Shame of florida?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

That aside, I'm perfectly fine with Microevolution being taught, because it's been proven through observation. Just as all other acceptable theories have been. More counties should move to teaching as science only those things which are actually science, and leave creative fictions to the literature texts. If they want to teach evolution as a possible origin of life, they should do it in a class titled "Theology" or "Possible Origins of Humanity" or perhaps "Religions of the World 101". I just don't want to see the minds of the young ruined with propaganda. If we leave what we don't know yet blank, SOMEONE will get curious, and we will inspire the true spirit of science in our youth. By making too many assumptions for them, we limit them.

All I have to say is that as a chemist who works on cellular evolution this is completely and utterly wrong.
We have no mechanisms whatsoever for the creation of cells from basic ingredients or how intercellular systems form. We have certain reasonable mechanisms for lots of little things but no large scale mechanisms have been postulated or observed.
Unless you mean microevolution, as in evolution of already developed cells into other cells which is fair enough I assume ( I don't know, I focus on prebiotic chemistry).

[Eltargrim]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

However, evolution, in the form it is being taught to school children is not science, it is religion.

There is something very wrong with this.

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

However, evolution, in the form it is being taught to school children is not science, it is religion.

There it is!

Suffice it to say that the term theory has significant connotations in the scientific community that the layman misses. The Theory of Evolution is a valid subject to be taught; as Wikipedia tells us:

Originally Posted by Theory, as per Wikipedia

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts.

See the important part?

EDITUS:

If we leave what we don't know yet blank, SOMEONE will get curious, and we will inspire the true spirit of science in our youth. By making too many assumptions for them, we limit them.

There's a difference between "Letting them discover for themselves" and "Teaching them jack shit all". Do you know what we do with science? Test it! Do you know what happens when the test doesn't go right? Fix it! It worked with Relativity; it worked with atomic physics; I'm pretty sure it can work for Evolution as well.

As a final point: My high-school physics teacher was quite clear, in quite a lot of our units, that what we're being taught either isn't strictly accurate (Newtonian Physics) or was incomplete (Nuclear and particle physics). Didn't stop her from teaching it to us. Didn't stop it from being useful.

[Herr Doktor]

Isn't this topic a little provocative? I mean, it seems to me that the overall tone of this thread's "fuck you, florida"
Ah, well, none of the admins have jumped in and closed it, so it can't be that bad.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Unless you mean microevolution, as in evolution of already developed cells into other cells which is fair enough I assume ( I don't know, I focus on prebiotic chemistry).

I mean microevolution as in the term that describes one species in the same genus adapting to the environment to the extent that it is a different species in the same genus through taking on enough different traits from the original specimen.

We have certain reasonable mechanisms for lots of little things but no large scale mechanisms have been postulated or observed.

I know, and that's my problem with the "Theory" of Evolution as taught to school children.

As a final point: My high-school physics teacher was quite clear, in quite a lot of our units, that what we're being taught either isn't strictly accurate (Newtonian Physics) or was incomplete (Nuclear and particle physics). Didn't stop her from teaching it to us. Didn't stop it from being useful.

See, your teacher told you that it wasn't accurate or was incomplete. I'm fine with that, because that means that they're learning the practically applicable portions. Until a person has enough math to understand it, a person really shouldn't be taught Special or General Relativity or Quantum mechanics, because at that point, only the math makes sense.

Suffice it to say that the term theory has significant connotations in the scientific community that the layman misses. The Theory of Evolution is a valid subject to be taught; as Wikipedia tells us:

I am well aware of the definition of a Theory according to the scientific community, and Macroevolution (that which is being taught to school children) is not one. Genetics (microevolution) is fine, as I have said previously. There is enough evidence to support it.

Fossil records and DNA analysis.

Can we say reasonable doubt? Fossil records cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, and that explosion does not make logical sense following Macroevolution. I mean, a sudden emergence of millions of new species with no traceable linking stages from the previous fossils? I'm certain that we would at least have some evidence that they "evolved" just previous to that period, if it were the case.

However, I would be content with the theory if, even just once, someone could show macroevolution occuring. I want to see dolphins turning into something that isn't a dolphin. I want to see a fish become an amphibian. Or a flying squirrel adapt bird-like bone structure and actual wings. Something. Anything.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

I mean microevolution as in the term that describes one species in the same genus adapting to the environment to the extent that it is a different species in the same genus through taking on enough different traits from the original specimen.

That's not really microevolution however. Evolution on a species scale is pretty much continually classified as macroevolution and is pretty much the central case for the Theory of Evolution. Genetics does not involve an inherent change in cellular systems, it involves an outcome already specified within the system and thus is pretty much solely macroevolution.
Microevolution involves the direct change of cells and cellular systems. It involves systematic rearrangements for which we only have speculative mechanisms in most cases.

Edit: Actually now that I think about it, biologists might classify things differently based on what they are interested in just as us prebiotic chemists classify based on what we are interested in (systemic creation and change).

But I'm not sure what you are getting at. You have no problems with small changes of species within the same genus but that IS the theory of evolution. Well that's how it was originally concieved and how I was taught though I admit I'm not up with current biology though I've done work on Darwin, Lamark, Wallace, Spencer and Paley so I know how such a system was originally concieved. But it's how I was taught it.

I completely agree that creation of cells and life by evolutionary processes is highly speculative and unsure. I don't know about evolution between different genus at all but as far as I know it's not really based on much evidence and is kind of speculative. But again I don't think kids get taught such things at school, I certainly didn't.

And it's pretty central to science that theories are just theories. Kids understand that.

[Wyndon]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

Can we say reasonable doubt? Fossil records cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, and that explosion does not make logical sense following Macroevolution. I mean, a sudden emergence of millions of new species with no traceable linking stages from the previous fossils? I'm certain that we would at least have some evidence that they "evolved" just previous to that period, if it were the case.

I thought they came up with a few possible ideas that don't seem so far off as to negate it completely...Wasn't there an atmospheric change that changed concentration levels of oxygen/CO2, and thus created chemical imbalances, leading to far higher rates of mutations, and thus, new species?

In any case, nothing can honestly be proved 100%, because there is always ALWAYS going to be the slight possibility of us being wrong. Nothing in this universe will ever be 100%, because hell, we can't even prove we really exist. So honestly, sometimes you have to use Occam's Razor and go with the flow - this being evolution.

(For those who might be a bit confused: Occam's Razor is the principle of "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

That.

[Eltargrim]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

However, I would be content with the theory if, even just once, someone could show macroevolution occuring. I want to see dolphins turning into something that isn't a dolphin. I want to see a fish become an amphibian. Or a flying squirrel adapt bird-like bone structure and actual wings. Something. Anything.

...you do know that actually being able to observe those would implicate that evolution doesn't exist?

Macroevolution, as you call it, postulates that small genetic changes are compounded over long periods of time. Long periods of time is roughly equivalent to "We're never going to see it happen". There is plenty of evidence available for what you call "Macroevolution"; in addition, direct observation is not necessary for something to be valid enough to be taught and used. If we had to directly observe everything, nothing would ever happen in subatomic physics, or chemistry, or astronomy.

Each model improves upon the last. That is something that is vital to remember. We update knowledge as we go along. There is nothing wrong with students being taught the prevailing scientific theory in science class. Hell, there's often value in being taught the old model; I was taught Bohr's model of the atom in grade 9 science, only to have the quantum model taught in grade 12 chemistry, and also in physics.

The Cambrian Explosion Wiki page and this seem to refute some of your points.

Finally: if a discussion on the values of creationism results from this, I'm dropping this conversation like a live grenade. I'm not ending up on the wrong side of the religion rule.

EDITUS: Massively ninja'd. I heartily second Wyndon, as he was not only more concise, he presented a better argument on the nature of theory. And to BHS, what I was taught was exactly what I mentioned above; small changes being compounded over extremely large stretches of time.

[greed]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

.

However, I would be content with the theory if, even just once, someone could show macroevolution occuring. I want to see dolphins turning into something that isn't a dolphin. I want to see a fish become an amphibian. Or a flying squirrel adapt bird-like bone structure and actual wings. Something. Anything.

Live for a few million years. That's really all you can do, it's called macroevolution for a reason. Though various breeds of dogs are beginning to approach speciation through mechanical breeding isolation (the animals not being able to breed without human intervention, even if their reproductive processes are compatible and would produce fertile offspring, ie a chiquaua and a great dane)which is generally the second stage of macroevolution, after geographic isolation to begin the process of speciation. If there is no flow of genetic information between the breeds for a long enough time eventually their descendants will be incompatible with each other as they evolve to fill different niches, and thus be different species.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Eltargrim

EDITUS: Massively ninja'd. I heartily second Wyndon, as he was not only more concise, he presented a better argument on the nature of theory. And to BHS, what I was taught was exactly what I mentioned above; small changes being compounded over extremely large stretches of time.

Yes which is fitting with non-systemic change the principle of which Elminster is arguing against.
The very idea of a genus is founded upon that being a systematic boundary but as time moves on the parameters of that system can change through small adaption. Which is what I was taught to.
The only problem comes if you try to apply classifications of today to past or try to explain any large systemic change.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

We are very good at science. However, evolution, in the form it is being taught to school children is not science, it is religion. You see, until it Macroevolution has been observed and documented, the theory of "evolution" is not science. I have so far not become aware of ANY scientifically acceptable evidence of evolution, just as I have seen no acceptable evidence of any alternatives. For all I know, we've always been here, in this form. Knowing humanity, I wouldn't put it past us to have wiped ourselves out, nearly to extinction and obliterated any evidence of past habitation. Hell, the Earth itself does that for you after a long enough period of time, and 10,000 years (about as far back as we have archaeological evidence) is certainly enough to do that. I mean, our most durable creations (plastic) will only last an estimated 1,000 years when left to the devices of nature.

That aside, I'm perfectly fine with Microevolution being taught, because it's been proven through observation. Just as all other acceptable theories have been. More counties should move to teaching as science only those things which are actually science, and leave creative fictions to the literature texts. If they want to teach evolution as a possible origin of life, they should do it in a class titled "Theology" or "Possible Origins of Humanity" or perhaps "Rhttp://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=725839#post725839
Shame of florida? - Page 2 - Nuklear Power Forumseligions of the World 101". I just don't want to see the minds of the young ruined with propaganda. If we leave what we don't know yet blank, SOMEONE will get curious, and we will inspire the true spirit of science in our youth. By making too many assumptions for them, we limit them.

There is no difference as you're putting it between micro- and macro-evolution. "Micro" evolution is just all adaptations over a time frame we can observe, and "Macro" evolution is just applying the implications of those observations over a longer timeframe. Arguing that "macro" evolution is unsupported means assuming that all the same processes involved in "micro" evolution stop taking place as soon as you get outside the timeframe of a human lifespan, and I'm really not seeing any reason given as to why that would be the case.

I'm certain that we would at least have some evidence that they "evolved" just previous to that period, if it were the case.

I'd like to know why you're so certain of that? I thought it was basically a given that as far as the fossil record goes you pretty much have to take what evidence you have, as over the time frame of four billion or however many years there's no particular reason to assume that any given piece of evidence would have survived, and even if such evidence did survive I don't know why you would be assuming we've already found it.

---------------

On this:

Originally Posted by Herr Doktor

Isn't this topic a little provocative? I mean, it seems to me that the overall tone of this thread's "fuck you, florida"
Ah, well, none of the admins have jumped in and closed it, so it can't be that bad.

It might be brushing up against the line a bit in places but I'm not actually sure it's crossed over so I'll let it on for the time being. I should probably move to discussion or something but well, eh. I reserve the right to do whatever closing/warning/banning/hollerin' at people as might seem appropriate later on and I am making no promises about what any other mod might have to say.

As a general note I advise against assuming that a thread is okayed just because it hasn't yet been closed; it's always possible there just hasn't been a mod around or that we just happened to overlook whichever thing (I know it's not like I make a habit of checking every single thread and the title really isn't one that would set off any warning bells).