Send a Message
to TedHOhio

Comments

8,938

Joined

Jan 13, 2008

Badges

TedHOhio's Favorites

TedHOhio Profile

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution

Actually that's not true. In most states 3rd grade science students know how evolution works, the basics. By the time you get to 6th or 7th grade, you gain a better and more detailed understanding, especially once you dissect something. The genetics part starts there, but it isn't until high school when you get into much of the meat of evolution and genetics. So it's not just 'evolutionists' who understand it. Anyone with a reasonable education in science understands it as well. Some of them start to deny it because of their religious beliefs . . . and still others claim understanding when they really do not . . . case in point . . . but it's really not that difficult.  (Oct 14, 2014 | post #136)

Evolution Debate

Monkey VS Man

And proving that you are not even any fun. You come in here, make categorical statements and then fail to support any of them, even a little bit. They say it's the thought that counts . . . guess you don't.  (Oct 14, 2014 | post #12)

Evolution Debate

Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist"

Actually it's pretty simple, all they have to do is read your posts . . . they don't even have to go to your site to realize how wrong you are. I wouldn't call you being wrong 'incredibly wrong', I would more put the label of 'willfull' on it, as you are willfully being wrong and you seem to relish in being wrong. It must be an attention thing, because few people are so willfully wrong so often. With your stubbornness, you would be a hell of a researcher, but we would have to work on your attention to detail, or lack thereof.  (Oct 14, 2014 | post #340)

Evolution Debate

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the theory...

A while back Olivia Judson, Biologist, had a column in the NY Times and she pondered the question of what would happen if mutations stopped in all species everywhere. http://opinionator .blogs.nytimes.com /2008/03/11/stop-t he-mutation/  (Oct 13, 2014 | post #426)

Evolution Debate

Monkey VS Man

DO you kiss your mother with that mouth? Actually Einstein was pretty smart. Evidence supports e=mc^2. If you know something different, I would be interested in hearing it . . . and I do expect you to support your claims rather than just making them. You can leave the pejoratives home . . . I'm from Brooklyn, I've heard them all and they rarely impress -- especially misspelled ones. Evidence and support for arguments impress. As for evidence of Einstein's work, you might try looking up the Michelson–Morley experiment or the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment. Both of which offered evidence supporting him. The classic light deflection experiment has been repeated many times and you know what . . . Einstein wins again. Like I said support and evidence impresses, do you have something that refutes Einstein's work?  (Oct 13, 2014 | post #10)

Evolution Debate

Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist"

God requires that we accept junk as science? I don't think so. You might try a new shtick, you keep repeating old worn out jokes and they loose any appeal they might have had 50 years ago.  (Oct 10, 2014 | post #263)

Evolution Debate

Evolution and Creationism in School

So in Astronomy class you should also study Astrology? Numerology in Mathematics? Phrenology in Psychiatry? Alchemy in Chemistry? Creationism is not science and aside from a mention in a historical context it, and the others mentioned here should not be part of the curriculum. We give teachers a limited amount of time and break classes up into subject areas to allow for a focus. If you demand that subjects like Creationism be taught as if it was actual science, then I believe you are doing a disservice to the students. Creationism can be covered in a theology class, or sociology, even a history class, but as science, it doesn't belong. Your other idea of letting students make up their own mind is a sop to sounding fair, but is it really? DO you want students to make up their own mind in math class? How about economics? How about English? You might not remember but over in California just a few years back they actually started trying to teach Ebonics in English class, total failure! School isn't about letting you make up your own mind on what is science and what is not, it's about teaching you enough science so you understand the concepts and ideas. It might lead you into a science career if you find something that peaks your interest. It is not about presenting non-science as if it was science just to satisfy the philosophical leanings of some of the students. Remember if we add Christian Creationism to science then we really have to add all religions creation stories to the mix . . . imagine how ineffectual that would be. you might give this a bit more thought, but the bottom line is do you really want to open the door and let pseudo-scholarship replace actual scholarship? If you think the education system has problems today imagine what that would be like?  (Oct 10, 2014 | post #10)

Evolution Debate

Supreme Court upholds firing of Freshwater in religious-s...

What annoys me the most about this entire case is not the cross-burning into arms, not the teaching of Creationism/Intell igent Design, not his continual disregard for the for the policies and procedures of his superiors, nor even the need for other teachers to re-teach science education to his former students . . .but the cowardice of John Freshwater. Yes, I know a lot of people think he is brave for standing up for his beliefs. But I disagree. To me only a coward lies about his actions when confronted during the school boards investigation. Only a coward who also knows just how wrong he was in his actions would teach his students to lie for him. Let us never forget that he not only lied, which I see as a refusal to accept responsibility, but he taught his students that it's OK to lie. This is not a man I want in the classroom and the only word that comes to mind is cowardice.  (Oct 10, 2014 | post #5)

Evolution Debate

Darwin on the rocks

as expected. Dsimissed!  (Oct 9, 2014 | post #282)

Evolution Debate

Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist"

Sounds like Seattle, only they have three seasons: "Is Raining", "Was Raining", and "Going to Rain".  (Oct 9, 2014 | post #251)

Evolution Debate

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the theory...

I think you are kinda putting the cart before the horse. Remember that a population is not a homogenous group of identical members, but collection of individuals with many differing characteristics. In a population, living in latitudes where the impact of the sun is mitigated by darker skin, the members of the population with slightly darker skin have an advantage. As explained by PolyMath, those folks will pass on their darker skin and eventually the population will have a higher percentage of people with darker skin than it had generations ago. It's not that the sun caused the mutation directly, but the sun was the environmental factor that caused the allele change in the population that resulted in a higher percentage of darker skinned people. Once a part of the population moved to climates with less harsh sunlight, the advantage offered by dark skin is lessened. As a result the population's skin was no longer naturally selected toward darker skin and lightened up. One of the interesting examples of natural selection in the past 150 years involves tusks. Elephants with large tusks have a mating advantage. They tend to win the battle for breeding over elephants with smaller or no tusks. Populations, again are not homogenous. Tuskless males were not eliminated from the population, but were reduced in numbers to be only a small percentage of the males. The increase of tusks within a population is well documented over the years. However, in the last century or so, the percentage of tuskless males has increased dramatically, to over 90% of the males in several elephant populations. The change wasn't that being tuskless offered an advantage, but having large ivory tusks became a disadvantage. Hunting and poaching have taken such a toll that when the females come into season, there are fewer and fewer tusked males to mate with. The result is the tuskless males, who used to be selected for mating rarely, were now very close to being the only game in town. Result significant increase in allele frequency. Interestingly enough in a population that is better protected from illegal poaching has been seeing an increase in tusked males. It's too soon to be sure what will happen since elephant breeding takes a long time, but the indications are there for another shift in allele frequency as long as the population is well protected from poaching. It will be interesting to see. Among other news sites, Newsweek ran an article on it a few years back. There is another study of a protected group of peacocks losing their colorful plumage due living in an environment with a lack of natural predators. Fun stuff.  (Oct 9, 2014 | post #400)

Evolution Debate

Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist"

I prefer the meatballsDon't know, I do recall they made one guy turn his tee-shirt inside out because they didn't like the message 'There's probably no God'. Which I do not believe was against the policy letter sent to PZ and the SSA about their visit. http://scienceblog s.com/pharyngula/2 009/08/08/expelled -from-the-creation -mus/ As for deviating, it wasn't really an option. Except for one room, the rest of it was too narrow and there wasn't really any way to go from display to display except for following the story. You could pause in a few places, but in most of it, you would cause a back-up. There was lots of uniformed security, more than I remember seeing when visiting actual museums and seeing priceless artwork. There was nothing priceless or even irreplaceable there. If someone broke a 'fossil', they would simply cast another one. I was at the Dayton Art Institute last weekend. Much of the artwork is truly irreplaceable, and yet the security is unobtrusive. Not so at kennie's folly.  (Oct 8, 2014 | post #166)

Evolution Debate

Darwin on the rocks

Are you incapable or simply unwilling to do your own homework. You might try a dictionary, I'm sure there's a 6 year old around your neighborhood who can teach you how to use one. That is if the families in the neighborhood let you near their children. If you feel adventurous, you might try an encyclopedia, you might need an 8 year old for that one. I would also suggest Googling it, but I am pretty sure that is way more effort than you would put into learning anything.  (Oct 8, 2014 | post #277)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

Already answered . . . but we are not talking submerged, are we? It also doesn't prevent them from moving, does it?  (Oct 7, 2014 | post #140137)

Evolution Debate

Darwin on the rocks

Actually you don't even need to do that, all you need to do is realize you came form your parents. Now, as for your 'inner self' convincing you that evolution is false, you are committing a logical fallacy there. It's commonly called an 'argument from personal incredulity'. Simply stated you don't believe it, therefore it cannot be true. Just because you don't believe in something does not make it untrue. Evolution, like all natural sciences, requires no belief, the evidence is clear. Let's go back to you for example. You are not a perfect copy of either of your parents, but the majority of you is an amalgamation of your two parents. However approximately 150-200 of your genes did not exist in either of your parents. This has been proven experimentally, and the only way to narrow the details down would be for you and your parents to have a genetics test done. But that being said, you have approximately 150-200 differences from your parents, those are called mutations. Now without going into more detail, you might lay back under the cool shade of a tree and think about how those mutations formed, what they might mean to your children and grandchildren . . . and so on. Remember that your children will also have 150-200 mutations from you and their other parent, and your grandchildren will have 150-200 mutations from their parents . . . and so on. If you are honest with yourself, you might start getting a glimmer of the concepts of evolutionary theory. But it's only a start. COme back when you are ready for more.  (Oct 7, 2014 | post #275)

Q & A with TedHOhio

Headline:

I am evolving as fast as I can

Hometown:

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

Neighborhood:

Oregon Disrict

Local Favorites:

The Dock, The Schuster Center, The Museum Center, Books and Co, Dayton Dragons baseball, Dublin Pub, NY Mets and NY Giants when they play local teams

I Belong To:

No one, but being married my wife might disagree with that remark :-)

When I'm Not on Topix:

I am usually working, teaching, playing with my granddaughter or annoying my wife.

Read My Forum Posts Because:

They are honest!

I'm Listening To:

Other Side of Me, Linda Eder

Read This Book:

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Againsts intelligent Design by Michael Shermer

Favorite Things:

Family, Friends, Football, and Food -- the 4-F's of life :-)

On My Mind:

People and politicians who can’t separate religion from science. I expect it of politicians who pander to anyone with $, but I expect more of people

Blog / Website / Homepage:

http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

I Believe In:

Regardless of what you believe when it comes to the exclusivity of Science and Spirituality, I believe anything other than science should never be taught in science class. Creationism is not science, it is a religious belief. Intelligent Design is also not science for all its attempt to appear based on actual science. I have no issue teaching either one in a Philosophy, Sociology, or even Comparative Religion classes, but not science!