Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Physics was on the first floor, biology on the second. I went up to the second floor once, and a white mouse bit me, and that is the extent of my academic biology experience.
Thank you. (You meant that you disagree with the statement "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it", right?)
OK, so then, what specifically SHOULD be changed about mainstream high school biology curricula when it comes to teaching evolution?
You need to get the wording right. Do Americans support teaching the scientific evidence against chemical periodicity, as well as the evidence for it? And would they support teaching alternative theories of the elements?
Why do you expect your Physics professor to teach you biology? Take an entry level biology course and they will teach it to you. One of the basic "rules" in science is to only teach what your an expert in if it can be at all helped. So a physics professor isn't qualified to teach you about biology, nor has any reason to, because his goal is to teach you physics.
What kind of physics program are you in? I'm burned out with physics, I just took a final in an intro to quantum mechanics course last night. I did fairly well I think, considering its mind numbing to try to conceptialize whats going on.
Yes, thanks, that is why the link was to your post. I also posted a URL(which might not work. This one might work better....http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982201002275) for those who wanted to read the paper.
It is your right to agree with the authors. On the other hand, it is alright for me to point out that the evidence in the paper is that gorillas and chimps share something that humans lack. The facts are then arranged to achieve a preconceived outcome. You can visualize what the result would be if humans also had the virus allele. The little tree would have remained the same. Same thing if humans and gorillas, but no chimp. Likewise humans and chimps but no gorilla.
1 = the tree as preconceived.
2 = some other tree.
000 = 1 gch 001 = 1 gc 010 = 1 gh 011 = 1 ch(or g as follows) 100 = 1 g 101 = 1 gh 110 = 1 gc 111 = 1 gch
"Teach the controversy!"
Actually most of us, if not all, welcome questions, unfortunately the majority of our interactions with the anti-evolution crowd contain not questions but bald assertions stating that evolution is 'just wrong'.
If you have questions about evolution, including those you feel make the theory less than perfect I'd be happy to do what I can to answer them.
The problem with that argument, which comes up frequently, is that IDers are challenged to find evidence to support ID, which said evidence evolutionists have already decided doesn't exist, so no matter what IDers come up with, even if it is *real* evidence, the evolutionists have detemined it to be *invalid*, therefore *not evidence*. They've demanded the impossible from IDers and then mocked them for not being able to accomplish it.
The fact that the evolutionists have ahead of time decided that there is no evidence for ID shows their close mindedness. If they were open minded, they'd at least consider what was presented to them BEFORE rejecting it, not rejecting it off hand, BEFORE considering it.
2. If we decide what is science by polls, this country is in a hell of lot of trouble.
Scientific research is NOT a Democracy. Idiot, er, "Intelligent Design" has never stood up to serious scientific scrutiny.
Take your mythology out of science class and keep it in metaphysics where it belongs. I say this, btw, as someone who believes everyone, including us skeptics, should study the bible, due to its impact on our society.
Evolution is not in itself an attack on religion.
Evolution is not an attack on religion at all. Some Christian sects think it attacks their beliefs.
Religion itself is not an attack on evolution.
I agree. But believers of some religious sects hysterically attack Evolution because they think it contradicts their religious beliefs.
As to the rest.....believe whatever you wish. However, the tens of thousands of scientists who have studied the TOE for 150 years disagree with you. However, concerning the following....
all based on a hopeful guess that (again) random chemicals, lying about in luckily well stirred pools of other chemicals, at the right temperature, on a wednesday, were struck by a random lightening bolt and decided to start swimming and breeding.
What you are talking about here is not part of the TOE. It doesn't address the origin of life anymore than Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity address the origin of matter.
I'm sure I will be shown to be painfully ignorant of current ideology, but I don't think Darwin presumed that his observations were any more reflective of the meaning of life than did monty Python when they offered up their version.
The TOE is not ideology, nor does it address the meaning of life. No scientific theory addresses the meaning of life. That is beyond the realm of science.
the extent of the debate I've seen so far, 'evolution' is being used either as a cover story for secular survival or as a knee jerk defense against the questioning of your beliefs. (I prefer to believe the latter)
It's too bad you think and believe that. Many religions and their ministers (the official positions of the major Christian religions and over 10,000 ministers) are on record stating they do not think or believe the TOE and their religion contradict each other.
No it is not. Nobody, not one person on this planet knows the answer... This much is certain.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
A lot of points of view have been discarded from science long ago--they simply did not meet the standards.
You cannot set standards if you don't have answers.
There is no more evidence that humans are evolved from common ancestors to apes than there is that humans were marooned here by extraterrestrials (or the product of some extra-dimensional engineering intelligence).
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I could tell you tales of grad school...
Grad school? Save the hubris for someone who is impressed by it... logic is my only concern and the evolutionists are coming up short on their metrology...
I finished my degree many years ago. Even so retired as I am, I keep my math up so I can keep up with what is going on now and understand what Lisa Randall is talking about.
If you had any proof of ID, someone would write a scientific paper about it. Instead ID is a philisophical theory. That isn't a bad thing, because honestly the theory of evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe. It attempts to explain how life works.
If I want to talk evolution I will walk across the quad to the Political Science/Psychology/Philosophy building. They use it a lot more than the Biology Dept does.
You're objecting to scientists modifying their theory to conform to the evidence??
If humans also had this insert, then of course the tree would remain them same--the evidence would not disprove it. As it is, the evidence allows us to clarify the evolutionary divergence. You say that the idea that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees is a "preconceived notion." The implication is that this is also a baseless notion. In fact this conclusion was drawn from scientific evidence.
The theory of evolution actually would predict instances like this as long as the organisms diverge within a relatively small timeframe.
that was an extremely dumb statement,ml1954.
When you repost the exact same post that has been previously rebutted, you are recycling the same old stuff.
What's wrong with using them again, especially when my post was directed not to you, busybody, but to another poster whom I had never shared those points with before.
Nothing is wrong with using them again. And there's nothing wrong with me referring your correspondent to a previous posting of the same and a previous response to the same. This is an open forum. If you want a private discussion, use freepmail.
Now do you understand?
I understand that you are bent out of shape because your game of 'gotcha' didn't work out the way you would have liked.
Ah, lucky to have a totem pole to dance around. We have to settle for a glass waste box. ;-)
Thanks. I thought I'd seen that name and posting style before. I wasn't planning to get into a debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.