Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?

On 28 Mar 2007 19:09:43 -0700, "sss1000" <sshawid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 26, 10:10 pm, g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:48 am, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Only in feeding the theory of evolution. Compare this to the tangible
benefits in the last 150 years due to increased knowledge of how the
human heart works.

I'm curious. Those people who did the research to "increase our
knowledge", what course of study do you suppose prepared them for
their work? Do you suppose they studied standard biology, with
evolution among its very core ideas?

What about this first question? Maybe it was too obvious to merit an
answer. Do we agree that every (or vanishingly close to "every")
medical researcher in the last several generations studied standard
biology, including evolution?

Are you really so sure that they
would have done as well without that training.

Absolutely.

That's quite a leap.

Do you have a concrete example of how teaching a student
Darwinian evolution helped him perform a better open-heart surgery,
design a better drug, diagnose a patient's ailments more accurately,
or anything like that. If he was instead taught something more
practical at that time, like the side effects of a new drug, wouldn't
that have resulted in him doing better?

Steven has replied to you with more specifics and expertise than I
have to offer. But your principal argument is "why should we teach
it?". Here are two more general answers:

We teach it because it is true and helps explain how things work. You
claim to be "absolutely" certain that hiding that underlying,
organizing, essential truth could be omitted without damage to our
ability to make medical advances. And your "certainty" is based on
only the most basic sketch of biology.

Could we similarly restrict engineering education to "more practical"
topics like "successfuly bridge designs" and omit the underlying ideas
of compression and tension? Our knowledge of the human heart is
informed more and more by the study of comparative genetics, which
makes no sense at all without evolutionary theory.

While we're at it, did you find the following bit, that I posted a
couple of days ago, interesting? Worthy of a response?
---------------------------------------
You have missed the point about the Vitamin C genes. I'm not the most
qualified to explain it, but I'll give it a try. It is indeed logical
that our genetics would most closely match that of other primates if
we accept that we all had a common ancestor. If we were all created
separately then logic would suggest only that the FUNCTIONAL bits be
similar.

It is not by chance that Steven uses the example of a non-functional
part of our genetic code. Suppose you are the designer. You have in
mind to create some creatures with a taste for, and a talent for
obtaining, fruit. You decide that these creatures won't need the
ability to manufacture Vitamin C as a result. How would you go about
removing that ability? I'm pretty sure that I would simply remove that
gene entirely, rather than just render it inoperative.

Let's use some examples that were unambiguously designed. Suppose
hydrogen or ethanol-only cars become popular, and let's also suppose
that such cars have no need of a catalytic converter. (out of my area
of expertise here, too) Would you, as the designer, put the
unnecessary equipment in and bypass it? I doubt it. You'd do what
actual designers do: include the parts you think will work (or sell)
the best, and omit the rest. You'd also choose your design concepts
from among whatever ones suited your design, or your fancy, not just
those from "related" cars.

But let's suppose you are that sort of inscrutable designer. You put
the disabled genes in each of your primates. But are your non-
functional Vitamin C genes identical in each species? Nope. You go to
the trouble designing different varieties of non-functional parts to
put in your creatures.

But that's not enough for you. You don't make a dozen or two versions,
each like a separate painting. No, you change the the original working
gene a little , then change THAT one a little in a couple of different
ways, then change each of those a little more, etc., making it look
exactly like the progressive mutation of a non-essential gene through
a "family" of creatures. You carefully arrange your superfluous
genetic bits among your primates as if they had in fact diverged from
a common ancestor, some branching off more recently than others.

This is a good argument. The fact that both apes and man have non-
functional Vitamin C genes fits in nicely with Darwinian Evolution.
However, there are other explanations:

1) Alfred Weidersheim identified 86 human vestigial organs 1931,
including the pineal gland, the pituary body, the lachrymal glands,
and the thymus. Nearly all af the 86 were later identified as having
functions. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete and what are
apparently non-functional genes may have a useful purpose.

I'm not the expert here, but does this not seem to be a bit of a
stretch in this case? A gene which is known to control the ability to
synthesize vitamion C, found in the exact same place as it is in
animals who can synthesize it, disabled in the exact same way in
primates, but a different way in guinea pigs.

2) Humans and apes can and often do share similar habitats. If they
both occupied habitats with plenty of fruit for extended periods of
time, then a defect in the Vitamin C genes would be of no consequence
to a man's or ape's ancestors. Other genes would be more
significant. This could result in most or all men and apes having non-
functional genes over a period of time. This is classic micro-
evolution.

Yes, but you have still missed the specifics here. They are disabled
in the SAME WAY among primates, but in a DIFFERENT way in guinea pigs.
Among primates the pseudogene has acumulated further small changes,
not randomly distributed, but arranged exactly as one would expect if
the various species diverged from a common ancestor. It is very
difficult to imagine another way for this to have happened, leaving
aside a very mischievous designer.

3) "Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives,
the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower
mammals such as the opossum. How can evolutionists account for this?"

Am I not understanding you correctly? If the "tree of life" is
correct, what is the problem with some branches developing in
different ways than others?

4) The Bible states that man was created perfect. This would mean
without any physical flaws, including genetic flaws. The Bible also
says that after man sinned, he and the earth were cursed. This must
have included both human and animal genetics, since no physical
defects were present until then. So, from the Bible, one would expect
errors in the genes of both man and animal. So according to the
Bible, genetic errors were not present in man or animal originally,
but were present after the curse.

I won't go into the theology here, but the idea that an omnipotent God
intended the world to be perfect but had his plan derailed by one of
his creations (Adam) is very, very odd to me. I think if there is
indeed such a God the only reasonable conclusion is that the universe
is the way he intended it.

Beyond the immediate argument, and I find this a very compelling one,
there's another lesson to be learned here: Most people who argue
against standard biology do so with only the most general outline of
how it works. It is no accident that the people who are best
acquainted with the details are convinced of the validity of
evolution. For every generalization like "Given that these
similarities, isn't it logical that humans genetics would also most
closely match primates?", there are a thousand details doing the
devil's work. :)
---------------------------------------
Greg Guarino

Greg: Surely you realize that there are a substantial number of
biologists (no, not a majority) that do not believe in Darwinian
evolution.

I "surely" do not. I very much doubt the number of biologists who
doubt the bulk of evolutionary theory is anything approaching
significant. How many has the Discovery institute found, even though
they expanded the search to non-biological scientists and even
engineers, a few hundred?

simple googling of the web will show as much. Although
the Vitamin C case fits nicely with Darwinian evolution theory, many
others don't:

If you're thinking of any specific ones I'm sure the nice folks here
could help you undertsand them better. It really sounds like you're
backpedaling here (and especially below) trotting out the standard and
well-refuted creationist laundry list.

life from non-life has never been observed

Evolution is not dependent on natural abiogenesis, although I think
most biologists suspect it happened. Suggesting that there's something
interesting abou the fact that abiogenesis doesn't seem to happen NOW
demonstrates some basic misunderstandings. In the absence of any other
sort of life, the first biological chemistry would have had no
competition. Current life has a several billion year head start,
nipping any incipient interesting bits in the bud.

complex
organisms like the eye--which must have all of its parts and be fully
functional to be of any use--are hard to explain from a series of
minor mutations

It is not difficult to explain. The progression form a primitive
light-sensitive spot to a camera eye is discussed on any number of web
sites, including one that has a very nice demonstration video. I'll
find it for you if you like. You can try to argue that it is incorrect
if you like, but don't just trot out the creationist boilerplate
without looking it up first.

mutations leading to a more complex species have
never been observed.

You take much too much comfort from the glacial pace of evolution.
There is no reason to believe that we would see such a change in
anything like a human lifespan.

and Darwinian evolution has never been repeated
in the laboratory.

Doesn't this last one seem exceptionally lame, even to you?

All this, and yet many respondents appear to
accept Darwinian Evolution with the same confidence that a chemist
accepts the Periodic Table of the Elements. Why no acknowlegement of
problems with the theory?

Real problems? Scientific problems? There is acknowledgement of those,
None so far has involved the basics of the theory.

Many respondents seem to accept it on
faith: "It's science so it should be taught as science." Anyway, the
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate is its own argument.

It most certainly is not. Science only need dispense with a unworthy
idea once, not every time someone posts it on a new blog. There is no
such debate that adds up to serious science.

You're correct in that I am not the best one to make arguments for or
against evolution. This was not how I started this series of
messages, and its probably a good time to get back on track.

My point is this, Although I believe in Intelligent Design, I also
believe that it has no tangible or practical scientific benefits, and
therefore shouldn't be taught in science class.

Nonsense on its face. The entire history and success of our species is
based on the accumulation of knowledge. Argue that it is incorrect, if
you like, but don't pretend that ignoring the true workings of life
would have no damaging effects.



Reason A:
The theory that "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" does not,
or may not, produce any tangible or intangible benefits to society.
However, it is science and therefore should be taught as science.

Ignorance of the true workings of the universe surely has no benefit.
Arguing that such ignorance would be neutral to our development is an
awfully shaky, and risky argument.


Greg Guarino

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are you Conscious?
    ... without relying too much on the precise sets of genes and neuronal ... Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology take ... Genetics and molecular biology have provided some significant insights ... alot more leeway for their theories of human evolution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Human evolution
    ... The claim counters a common theory that human evolution has slowed to a crawl or even stopped in modern humans, since in modern society the survivors no longer have to be the fittest, and is based on data from an international genetics project that can chart how evolution has shaped mankind over the past 40,000 years. ... In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist Prof John Hawks suggests that humans are in the evolutionary fast lane and many changes in our genes are driven by the dramatic rise in population, culture, changes in diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilisations. ... "This is always a tough question, because selection depends on the environment and our environment has been changing," he explains. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • News: Where Is Human Evolution Heading?
    ... Where Is Human Evolution Heading? ... The race's DNA is changing faster than ever; ... our genes are playing catch-up against modern scourges?like ... it doesn't take a Nobel Prize in genetics to imagine that babies could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human Evolution Speeds Up
    ... Human Evolution Speeds Up ... insight into changes in human genes over time. ... Hawks and his team found evidence of recent selection on approximately ... The "conventional wisdom" here is conventional only outside the genetics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
    ... of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, ... humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is ... Study up on the genetics of sickle-cell anemia. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading