Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Spendi wrote:

The TSA isn't bothered about making planes safe.
It's concerned with having everybody jumping through its own hoops.
Just for the sake of seeing it done.

I can't help agreeing with you on this.

My exact feeling but then 80% of the Americans have it wrong.

Carceral archipelago in the works?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Perhaps you are thinking too linearly. There could have been several false starts in life and each organic product could have remained in the sequence and be recycled in a later attempt.

And the result can be thought of as linear with dead ends branching off.

Quote:

Also, and more importantly, the properties that we associate with life , perhaps didnt occur at the same time.

Perhaps.

Quote:

BUT WE DONT KNOW, we only infer.

I call this a gap in the theory of evolution.

Quote:

Ill say that evolution is not necessarily a march to higher complexity

If it produces any greater complexity anywhere then it is marching to higher complexity.

Quote:

abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution

The when does evolution start in your opinion ?

Quote:

There are many many species that have actually "devolved" from more complex to simpler. Most parasites are just that.

Yes, but by inhabiting different environments there is more diversity and that means greater complexity. Two identical items are more complex than one.

Quote:

I assume that you actually mean "learned responses" , since "traits" actually means something in the genome.

No, I meant what I said...there was no error. How are males and females different in their handing on of learned traits ?

Quote:

Quote:
Why do life forms change to the point of no longer existing in their original form simply to exist ?
In geologic time, the environment is constantly changing. Life adjusts to these changes by changing habit, structure, function , and then species traits. Evolution parallels the environment and population density.

The question was why not when. I know when. Why do live forms change into completely different existences if their survival is the most important thing ? Surely it suggests a group effort on the part of life rather than an individual species effort ?

Quote:

The data about the species "gone missing" has always paralleled some cataclismic action that got recorded in the stratigraphic record.

Not so. Geologically cataclismic is confusing to the average person. On the geological time scale, there can be ample time for species to evolve. It is too complicated to go into here, but the way statistics are collected for species extinction could also be the reason for mass extinctions. They really may have just evolved quicker than user, rather than have been cut back to bare bones and had to arise again.

Quote:

Quote:
How many fossils are required to prove we have a true representation of a species ?
One will do.

It wouldnt do for a living animal and it wont do for the past. Imagine finding a mule skeleton and saying it is a species. That is just an example, but you get the idea.

Quote:

Nobody is so fuckin full of themselves to think they have more than just a few answers and most of us in the rock business usually constrict our work to limited areas of practice.

But on the occassions I have said evolution theory is not complete I was referring to doubtful areas requiring more research. I usually recieved the reply that it is not in doubt.

Quote:

The amateurs have way more freedom of opinion because there are huge amounts of facts and data that would have to be reviewed as a full time job and not just reading "wikipedia".

Then may I reassure you that my knowledge base comes from before wikipedia was thought of.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

And the result can be thought of as linear with dead ends branching off.

exactly. We infer linearity from disconnected data points that may lie only in the same general direction

Quote:

I call this a gap in the theory of evolution.

No argument, but thats where the present work may be. It took almost 10 years after it's initial existence was hypothesized that Tiktaalik rosacea found . It was a gap that got filled in. However, the Creationists now say that weve got 2 gaps instead of one. They will never be satisfied , but as long as I can get the point out that their "science" is merely based upon being an obstruction to real knowledge and is based upon a presumption for which they try to select data to fit.
In paleo, many discoveries have not "fit" where they should have been presuming a linearity in "progress"

Quote:

If it produces any greater complexity anywhere then it is marching to higher complexity.

What if the evidence shows that "Life" in general can be shown to be marching to complexity and to simplicity at the same time. What is the result to our interpretation of life? Several superorders of mammals had been shown to have gone extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs. These mammals were more general and simpler forms than the ones that went extinct. Trilobites began getting really obscenely complex into the late SIlurian and the Devonian. Then seemeingly in an instant during the Pennsylvanian, they went really senescent in structure, almost torpedo shaped.
I have my own opinions that there was only a pwrcieved "rise in complexity" which is probably anthropocentric (after all, arent we the pinnacle of evolution up to now?) or are we, as EO Wilson stated, merely the most destructive general parasite on the planet?
Actually eg, a chimpanzee has a more complex genome than does a human.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Read Prof Cohen's Visions of Social Control Francois. And Foucault's Archeology of Knowledge.

80% of Americans don't have it wrong. They want to be safe. Therein lies their vulnerability and illusion of freedom. Having such an illusion is a key aspect of the loss of freedom.

Have you seen Alphaville?

Carceral archipeligo is a wonderful phrase. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of theatres of control in hierarchic structures. Schools are perfect for the exercise of control. Anti-IDers are looking for a bit of it. They don't give a damn about science or evolution. Control is the name of the game. Think of the ego kick having millions of kids learning what you said they should learn. With word magic acting as the wand. Very exciting eh? Traffic warden education. No Laurence Sterne & Co. Naughty boys out. Their truth isn't PC.

0 Replies

Yes, Spendi, I've seen Alphaville. And I've read some of the authors you cite.

However, you haven't read Foucault well:

Spendi wrote:

Carceral archipeligo is a wonderful phrase.

It isn't...

Illusion of freedom, that's it..

0 Replies

@Ionus,

sorry. I didnt see that you added more

Quote:

Two identical items are more complex than one.

Thats a backward concept. When new genes occur many species can evolve based upon birth rates most;ly. Thats why the general forms in the geological record occur as tiny creatures and general creatures that evolve species . When a batch of evolutionary pressure occurs, the genus with the most species will survive because they can afford to lose members without losing the genus. Humans are adapted thinly to an optimal environment of heat and solar energy.If the environment extends beyond these optima, we are more in trouble than are cockroaches.

Quote:

Two identical items are more complex than one.

I dont agree you are merely saying that there are several different bauplans that can adapt to any environment. Many species have devolved and many species have remained essentially the same through geologic history. The horshoe crab, for instance, could make a living today and has done so relatively the same creature SINCE almost 320 million years ago. The issue of "inferred complexity" is well handled by David RAups book "EXTINCTION, bad luck or bad genes". Its a statistical romp through paleontological evidence as example of several modes of multi variate analyses.

Quote:

Why do live forms change into completely different existences if their survival is the most important thing ? Surely it suggests a group effort on the part of life rather than an individual species effort ?

Small changes (and some not so small changes) confer adaptive success to a changing environment. Many of these adaptive changes, when isolated within the genes that are involved, also can confer entire new body plans as a side "benefit" .For example, the carabidae beetles were evolving in the Silurian and fossils show that the wing plans changed as the insect seemed to grow. IN todays analysis of insects where we see evolution occuring , we see that immunity adaptation to specific insecticides is a function of something in the HOX gene compliment. These genes show that the insects achieving this immunity, also show a change in their wing shapes and legs (in several cases).
We had discussed the studies of arctic foxes which were chosen and selected (artificially) for tolerance to humans, actually, over a period of about 30 years, as they became friendlier to humans,the foxes also began showing changes in their body plans, they developed piebald colors, floppy ears, and faces that were examples of "neotony" (retention of puppy like features). Many genes control one expression and one gene can control many expressions

Quote:

The when does evolution start in your opinion ?

I agree with Darwin pretty much. "Life " evolves. To create life is not evolution but genesis (bio or abio, natural or ID---you are allowed to pick 2)

Quote:

talking about whether mass extinctions are an artifact of sampling or not Not so. Geologically cataclismic is confusing to the average person. On the geological time scale, there can be ample time for species to evolve. It is too complicated to go into here, but the way statistics are collected for species extinction could also be the reason for mass extinctions.

Well, ya got me there.In concert with your criticism of statistical sampling methods I have to reluctantly agree to a point. Ive been a constant critic of the writings of Gould and Eldredge on the proposal of "Punctuated Equilibrium". Ive always maintained that they were merely artificing the fossil record based upon gaps in the sedimentary record and they were (unknown to them) merely playing some autocorrelation game in their sampling methods. (Goulds own field site for his PE examples , used the marine Devonian of New York and he looked at the evolution of a bunch of Spiriferans ( brachiopods sorta like little clams). He proposed PE based on the changes that apparently occured in the species in a very quick time. It turns out that, after 25 years of sediment tracing, his field site was actually mostly an erosion surface so that the "quick passage of evolution " was actually a hiatus in deposition.
HOWEVER, real mass extinctions arent mere statistical goofs. They are the recording of the EXTINCTION of a bunch of species that, at some short geological period of time more than 10% of the existing fauna just dissapear in the fossil record. Its hard to imagine screwing up some sampling to discover that a whole bunch of mammals or reptiles just went extinct. The KT boundary is an example. The end of the Cretaceous was a time called the Maastrichtean period and it was about 4.6 million years long. During that period,most all of the remaining dinosaurs disappeared as did 5 of the 8 mammal taxa and several bird suborders and a few marine nautiloid species. These guys just vanished in a 5 million year period. During that period the stratigraphic record shows that the planet was insulted by
1opening of the ATlantic this changed the oceanic gyres and streams and caused temp changes planetwide

2Several bouts of vulcanism that exuded acidic naterial

3 a big cosmic "smackdown" occured at the end of the MAastrictean

4Accordsing to Eulers theorem, the rapid change in the plate rotation geometry allowed several areas to become miid latitude desertified areas and other areas like AUstralia, were actually in the middle of the ANtarctic so the dinosaurs that DID happen to adapt to frigid temps , were winnowed out and extintified over a period of time
I take no position about the cause of the KT mass die off. Theres plenty of controversy in tha Princeton U folks have produced some damn good evidence that nthe dinosaurs died as a result of multiple catclysms and not just one.
BUT, the fact is that e can pick out mass extinctions oin the fossil recod and we can deduce HOW it happened from the stratigraphic recod, without much doubt . WE argue over details not whether it did or dint happen

Quote:

It wouldnt do for a living animal and it wont do for the past. Imagine finding a mule skeleton and saying it is a species. That is just an example, but you get the idea.

Sorry to be a stickler but there are many fossil "Species" that are determined to exist based upon one specimen. I dont make the rules and although it gets hard keeping up with the cast, thats why we use bigass computers with huge graphic capabilities.

Quote:

Then may I reassure you that my knowledge base comes from before wikipedia was thought of.

I wasnt reffering to you, my but we are touchy. I wouldnt have spent time being this "paleoavuncular guy" if I was referring to you.

1 Reply

I believe that i am correct in making the two following statements:

First, that advances in the study of paeleo-climatology are showing that "climate change" has taken place far more often than was previously thought, and that is significant because some species will migrate to accomodate such changes (for example, peri-arctic pelagic mammals during the "little ice age" and the subsequent "climactic optimum" ), while others will evolve, in that the genome will respond adaptively, which may even lead to new species.

If it is correct, for example, that at several times just within the last few million years, there has been more than once an ice-free Arctic Ocean, then change in climactic conditions can be further affected by the changes in saline concentration resulting from the "dumping" of large quantities of non-saline water due to the melting of the polar cap. Additionally, as the polar cap returned, and expanded during the geologically recent ice ages, the pressure on the environmental niche of the North American tundra very likely triggered genomic pressure which both caused migration (the ancestors of the modern grizzly moving south) and adaption (the appearance of ursus maratimus, the polar bear).

The dramatic change in climate with the (relatively) rapid retreat of the huge glacial ice cap at the end of the last period of massive glaciation, with the cap probably nearly disappearing by about 4000 ybp (although there is lively debate, i have read that many climatologists believe that there may have been, briefly, an ice free Arctic Ocean as recently as 4000 ybp)--probably accounts for the disappearance of the megafauna in the northern hemisphere (there was, apparently, no comparable megafauna in the southern hemisphere). When their feeding grounds simply disappeared, the grazing megafauna would have been unable to migrate to find the food in which they had come to specialize, or were unable to compete with already established species on the grazing lands to which they would have been obliged to migrate. Predatory species probably would have felt the pressure, too. A very good example of this is the short faced bear, which for literally millions of years was the dominant predator on the North American continent, but which disappeared at about the same time that the megafauna disappeared, and that humans arrived from Asia. That could have been because of the disappearance of the megafauna, or the arrival of humans as a more efficient competitor, or the arrival of brown bears from Asia--or all three. The short faced bear disappeared in a very abrupt manner, too, it appears. Climate change can cause very rapid changes in both flora and fauna.

****************************************

The second statement is that climate change can happen "locally," too. The data has been accumulated (in relative human terms) quite some time ago--in the 1940s and -50s evidence was being discovered of both the "little ice age" and the climactic optimum. It is no longer considered certain that the "little ice age" was general in even the northern hemisphere, and it may have been an artifact of the effect of a briefly ice-free Arctic Ocean. What i have read is that climatologists now believe that the change in salinity may have triggered a climate change which only affected regions bordering the Arctic Ocean, while having little to no effect on the rest of the northern hemisphere. That such an event happened is supported not just by scientific evidence--it occurs at a time when history was entering on the stage. Strabo reports the testimony of a Massilian merchant (i.e., a merchant from the Greek colony of Massilia/Marseille) who, sailing north of what we would call Ireland, encountered the pack ice at the same time that he sighted what we call Iceland. The pack ice has never been seen that far south in the Atlantic since that time.

As well, there is evidence from the habitat sites of Dorset culture Eskimos, who followed the pelagic seals. As the climate warms, they move north, with the Dorsets in their train; as it cools, they move south, and once again the Dorsets follow them. The Dorsets begin to disappear near the end of the climactic optimum (roughly 500-1100 CE), probably due to pressure from the Thule culture Eskimos, who relied less upon a few species, but hunted many more species in a more adaptable manner than that of the Dorsets, who seem to have gotten locked into the pelagic seals and the caribou. When the climactic opitimum arrived, they would have been obliged to move north to continue to hunt the pelagic seals, which would have taken them into places where the caribou had not yet arrived, and would have caused a collision with the Thule culture Eskimos. There are Dorset sites which have been found on the eastern coast of Greenland which date from before the little ice age, but they then would have followed the seals south during the little ice age. With the warming of the climactic optimum, they would not have been able to continue to follow the seal, since they had become adapted to hunting the caribou, too--which had not yet arrived in Labrador in large numbers, and the previously empty lands to the north of them were now filling up with Thule Eskimos, who appear to have migrated from Alaska in the preceding centuries (the linguistic and cultural evidence is that the Thule Eskimos derived from the Aleuts). The Dorsets the Norse encountered in Newfoundland may have been the last of their people. In addition to other scientific evidence, both history and archaeology confirm the occurance of the little ice age, and imply the climactic optimum.

Similar evidence of the climactic optimum is not available from other circumpolar regions, nor does it appear that it took hold in central Asia, which had lost most of its forests during the little ice age, but these did not return at the time of the climactic opitimum. The little ice age may have been restricted to the northern part of the northern hemisphere, and the climactic optimum may have been even more restricted, occuring in the north Atlantic region alone.

The effects of climate change not only could be, but very likely are far more complex than the simplistic views which have been held until quite recently.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

However, the Creationists now say that weve got 2 gaps instead of one. They will never be satisfied , but as long as I can get the point out that their "science" is merely based upon being an obstruction to real knowledge and is based upon a presumption for which they try to select data to fit.

Well said. Agreed.

Quote:

What if the evidence shows that "Life" in general can be shown to be marching to complexity and to simplicity at the same time.

That diversity is complexity in itself. Going in two directions at once is greater complexity then just increasing towards the complex. It doesnt average out. It adds together.

Quote:

I have my own opinions that there was only a pwrcieved "rise in complexity"

When the ability to store info in genes started to reach a stability limit, the brain which had started to develop before, grew to incorporate extra info...the turning point was reptiles. Info storage is one measure of the complexity of life. Chemical processes is another, senses is another, adapting the environment is another.....a long list. If we plot an average since the start of life, there is a clear trend towards the complex, with many set backs and and sidelines along the way.

Quote:

Actually eg, a chimpanzee has a more complex genome than does a human

There is no reason for it to not have.......crocodiles stayed simple because they didnt need to change...a puddle of water and something edible in or near the water.....success stops evolution. Humans are very successful.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

What has that spiel, culled from wherever, got to do with teaching evolution to 50 million kids in an industrial/military complex?

The principle is no different than a report of queues at ice-cream vans during hot weather. It's infantile stuff disguised with a larding of unusual words.

If there's a niche where organisms can get a living there will be an organisms in occupation.

0 Replies

Ionus wrote:

Humans are very successful.

I beg to differ.

Saying so is allowing very low standards for measuring human success.

From a chronologic point of view, humankind is at its dawn..

2 Replies

@Francis,

"They say the darkest hour is right before the dawn."

Bob Dylan. Meet Me in the Morning.

2 Replies

@spendius,

"they say the darkest hour is just before everything turns completely black"
Adolphe Menjou.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Certainly, but I wouldn't take Dylan for a standard of success.

Maureen McGovern does better..

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

When he wasn't debonair he was really truistic..

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

When the ability to store info in genes started to reach a stability limit,

That really never happens. Certain yeasts have bigger genomes(some by 20 times) than apes and humans, yet for all their segmenst , they are simple eukaryotes.

I dont buy your argument re: complexity. You are saying that complexity is demonstrated by allowing organisms to shrivvel to their simplest form?
Taking that position is very ID becsue the belief they have in self direction and design assumes that there are several (Gaziilion?) irreduceabl complexy packets of information that are used over and again. They really dont need genomes with which to track the direction that evolution has taken.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Dig this Mr Brain Expander--

Quote:

An analogy to the human genome stored on DNA is that of instructions stored in a library:

* The library would contain 46 books (chromosomes)
* The books range in size from 400 to 3340 pages (genes)
* which is 48 to 250 million letters (A,C,G,T) per book.
* Hence the library contains over six billion letters total;
* The library fits into a cell nucleus the size of a pinpoint;
* A copy of the library (all 46 books) is contained in almost every cell of our body.

The kids will love it. It'll really set 'em up for life. I can't think how they are going to manage without it.

Quote:

My 7th-grade class wants to know approximately how many cells make up the human body.
That's a very good question, and we applaud your class for its inquisitiveness. We knew there were a lot of cells in the human body, but we were hard pressed to put an actual number on it. It seemed like a fairly straightforward query, so we tried a straightforward approach and typed "number cells human body." Our results were numerous and informative, but after flipping through them, we learned there really is no consensus on the answer.

Some sources told us that the average adult human body is made up of "50 million million" (50 trillion) cells, while others put the figure closer to 10 trillion. Science NetLinks, a resource for science teachers, stated that there are approximately "ten to the 14th power" (that's 100 trillion) cells in the human body.

Keep in mind, all of these figures are just estimates. At this time, there really is no way to know the exact number of cells in a human body. Can you imagine trying to count them all? Plus, as one source pointed out, the number will vary from person to person, depending on their size. The number of cells in your own body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. So even the number of cells in your own body is not static.

Does that mean there's 100 trillion libraries in Jennifer? Sheesh!! Now I know what Sterne meant when he talked about which is the right end of a woman.

0 Replies

The toe bone is connected to the head bone
The head bone is connected to the metronome
The metronome is connected to the answerphone
The answerphone is connected to the ringtone
The ringtone is connected to the astrodome
The astrodome is connected to the Ohm's ohm
The Ohm's ohm is connected to the genome
The genome is connected to the syndrome
The syndrome is connected to the main bone
Now hear the word of the Lord.

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

Quote:

Why don't you all just call it a day because your getting nowhere. You are all on one side of the fence or the other, there's no common ground. Most of you are diametrically opposed to the others views, so there is no honest debate, just preaching. Your beliefs are set in stone, so there's no room for compromise or as I said honest debate.

Don't imagine, ecy, that what it does for you is what it does for everybody. There are sub-texts hereabouts. And they have subtexts too.

If you go in a pub with that attitude you will soon be sat back at home watching the idiot box. And there's no common ground there. They have the fan and you get the ****. We take turns.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Quote:

Saying so is allowing very low standards for measuring human success.

I would rather standard animal measurements of success than anything humans philosophised about. We have been to the moon, the deepest part of the ocean, have climbed the tallest mountain without oxygen, can out run horses in a long race, can out perform all animals in hot conditions, can live in -40 C and 45 C temps, can build shelters ants would be proud to move into, can fly and artifically store and communicate knowledge. Not too shabby.....

Quote:

From a chronologic point of view, humankind is at its dawn..

Agreed, but averages mean little...we might also be at our dusk.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

the genus with the most species will survive because they can afford to lose members without losing the genus.

This is wrong. The most species may be the most vulnerable. A family of insects that have all adopted to different plants in a rain forest are all doomed if that rain forest dies out. Diversification in environment and dependancy is a true indicator of possible survival.

Quote:

The issue of "inferred complexity"

There is a clear trend in increasing complexity. A human is far more complex than a microbe. A microbe is far more comlex than its constitutent chemcals.

Quote:

Quote:
Why do live forms change into completely different existences if their survival is the most important thing ? Surely it suggests a group effort on the part of life rather than an individual species effort ?
Small changes (and some not so small changes) confer adaptive success to a changing environment.

I have asked why and you have answered how...I know how...after knowing how other questions need to be asked. Why would a species that is doing so much for its own survival (everything) be happy with evolving into not existing by becoming something completely different ? The emphasis should be placed on life as a force and not a collection of indivdual species.

Quote:

Quote:
The when does evolution start in your opinion ?
I agree with Darwin pretty much. "Life " evolves. To create life is not evolution but genesis

So the process by which chemicals become more complex and able to protect themselves, effectively evolving into life, you would call what ?

Quote:

Sorry to be a stickler but there are many fossil "Species" that are determined to exist based upon one specimen.

Yes I know that and I am saying I disagree with it as a desperate attempt to fill a void with bad knowledge rather then be cautionary and admit we dont know.

Quote:

I wasnt reffering to you, my but we are touchy.

I am so sensitive I use truck retread tyres for prophylactics.

3 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know