61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 06:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Great link. I have it bookmarked.

Yeh, it's a nice article. And it's from back in 2001, so they have probably discovered even more by now.

This was one of the more interesting points from the article: " featherlike structures preceded flight and hence did not evolve in connection with it".
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/081022-dinosaur-feathers_big.jpg
The following article suggests that the first feathers may have been for show, not flight.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081022-dinosaur-feathers.html
However, I tend to think that the very first feathers were probably used for temperature regulation. Mammals developed fur/hair, primarily for thermal reasons. But fur and hair are now used for show by many animals, including us. Hair has also been modified into plates to protect armadillos. If Hair has been slightly different (stronger shafts) eons ago, maybe it would have developed more like feathers did.

Feathers and Fur are just the outer coverings which happen to have developed in two distinct lineages. Each of the outer coverings has been modified over time to allow extended functions (flight for feathers, and armor for hair).
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 06:40 pm
@rosborne979,
Does that mean that our legs were not meant for walking but we used them for walking when we discovered we could do.

What is the scientific explanation of these "featherlike" structures evolving if they were not for flying. Or our legs for that matter.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:48 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
In real life, natural selection is the most major thing which PREVENTS change. It is an agency of stasis which weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for a particular species. You could no more generate a new species of animals via natural selection than you could construct a skyscraper with a wrecking ball


I have no idea who ARt BAttson is, but evenhe is allowed to publish tripe on the internet and his rmblings will be accepted by someone.

His appeal to a fact that life begins and has never shown any ascendency is just BULLSHIT. He , like you gunga, doesnt care for facts and evidence even when its been underpinned with even more and more evidence.

NAtural Selection IS NOT a descriptive term of a genome. Its a mwchanism period. In all cases, the genome can be seen to be ascendant and using rough rates of mutation and repeats or doubling , we can estimate the approximate time that specioes diverged.

Battson forgets that the environment is the great crucible and the changing environment has been quite active over geologic time and species divergence (and convergence) has been mostly a function of these environmental changes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:56 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Change in allele frequencies (variartion) causes MICRO-EVOLUTION, which nobody disputes. MUTATIONS which could plausibly lead towards new KINDS of animals are the thing which natural selection kills off and weeds out


Simple concept, stated simply, too bad its all wet.

Explain, if you would, how your hypothesis explains the genomes of mammals , from insectivores to hominids. Your theroy happens to catch you in the pants because very similar genomes reflect very wide divergences of morphology, and these divergent morphologies actually show "fossil variants" of the founder gene sequences. In other words, the genes are still there on "The string" . They are often just turned off or on for a major change in expression.
That fits with Millers statement that "evolution is just taking what youve got and doing something different with it".
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 06:18 am
Thank you for the great information, rosborne and farmerman!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 07:20 am
Great thread, Wandel . . . i always enjoy reading along . . . and Gunga Din not only provides comic relief, he spurs more informed members to provide cogent explanations and interesting new (or overlooked) information . . . thanks everybody.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 08:29 am
@Setanta,
Surely not "everybody".

It's a terrible thread Set. It completely lacks perspective. Pomposity abounds.

Twembling sensitive souls pontificating about education policy as if it is a mirror wherein one might admire one's image and everyone a total asshole who stuffs his cakehole with scran-tackle, evacuates the excess, of which there is a plentiful supply, out of the whole range of orifices, and manfully attempts to justify his strategies for dealing with ennui which is, of course, the natural condition of our inheritance. All day, every day.

No fighting or kissing. No wine, women and song. Just one long dreary, over-generalised pile of drivel culled from third-rate reading material which is engaged with for no other reason than to improve the capacity to produce more of the same and in which we are all mechanical clockwork oranges past their sell-by dates.

The odd thing is that evolution is concerned with nothing else but fighting and kissing.

Where in evolution is the precursor of searching the Web for articles written by people in remote locations who can hardly read and write but who know the right people, and what they approve of, and pasting them up on here for our delectation as if they represent the source of all wisdom?

And fawning over the end product in grovelling, mawkish, maudling mode, presumably in search of reciprocating pistoning, is as contradictory of the principles of evolution as setting out the dining table with doilies, place-cards and cutlery formations copied from the books of etiquette written by high-placed ladies to fill the vacuum left when they no longer receive lovers in jasmine-scented, satin-sheeted four-poster beds, kitted out with lingerie confections and infibulations of gold, silver or chrome-plated steel shaped by experts.

What is your biological explanation of that?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 09:10 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It's a terrible thread Set. It completely lacks perspective. Pomposity abounds.


Only when you are posting on it, spendi. Smile
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 09:35 am
Quote:
Rocheport family home schools year-round
(By Samantha Clemens, Columbia Missourian, November 30, 2008)

ROCHEPORT " Reading quietly in class, three students have their hands on their heads, contemplating their material and trying to concentrate. The fourth student, a little younger than the others, asks for help with his scissors.

No hall passes are needed to get a drink of water, and they don’t need to raise their hands to ask for help from their teacher. Instead, they just need to look across the dining room table and ask for Mom.

Elise Wilson, a mother of five in Rocheport, home schools her four oldest children year-round.

“I like that I’m teaching them things that I want them to learn,” Wilson said. “I don’t really like all the values that the schools teach them.”

Wilson and her husband, Dwayne, decided before they had children that they would home school, primarily to incorporate biblical values into their children’s learning curriculum.

“For science they talk about how it’s more creation-based than evolution-based,” Wilson said. “It kind of brings it all back to the Creator, how he created everything so wonderfully.”

Luke, 13, is in high school, while Megan, 10, is well on her way to the fifth grade. Daniel, 9, is in the third grade and Joshua, 5, is in kindergarten.

Allowing the children to learn at their own pace is another quality Wilson appreciates with home school.

“If they’re having trouble with something, I can help them with that,” Wilson said. Otherwise, “if they’re breezing through something, they can just breeze through it.”
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 11:18 am
@wandeljw,
I'm not sure what the rules are for home-schooling. Are parents required to teach anything in particular, are there any tests to find out if the kids are learning anything meaningful?

As an extreme example, what happens if the parents don't believe in Reading, Writing or Arithmetic? What if they just want to teach their kids singing and dancing and astrology? Do states regulate this type of stuff?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 11:35 am
@rosborne979,
I also am not sure what the rules are for home-schooling, rosborne. They probably vary by state. I believe that children who are home-schooled need to pass standard state education tests. It is possible that home-schooled children only study what is needed to answer test questions about evolution. Most states have an education department that provide up-to-date standards as well as sample tests.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 01:12 pm
@wandeljw,
I wonder if home-schooled children earn a high-school diploma? If so, I would guess that they need to pass the school's standard tests to earn the diploma.

Without a diploma I'm not sure they can get into college.

There's a lot about home-schooling that I just don't know.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 01:30 pm
@rosborne979,
It's funny. My son's ex-girlfriend was home-schooled through high school. After she began attending a public college, she found out there were a lot more guys out there. (This is why they broke up, but they are still friends.) Smile
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 01:41 pm
@wandeljw,
Well wande- One challenge to the teaching of evolution is that the kids are not that interested in genomes and bat fossils and any that are can easily pick up on the essentials of evolution on account of them being so simple.

This hype of the matter might be said to be a distraction from aspects of biology they might well be interested in. Diet, say. A number of interested parties might not like to see them being given biology lessons on human diet as it might detract from their expansion plans.

What better than a nice row on these "controversial issues" (when you lot pluck up the courage to look into them) to distract them from such important issues as what they eat and what effects it has and the methods how those effects can be measured. And on how people have been persuaded biologically (what other way is there for a materialist?) to eat things it might be better they hadn't. A five year course say. Ten minutes of evolution and it starts getting repetitive like Origins itself does. Unless you search out the jokes. Darwin was a member of gentlemen's clubs you know. One of his mates told him he had never read a funnier book in his life.

There would be more science in that for the kids than going on about genomes or bat fossils or sedimentary rock formations just because that's all the teacher can manage.

You can teach next to nothing to kids who have no interest and any kid who has an interest will be on the web and miles ahead of the teacher.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 02:07 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
It's funny. My son's ex-girlfriend was home-schooled through high school. After she began attending a public college, she found out there were a lot more guys out there. (This is why they broke up, but they are still friends.)


That's not funny wande. It's biology. The very fact that you find it funny is proof, were it needed, that no scientifically biological mind has ever been seen in your vicinity. Such a mind would nonchalantly note the phenomena you describe in the daily record he is keeping on his trip round the world on HMS Beaver. I doubt he would even raise an eyebrow.

We can't have biology consisting of what's in effemm's fusty old notes. It's an era of "Change".

It's your post that's funny.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 04:25 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
It's funny. My son's ex-girlfriend was home-schooled through high school. After she began attending a public college, she found out there were a lot more guys out there. (This is why they broke up, but they are still friends.)

I guess home-schooled kids also face the challenge of learning the social behaviors of school sized groups. The only way to get that skill is to experience it. Smile

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 06:40 pm
@rosborne979,
I never would have thought of that myself. It's one of those pompous statements that leaves the listener staring blankly into space.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 07:30 pm
@wandeljw,
You always see the same creationists in the evolution threads,
always trying to hammer the same screws into the woodwork.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 05:42 am
@aperson,
Creationists are few and far between on wande's threads on evolution and intelligent design.

And if you want to see some repetitive hammering of the same screws into the same woodwork you should read the atheist's posts on those threads. The ones that are years old are indistinguishable from recent ones. They haven't changed in the least.

My guess is that you reached into your well-worn bag of cliches for your remark without bothering to check back on those threads.

And it is very sloppy woodwork to be found hammering screws in.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 02:03:17