Darwinism in schools?

[edwest2]

This is front-loading:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

The excuse? All this information, though supposedly separated by 400 million years, was “comserved.” Conserved for what? Why? If you look at the peer reviewed papers, the commonly repeated explanations for the development of novel forms and functions from more primitive organisms was that this pathway led to that pathway (actually, a lot of pathways over millions of years) and this novel change led to that novel change (over millions of years). But the evidence clearly shows that ‘genetic switches’ were used to activate certain things at certain times and to not activate certain things at certain times. And it was all there - front-loaded - in the beginning.

And now, we have the new Junk DNA, redundant codons (hint: they are not redundant):

"They were called “redundant” because they were previously thought to contain duplicative rather than unique instructions.

“This new discovery challenges half a century of fundamental assumptions in biology.”

I think scientists have been misinterpreting data/function on at least two occasions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The theory, as taught in schools, at best, muddies the waters…

Let me put the most generous interpretation on what you said: Faithful but impressionable students whose idea of God’s role in their creation is limited by their imagination, when exposed to the ideas of evolution, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not create them at all. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach evolution.

But wouldn’t that same argument apply to Copernican physics? Faithful but impressionable students who have been taught that God created them with such a special place in the universe that the sun and stars and moon all revolve around their home - earth, when exposed to the idea that the earth travels around the sun like the other planets, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not endow humanity with any special place in creation, and maybe God either does not exist or does not care about us very much. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[buffalo]

Let me put the most generous interpretation on what you said: Faithful but impressionable students whose idea of God’s role in their creation is limited by their imagination, when exposed to the ideas of evolution, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not create them at all. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach evolution.

But wouldn’t that same argument apply to Copernican physics? Faithful but impressionable students who have been taught that God created them with such a special place in the universe that the sun and stars and moon all revolve around their home - earth, when exposed to the idea that the earth travels around the sun like the other planets, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not endow humanity with any special place in creation, and maybe God either does not exist or does not care about us very much. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach that the earth revolves around the sun.

or we could add one little caveat - the math works both ways.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not complexity but a resulting optimization of the DNA code. A code could be complex but the result would not be optimum. A code could be simple and could be optimum. Or it could be complex and optimum? See what I am getting at?

No I don’t. To me optimization means selecting among a variety of choices the choice that has the greatest value in some scale of valuations. That becomes an operation definition as soon as you specify the scale of valuations. In other words, tell me how to look at a strand of DNA and assign a valuation number to it that corresponds to your idea of optimum. Then I could in principle look at DNA from various levels of development and see it is really is optimum at the beginning.

 

[Farsight001]

This is front-loading:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

The excuse? All this information, though supposedly separated by 400 million years, was “comserved.” Conserved for what? Why? If you look at the peer reviewed papers, the commonly repeated explanations for the development of novel forms and functions from more primitive organisms was that this pathway led to that pathway (actually, a lot of pathways over millions of years) and this novel change led to that novel change (over millions of years). But the evidence clearly shows that ‘genetic switches’ were used to activate certain things at certain times and to not activate certain things at certain times. And it was all there - front-loaded - in the beginning.

And now, we have the new Junk DNA, redundant codons (hint: they are not redundant):

"They were called “redundant” because they were previously thought to contain duplicative rather than unique instructions.

“This new discovery challenges half a century of fundamental assumptions in biology.”

I think scientists have been misinterpreting data/function on at least two occasions.

Peace,
Ed

This is STILL not a definition. You do know what a definition is, right? Because I’m having trouble coming up with another explanation for your blatant avoidance of providing one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

or we could add one little caveat - the math works both ways.

What?

 

[Baelor]

How are you defining evolution?

“the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth”

Not a rigorous scientific definition, but close enough.

Prime matter is about potentiality. So, if one thinks of a concept and then creates a seed that then grows into maturity, the seed possesses the potentiality. The seed would be the DNA language/programming itself. Depending on the arrangement of words effects the outcome. A designer might also wish to pack the code so it doesn’t go out of control.

By what mechanism did God create the flora and fauna of Earth? I am looking for specific things, like,

“70 m.y.a., God materialized a dinosaur out of nothing,” or “10,000 y.a., God made a chicken into a sheep, and so sheep were born.”

Please describe to me how creation occurred. We can focus on a few examples – take a redwood tree, a dinosaur, and human beings. Please tell me how these came into existence.

Here are the relevant statements:

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

In the same way that the gravitational model between planets is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Please go jump out of a 20th story window 1,000 times and let me know how compelling the theory of gravity is to you, even if it is incomplete and not-yet-fully proven.

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory."

What would you call observing changes in strains of diseases over observable time?

 

[buffalo]

No I don’t. To me optimization means selecting among a variety of choices the choice that has the greatest value in some scale of valuations. That becomes an operation definition as soon as you specify the scale of valuations. In other words, tell me how to look at a strand of DNA and assign a valuation number to it that corresponds to your idea of optimum. Then I could in principle look at DNA from various levels of development and see it is really is optimum at the beginning.

Compare a current strand and set it to 1. Look at one in the past. Is it 1? less than, more than? Obviously the parameters have to pass the test of time. As with anything you start with something and then hone it. This will take years and some money thrown at it.

I would start by listing all the known attributes of the DNA strand. There are a number of known ones right now.

 

[Baelor]

Compare a current strand and set it to 1. Look at one in the past. Is it 1? less than, more than?

That is not a sufficient definition. By what criterion are you judging them? By what metric do you determine whether it is more than 1 or less than 1?

 

[edwest2]

Let me put the most generous interpretation on what you said: Faithful but impressionable students whose idea of God’s role in their creation is limited by their imagination, when exposed to the ideas of evolution, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not create them at all. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach evolution.

But wouldn’t that same argument apply to Copernican physics? Faithful but impressionable students who have been taught that God created them with such a special place in the universe that the sun and stars and moon all revolve around their home - earth, when exposed to the idea that the earth travels around the sun like the other planets, are likely to draw the conclusion that God did not endow humanity with any special place in creation, and maybe God either does not exist or does not care about us very much. Therefore to protect these young minds from turning away from God, we should not teach that the earth revolves around the sun.

To your first paragraph: Where did I even hint at this?

I provided the following:

A) Actual quotes from Biology textbooks explicitly giving completely untestable and non-scientific conclusions to be read by students that we are not special (as regards other animals), created by no plan or purpose and are the fortuitous result of some blind process. If you missed that, I’d be glad to post it again.

B) Provided a link to a study by the publication Nature that concluded most leading scientists reject God, and this was especially true in the natural sciences. Again, I can post the link again for you.

C) Students who go to college, ask teachers about human development and are told what I posted in A. And there is good reason that students get this answer since most leading scientists are biased against any idea except a purely mechanistic concept. (You’re a biological robot that just happens to look like you do by chance.)

D) I am not advocating adding religion to the science class. I am not advocating not teaching a theory that I think it is partly untrue or misinterpreted.

E) What I am for, on a Catholic Answers forum, is the Catholic answer.

If you don’t mind my asking, in a previous post you mentioned defending science. May I respectfully ask, from what? Individuals like me who have reasons to believe that what students get in Biology class is partly inaccurate at best, and are blatantly led to false conclusions about their identity as human beings as I wrote in A, at worst?

As to your mention of Copernicus, it is not relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you should start a separate thread.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

“the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth”

Not a rigorous scientific definition, but close enough.

By what mechanism did God create the flora and fauna of Earth? I am looking for specific things, like,

“70 m.y.a., God materialized a dinosaur out of nothing,” or “10,000 y.a., God made a chicken into a sheep, and so sheep were born.”

Please describe to me how creation occurred. We can focus on a few examples – take a redwood tree, a dinosaur, and human beings. Please tell me how these came into existence.

In the same way that the gravitational model between planets is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Please go jump out of a 20th story window 1,000 times and let me know how compelling the theory of gravity is to you, even if it is incomplete and not-yet-fully proven.

What would you call observing changes in strains of diseases over observable time?

If I knew how (or any of us) then I would be God and could create out of nothing. This will take us back to OOL study. Dots can only be connected up to a certain point.

A human does not need to know the theory of gravity. He understands by observation and experience that if he jumps it will most likely have a bad ending.

Adaptation.

 

[buffalo]

That is not a sufficient definition. By what criterion are you judging them? By what metric do you determine whether it is more than 1 or less than 1?

1 is what we measure today. The number was only used to explain the idea.

 

[johnnyjones]

sigh. Reread the whole thing. It’s not like I’m writing in Old English, Beowulf style. It’s not hard to understand.

Are you waiting to bowl me over with your “historic dcumentation” sentence. You want it both ways. You told me to “be careful” by implying you don’t deny what the astronaut(s) said. Fill in the blank with a word other than denial that fit’s “just plain made up”. Going on to say there’s no "historic documentation " changes the meaning of the sentence before it. You debated me on your non denial, which turned out to be false.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I provided the following:

A) Actual quotes from Biology textbooks explicitly giving completely untestable and non-scientific conclusions to be read by students that we are not special (as regards other animals), created by no plan or purpose and are the fortuitous result of some blind process. If you missed that, I’d be glad to post it again.

Just tell me which posting number it was and I will find it myself.

B) Provided a link to a study by the publication Nature that concluded most leading scientists reject God, and this was especially true in the natural sciences. Again, I can post the link again for you.

Even if it is true, what reason is this to reject what they say about science?

If you don’t mind my asking, in a previous post you mentioned defending science. May I respectfully ask, from what?

From unjustified criticism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Adaptation.

You probably said before, but how is adaptation different from evolution? I suppose small changes are adaptation and large changes are evolution, right? But how large is too large to considered adaptation?

 

[Farsight001]

Are you waiting to bowl me over with your “historic dcumentation” sentence. You want it both ways. You told me to “be careful” by implying you don’t deny what the astronaut(s) said. Fill in the blank with a word other than denial that fit’s “just plain made up”. Going on to say there’s no "historic documentation " changes the meaning of the sentence before it. You debated me on your non denial, which turned out to be false.

You have reading comprehension problems. I wrote precisely what I wrote, implying nothing more. Stop reading into what I wrote what you want to see. This is really childish.

 

[Baelor]

If I knew how (or any of us) then I would be God and could create out of nothing. This will take us back to OOL study. Dots can only be connected up to a certain point.

So dinosaurs were created out of thin air? And redwoods and humans too? It is not possible that they branched off from a parent species? I want to understand your beliefs.

Assume that species did branch off from other species. What would adequate proof be for you to accept this?

A human does not need to know the theory of gravity. He understands by observation and experience that if he jumps it will most likely have a bad ending.

In which case we too can know from observation and experience that evolution is true or false. Direct personal experience does not tell us G or the movement of celestial bodies, observation does.

 

[johnnyjones]

You have reading comprehension problems. I wrote precisely what I wrote, implying nothing more. Stop reading into what I wrote what you want to see. This is really childish.

I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t.

 

[Farsight001]

I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t.

Then let me be more blunt. If you can’t read, I can’t help you. I’m so tired of you guys twisting my words and lying about what I said. It is not the behavior of a Christian, but of a pawn of satan. So I say to you begone. When you’ve figured out who to treat someone who thinks differently from you with basic human respect, then come back.

 

[Baelor]

1 is what we measure today. The number was only used to explain the idea.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. By what criteria do you compare prior state to current state? What would make something more or less than or equal to 1 given your assignment thereof to the current state?