Check your K-12 textbooks. They draw water drops as "pointed ovals", claim that laser light is in-phase light, that batteries store charge, that water goes anti-clockwise down the drain in the Northern hemisphere, and all the other things I said. These are all incorrect or misrepresentations of what is correct. I didn't make these up. They're in common classroom textbooks. You were never taught *any* of those false things? I doubt that seriously.
They seem to be splitting things up into "macroevoloution" and "microevoloution" with some hazy distinction between the two they never really get into. I mean, where's the line? I'm sure they would rather not have to pay attention to that, but you can't completely _ignore_ it; i mean, genetics isn't something you can ignore, and what they call "microevoloution" can kill you, since diseases do it constantly.
Just for the record, microevolution and macroevolution are not words made up by creationists. Microevolution is the change within a species, but not resulting in the change to a new species, i.e. moths that change wing patterns based on the change in available resting places, but are still able to breed with the "old wing-style" moths. Macroevolution is the change of a species to a new species, i.e. the "new wing-style" moths would not be able to breed with the "old wing-style" moths.
Where does "microevoloution" stop and "macroevoloution" start? You can interbreed dogs and get new things; so are all dogs related? What about wolves? At some point in order for creationism to work you've got to point at one specific thing that begat all doglike creatures, or all catlike or cowlike or undersea protazoa or fish. But are all fish from the same ancestor? What about sharks? They're a lot bigger. Things get very hazy, especially if you pay any attention to the fossil record. You start looking for the one ancestor of all those things and find it's pretty similar to a lot of other things at that time.
This was covered in my previous explanation. Creationism doesn't group things into "doglike" and "catlike" or "fishlike". Likewise, biology deals with specific species. Can a dog and a wolf breed? If so they're the same species. Can your two example fish breed? If so, they're the same species. However, for the point of evolution, "doglike" and "catlike" do have meaning, because we're trying to determine common ancestry of modern (or fossil-record) species. Just don't confuse the statements of evolution and creationism. Another misconception about creationism is that it explains all current species. It doesn't. Don't forget that those that beleive in the Biblical creationism would also beleive in Noah's arc, in which two of all creatures existing at that time (not necessarily those that were at creation) were loaded into the arc, and that current species are descended from those.
Oh, that's right, carbon dating is all lies. But then if THAT'S true, we've got to reevaluate a LOT of history, since we base dates of certain early historical things on carbon dating and similar technologies. All our dates must be wrong. And what about atomic science? it describes exactly how and why carbon dating works; if carbon dating is lies, then that means our entire hypothesis of nuclear decay is totally wrong.
You're right about that. If the theories of nuclear decay are wrong, then that changes a lot. The point that scientists supporting creation make is that it's possible our theories on nuclear decay are wrong, and that the rate of decay is not constant (i.e. we haven't been observing decay for 5700 years to know for sure the half-life of Carbon-14, and haven't observed that the protons emitted by the sun for the past 700 centuries has been a constant (i.e. the decay is caused by proton bombardment, and 700 centuries is the "upper limit" of C-14 dating).
You can't really put creationism in a school. It isn't science.
I agree. It isn't. I certainly wouldn't support the presentation of creationism as science. But please don't make the mistake that everything in your science book is good science either. See things like: there is no gravity in space, sound travels better though solids and liquids than air, friction is caused by rough surfaces, infrared light = heat, rainbows have only seven colors, laser light is "in phase", air is weightless, water drops are "pointy ovals", batteries store electrical charge, hot water freezes faster, water drains clockwise/anti-clockwise depending on your hemisphere, etc. So I wouldn't call Creationism science either. But then I would correct all the falsehoods that are taught as science also.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can "teach" a scientific theory, and verify it through experimentation (that's what those "labs" were for after all). You can only "read" religious theories, or state what they are...the reasoning behind it shouldn't really be teachable material, except maybe for history class.
I agree that it is difficult to teach creationism in a scientific vein, though there are those that do an excellent job of presenting their attempts (see http://www.creationseminar.com for an example). But, I do want to point out that macroevolution also does not stand up to standard lab reproduction. We simply haven't been observing long enough.
Microevolution is not necessarily evidence for macroevolution. Now the fact is, I agree with you completely; my college major was physics (though I am a computer programmer now). However, macroevolution cannot be taught as scientific fact any more than the Big Bang can. In both cases, assumptions are being made based on sets of observation without reproduction of environment or forces to demonstrate causality. They are both absolutely theories at this point, not facts. If we ever witness one species evolving into another however, that is proof of macroevolution (though it would not be proof that it happened to our ancestors). If humans ever evolve into another species (i.e. we have a human strain that can breed with one another but not with modern humans) then there will be proof it can happen, and strong evidence that it may have occured to our ancestors.
As for the New Mexico school system, I suppose they can decide for themselves which topics to present and which to not present in an official curriculum, but that doesn't make it any more correct than Kansas' decision.
And one final note: so many present evolution as the theory that modern man descended from apes. I hope this is not what is being taught in schools now, because this is not what the theory actually states. It states that modern man and modern apes descended from a common ancestor, which is quite a different thing.
The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all? Firewalls or not, a database that can be harmed by tampering doesn't belong on a public network. The ASX is just airing its bad security practices.
The Proliant 6000 comes in 2 flavors: up to 4-way PPros, or up to 4-way PII/PIII Xeons, not plain-vanilla PIIs. We have about 60 of them in 2 and 4-way PPro configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your K-12 textbooks. They draw water drops as "pointed ovals", claim that laser light is in-phase light, that batteries store charge, that water goes anti-clockwise down the drain in the Northern hemisphere, and all the other things I said. These are all incorrect or misrepresentations of what is correct. I didn't make these up. They're in common classroom textbooks. You were never taught *any* of those false things? I doubt that seriously.
They seem to be splitting things up into "macroevoloution" and "microevoloution" with some hazy distinction between the two they never really get into. I mean, where's the line? I'm sure they would rather not have to pay attention to that, but you can't completely _ignore_ it; i mean, genetics isn't something you can ignore, and what they call "microevoloution" can kill you, since diseases do it constantly.
Just for the record, microevolution and macroevolution are not words made up by creationists. Microevolution is the change within a species, but not resulting in the change to a new species, i.e. moths that change wing patterns based on the change in available resting places, but are still able to breed with the "old wing-style" moths. Macroevolution is the change of a species to a new species, i.e. the "new wing-style" moths would not be able to breed with the "old wing-style" moths.
Where does "microevoloution" stop and "macroevoloution" start? You can interbreed dogs and get new things; so are all dogs related? What about wolves? At some point in order for creationism to work you've got to point at one specific thing that begat all doglike creatures, or all catlike or cowlike or undersea protazoa or fish. But are all fish from the same ancestor? What about sharks? They're a lot bigger. Things get very hazy, especially if you pay any attention to the fossil record. You start looking for the one ancestor of all those things and find it's pretty similar to a lot of other things at that time.
This was covered in my previous explanation. Creationism doesn't group things into "doglike" and "catlike" or "fishlike". Likewise, biology deals with specific species. Can a dog and a wolf breed? If so they're the same species. Can your two example fish breed? If so, they're the same species. However, for the point of evolution, "doglike" and "catlike" do have meaning, because we're trying to determine common ancestry of modern (or fossil-record) species. Just don't confuse the statements of evolution and creationism. Another misconception about creationism is that it explains all current species. It doesn't. Don't forget that those that beleive in the Biblical creationism would also beleive in Noah's arc, in which two of all creatures existing at that time (not necessarily those that were at creation) were loaded into the arc, and that current species are descended from those.
Oh, that's right, carbon dating is all lies. But then if THAT'S true, we've got to reevaluate a LOT of history, since we base dates of certain early historical things on carbon dating and similar technologies. All our dates must be wrong. And what about atomic science? it describes exactly how and why carbon dating works; if carbon dating is lies, then that means our entire hypothesis of nuclear decay is totally wrong.
You're right about that. If the theories of nuclear decay are wrong, then that changes a lot. The point that scientists supporting creation make is that it's possible our theories on nuclear decay are wrong, and that the rate of decay is not constant (i.e. we haven't been observing decay for 5700 years to know for sure the half-life of Carbon-14, and haven't observed that the protons emitted by the sun for the past 700 centuries has been a constant (i.e. the decay is caused by proton bombardment, and 700 centuries is the "upper limit" of C-14 dating).
You can't really put creationism in a school. It isn't science.
I agree. It isn't. I certainly wouldn't support the presentation of creationism as science. But please don't make the mistake that everything in your science book is good science either. See things like: there is no gravity in space, sound travels better though solids and liquids than air, friction is caused by rough surfaces, infrared light = heat, rainbows have only seven colors, laser light is "in phase", air is weightless, water drops are "pointy ovals", batteries store electrical charge, hot water freezes faster, water drains clockwise/anti-clockwise depending on your hemisphere, etc. So I wouldn't call Creationism science either. But then I would correct all the falsehoods that are taught as science also.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can "teach" a scientific theory, and verify it through experimentation (that's what those "labs" were for after all). You can only "read" religious theories, or state what they are...the reasoning behind it shouldn't really be teachable material, except maybe for history class.
I agree that it is difficult to teach creationism in a scientific vein, though there are those that do an excellent job of presenting their attempts (see http://www.creationseminar.com for an example). But, I do want to point out that macroevolution also does not stand up to standard lab reproduction. We simply haven't been observing long enough.
Microevolution is not necessarily evidence for macroevolution. Now the fact is, I agree with you completely; my college major was physics (though I am a computer programmer now). However, macroevolution cannot be taught as scientific fact any more than the Big Bang can. In both cases, assumptions are being made based on sets of observation without reproduction of environment or forces to demonstrate causality. They are both absolutely theories at this point, not facts. If we ever witness one species evolving into another however, that is proof of macroevolution (though it would not be proof that it happened to our ancestors). If humans ever evolve into another species (i.e. we have a human strain that can breed with one another but not with modern humans) then there will be proof it can happen, and strong evidence that it may have occured to our ancestors.
As for the New Mexico school system, I suppose they can decide for themselves which topics to present and which to not present in an official curriculum, but that doesn't make it any more correct than Kansas' decision.
And one final note: so many present evolution as the theory that modern man descended from apes. I hope this is not what is being taught in schools now, because this is not what the theory actually states. It states that modern man and modern apes descended from a common ancestor, which is quite a different thing.
The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all? Firewalls or not, a database that can be harmed by tampering doesn't belong on a public network. The ASX is just airing its bad security practices.
The Proliant 6000 comes in 2 flavors: up to 4-way PPros, or up to 4-way PII/PIII Xeons, not plain-vanilla PIIs. We have about 60 of them in 2 and 4-way PPro configuration.