America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[cwes99_03]

How so, infinite?

[InfiniteNow]

How so, infinite?

Here's the elementary school level explanation:

 

 

http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch02/eyes.mhtml

 

 

What I ask though is for you to provide evidence of two brown eyed parents producing a blue eyed offspring. Thanks.

[cwes99_03]

Quite simply, my mother and father both have brown eyes. I have blue grey eyes.

My father has red-brown hair, my mom is prematurely grey but had brown hair in her 20s and blonde hair as a young girl. I have dirty blonde hair with just a hint of red to it, mainly when wet, though I was nearly platinum when a child. I am about 50% irish and 50% german according to ancestry.

 

Thanks for the graphic, because it proves me correct. I don't know if eye or hair traits are truly dominant recessive genes because I know there are a lot more expressions there than a very simplistic dominant recessive gene.

 

BTW, I once had a genetics student tell me that left-handedness was a purely recessive trait and that two parents that were both left handed would only have left handed children (she herself was left-handed and loved being unique). I laughed and she got mad insisting it was true.

In fact it isn't. I know a couple who has three right handed kids even though they are both left handed.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99864.htm

[pgrmdave]

Don't forget, it's also much more complicated than that simplistic diagram. There are many genes involved in things like eye color, hair color, height, handedness. That's why we're still learning a lot about genetic evolution - it's a very complex field.

[InfiniteNow]

I really fail to see how the fact that we are still increasing our level of understanding in genetics means:

 

"that these genetic traits are not an evolution of the human genome. "

 

That's quite a leap cwes.

[InfiniteNow]

Which is more likely? Blue-eyed parents having a brown-eyed child? Or brown-eyed parents having a blue-eyed child?

Odd as it sounds, it’s much more common for brown-eyed parents to have blue-eyed children than for blue-eyed parents to have brown-eyed children.

 

That’s because brown eyes are dominant, and the eye color likely will have already shown up in a parent if the trait is in the gene pool. So absent the dominant brown-eyed gene, blue-eyed parents are likely to just keep on producing blue-eyed children.

But why do blue eyes show up in children of brown-eyed people? This is because genes for blue eyes are “lurkers.” These recessive genes stay in the background until a certain combination of genetic material occurs—i.e., a contribution of a recessive blue-eyed gene from each brown-eyed parent.

 

Thus, even though genes producing brown eyes are dominant, it’s more common for brown-eyed parents to have blue-eyed children than for blue-eyed parents to have brown-eyed children.

 

http://vision.about.com/od/childrenvision/f/eyecolor.htm

[Boerseun]

Quite simply, my mother and father both have brown eyes. I have blue grey eyes.

Does your milkman have blue or brown eyes? :Waldo:

[paigetheoracle]

Of course they don't understand evolution and some don't want to - it's an ego thing (psychological problem not necessarily educational). Some people have difficulty making sense of something because it requires effort, if difficult (not obvious). Other people with low self-esteem want to believe fairy stories because it makes them feel better (boosts their ego), where the truth doesn't: As somebody said (Arthur C. Clarke?)and I paraphrase "The universe is neither pro nor anti life, it is just indifferent to man's suffering and that is what most people cannot stand". In other words they'd rather die believing in a loving or hating God, rather than face an indifferent one that is even beyond ignoring their existence into simply being unaware of them (The elephant standing on an ant syndrome).

 

I know this may seem a bit off topic but it explains the growing rejection of science and a turning to religion (see War of the Worlds, the George Pal production).

[ughaibu]

What "growing rejection of science" would that be? As far as I can tell, even in the US, the general trend is towards realism and away from superstition.

[paigetheoracle]

What "growing rejection of science" would that be? As far as I can tell, even in the US, the general trend is towards realism and away from superstition.

 

The attempt to teach creationism as opposed to evolution in schools. The putting in power of a president (twice in a row) and officials, trained at the Patrick Henry College, a bible orientated teaching establishment, trying to do what it has - put religiously orientated people into political power, which is even more dangerous than terrorism, considering America has the nuclear bomb already and according to a documentary on British television (The Doomsday Code/Channel Four/ Saturday, the 16th of September this year), those who believe in the Book of Revelations want it to come true, so that they can get to heaven quicker (The equivalent of Islamic fundamentalists).

 

It's not just America - in Britain science is being abandoned in favour of arts subjects by students as they are easier subjects to get pass marks in.

 

It's not really a question of science versus art or religion but concerns the direction the whole of the Western World (at least Britain and America) seems to be taking. My interest is in philosophy and the arts but what I see is a decent into idleness (The easy way out). This whole thing is not about evolution and creationism but devolution of this whole society (collapse into anarchy, through selfish self interest and overindulgence but maybe even this dissolving of the intellect is in itself, evolution but social 'evil-lution').

 

As Tormod says, this thread is most probably better put somewhere else as it has dissolved into a socio-political argument but it is a very important subject to discuss and should not is not being let go of lightly by anyone, as we're fighting for our civilization ('The War against Sleep' as Gurdjieff put it) and at the moment we appear to be losing (The dumming down and yobbishness of a frightened and ignorant public that want to stay that way: We have to show them in our own separate ways that there is nothing to be afraid of but fear itself and even that has a purpose but shouldn't rule our lives our we end up staying ignorant: The only thing we ever truly fight is our own ignorance).

 

I would like to thank Ugaibhu and the originator of this thread for allowing me to bring up and develop this thread, to get the above points across but I feel it is getting to be a circular argument, in that the same points are getting brought up again and again, without anything being resolved but maybe that's life...

 

This maybe getting away from the main point but as you asked...

[InfiniteNow]

The attempt to teach creationism as opposed to evolution in schools. ...This of course is getting away from the main topic but as you asked...

Not necessarily. I see the two as highly interrelated. The issue is those with money and influence use a specific agenda to get people on board with something with which they otherwise might not agree. Through increases in numbers, they gain more money and influence. They then exert this influence with lawmakers, and politicians are afraid to act on what they think is right for fear on not getting money nor re-election after failing to cater to those who are influential. Hence it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle and we look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world...

 

[/rant] :hyper:

[cwes99_03]

I really fail to see how the fact that we are still increasing our level of understanding in genetics means:

 

"that these genetic traits are not an evolution of the human genome. "

 

That's quite a leap cwes.

 

You fail to see a whole lot more.

BTW your post on brown eyes and blue eyes has nothing to do with anything I said. I know plenty about dominant and recessive genes, and I understand it is more common for brown eyed parents to have blue eyed children than vice versa. Forget all that.

 

The point was that it is not an evolutionary step if brown-eyed parents start having blue-eyed children. The blue eyed trait has existed within the human genome since the beginning of recorded history, just like all the other traits.

 

Thus this trait which could be used to differentiate between a population of animals does not in itself identify a new species. Elsewise, we would have thousands of different species under the genus of homo, because of the huge genetic variance within the species.

 

Likewise animals like Darwin's finches which are completely capable of mating with other finches of a different species to produce "hybrid" offspring are not evolving on a 20 year scale, but are all the same animal with different traits. To say otherwise is like saying africans, europeans, asians, and native americans are all different species and any child born of parents from more than one of these groups is a hybrid species.

[Dov Henis]

I feel it is getting to be a circular argument, in that the same points are getting brought up again and again, without anything being resolved

...

 

A few years ago I proposed a realistic and practical program of "resolving" and advancing wide public acceptance of science-informed culture, but even though I suggested it as a "commercial advrtsmnt paid" program there were no takers...

 

See "SCM, Science Creed Manifest", at

 

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=142

 

Dov

[ughaibu]

Paigetheoracle: But dont surveys, in the US, suggest that creationists are declining in number? In the UK I dont think I've ever met a ceationist.

[paigetheoracle]

Paigetheoracle: But dont surveys, in the US, suggest that creationists are declining in number? In the UK I dont think I've ever met a ceationist.

 

I damn well hope so!:hihi:

 

As for the UK - I've never met one either but decline in educational standards is just as dangerous as it leads to woolly thinking and in fact no thinking at all, which worries me.

 

There was an article in The New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being human) this week about 'Genius', saying that it comes about through hard work, inspirational teaching and a supportive environment (good mentoring/ scholarly help): See new post by me on this subject or visit the above site/ get the journal, if available in the USA - failing that visit its authors site http://www.daviddobbs.net.:lol:

[cwes99_03]

Back to the subject at hand, I actually read a brief blurb about a poll in America that actually showed, more and more people are beginning to believe evolution is flawed. However, more and more people are also begining to believe that the different religions also aren't right (mainly in teaching that God created the universe and all life in six literal 24 hour days.)

The biggest trend among Americans is the belief that God created things (thus still some creation) but then left things alone to evolve into what they are today. This I find wrong from a christian perspective, because it completely undercuts the theme of the Bible in that God is a loving, caring creator who is working toward setting things straight and proving Satan a liar.

 

Additionally, I would like to point out that in different lands the term "creationist" has very different meanings. In many "modern" lands it deals with those people who are politically active in trying to get creation taught in a public school system, or active in getting their religious views instated as law in those countries.

Thus I am not a creationist.

Also in some countries, the term means those who believe in a literal 6-24hour-day creation period. Again, thus I am not a creationist.

However, I do believe wholely, in the Bible's rendition of creation.

[Zythryn]

The biggest trend among Americans is the belief that God created things (thus still some creation) but then left things alone to evolve into what they are today. This I find wrong from a christian perspective, because it completely undercuts the theme of the Bible in that God is a loving, caring creator who is working toward setting things straight and proving Satan a liar.

 

Cwes, this I think is the lynchpin to the issue. When you say "This I find wrong from a christian perspective" I think it would be more accurate to say "This I find wrong from my interpretation of the Bible".

 

Different Christians get different things from the Bible. Some choose to read it literally while others read it as stories/metaphores to help one lead a good life.

 

This is why the above reasoning isn't 'wrong' from a Christian perspective but may not agree with your personal interpretation of the Bible.