Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Biochemist]

...your comment suggests to me that you are not considering other factors of evolution such as genetic drift and gene flow.

I don't have any issues with genetic drift. I am not confident it is a material contributor to speciation, but it is reasonably well established. My view is that genetic drift is just expression of recessive alleles. Ergo it is unrelated to serial mutation. But it is indeed a subset of gradualism.

..NS is pervasive, but other factors are at work. It is not necessarily linear, as you describe.

I am frankly a little uncomfortable taking on NS directly. Part of the issue is that NS encompasses a large set of different processes (some, for example, are readily reversible) with significantly different mechanisms. I would rather talk about mechanisms than the macro topic. It makes the discussion tighter.

Nobody's done that since you've returned, AFAICT. :eek2:

And I am tickled. So nice to be remembered.

Nope, can you elaborate on this problem?

As I mentioned in this post, NS (for example) in normal usage comprises both genetic drift (which I accept) and serial mutation (which I question). If we don't stay at a specific level of detail, we get a lot of off-topic noise. I really love this place when we have the really grisly knock-down face-offs and still stay on topic.

 

Speaking of that, where is Buffy anyway?

[InfiniteNow]

These arguments are all (unfortunately) highly probabilistic.

All it takes is one.

 

 

When I referenced above that I can't see how we got to life from a standing start in 300 million years, that is fundamentally a probabilistic argument.

All it takes is one, and the probabilities clearly speak in my favor.

 

 

One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

It WOULD be support if you had evidence, but you don't, so this is argument from conjecture. As we all know, conclusions founded in false premises are themselves false.

 

 

 

I am deeply honored. Most of my peers consider me a very special idiot, not the run-of-the-mill sort.

 

I am also suspicious that idiots can run mills, ergo the standard idiot is more probably a can't-run-the-mill idiot.

 

See, there you go, strawmanning my position again. I never once suggested you could run a mill. You'll notice that the word "of" was included, and significantly changes the meaning of that post. :eek2:

 

:snow:

[InfiniteNow]

Speaking of that, where is Buffy anyway?

She has dates, a job, an iPhone, and a daughter. I'd wager a nice scotch that her time is currently associated with one of those. :eek2:

[Biochemist]

And we would call the results, allelic drift (assuming that the organism interacts with others).

Now we are getting somewhere. I just LOVE it when folks really start thinking on this site.

 

In a case where 1) a recessive allele is expressed, 2) the recessive allele has never been expressed previously, hence it is "new", 3) it is a significant change in phenotype and 4) it is "successful" in that it is advantaged in the population, I am suspicious that this is NOT serial mutation. This argument hangs on #3 above (significant change in phenotype). I think this is what the plain interpretation of the fossil record shows. Some small populations of individuals "rapidly" express recessive alleles that were not previously expressed.

 

This is my view of the plain explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Small sequestered populations of individuals (after some sort of macro environmental debacle) suddenly began to express recessive alleles that had not been seen before. And we got new phyla, not new features. We got whole new body plans. I do not believe the evidence best suggests that those phyla were selected through serial mutation. I think they showed up before that.

 

To be clear (getting back to the topic in this thread) if this leads some to the conclusion that there was some "guiding hand" in this, that is not my problem. I think the evidence best suggests that there was not time in the fossil record for those phyla to select themselves codon by codon (or, even worse, nucleotide by nucleotide)

[Buffy]

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days....

Not me of course! :snow:

 

Bio is no TRoutMac!

 

Before this gets out of hand, I do recommend perusing the many uh, "interesting discussions" that have gone on between me and Bio on this topic....and of course its always a good Idea to use scientific methods to refute seemingly "unsupportable" positions....

 

What man is there so much unreasonable, if you had pleased to have defended it with any terms of zeal, wanted the modesty to urge the thing held as a ceremony, :eek2:

Buffy

[Biochemist]

What man is there so much unreasonable, if you had pleased to have defended it with any terms of zeal, wanted the modesty to urge the thing held as a ceremony, :eek2:

Buffy

Buff, will you marry me?

 

(P.S.- I have been to Venice, but I was never a merchant)

[Buffy]

Buff, will you marry me?

 

How many times do I have to say no? :snow:

 

I must, forsooth, be forced to give my hand opposed against my heart unto a mad-brain rudesby full of spleen; who woo'd in haste and means to wed at leisure, :eek2:

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I must, forsooth, be forced to give my hand opposed against my heart unto a mad-brain rudesby full of spleen; who woo'd in haste and means to wed at leisure, :eek2:

Buffy

If memory serves, Katharina and Petruchio end up together. Does this mean I am still in the running?

[Buffy]

If memory serves, Katharina and Petruchio end up together. Does this mean I am still in the running?

No, but it does mean you're probably in for the same treatment of at least Acts 1-4... :snow:

 

In our last conflict four of his five wits went halting off, and now is the whole man governed with one: so that if he have wit enough to keep himself warm, let him bear it for a difference between himself and his horse, :eek2:

Buffy

[Biochemist]

No, but it does mean you're probably in for the same treatment of at least Acts 1-4... ;)

I am still hoping for Act V, "Kate."

 

In our last conflict four of his five wits went halting off, and now is the whole man governed with one: so that if he have wit enough to keep himself warm, let him bear it for a difference between himself and his horse...

I am thinking that when conversing with you, I am approximating 50% wit.

[REASON]

Geez, get a room. :hihi:

 

 

To be clear (getting back to the topic in this thread) if this leads some to the conclusion that there was some "guiding hand" in this, that is not my problem.

 

So what do you think, Bio.

 

It appears from your posts that you seem to feel that the original ideas and work surrounding ID theories have been hijacked by religious fanatics who are misusing it for their own personal agenda, and your position on this issue is often misunderstood as a result.

 

Is that a fairly accurate statement?

 

If so, what elements, if any, of true ID, or SOTSM, do you think should be integrated into the public school science curriculum to either counter or enhance the teaching of evolution?

[Biochemist]

It appears from your posts that you seem to feel that the original ideas and work surrounding ID theories have been hijacked by religious fanatics who are misusing it for their own personal agenda, and your position on this issue is often misunderstood as a result.

 

Is that a fairly accurate statement?

Yes. Although the behavior of the body politic is uniformly embarassing. It doesn't matter whether the topic is ID/Evolution, climate change or healthcare or tax policy. Facts are the first casuality in the conflict.

..what elements, if any, of true ID, or SOTSM, do you think should be integrated into the public school science curriculum...

I think that young science students should be taught that the Scientific Method is fundamentally skeptical. So if a particular teacher wants to present evolution, present the holes as well. I was particularly pleased that the (healthy) conflict between the Punctuated Equilibrium folks and the Gradualism folks was consistently batted back and forth from 1972 when Gould and Eldredge first published until Gould died (2006?). There is nothing wrong with a "design" thesis, as long as someone offers a path to defend or refute it.

 

I think it is a tragedy when someone in authority translates evidence for a strong position into "fact".

 

A better (and less political) example is probably the age of the earth. I think the 4.5 billion number is a pretty well supported one. But I would never offer it as fact, only as the best supported consensus. Ditto with the Big Bang.

[freeztar]

I think that young science students should be taught that the Scientific Method is fundamentally skeptical. So if a particular teacher wants to present evolution, present the holes as well.

 

I agree!

 

I think it is a tragedy when someone in authority translates evidence for a strong position into "fact".

 

I agree, very unscientific. Btw, who are you referring to?

 

A better (and less political) example is probably the age of the earth. I think the 4.5 billion number is a pretty well supported one. But I would never offer it as fact, only as the best supported consensus. Ditto with the Big Bang.

 

Indeed. That's why they're called theories.

[Biochemist]

Btw, who are you referring to?

Goodness, lots of folks. I recall an essay written by Isaac Asimov (one of my favorite authors) when he was defending "evolution" against some contemporary Creationist, and he asserted that "evolution is an established fact". Rather than assert the data in support of his argument, he asserted his argument as fact. I thought the tactic weakened his argument. Equally bad is referring to a "consensus" of scientists (particularly when there is none).

 

Theories are constructs supported by fact. Facts themselves are items that are observed and/or measured.

 

Occasionally, advances in technology convert theories into fact (e.g., the earth is round). But it would usually serve us all well to keep theories and fact separate.

[REASON]

Goodness, lots of folks. I recall an essay written by Isaac Asimov (one of my favorite authors) when he was defending "evolution" against some contemporary Creationist, and he asserted that "evolution is an established fact". Rather than assert the data in support of his argument, he asserted his argument as fact. I thought the tactic weakened his argument. Equally bad is referring to a "consensus" of scientists (particularly when there is none).

 

Theories are constructs supported by fact. Facts themselves are items that are observed and/or measured.

 

Occasionally, advances in technology convert theories into fact (e.g., the earth is round). But it would usually serve us all well to keep theories and fact separate.

 

Sure. But I believe it is important to make the distinction between any run-of-the-mill theory and that which is deemed a scientific theory.

 

According to the National Academy of Sciences:

 

• Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
  

 

Theory and fact are not as distinct in the minds of scientists. For this reason it should be clearly understood that since the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, there is consensus among the scientific community to its validity, with the understanding that there are specific details and facts of the process that have yet to be refined.

 

With this in mind, I don't think Asimov was completely wrong in his statement.

[InfiniteNow]

Then, there's always this (which strangely I think appeals to both sides of the issue):

 

 

 

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

[Michaelangelica]

It is taught in all schools.

Perhaps with a bias in the totally raving christain schools.

But even they don't want failed biology students.