Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would think that would be the biggest news ever that a new species has evolved from a different species.
Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/d5vvwj - broken link)
BTW this thread is not a debate thread. Just relating the news story that the Texas science text books along with the supplemental material has been decided to remain clean of creationist's material. Since the Texas Board of Education, being such a big buyer of textbook from publishers, indirectly sets the what is published and it was feared by other school boards that Texas would include such material for the rest of the country. However, Texas came through. Louisiana is another story.
Let me google that for you (http://tinyurl.com/d5vvwj - broken link)
BTW this thread is not a debate thread. Just relating the news story that the Texas science text books along with the supplemental material has been decided to remain clean of creationist's material. Since the Texas Board of Education, being such a big buyer of textbook from publishers, indirectly sets the what is published and it was feared by other school boards that Texas would include such material for the rest of the country. However, Texas came through. Louisiana is another story.
Doesn't Louisiana consistently fall below Texas on almost any education yardstick?
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
Well can creationsism be disproven, if so how?
Furthermore, what scientific purpose would be accomplished by saying some unknown force (God, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster et al) created everything as it exists now, the End.
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
Creationism is simply not science. It belongs in religious classes. You cannot falsify the premise so it isn't scientific. Many Christians, btw, believe in both evolution and Creationism.
The Big Bang and Evolution are theories, but not in the sense you want to use the word. Theories in science are good predictors of things we see. They are often based in mathematics.
As for evolution, it has been observed. The fact is that it happened, the theory involves *how* it happened. There are several possible explanations, but it is clear that evolution happened especially if you look at the dna evidence.
Our team showed that the same common gene is critical to building limbs in humans and fruit flies. It turns out that this gene is critical to building virtually everything that sticks out of the body: antennae, legs, horns, whatever. These kinds of experiments shattered our preconceptions and forced people to think differently. Beneath these extremely diverse exteriors was a deeply shared common genetic tool kit. If I had five minutes with Charles Darwin, I’d start right there. It would blow his mind.
Clearly we have entered the age of experimental Darwinism. What are the experiments like, specifically?
We look at lots of species to figure out the ancestral form of a particular molecule. We can reconstruct that ancestral molecule and then retrace the steps that must have taken place to forge the new forms and functions we see today. If you think that the difference between two species involves changes in certain genes, you can swap those genes between the species. We’re doing those experiments trait by trait. There’s a powerful set of experiments that people have done on vision. Lots of animals differ in the parts of the color spectrum that they see best because of how they are tuned to their environments —whether they live in the deep sea or in caves, whether they mostly go out in the day or at night, or whether they’re trying to pick up ultraviolet patterns on flowers or on prey. Sight is really important in helping animals live, and since animals live in lots of different habitats, vision has evolved a lot.
Experiments that look at these changes are very doable in the lab. You can swap genes and change the retinal proteins that detect light. Then you can make very clear predictions about what certain changes mean and verify those things experimentally. For example, mice have been given an extra color vision gene in the lab, and it has been shown that the protein manufactured by that gene expands the scope of their vision by enhancing their ability to see longer-wavelength light without any other changes in the brain.
I saw a clip on the news last night of our Governer Perry working the crowd, assuring someone in the crown that Texas teaches both creationism AND evolution and thinks the children ought to decide. He needs to get caught up on what is going on in his state.
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks?
Which version of creationism do you want? I mean, since we have that pesky establishment clause, we have a number to choose from. I pick the Wiccan version of the Big Bang theory-- that the world was created by the sexual union of the archetypal Male and Female.
And yes, IMO that's silly, and shouldn't be taught as science anymore than some other God going on a six day manic world-building spree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qdogfball
I would think that would be the biggest news ever that a new species has evolved from a different species.
Not as long as journalists are able to tap celebrities' phone lines. Finches....Jennifer Aniston....finches...Jennifer Aniston...hmm. Wonder which one sells more papers? Even the History and Science Channels on cable spends more time on entertainment and astonishingly bad scholarship than they do on actual History or Science.
My guess is most of you aren't qualified to teach religion...Actually, I was thinking probably not sex education, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
