xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:12 pm
Real wrote:
Since the bacteria started and ended a bacteria, why is it assumed that 'evolution' has taken place, rather than an expression of genetic variance which was ALREADY present?


And a monkey is still a monkey. Is genetic variance responsible for all the different monkeys?

Quote:
Old World monkeys versus New World monkeys

Monkeys are arranged into two main groups: Old World and New World. Old World monkeys all belong to one family, Cercopithecidae, which is related to apes and humans, and together they are classified as catarrhines (meaning "downward-nosed" in Latin).

The New World monkeys are the platyrrhines ("flat-nosed"), a group comprising five families. As their taxonomic names suggest, New World (platyrrhine) and Old World (catarrhine) monkeys are distinguished by the form of the nose. New World monkeys have broad noses with a wide septum separating outwardly directed nostrils, whereas Old World monkeys have narrow noses with a thin septum and downward-facing nostrils, as do apes and humans.

Old World monkeys have hard, bare "sitting pads" (ischial callosities) on the buttocks; New World monkeys lack these.

Many Old World monkeys have thumbs that can be opposed to the other fingers and so can handle small objects precisely. None of the New World monkeys has such manual dexterity. Indeed, in the hands of many species, the main divergence is between the index and middle fingers; in a few species, the thumb is reduced or even absent.

Some New World monkey species have prehensile tails capable of supporting the entire body weight or of grasping, for example, a proffered peanut. No Old World monkeys have this ability, and macaques are nearly tailless.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:51 pm
rl
Quote:
OK then, let's assume that EVERY kid in EVERY science class is fresh from a creationist 'propaganda' meeting the night before.

To paraphrase a religious quote,
"the first thing that the Creationists have to do, is to convince us that they are NOT pushing their agendas"


I teach an NSF program for earth science secondary teachers and Im always po'd at how little the teachers actually know. Yet they are among those in the forefront of the Crationist "question and answer" games that they load their kids with.
The questions arent that difficult to answer if someone has the grounding in knowing what "circumstantial evidence" really is>

I ask these very questions at the Highland Church at their "A Dentist takes A Bite out of Evolution " or "Evolution What the aetheists Believe". These provocative tiytles and their apparent spirit of "fellowship" only gfoes as far as you believe their bull. The speakers forums they have are so full of deceptions and misunderstandings and fraud claims (like the Paluxy footprints are still being presented as evidence when we even know who the goobers were who "created them").
Ill go in with a friend and usually get asked toleave after my first question. Is this the spirit of open Scientific inquiry you represent. Your side is just populated with a host of the close minded. They dont want to hear any evidence or facts from science. You are a perfect example of re calling old questions that have been answered with good evidence from day 1 of this thread.
A bacteria is still a bacteria until it buds off to develop another style of plant. Infinitesimally small steps in exceedingly long toimes yields evolutionary products. The fossil record explains it well and geochronology displays the times involved.

Answering kids with differential equations doesnt help either. We have to find a common plane where the answers to your open ended questions can be understood. The fact that Creationisms gretest ally is ignorance is what makes your job so easy. You can ask almost anything and maybe that person is not equipped to answer it. However, as Timber says, we are making more commitmenst to the content of a teachers bag of tricks rather than the mere format of teaching alone.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:49 pm
farmerman wrote:
rex
Quote:
Every day we observe evolution. Somewhere some place on the earth something is acquiring a new immunity. We are all made of a jumble of numbers in our DNA. The probability that these numbers do not obtain diversity are so high that evolution is an ongoing process in every species and kind of living creature. DNA is like a house of cards that is constantly being re-shuffled. Evolution is mutation and morphism and we observe this in life every day. The ties between species become broken over time and they no longer are compatable with older models of DNA. Tribes of organisms mutate away from each other by isolation. This we have observed also with microscopic organisms that are made of the exact things that our DNA are made of. We can observe these mutations in the mitochondria and the chromosomes that go back into our DNA past.
CAn I hAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO USE THIS POST?
rl, if the science teacher being asked those questions couldnt answer and then discern the source of the questions, I wouldnt say that the teache shouldnt be teaching. I would say that the teacher needs some remeidal instruction to become adequately prepared for the agenda driven questions.

HAs anyone seen evolution? yes of course. We provide references and then ask the kid to read and report back. The Creationists strongly count on the fact that its easy to confuse someone untrained in a subjsect. A teachers job is to provide the training.


You may use that post FM, good luck with it...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 04:46 pm
real life wrote:
OK then, let's assume that EVERY kid in EVERY science class is fresh from a creationist 'propaganda' meeting the night before.

My question still is:

Isn't a college educated, professional science teacher supposed to be prepared to teach his subject?


They *are* prepared to teach the subject, but they shouldn't have to waste the classes time with meaningless questions.

Creationist claims are meaningless misunderstandings of known science. They've been dealt with by professionals many times over. Teachers have a lot of important information to impart to their class in a limited amount of time. They need to spend that time imparting information, not reacting to diversionary tactics implanted into kids as a political or ignorant agenda.

How would you feel if your kid didn't learn math because another kid from the anti-math religion kept making the teacher explain why 2+2 doesn't equal 5.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 04:55 pm
rosborne979 wrote:


How would you feel if your kid didn't learn math because another kid from the anti-math religion kept making the teacher explain why 2+2 doesn't equal 5.


I loved it, Rosborne. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 05:42 pm
I know in my heart of hearts that 2+2 does equal 5, and no mere scientist with an atheist agenda can make me doubt my faith !!!!!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 06:01 pm
EorI, I was thinking exactly the same thing; thanks for expressing it first. Wink
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 06:31 pm
Welcome to the Quatro Pentalist Church C.I.

Which wing of the Pentagon should we locate our head office? East, West, North or South?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 07:39 pm
How about the central atrium?
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 09:23 pm
real life wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
real life,

Your example of the 14 year-old girl asking mild questions about evolution is denying the reality of what is actually going on. Incidents reported by science teachers all over the country involve blatant interruption of classes by hostile students mouthing creationist propaganda.


Hi wandeljw,

Well, as you know, one man's information is another man's 'propaganda'. And if they are 'mouthing' it , then that's obviously much worse than simply talking about it, isn't it? Laughing

Seriously , if a student is beyond the bounds of proper classroom behavior then disciplinary action should follow whether the discussion was evolution , George Washington, trigonometry, or metal shop.

However, we discussed previously the seminars for science teachers that focused on 'What are the main tenets of the evolutionary theory?' and 'Why is evolution important to scientific understanding?'

It sounds to me as if the teachers are not well versed in their field and are often frustrated when their lack of preparation and knowledge causes them embarrassment.

If evolution is such a well founded and easily provable theory, then a well prepared teacher should be able to blow the student out of the water.

The fact that this isn't happening, and that seminars are convened on basic foundational evolutionary nuts and bolts, indicates to me that the fault may often be with the teacher's level of knowledge or competence.


I'm sure that's what you like to think.

New Tactic In Evolution Debate
Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.

That's because critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."

The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy..........
............ "The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."

Williamson and his Kansas colleagues aren't alone. An informal survey released in April from the National Science Teachers Association found that 31 percent of the 1,050 respondents said they feel pressure to include "creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom.".....................

A troubled history

These findings confirm the experience of Gerry Wheeler, the group's executive director, who says that about half the teachers he talks to tell him they feel ideological pressure when they teach evolution.

And according to the survey, while 20 percent of the teachers say the pressure comes from parents, 22 percent say it comes primarily from students.

In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom.

But in some cases doing so also means learning to handle well-organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory..................

A job that gets harder
The path has been a rougher one for John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina (Kansas) High School Central. When evolution comes up, students tune out: "They'll put their heads on their desks and pretend they don't hear a word you say."
To show he's not an enemy of faith, he sometimes tells them he's a choir member and the son of a Lutheran pastor. But resistance is nevertheless getting stronger as he prepares to retire this spring.

"I see the same thing I saw five years ago, except now students think they're informed without having ever really read anything" on evolution or intelligent design, Mr. Wachholz says. "Because it's been discussed in the home and other places, they think they know, [and] they're more outspoken.... They'll say, 'I don't believe a word you're saying.' "
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 01:16 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
OK then, let's assume that EVERY kid in EVERY science class is fresh from a creationist 'propaganda' meeting the night before.

My question still is:

Isn't a college educated, professional science teacher supposed to be prepared to teach his subject?


Creationist claims are meaningless misunderstandings of known science.


Creation is meaning...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 01:58 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
OK then, let's assume that EVERY kid in EVERY science class is fresh from a creationist 'propaganda' meeting the night before.

My question still is:

Isn't a college educated, professional science teacher supposed to be prepared to teach his subject?


They *are* prepared to teach the subject, but they shouldn't have to waste the classes time with meaningless questions.



Maybe teachers should learn the 'meaningless' answers.

from http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/flunk.html

Quote:
New Teachers Flunk in Massachusetts - An opinion by John Silber, Chancellor of Boston University and chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education, helped to design the test given to prospective teachers in Mass.

BOSTON 7/7/98 -- This spring, Massachusetts administered its first statewide test for candidates hoping to teach in the public schools. The recent announcement of the results has provoked astonishment and outrage. Almost 60 percent of the candidates failed. Thirty percent failed a basic test in reading and writing, and the failure rate on subject-matter tests varied from 63 percent in mathematics to 18 percent in physical education...........


Quote:
More than half a million Florida students sat in classrooms last year in front of teachers who failed the state's basic skills tests for teachers.

Many of those students got teachers who struggled to solve high school math problems or whose English skills were so poor, they flunked reading tests designed to measure the very same skills students must master before they can graduate.

These aren't isolated instances of a few teachers whose test-taking skills don't match their expertise and training. A Herald-Tribune investigation has found that fully a third of teachers, teachers' aides and substitutes failed their certification tests at least once....



from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_200205/ai_n9054232


Quote:
In Chicago, public school kids have two shots at passing a test of basic skills if they don't want to repeat a grade. But for those who teach Chicago kids, the test story - at the moment - is quite different. Teachers can flunk their certification tests three, five, 10 or 24 times, or never pass them - and still teach.

In fact, the Chicago Sun-Times found teachers who had done just that.


It took five months to get the data, plus three more months of analysis, ........
emphasis mine
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:46 am
well, as RL identifies problems with teacher competence, thats one of the very problems Im always stirred up about. The education "Industry" stresses format over substance. Teachers are able to carry out with great facility, the trappings of filling in a teachers day with beurocratic crap mandated by the various states(teaching has, within the last 30+ years become an "internalized' profession with management and admin skills more desirable than subject proficiency). Most teachers have not a clue of what theyre teaching. So this goes hand in hand with my thesis that the Creationists "cull" some teachers like wildebeest and attack them with questions that they are not able to handle and thus they try to bluff their ways through, which gives the Creation "industry" even more to focus on. Many of these teachers , lately,are being recognized as being non proficient in their subjects and some of the states (including Pa) are requiring subject material CEUs before they can get their proficiency tickets punched.
Its amazing how afew teaching colleges are slowly returning to the days when I was a kid and making sure that subject matter is being considered important once again. In Pa, for example, theyve dropped the entire "State teachers College" title and have gone to becoming full service "Universities" with really good programs that rival the private schools in science and math departments . It used to be that state teachers colleges had faculty who were teachers of, say, biology and they taught as if the material was geared to the middle school classroom. Now, slowly, they are rverting back to having their teachers be part of the professional corps where they carery out their own research and have Phds not from "state teachers colleges as a DeD , but a real advanced degree in a hard science from a real university
Itll be a slow transition because the state teachers college system had been an entrenched beuracracy with PSEA (union ties) and now they have their staffs be part of the AAUP(more like a guild of professionals)..
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:59 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
In Pa, for example, theyve dropped the entire "State teachers College" title and have gone to becoming full service "Universities" with really good programs that rival the private schools in science and math departments .


Let us hope that they teach them to avoid expressions such as "really good" in their polemic.

If education is an "Industry" as fm states then won't it behave like an industry and treat its consumers in whatever way maximises its fortunes?

Once the word "Industry" applies to an educational system any other notions other than that are naive.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:02 am
have a really good day doosh bag
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:09 am
The article quoted by Pauligirl wrote:
The path has been a rougher one for John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina (Kansas) High School Central. When evolution comes up, students tune out: "They'll put their heads on their desks and pretend they don't hear a word you say."


This is sad for the students themselves. They will effectively marginalize themselves in all matters concerning science education. A theory of evolution and the pursuit of its implications had profoundly altered and enriched the understanding of not simply biology but of chemistry, geology and geophysics, bacteriology and medical biology and chemistry--either these students will be unable to effectively pursue science in higher education, or they will be obliged to work very hard to catch up if their higher education requires and understanding of the contemporary state of scientific knowledge.

The eventual result will be that employment in science in the United States will go to those students who have worked hard and paid attention, despite politically-motivated disruptions, or to foreign students who were not hampered in their science education. If this problem continues, and worsens, the effect radical religionists will have had on their children and many other children who don't deserve the handicap will have been to incidentally give an advantage to students who will compete with them in higher education and in the job market.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:14 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
have a really good day doosh bag


A fair example of the effects of education in the "good old days".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:28 am
Setanta wrote-

Quote:
They will effectively marginalize themselves in all matters concerning science education.


I don't think that is true and even if it is the students might prefer such an outcome to being marginalised at home and in their community. City people might not experience such social marginalisation due to the superficiality of urban relationships and will thus be able to corner all the best jobs in the scientific world.

Wachholz didn't say that all the students laid their heads down. He did generalise.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:33 am
Ive been fighting the increased pressure to adopt a Bioenvironmental or geoenvironmental curriculum for kids at my grad school. WAtering down o subject matter to make the degreed "employable" in an environmental industry that is so commoditized these days, is like "giving up' and everyone adopting spendis attitude. Having a (__________-environmetal) degree is to teach the kids like they too were elementary teachers , and subject matter is secondary to process information. These environmental programs dont result in a strong science background so that the kids can draw on a broader skills set to do problem solving.

I had a bunch of kids out on a field problem last spring. They were to map part of a quadrangle. This was a senior level field course that ends up in a summer camo in the Southern Appalachians. The course contained senior geo majors and a few of these "geo-environmental" products. The mapping had 2 little tricks enclosed in the quad, a series of recumbant folds that were upside down , and a fauklt that could only be mapped by detailed noting of rock chunks on the ground(we call this float).

To a person the geo majors teamed up and went about solving the problem by moving in from the ends of the quad and converging on the middle zone. The geo enviro kids were totally lost and had no idea. I spent weeks with them bringing them up to speed in the finer arts of field work, they were not prepared. My TA and I worked hard to make sure that these kids wouldnt be overwhelmed at field camp. Consequently, of the 4 geo-enviro students in the class, 2 decided to forego their degree date and instead acquire the additional necessary course work to get a BA (at least cause they didnt want to spend more than another year)

These lessons that many elite Universities fail to impart on their"clients" are unforgivable IMO. While the State teachers colleges have "beefed up their curricula", many of the big U's and elites have been watering theirs down.

Ive got 3 more years as faculty and Im outta there. Ive gotten comfortable that the engineering and science axis of this planet will transfer to China, and not at a glacial speed.

Look at Britain, and there youll see whats happening to the US (and Canada I may say). The entire field of Plate tectonics was a Canadian discovery and growth, theyve yielded most all of their talents to overses institutions.
Chinese universities are actually recruiting faculty from the west and theyve been investing in their own teachers by training them at US elites. Half the geophysics student enrollment at Stanford is PRC , and if you look at the discoveries in evolutionary field work, its mostly the Chinese who are excelling in appliedsciences. I give us anothe 10 years and the basic "Hard" sciences like chem and physics will be a Chinese game exclusively
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 06:34 am
I don't care what you allegedly "think." Now Spendi has found yet another thread to clog with his useless contrarian rants.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 591
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.33 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 02:24:00