Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

This is wrong. The most species may be the most vulnerable.

The issue of "inferred complexity"

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.

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

Certain yeasts have bigger genomes(some by 20 times) than apes and humans, yet for all their segmenst , they are simple eukaryotes.

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.

"A species that is so well adapted to its environment is also held captive by it"

Its only inferred because its part of our belief system and not really a
fact.

I dont buy your "conscious decision "belief

For animals that evolve, I believe that a specific minimal amount of time is required

I would look up the evolution of "Sabre toothness" to get a more exhaustive review of present thinking

everything lives in the plesure of geology

Once the first cell appears then were talking evolution

Simplicity puts less strain on genomes.

lower-middle-class

what they are proposing will work and will benefit society.

Does it even work in relation to their own stated objectives?

That Io and fm are now in a cosy relationship

All that he can expect from having a foot in both camps is that his legs get further and further apart leaving his sensitive spots exposed.

I suppose you think Soviet Union and USA were cosy during the cold war ?

Actually Spendi, I am lower-lower-class.

The professional class rule society.

The professionals control their own.

Having multiple species and their very specific dependancies, is worse for a family than to have one species which is dependant on very broad requirements.

So to you an amoeba is just as complex as a human ? Have you been reading some leftist version of biology or are you pre-empting what you think will be an ID argument by an anti-IDer ?

Your whole attitude of recommending reading for me I find very condescending. If it continues, I can recommend several good books on how to collect rocks.

everything lives in the plesure of geology

Dont delude yourself with the power of your particular field.

So the process of survival for chemicals that are the basis for life is of no concern to evolutionists

Theres too much workd being done in so many fields that its impossible for any one person to spread themselves out thinly .

There are no half-measures or neutral grounds. You are either for atheism and the eradication of religion from the socialisation process or you are not. And if you are not you are for ID. End of story.

Why Are There Still Monkeys?
(William Eric Meikle and Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution: Education and Outreach, December 2010).

Popular misconceptions about evolution seem to have a life of their own. Some of the most common ones have persisted for decades, despite all efforts to correct them. Some of these ideas seem to be firmly embedded in American culture—or sometimes to have even deeper roots in the Western historical tradition. They are passed on from generation to generation, typically outside of formal and informal educational institutions. These are not necessarily or distinctively creationist misconceptions. Rather, they are simply very common among students and the general public, regardless of what their beliefs may be about whether evolution has occurred. Educators need to be aware of and ready to counter such common misconceptions. Unless they are explicitly pointed out and debunked, they will persist, coexisting with standard concepts of evolution that may be learned in the classroom.

When talking to the general public or school groups about human evolution, we have found that if you discuss evolution or answer questions about it long enough, one particular question will inevitably be asked. That question, of course, is “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” This is sometimes phrased in terms of “apes” instead of “monkeys,” but the technical differences between these groups of primates are irrelevant to the significance of the question being asked and the unspoken assumptions that underlie it. Besides, it is not at all clear that most of the public can tell the difference between an ape and a monkey, as illustrated by the numerous portrayals of “monkeys” in the media by chimpanzees. One of us has described this question as “probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.”
.
When first encountering this question, it may not be clear how to respond. Why shouldn’t there still be monkeys? What is the questioner thinking? After repeatedly confronting this question in various guises, we have recognized that it derives from a mistaken view of evolution shared by many people, including students. Its persistence among the general public suggests that many retain this view even after instruction in evolution.

The “why are there still monkeys” question reflects an interpretation of evolution as a series of progressive steps, from simple to complex. It sees modern organisms, whether living species or other groups, as representatives of the ancestral “stages” or “steps” of evolution, or even as the still-surviving ancestors themselves. This popular misconception often includes the unspoken assumption that the appearance of descendants must coincide with, if not result in, the disappearance of ancestors. One must change into the other, without any coexistence of the two. The unconscious model of evolution that appears to be the default mode for a great many people thus seems to be both linear and anagenetic.

What is missing from this view of evolution is the crucial role of branching or splitting in creating the tree of life. Perhaps the easiest way to introduce a more accurate model of the relationships of contemporary species is through the analogy of human family categories, and especially that of “cousins.” Students often don’t recognize that they have two classes of relatives in their own families, lineal and collateral. The progressive, ladder model of evolution highlights only the lineal relatives: grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, etc. However, collateral relatives such as cousins, aunts, nephews, and so forth are also family members. In any large extended family, it is likely that the majority of relatives will be collateral rather than lineal ones. So too in the extended family of all living things.

The notion that living species are cousins, and neither ancestors nor descendants of each other, is one of the most important understandings for students to acquire. This relationship results from the branching nature of evolution and reflects common ancestry. Those who ask why there are still monkeys implicitly conceive of the relationship of monkeys, apes, and humans as a lineal one where monkeys evolve into apes, and apes evolve into humans. This is incorrect on many levels, of course. First, it usually pictures living monkeys and apes as part of this linear trajectory, instead of ancient apes and monkeys. Second, ancient monkeys didn’t evolve into apes. Monkeys from the New World are only distantly related to humans and apes, but even Old World monkeys didn’t evolve into apes. Apes and Old World monkeys descended from a more generalized anthropoid common ancestor that lacked the derived traits of either monkeys or apes. Sometimes scientists refer to the common ancestors of modern apes and humans as “apes,” though it would be clearer to students if we were more careful to distinguish such ancestors from living forms, perhaps by consistently referring to them as “fossil apes.”

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

So how should teachers and professors respond when confronted with the question, “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” Sometimes this and other questions about evolution are encountered in a fleeting context where there is not quite enough time to explain the full scope of evolutionary biology! The briefest possible response would be to emphasize that evolution deals with common ancestors. It is not that humans descended from apes and that apes descended from monkeys; rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor, and it is more recent than the common ancestor they both share with monkeys.

If you are in a classroom situation where you have a bit more time, use the analogy of a human family tree. It is no more correct that humans descended from apes and that apes descended from monkeys than that you descended from your siblings who in turn descended from your cousins. No one would ask, “If you evolved from your cousin, why is your cousin still here?” The question “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” is equally absurd to an evolutionary biologist.

Where it is possible to use diagrams or other illustrations, you can reinforce the point by noting that genetic information supports the genealogical relationships of the primates as more or less distant cousins: apes and humans are genetically closer to one another than they are to monkeys, just as an individual shares more genes with a sibling than with a cousin.

As with all misconceptions, this one will not be laid to rest without making students grapple with the conflict between their misconceptions and the scientific data. And of course, misconceptions remain resistant to change without the repeated reinforcement of accurate science. In this context, it is critical that teachers present evolution not as a linear sequence but as a branching and splitting pattern of lineages, with the end products being cousins.

The “why are there still monkeys” question reflects an interpretation of evolution as a series of progressive steps, from simple to complex.

Does this statement summarize your position, spendi?

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

I've seen it so often in people who come here to do the hit and run thing.

The “why are there still monkeys” question reflects an interpretation of evolution as a series of progressive steps, from simple to complex.

One of us has described this question as “probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.”

The progressive, ladder model of evolution highlights only the lineal relatives: grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, etc. However, collateral relatives such as cousins, aunts, nephews, and so forth are also family members. In any large extended family, it is likely that the majority of relatives will be collateral rather than lineal ones. So too in the extended family of all living things.

Quote:

I suppose you think Soviet Union and USA were cosy during the cold war ?

I do indeed.

I've heard that stuff before. Members of the lower-lower class don't concern themselves with what you do.

Quote:

The professionals control their own.

No they don't. They are conditioned at great length to having acceptable received opinions.