Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[kbachler]

Larkin,

Sometimes we will come across people who are not searching for the truth, but rather are just trying to use words that they don’t quite understand to “prove” their agenda.

At some point it will become necessary to dust off our sandals and move on.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin,

Sometimes we will come across people who are not searching for the truth, but rather are just trying to use words that they don’t quite understand to “prove” their agenda.

At some point it will become necessary to dust off our sandals and move on.

These boots are made for walkin’,
And that’s just what they’ll do.
One o’ these days these boots
Are gonna walk all … …

 

[Cat_Herder]

Reinforcements have arrived

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1088&pictureid=8437


Composing life
EMBO Rep. 2000 September 15; 1(3): 217–222.
Daniel Segré and Doron Lancet
Department of Molecular Genetics and The Crown Human Genome Center, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
It is noteworthy that, for identical kinetic parameters, different time courses arise due to minute changes in initial conditions, suggesting chaos-like properties. Within populations of composomes, groups with similar compositions often form, akin to quasi-species of replicating molecules (Eigen and Schuster, 1979; Kuppers, 1983), and these follow evolutionary dynamics of generation and extinction (Segré et al., 1998b, 2000a).

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006 October 29; 361(1474): 1675–1679.
Introduction: conditions for the emergence of life on the early Earth
Sydney Leach, Ian W.M Smith, and Charles S Cockell
The coexistence of unlinked replicators constituting a primordial genome is shown to be possible by involving various factors, including chaotic flows, surface dynamics and compartmentalization.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 December 5; 97(25): 13661–13665.
Chaotic flow: The physics of species coexistence
György Károlyi, Áron Péntek, István Scheuring, Tamás Tél,‖ and Zoltán Toroczka
Specific replicase enzymes are needed to increase the copying fidelity, and thus the length of the replicator, but these replicators are too short to code specific enzymes. This is the “Catch 22” of the prebiotic evolution (12). This catch can be resolved if a mechanism maintains the coexistence of several different replicator molecules and therefore the information necessary for more accurate multiplication can be coded by the union of smaller information carriers. Current theories point out coexistence of replicators moving on a surface in a constrained manner (13, 14), preferring thus the concept of “prebiotic pizza” against the concept of “prebiotic soup” (15). We show that chaotic advection also can provide an alternative explanation for information integration in early evolutionary systems.

I could go on and on. There’s actually a whole field of science called systems biology that is dedicated to this stuff. Why don’t you go take this course at Harvard:

[MCB 110. Introduction to Quantitative Tools for Cell Biology]
Catalog Number: 58465
Philippe Cluzel
Half course (spring term). Hours to be arranged.
This class will introduce students to the physical and mathematical tools that have become **essential to analyze and understand data in cell biology. **We will review concepts initially developed in physics in order to discuss real examples borrowed from classic experiments in biology. Topics to be covered: Noise, stochastic processes, single molecules, single-cell biology, robustness and evolvability of intracellular networks, modularity in biology, chaos, cell-to-cell variability, cell fate variability, cell-to-cell communication.
Note: Expected to be given in 2011–12.
Prerequisite: Knowledge of elementary statistical mechanics is helpful, but not necessary.

So, yeah, they teach my position that chaos is essential to evolutionary biology at Harvard University. But I have nothing to do with that, seriously.

But what did each of you say about this (and me) earlier? Hmm…

larkin31:

There are other posters who are indeed informed on the topic. But you are not one of them.

kbachler:

You aren’t being insulted at all. But your lackof knowledge is being demonstrated. … Sometimes we will come across people who are not searching for the truth, but rather are just trying to use words that they don’t quite understand to “prove” their agenda.

A bowl of crow for each of you. My compliments.

http://forums.catholic-questions.or...ureid=8438&albumid=1087&dl=1297137275&thumb=1

 

[Cat_Herder]

I figured there was a lot of chaos at Harvard based on the above links, but I’ve done some further reading and have confirmed my above statement regarding chaos being taught at Harvard as an essential model for complex biological evolution as follows:

Evolutionary game theory, explained here by Dr. Martin Nowak, Director of Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, produces models that result in a chaotic system given enough complexity (above, Nowak gives the example of multiple competing morphs of a particular species).

Nowak concludes not only that “evolutionary game theory is an essential component of a mathematical and computational approach to biology” but also, critically, the following:

“The evolutionary outcome is often not a fitness-maximizing equilibrium but can include oscillations and chaos.”

In other words, the best or fittest genes don’t always win out; “survival of the fittest” is not the only “game” that determines evolution. And that is what I have been saying all along in this thread. Natural selection alone does NOT explain evolution. And yet natural selection alone is what our kids are being taught in school; they are being told that evolution and Darwinian natural selection are one and the same while Harvard professors have proven that this is not true!

 

[Farsight001]

In other words, the best or fittest genes don’t always win out; “survival of the fittest” is not the only “game” that determines evolution. And that is what I have been saying all along in this thread. Natural selection alone does NOT explain evolution.

Evolutionary biologists and really anyone who was taught about evolution in high school even should already know that.

And yet natural selection alone is what our kids are being taught in school; they are being told that evolution and Darwinian natural selection are one and the same while Harvard professors have proven that this is not true!

No, they are not. I have never seen nor heard of a school biology course at any level that taught that, except in a school that taught that evolution was bunk.

 

[larkin31]

Reinforcements have arrived

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1088&pictureid=8437


Composing life
EMBO Rep. 2000 September 15; 1(3): 217–222.
Daniel Segré and Doron Lancet
Department of Molecular Genetics and The Crown Human Genome Center, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
It is noteworthy that, for identical kinetic parameters, different time courses arise due to minute changes in initial conditions, suggesting chaos-like properties. Within populations of composomes, groups with similar compositions often form, akin to quasi-species of replicating molecules (Eigen and Schuster, 1979; Kuppers, 1983), and these follow evolutionary dynamics of generation and extinction (Segré et al., 1998b, 2000a).

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006 October 29; 361(1474): 1675–1679.
Introduction: conditions for the emergence of life on the early Earth
Sydney Leach, Ian W.M Smith, and Charles S Cockell
The coexistence of unlinked replicators constituting a primordial genome is shown to be possible by involving various factors, including chaotic flows, surface dynamics and compartmentalization.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 December 5; 97(25): 13661–13665.
Chaotic flow: The physics of species coexistence
György Károlyi, Áron Péntek, István Scheuring, Tamás Tél,‖ and Zoltán Toroczka
Specific replicase enzymes are needed to increase the copying fidelity, and thus the length of the replicator, but these replicators are too short to code specific enzymes. This is the “Catch 22” of the prebiotic evolution (12). This catch can be resolved if a mechanism maintains the coexistence of several different replicator molecules and therefore the information necessary for more accurate multiplication can be coded by the union of smaller information carriers. Current theories point out coexistence of replicators moving on a surface in a constrained manner (13, 14), preferring thus the concept of “prebiotic pizza” against the concept of “prebiotic soup” (15). We show that chaotic advection also can provide an alternative explanation for information integration in early evolutionary systems.

I could go on and on. There’s actually a whole field of science called systems biology that is dedicated to this stuff. Why don’t you go take this course at Harvard:

[MCB 110. Introduction to Quantitative Tools for Cell Biology]
Catalog Number: 58465
Philippe Cluzel
Half course (spring term). Hours to be arranged.
This class will introduce students to the physical and mathematical tools that have become **essential to analyze and understand data in cell biology. **We will review concepts initially developed in physics in order to discuss real examples borrowed from classic experiments in biology. Topics to be covered: Noise, stochastic processes, single molecules, single-cell biology, robustness and evolvability of intracellular networks, modularity in biology, chaos, cell-to-cell variability, cell fate variability, cell-to-cell communication.
Note: Expected to be given in 2011–12.
Prerequisite: Knowledge of elementary statistical mechanics is helpful, but not necessary.

So, yeah, they teach my position that chaos is essential to evolutionary biology at Harvard University. But I have nothing to do with that, seriously.

But what did each of you say about this (and me) earlier? Hmm…

A bowl of crow for each of you. My compliments.

http://forums.catholic-questions.or...ureid=8438&albumid=1087&dl=1297137275&thumb=1

You’re totally missing our point.

NO ONE CLAIMS THAT RANDOMNESS OR CHAOS HAVE nothing TO DO WITH EVOLUTION OR CELL MECHANICS OR THE REASON I AM TYPING THIS AT 500 AM.

We are objecting to your claim that evolutionary teaching in schools (you keep focusing on high level courses at Harvard) is bunk because it does not account for chaos theory. I replied that, typically, high schools don’t give a hoot about the atomic and mathematical probabilities and formulas for the chemical functions in cells because, of course, they don’t have students (vast majority) capable of handling that kind of inquiry and because evolution often only gets brief study in a “school” biology text book.

Harvard, as a private institution, is free to teach that God made the earth, or that the seeds of life came from Tralfamadore with Salo.

What you don’t understand is that randomness (the degree to which it is involved) does not debunk evolutionary theory, nor does it mean that Creationism should be taught in public schools.

The cat on the tank is funny.

 

[larkin31]

Evolutionary biologists and really anyone who was taught about evolution in high school even should already know that.

Indeed.

No, they are not. I have never seen nor heard of a school biology course at any level that taught that, except in a school that taught that evolution was bunk.

Nor I, in my 25 years of teaching.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You’re totally missing our point.

Not really, let me try and explain it again.

NO ONE CLAIMS THAT RANDOMNESS OR CHAOS HAVE nothing TO DO WITH EVOLUTION OR CELL MECHANICS OR THE REASON I AM TYPING THIS AT 500 AM.

Except high school teachers and college professors who say “Man evolved through natural selection (period)” or “evolution is through natural selection (period.)” That is junk science because there are Harvard scientists with lab results that debunk it.

We are objecting to your claim that evolutionary teaching in schools (you keep focusing on high level courses at Harvard) is bunk because it does not account for chaos theory.

It is bunk if it asserts that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution/human development/the origin of life.

I replied that, typically, high schools don’t give a hoot about the atomic and mathematical probabilities and formulas for the chemical functions in cells because, of course, they don’t have students (vast majority) capable of handling that kind of inquiry and because evolution often only gets brief study in a “school” biology text book.

I am not saying that high school biologists need to teach chaos, limit cycles and cellular automata. What I am saying is that they need to NOT teach that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution.

Harvard, as a private institution, is free to teach that God made the earth, or that the seeds of life came from Tralfamadore with Salo.

I haven’t even brought God into play, but anyone can see that strange attractors give us a glimpse of His finger.

What you don’t understand is that randomness (the degree to which it is involved) does not debunk evolutionary theory, nor does it mean that Creationism should be taught in public schools.

Again, I have never said that I am trying to debunk evolutionary theory. I am trying to debunk the notion that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution. Looks like I don’t have to do that because Harvard University has already done it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Indeed.

Nor I, in my 25 years of teaching.

Google it. There are plenty of people who say that THE working mechanism of evolution is natural selection. That is false.

Look at what PBS (which is government funded) says:

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms’ genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. **This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. **
…
Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

Meanwhile, Harvard says: “The evolutionary outcome is often not a fitness-maximizing equilibrium but can include oscillations and chaos.”

What PBS says is pretty much what is taught in high schools. And it’s wrong.

 

[Farsight001]

Except high school teachers and college professors who say “Man evolved through natural selection (period)” or “evolution is through natural selection (period.)” That is junk science because there are Harvard scientists with lab results that debunk it.

Have you heard of the term called a “lie to children”? It is a Catholic term, but most people have not heard of it. It refers to telling/teaching a person something that they know is not quite accurate because they are probably unable to comprehend the entire truth fully or because you do not quite understand it all yourself to fully explain. When a small child asks how many days are in the year, you tell them 365, not “365 and 1/4th days, plus a few milliseconds,” because if you told them that, then they’d ask about that extra 1/4 and a few milliseconds. Most people can’t explain why its like that, and even the ones who can would have trouble getting a small child to understand. Hence, people just say “365”. This is a “lie to children”. Schools do this all the time and on pretty much every subject.

Talking about quantum physics and other issues are out of the scope of a biology class. They are a different field of science entirely, so even the most well versed and learned expert in evolution is not necessarily going to know how to explain everything else and a class of wide-eyed high school sophomores or a bunch of random non-experts watching tv are certainly not going to be able to understand. So they teach them what they can understand. High school biology is a very basic overview. You can’t expect them to go into so much detail about one thing anyway.

It is bunk if it asserts that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution/human development/the origin of life.

And therefore it is good that it does not assert that it is the sole cause. I believe you have been told this several times now. Look at the quotes even you provide and read them carefully again. None of the sections you quote ever actually say that natural selection is the ONLY cause. It talks about what natural selection is and what it does. You are reading into it if you think it says it is the only cause.

I am not saying that high school biologists need to teach chaos, limit cycles and cellular automata. What I am saying is that they need to NOT teach that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution.

Again, they already don’t. They may not tell the students what the other causes are per “lie to children” above, but none of them tell the students that natural selection is the only cause. Never seen or heard of a teacher teaching that before, excepting one promoting creationism.

Again, I have never said that I am trying to debunk evolutionary theory. I am trying to debunk the notion that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution.

Again, no one is teaching that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Even within the scope of only biology, it is not the only cause. A teacher should be telling their students about random mutation as well.

Looks like I don’t have to do that because Harvard University has already done it.

And its nothing new.

 

[larkin31]

What PBS says is pretty much what is taught in high schools. And it’s wrong.

No, and no.

 

[larkin31]

Have you heard of the term called a “lie to children”? It is a Catholic term, but most people have not heard of it. It refers to telling/teaching a person something that they know is not quite accurate because they are probably unable to comprehend the entire truth fully or because you do not quite understand it all yourself to fully explain. When a small child asks how many days are in the year, you tell them 365, not “365 and 1/4th days, plus a few milliseconds,” because if you told them that, then they’d ask about that extra 1/4 and a few milliseconds. Most people can’t explain why its like that, and even the ones who can would have trouble getting a small child to understand. Hence, people just say “365”. This is a “lie to children”. Schools do this all the time and on pretty much every subject.

Talking about quantum physics and other issues are out of the scope of a biology class. They are a different field of science entirely, so even the most well versed and learned expert in evolution is not necessarily going to know how to explain everything else and a class of wide-eyed high school sophomores or a bunch of random non-experts watching tv are certainly not going to be able to understand. So they teach them what they can understand. High school biology is a very basic overview. You can’t expect them to go into so much detail about one thing anyway.

And therefore it is good that it does not assert that it is the sole cause. I believe you have been told this several times now. Look at the quotes even you provide and read them carefully again. None of the sections you quote ever actually say that natural selection is the ONLY cause. It talks about what natural selection is and what it does. You are reading into it if you think it says it is the only cause.

Again, they already don’t. They may not tell the students what the other causes are per “lie to children” above, but none of them tell the students that natural selection is the only cause. Never seen or heard of a teacher teaching that before, excepting one promoting creationism.

Again, no one is teaching that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Even within the scope of only biology, it is not the only cause. A teacher should be telling their students about random mutation as well.

And its nothing new.

This is a very thoughtful response. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

 

[kbachler]

Have you heard of the term called a “lie to children”? It is a Catholic term, but most people have not heard of it. It refers to telling/teaching a person something that they know is not quite accurate because they are probably unable to comprehend the entire truth fully or because you do not quite understand it all yourself to fully explain. When a small child asks how many days are in the year, you tell them 365, not “365 and 1/4th days, plus a few milliseconds,” because if you told them that, then they’d ask about that extra 1/4 and a few milliseconds. Most people can’t explain why its like that, and even the ones who can would have trouble getting a small child to understand. Hence, people just say “365”. This is a “lie to children”. Schools do this all the time and on pretty much every subject.

Talking about quantum physics and other issues are out of the scope of a biology class. They are a different field of science entirely, so even the most well versed and learned expert in evolution is not necessarily going to know how to explain everything else and a class of wide-eyed high school sophomores or a bunch of random non-experts watching tv are certainly not going to be able to understand. So they teach them what they can understand. High school biology is a very basic overview. You can’t expect them to go into so much detail about one thing anyway.

And therefore it is good that it does not assert that it is the sole cause. I believe you have been told this several times now. Look at the quotes even you provide and read them carefully again. None of the sections you quote ever actually say that natural selection is the ONLY cause. It talks about what natural selection is and what it does. You are reading into it if you think it says it is the only cause.

Again, they already don’t. They may not tell the students what the other causes are per “lie to children” above, but none of them tell the students that natural selection is the only cause. Never seen or heard of a teacher teaching that before, excepting one promoting creationism.

Again, no one is teaching that natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. Even within the scope of only biology, it is not the only cause. A teacher should be telling their students about random mutation as well.

And its nothing new.

Thank you.

A simple example is when we tell first graders that 5-3 =2, but you can’t subtract 5 from 3.

Then later we teach them about Integers!

 

[StAnastasia]

I have never seen a public school teacher or a college biology professor proffer a cause for evolution beyond random natural selection alone. That isn’t neutrality.

What other cause would you proffer? There is the Earth Diver myth:

“According to the Iroquois Native Americans, water animals inhabited the Earth before there was land. When a Sky Woman fell from her home above they caught her and dove into the seas to bring up mud. This mud they spread onto the back of Big Turtle. There it began to grow until it became North America.”

I suppose a biology professor could offer various creation stories to supplement her biology textbook, but this might be seen as cutting into valuable instructional time.

 

[Cat_Herder]

What other cause would you proffer? There is the Earth Diver myth:

“According to the Iroquois Native Americans, water animals inhabited the Earth before there was land. When a Sky Woman fell from her home above they caught her and dove into the seas to bring up mud. This mud they spread onto the back of Big Turtle. There it began to grow until it became North America.”

I suppose a biology professor could offer various creation stories to supplement her biology textbook, but this might be seen as cutting into valuable instructional time.

What they teach at Harvard is a bit much for high school but at the very least the high school teacher should not teach the opposite of what is taught at Harvard.

It disturbs me that even Catholics are so quick to jump at me for pointing out that renowned professors have debunked evolution through natural selection alone.

 

[StAnastasia]

high school teacher should not teach the opposite of what is taught at Harvard.

They don’t.

renowned professors have debunked evolution through natural selection alone.

Is that news?

 

[buffalo]

What other cause would you proffer? There is the Earth Diver myth:

“According to the Iroquois Native Americans, water animals inhabited the Earth before there was land. When a Sky Woman fell from her home above they caught her and dove into the seas to bring up mud. This mud they spread onto the back of Big Turtle. There it began to grow until it became North America.”

I suppose a biology professor could offer various creation stories to supplement her biology textbook, but this might be seen as cutting into valuable instructional time.

But they could teach IDvolution and be using the latest science too. Of course the empirical science support in science class and the philosophy part in philosophy class.

 

[Cat_Herder]

They don’t.

Please review page 32 of the California Content Standards. Basically CA teachers are expected to teach natural selection through “survival of the fittest” is the sole cause of evolution.

Now review my posts and the linked Harvard pages. Do the fittest species always survive? If not then why are the CA teachers telling their students otherwise?

 

[buffalo]

"The evolution of teaching evolution"

Writing in The Hechinger Report (February 7, 2011), Jennifer Oldham addresses “The evolution of teaching evolution,” explaining that, even in the face of persistent challenges and obstacles, “scientists and teachers are pushing to make evolution the backbone of biology lesson-plans from kindergarten through high school.” Alluding to Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer’s recent column, she wrote, “They have their work cut out for them. A recent article in Science found that almost three out of four high school students will get no schooling in evolutionary biology, or a version ‘fraught with misinformation.’”

more…

 

[kbachler]

But they could teach IDvolution and be using the latest science too. Of course the empirical science support in science class and the philosophy part in philosophy class.

ID IS NOT the latest science.