful when you argue specific example versus the overall criteria. This is something creationists do a lot. They say that the grand canyon was created in a very small period of time (even though evidence suggests millions of years due to erosion) because Mt St Helen's erupted and left a huge crater. That one event is supposed to discount that MOST large canyons were created by erosion.
There's about 150 years of evidence that supports evolution. The Theory of Evolution is based on falsifiable hypotheses, it creates predictions that are amazingly accurate and in 150 years no evidence has been found to solidly refute the foundations of it. For instance, if evolution were wrong, the discovery of DNA should have exposed many of those flaws. But instead, DNA supports evolution and is now the most convincing evidence for it. That is why Evolution is science. Vs creationism which does none of those things.
As I have repeated time and time again... there are many observations or physical experiments that CAN prove evolution false but none have. There are NO observations or physical experiments who's outcome can prove creationism false. The assumptions about the data and different philosophies that creationist come up with can ALWAYS be "God made it that way." This is not useful in the prediction of anything, it cannot tell us that the islets from the pancreas of a pig might be compatible to be implanted in a human to create insulin and cure diabetes and worst of all, it simply cannot be shown to be incorrect. Tell me one way that "God made it that way" can be shown to be false? Short of God coming down and saying "I didn't do that".
If you REALLY want to learn about evolution... this series is a really good primer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&feature=related
Nope. The ape that exists now is NOT the ape-like creature that existed then. Today's apes are descended from that ancestor and may have diverged just as much (could even be more) as we have.
"Just because it doesn't exist now and might be slightly different from the apes we have now does not make it any less an ape."
Doesn't make us any less of an ape either...
"Thinking that the genomes of two similar creatures might also be similar is not rocket science"
But proving it is biological science... using that information to gain a more complete understanding of our own migratory patterns, development and more is what makes it useful.
I don't know what you think falsifiability is but:
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or by a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
The point is that if there are not enough/no similarities between the organisms, it shows that the theory (that the organisms evolved from each other) is FALSE or wrong. That it is NOT TRUE. Theory 2 is false... shown false and therefore falsifiable.
HOWEVER, if there are not enough/no similarities between organisms, it DOES NOT exclude the possibility of a common designer. The "theory" could still be true. No amount of evidence will show that Theory 1 is wrong. Therefore it IS NOT falsifiable.
You seem to be willingly obtuse.
"As a rational person, the idea that everything with multiple similarities descended from a common ancestor, goes against reason, statics, logic, and observable reality."
The problem is you're just talking multiple similarities superficially... I'm talking similarities down to the genetic level here. Don't you and your siblings share your parental traits? Does that go against your reason, "statics", logic and observable reality? GENETICALLY and EVOLUTIONARILY you share a common ancestor - Your parents. Look further than that and you'll find that you share many GENETIC similarities with Chimpanzees. The Theory of Evolution postulates that you and a chimp share a common ancestor.
Yes, please would anyone else like to weigh in on how evolution is falsifiable...
Do you know why we discovered this? Because we knew where to look.
Evolution told us where to look. Since we now understand these differences between the Chimpanzee and human genomes, we understand differences that could arise from medical procedures, gene therapies, etc between the two.
These breakthroughs are why knowing our biological histories is important.
I am being overly technical because it is an overly technical subject.
I don't think I said that man came from modern apes. I said we share a common ancestor. The usual estimate is that ape's and man's divergence occur about 2.3-2.4 million years ago.
Um... I'm not sure I know what you mean... Classes of organisms? Class is a very specific method taxonomy of living things (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species)... I'm not sure that's what you mean, because if you had 36 organisms from different classes, they could not have evolved from each other. They could have evolved from a common ancestor.
BUT... I'm going to assume you don't mean that usage of the word Class.
So let's deal with Theory 2 first. You can look in the fossil record and DNA to see if there are similarities between all the organisms. If there are a significant number of similarities with each other as well as previous organisms, this is evidence to support that they are evolutionarily tied. If there isn't, the theory (that they evolved from each other) is falsified.
Now let's deal with Theory 1. What evidence can exist to support that they weren't Intelligently Designed to be similar? This is the problem with ID. Even with the evidence to support that they evolved from each other. It can still be said that they were "made" to be similar. Evidence is neither required nor can it disprove this theory.
Please notice that I say that the evidence would SUPPORT evolution. I don't say that it proves evolution to be true. It's just the best scientific explanation currently available. If you believe that the best explanation is ID, even though there cannot be evidence to support it or go against it, that's your prerogative. It's just not a valid scientific explanation.
The Theory of Evolution is fascinating... it is one of the most profound scientific theories in human knowledge. How it came about, what it's taught us about biological systems - it's all pretty amazing stuff.
I think they did you a disservice by only spending a week on it. It is the basis on which all genetics is based.
Oh sorry... maybe I should explain. If that evidence existed... that would mean that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor. In fact, that was the problem initially... If there did not exist a pair of fused chromosomes in humans (humans have 46 chromosomes and great apes have 48) another theory of human/ape common ancestry would have to be found because the previous one was falsified. In fact, the entire theory of evolution would probably be in trouble because there really wouldn't be a place for humans to fit in on the evolutionary tree.
If creationism says that God created the Grand Canyon and there is tons of evidence that is presented that shows it was craved out through the process of erosion over millions of years. The answer can STILL be God created it. He could have made it look that way. God could have used erosion to create it (I like this one actually since it shows that religion and science can coexist).
But fundamentally, the initial statement (theory) that God created the grand canyon cannot be shown to be false.
Vestigial Organs is not a theory. It's evidence to support evolution.
I think you're having trouble understanding falsifiability.
Is something is falsifiable, it means that there can be evidence that can be presented so that the theory as it is can be shown to be false. IF for instance, a cat gave birth do a chicken. That proves that the current theory of evolution is false. Thus evolution is falsifiable.
"To take your example, in what way (with what observable data) could you falsify this claim: "The locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome"?"
This one is simple... if another great ape (which has 48 chromosomes) has a set of chromosomes that exhibits similar cloned sequences of telomere-telomere fusion, it indicates that the fused chromosome of human chromosome 2 did NOT result from the fusion of 2 chromosomes of a common ancestor with apes. That would prove that the claim is false. But that's not the case... but IF that evidence was every observed, that would make it false.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "falsifiable" means.
"What part of believing that men came from apes in the past is required to understand how mutations, genetics, and natural selection work in the present day?"
Well... man didn't come from apes. We share a common ancestor. And it's important to understand so people can understand things like this:
Significantly longer explanation that requires significant knowledge in genetics to understand: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/?tool=pmcentrez
This is not present day but it was in the 90's. But if evolution wasn't taught, people wouldn't understand nor be able to interpret these findings (which are actually quite remarkable).
Also, if you're talking about genetics... If the story of the Ark were true, we'd see a lot more species exhibiting this problem (http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=genetic_diversity). Not just cheetahs.
There is very little evidence that the Ark story about the animals is true. At least on the scale that the bible says. There's plenty of evidence of disastrous floods occuring in many places in the world but now we're delving into archeology.
I think you actually proved the original point. That evolution is falsifiable. Everything you mention is the beginnings of a refutation (representative of the falsifiability) of evolution. What we are talking about here is evidence. There is TONS of evidence to support evolution but there can be evidence against evolution.
There can be NO evidence that can be observed that can falsify claims made by creationism short of God coming down from the sky to say "I didn't do that".
I joke sometimes that the only proof that for the non-existence of God would be him saying that he didn't exist.
1) These changes can be observed in the fossil record.
2) Vestigial organs, structures, etc. I find the most interesting are genetic histories. My personal favorite is the vestigial centromere in human chromosome #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)#Evolution
As a scientist though, I will concede that evolution is only our BEST current explanation for these observations. It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer created all these things to appear as though there were other processes at work. But that is not a scientific explanation and in my view holds less value than the scientific (evolutionary) theory.
Irreducible Complexity is pretty much the only hypothesis in Intelligent Design that has even been presented. IC is actually science because it is falsifiable. We can look at the evidence and see whether the facts support Irreducible Complexity.
The facts DO NOT support Irreducible Complexity. Therefore the only scientific hypothesis ever to be presented from Intelligent Design is incorrect. Do we really want to be teaching something that is demonstrably wrong in school?
Although, it's an excellent example of how good science trumps pseudo-science.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when an art becomes a business. The MBAs come in because they understand business and take all the art out of it. They get the art mass produced by factories based on numbers and shove it through with marketing.
And since making games now is so expensive, you're not going to get a lot of risk. That's why every thing that comes out doesn't deviate from the formula.
But... indie games... lots of stuff going on there...
Indeed... that is true for TRUTH... but there are things called FACTS that can be empirically determined. We'd like to think that truth and facts are always aligned but they are not.
"Archeology is the search for fact- not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Dr.Henry Jones, Jr.
I think that a lot of this has to do with how the facts are presented. A lot of the time when someone is blatantly wrong (as most people who watch FOX News are), people present the facts to them in ways that are antagonistic. When someone is attacked (even if it is with the truth) they go on the defensive. And the more effective the attack, the deeper they'll dig in. In this case, the harder they'll hold on to their incorrect views.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a place where people get distracted when it comes to evolution.
Evolution IS directed. It's directed by Natural Selection. The direction it moves in is dictated by the environment and the species fitness to it. Because environments can change, directions also change.
This is a very important distinction because some Intelligent Design proponents (including their top "actual" biologist Michael Behe) believe in Evolution, but not by Natural Selection. They believe in Evolution by Intelligent Design.
I would say that Episodes IV, V and VI were liked enough to carry I, II and III. It's not that the prequels were good movies. It's the originals were loved so much that the prequels sponged off their success.
The prequels are horrible movies.
I normally don't get into these discussions but... midichlorians are the single worse plot device in any major movie franchise.
Yes, I understand the role of mitochondria in human cells. But let's look at this thematically. We're not talking about biology here we're talking about the audience's ability to relate to the characters.
Yoda gives this description of the Force in Empire: "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
This indicates that everyone is connected to the force, that through dedication and faith anyone can become a Jedi. Which is one of the reasons that it's so beloved by people everywhere.
Once mitichlorians are involved, being connected to the force becomes a matter of heredity. You have to be BORN to be a jedi. It doesn't matter how dedicated, faithful, good, etc you are unless you are born into the right family. And this "master race" of jedi decide who gets to be elite based on biological scans - oh, did I also mention they can steal your children based on this data.
It also means that Luke was never an underdog farmboy. He was just member of this master race in hiding.
I think that the issue here is that you're problem is that "macro" evolution (from reptile to bird) can't be proven definitively to be true. It can be falsified (i.e. definitively shown to be false). There is a difference. However, all observable evidence supports evolution. I've mentioned a number of ways that certain aspects and even evolution itself can be falsified, it just hasn't been. All data indicates that it's right. If you see footsteps walking along a path and no straying ones, you assume that someone walked in that direction. If all evidence points to someone walking in direction, you can assume it to be true even if you never saw him actually walk. At least until you have evidence that says otherwise (which there isn't).
In fact, much of science is this way.
Genetically indistinguishable people are twins. They share the same parents. Or are you intentionally disregarding genetics. Also, please cite your google sources on this.
These "almost indistinguishable people" you're talking about... they are different genetically.
Now when we're talking about species, there are traits that make up that species. Then there are common traits throughout. First you can look at observable traits and then look for further more in depth evidence that they share common ancestry. Often they do share genetics in common sometimes they don't. But when they don't you can find another branch on the evolutionary tree "tree of life" where they fit. A good example of this are whales... they have fins but are on a different branch of the tree of life and are significantly different both genetically and evolutionarily from fish. They breathe air without gills, a trait all we mammals share.
This ability to predict placement of organisms on different areas of the tree of life is one of the predictions that evolution makes (and is correct). This is what happened with human chromosome #2.
Intelligent Design makes no such accurate predictions and none that can be tested.
Please be careful when you argue specific example versus the overall criteria. This is something creationists do a lot. They say that the grand canyon was created in a very small period of time (even though evidence suggests millions of years due to erosion) because Mt St Helen's erupted and left a huge crater. That one event is supposed to discount that MOST large canyons were created by erosion.
There's about 150 years of evidence that supports evolution. The Theory of Evolution is based on falsifiable hypotheses, it creates predictions that are amazingly accurate and in 150 years no evidence has been found to solidly refute the foundations of it. For instance, if evolution were wrong, the discovery of DNA should have exposed many of those flaws. But instead, DNA supports evolution and is now the most convincing evidence for it. That is why Evolution is science. Vs creationism which does none of those things.
As I have repeated time and time again... there are many observations or physical experiments that CAN prove evolution false but none have. There are NO observations or physical experiments who's outcome can prove creationism false. The assumptions about the data and different philosophies that creationist come up with can ALWAYS be "God made it that way." This is not useful in the prediction of anything, it cannot tell us that the islets from the pancreas of a pig might be compatible to be implanted in a human to create insulin and cure diabetes and worst of all, it simply cannot be shown to be incorrect. Tell me one way that "God made it that way" can be shown to be false? Short of God coming down and saying "I didn't do that".
If you REALLY want to learn about evolution... this series is a really good primer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&feature=related
Nope. The ape that exists now is NOT the ape-like creature that existed then. Today's apes are descended from that ancestor and may have diverged just as much (could even be more) as we have.
"Just because it doesn't exist now and might be slightly different from the apes we have now does not make it any less an ape."
Doesn't make us any less of an ape either...
"Thinking that the genomes of two similar creatures might also be similar is not rocket science"
But proving it is biological science... using that information to gain a more complete understanding of our own migratory patterns, development and more is what makes it useful.
I don't know what you think falsifiability is but:
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or by a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
The point is that if there are not enough/no similarities between the organisms, it shows that the theory (that the organisms evolved from each other) is FALSE or wrong. That it is NOT TRUE. Theory 2 is false... shown false and therefore falsifiable.
HOWEVER, if there are not enough/no similarities between organisms, it DOES NOT exclude the possibility of a common designer. The "theory" could still be true. No amount of evidence will show that Theory 1 is wrong. Therefore it IS NOT falsifiable.
You seem to be willingly obtuse.
"As a rational person, the idea that everything with multiple similarities descended from a common ancestor, goes against reason, statics, logic, and observable reality."
The problem is you're just talking multiple similarities superficially... I'm talking similarities down to the genetic level here. Don't you and your siblings share your parental traits? Does that go against your reason, "statics", logic and observable reality? GENETICALLY and EVOLUTIONARILY you share a common ancestor - Your parents. Look further than that and you'll find that you share many GENETIC similarities with Chimpanzees. The Theory of Evolution postulates that you and a chimp share a common ancestor.
Yes, please would anyone else like to weigh in on how evolution is falsifiable...
Do you know why we discovered this? Because we knew where to look.
Evolution told us where to look. Since we now understand these differences between the Chimpanzee and human genomes, we understand differences that could arise from medical procedures, gene therapies, etc between the two.
These breakthroughs are why knowing our biological histories is important.
I am being overly technical because it is an overly technical subject.
I don't think I said that man came from modern apes. I said we share a common ancestor. The usual estimate is that ape's and man's divergence occur about 2.3-2.4 million years ago.
Um... I'm not sure I know what you mean... Classes of organisms? Class is a very specific method taxonomy of living things (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species)... I'm not sure that's what you mean, because if you had 36 organisms from different classes, they could not have evolved from each other. They could have evolved from a common ancestor.
BUT... I'm going to assume you don't mean that usage of the word Class.
So let's deal with Theory 2 first. You can look in the fossil record and DNA to see if there are similarities between all the organisms. If there are a significant number of similarities with each other as well as previous organisms, this is evidence to support that they are evolutionarily tied. If there isn't, the theory (that they evolved from each other) is falsified.
Now let's deal with Theory 1. What evidence can exist to support that they weren't Intelligently Designed to be similar? This is the problem with ID. Even with the evidence to support that they evolved from each other. It can still be said that they were "made" to be similar. Evidence is neither required nor can it disprove this theory.
Please notice that I say that the evidence would SUPPORT evolution. I don't say that it proves evolution to be true. It's just the best scientific explanation currently available. If you believe that the best explanation is ID, even though there cannot be evidence to support it or go against it, that's your prerogative. It's just not a valid scientific explanation.
Does it? Wouldn't that just be something "God did"?
The Theory of Evolution is fascinating... it is one of the most profound scientific theories in human knowledge. How it came about, what it's taught us about biological systems - it's all pretty amazing stuff.
I think they did you a disservice by only spending a week on it. It is the basis on which all genetics is based.
That's the problem.
None of these students are going to be professional biologists if they don't learn evolution properly or get taught that creationism is equally valid.
You guys joke. But the bible teaches that pi is exactly 3.
http://gospelofreason.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/
Oh sorry... maybe I should explain. If that evidence existed... that would mean that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor. In fact, that was the problem initially... If there did not exist a pair of fused chromosomes in humans (humans have 46 chromosomes and great apes have 48) another theory of human/ape common ancestry would have to be found because the previous one was falsified. In fact, the entire theory of evolution would probably be in trouble because there really wouldn't be a place for humans to fit in on the evolutionary tree.
But creationism is NOT falsifiable.
If creationism says that God created the Grand Canyon and there is tons of evidence that is presented that shows it was craved out through the process of erosion over millions of years. The answer can STILL be God created it. He could have made it look that way. God could have used erosion to create it (I like this one actually since it shows that religion and science can coexist).
But fundamentally, the initial statement (theory) that God created the grand canyon cannot be shown to be false.
Vestigial Organs is not a theory. It's evidence to support evolution.
I think you're having trouble understanding falsifiability.
Is something is falsifiable, it means that there can be evidence that can be presented so that the theory as it is can be shown to be false. IF for instance, a cat gave birth do a chicken. That proves that the current theory of evolution is false. Thus evolution is falsifiable.
"To take your example, in what way (with what observable data) could you falsify this claim: "The locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome"?"
This one is simple... if another great ape (which has 48 chromosomes) has a set of chromosomes that exhibits similar cloned sequences of telomere-telomere fusion, it indicates that the fused chromosome of human chromosome 2 did NOT result from the fusion of 2 chromosomes of a common ancestor with apes. That would prove that the claim is false. But that's not the case... but IF that evidence was every observed, that would make it false.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "falsifiable" means.
"What part of believing that men came from apes in the past is required to understand how mutations, genetics, and natural selection work in the present day?"
Well... man didn't come from apes. We share a common ancestor. And it's important to understand so people can understand things like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)#Evolution
Significantly longer explanation that requires significant knowledge in genetics to understand:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/?tool=pmcentrez
This is not present day but it was in the 90's. But if evolution wasn't taught, people wouldn't understand nor be able to interpret these findings (which are actually quite remarkable).
Also, if you're talking about genetics... If the story of the Ark were true, we'd see a lot more species exhibiting this problem (http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=genetic_diversity). Not just cheetahs.
There is very little evidence that the Ark story about the animals is true. At least on the scale that the bible says. There's plenty of evidence of disastrous floods occuring in many places in the world but now we're delving into archeology.
I think you actually proved the original point. That evolution is falsifiable. Everything you mention is the beginnings of a refutation (representative of the falsifiability) of evolution. What we are talking about here is evidence. There is TONS of evidence to support evolution but there can be evidence against evolution.
There can be NO evidence that can be observed that can falsify claims made by creationism short of God coming down from the sky to say "I didn't do that".
I joke sometimes that the only proof that for the non-existence of God would be him saying that he didn't exist.
1) These changes can be observed in the fossil record.
2) Vestigial organs, structures, etc. I find the most interesting are genetic histories. My personal favorite is the vestigial centromere in human chromosome #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)#Evolution
As a scientist though, I will concede that evolution is only our BEST current explanation for these observations. It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer created all these things to appear as though there were other processes at work. But that is not a scientific explanation and in my view holds less value than the scientific (evolutionary) theory.
Irreducible Complexity is pretty much the only hypothesis in Intelligent Design that has even been presented. IC is actually science because it is falsifiable. We can look at the evidence and see whether the facts support Irreducible Complexity.
The facts DO NOT support Irreducible Complexity. Therefore the only scientific hypothesis ever to be presented from Intelligent Design is incorrect. Do we really want to be teaching something that is demonstrably wrong in school?
Although, it's an excellent example of how good science trumps pseudo-science.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when an art becomes a business. The MBAs come in because they understand business and take all the art out of it. They get the art mass produced by factories based on numbers and shove it through with marketing.
And since making games now is so expensive, you're not going to get a lot of risk. That's why every thing that comes out doesn't deviate from the formula.
But... indie games... lots of stuff going on there...
Indeed... that is true for TRUTH... but there are things called FACTS that can be empirically determined. We'd like to think that truth and facts are always aligned but they are not.
"Archeology is the search for fact- not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Dr.Henry Jones, Jr.
I think that a lot of this has to do with how the facts are presented. A lot of the time when someone is blatantly wrong (as most people who watch FOX News are), people present the facts to them in ways that are antagonistic. When someone is attacked (even if it is with the truth) they go on the defensive. And the more effective the attack, the deeper they'll dig in. In this case, the harder they'll hold on to their incorrect views.
Nah... she's just THE bad teacher that she's talking about.