A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since when does providing students with more information rather than less
make things worse?

Unless you're providing more time to teach, they are getting less. You can't
teach two things in the space of one.

Sometimes, less is more. Teaching critical thinking by presenting all sides
of an argument is much more valuable than indoctrination into *either* side
of the issue.

Creationism also blinds them from the
truth.

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've
been peer-reviewed.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:47 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've
been peer-reviewed.

It was just a suggestion, Scott, you needn't take it so hard. Relax.
Don't drink so much coffee. The point is that it is easier to claim that
"We're #1" when it is we who decide on the criteria for being #1. Who's to
say that the most highly evolved creature is not some bacteria numbering in
the trillions and trillions and able to adapt to survival almost anywhere.
Man, with all his intelligence, hasn't even managed to number 10 billion,
let alone a single trillion.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.


Read Dawkins "the blind Watch Maker"

Anyway anyone who has read "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" will
know that the white mice run the world as a great big organic experiment
--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:47 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've
been peer-reviewed.

It was just a suggestion, Scott, you needn't take it so hard. Relax.
Don't drink so much coffee. The point is that it is easier to claim that
"We're #1" when it is we who decide on the criteria for being #1. Who's to
say that the most highly evolved creature is not some bacteria numbering in
the trillions and trillions and able to adapt to survival almost anywhere.
Man, with all his intelligence, hasn't even managed to number 10 billion,
let alone a single trillion.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help


Indeed. But that still doesn't prove evolution.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Mike

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 2/16/05 9:59 AM:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Mike

Perhaps some basic discussion of "evolution" would be helpful. It sounds
like Scott thinks that the shark just decides one day "I think I'd like to
change" and evolution begins. Sigh.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Incorrect. The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously
in response to ecological challenges that causes various changes in form
that either survive or don't survive. Evolutionary theory holds that
evolution must be continuous because even if, for example, the shark didn't
change, some other species that the shark uses for food *would* change and
become a threat to the shark's existence in an evolutionary attempt to
advance the other species.

Thus, a prey species like, for example, dolphins, would be evolutionarily
stimulated to advance in order to compete against sharks, and the sharks
would be stimulated to advance in order to compete against the dolphins.

And yet sharks remain the same as they were 400 million years ago. This
makes the theory of evolution a theory, not an unassailable fact.
Creationism, or Intelligent Design is likewise a theory, one which is
supported by a number of facts about physics and mathematical probabilities.

Neither has been proven or disproven conclusively.

Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously

YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a
single definition of a single law of science. Could you please
post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that
clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that
is widely accepted by the scientific community.

One of the standard techniques of the anti-science crowd is to
construct a strawman version of a supposed theory and then
attack that. They often ignore or misunderstand the real
science that is understood and practiced by scientists.
(This from a study by a York University professor - I
can dig up his name and possibly the publication of the
study if you're desperately in need of satisfaction.)

I stand by my original post.

Mike