Why would, say, the gene that expresses a particular protein be more similar in similar life forms than in less similar life forms, unless the similar life forms had a more recent common ancestor than the non-similar life forms? Why wouldn’t the gene be the exactly the same, or have the same level of similarity as the gene in any other life form, or that there would be no correlation at all between similarity of life form and similarity of gene? Evolution predicts (and it is a prediction) that the DNA of species that have a more recent common ancestor are more similar than the DNA of species that do not; that prediction has been shown to be accurate.
Sorry, this just doesn’t rise to a prediction and observation even remotely comparable to either of the cases I cited. Both cases predicted unexpected, startling, counter intuitive, and precisely measurable phenomena.
I think the background radiation predictions and their confimation by COBE are the most startling discovery during my lifetime. They make it very hard for anyone to dismiss big chunks of the big bang theory.
It could easily be that Miller’s website doesn’t completely reflect the contents of the book or the curriculum surrounding it. I would actually expect that to be the case.
Of course the reporting is awful with not a single quote from the book, so we just don’t know. The only report I saw was that the book presents evolution as the explanation for life on Earth. Of course that report was from CNN, so I would be inclined to guess it was wrong absent confirmation.
You might try be more reluctant to assume others are stupid or haunted by boogeymen.
Dude, the author’s site for the textbook gives a detailed table of contents. The 2 chapters on evolution do not address the origin of life. That’s in a separate chapter “The History of Life” which as far as I can tell, doesn’t mention abiogenesis. Furthermore, the authors website explicity states (and I’ve posted it here before) that evolution does not speak to the origin of life.
Why is this so hard to get?
The CNN article describes the parent’s complaint that " the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life." It doesnt say the book actually says that, it says that the parents think so. And they’re quite obviously wrong.
Well, the parents certainly could be wrong. I did see one CNN article that specifically stated that the book presented evolution as the explanation for the origin of life. This could be wrong as well.
Without the actual book and an understanding of the way the material is presented, the reality is we just don’t know, the posted table of contents not withstanding. A little better reporting would help a lot, but we all know how long we can expect to wait for that.
I am actually disappointed that I haven’t seen this story examined in the various blogs. They would have drilled down to the underlying facts in short order.
None of this is a shot at Miller, who I do not doubt knows his stuff. Strange things happen to information as it trickles through the education establishment.
Just saw this article and thought I would throw it back into the mix. Thoughts??
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
Bob
OK, havev’t read it yet, but any article that calls ID an new theory is off to a bad start!
edit: OK, ID = creationism couched in scientific language is relatively new, that’s what they meant.
Not a whole lot there that we don’t already know. To me the whole issue is a good reminder that right-wingers are just as guilty as left-wingers of emotionality and lack of rational thought when it comes to their pet issues.
I guess the only thing this adds to my understanding is to confirm my suspicion about what they are teaching:
Inside the school, he is taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a series of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life.
Then later:
Johnson and his followers seek to overturn two of the central precepts of evolution. The first is universal common descent, the idea that every living creature can trace an unbroken lineage back to the same primitive life forms, which arose billions of years ago from nonliving matter.
This is exactly what I have suggested the meaning of the term evolution meant to most people. This is exactly what I have been assured that Dr. Miller, one of the authors, does not advocate.
Of course, this is MSNBC reporting, with not a single quote from the textbook naturally, so this statement could be completely wrong.
Read it again - the “life from nonliving matter” came only from the author of the article’s description of evolution. It never says that idea was being taught by any specific book.
Furthermore, from the textbook author’s (forget his name now) comments it’s clear that idea was *not *being taught in the Cobb County school district.
“life from nonliving matter” might be taught somewhere, but I’ve yet to see a real example. It does make for a great straw man for creationists however.
My first quote was pretty clear about what was being taught. It says that the school is teaching that everything alive today comes from an “unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life.” There is obviously no fossil or other evidence indicating any such thing.
I admitted up front that this description could easily be completely wrong, so why the attack on me?
If intelligent design is to be taught, equal weight must be given to the Shinto, Hindu, Islamic, Druid and Sumerian versions of creation as well as any other equally valid versions of intelligent design, both current and ancient. We should be inclusive, shouldn’t we?
Human Evolution: Good verifiable physical evidence (fossil and molecular), but not conclusive: Higher probability.
Accept or reject based on verifiable physical evidence.
Human Intelligent design: No verifiable physical evidence: Lower probability.
Accept or reject based on feelings about subjective evidence or faith.
Trader
I have to agree it is kind of funny to teach about Intelligent Design as opposed to whatever other theories there are out there. I never heard about Intelligent Design before this debate.
I would rather they teach the obvious fact that for the most part, we really don’t have any idea went on a billion years ago, but I guess that is just asking too much.
I’m not attacking you.“unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life.”
That’s pretty much what evolution is. However, that phrase doesn’t speak to how life started, and specifically it does it say that life arose sponteneously from non-living matter.
My only problem with the “unbroken line” thing is that there are quite a few “dotted lines” in the phylagenetic tree, connecting modern organisms with the common ancestor. Actually, science isn;t sure if it’s one primitive type of cells, or a few different types of cells, and whether they arose at the same time, or at different times. We don’t know if abiogenesis happened once, twice, three times a lady, or more, or if at all.
I don’t understand how scientists call it a fact. It certainly is a strong theory, but I don’t know about fact. It may very well become fact in the future, but there seems to be some stuff that we “don’t know yet” or “may never know” to go ahead and call it “fact”. That’s just my opinion.
I fully expect to learn more as I continue to study, and I am seriously contemplating earning a second masters in Evolutionary Biology/Paleobiology . One thing I notice is how many times the words “incomplete” or “not yet understood” keep coming up regarding the subject. I don’t necessarily view “lack of evidence/understanding” as negative evidence, but I do think it should cause “caution and hesitation”.
It is a fascinating subject regardless. A little too much interpretation/extrapolation for my taste, but I am acclimating.
One problem I see, and Art may have actually pointed this out in an earlier thread, is that the evolution theory has changed to be able to accept almost any outcome due to the random nature of the process. Almost anything, at this point, could happen and it could be accomodated. There are really no natural laws that could prevent any type of change. The only way this is a problem is if the ToE gets to a point where it can no longer be falsified because of its ability to accomodate any scenario.
For example, I have recently re-read the series “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” (talkorigins.org) and the critique by Camp (trueorigins.org), and Camp repeatedly makes the following statement for almost every one of the “evidences” .
XXXXXXXXXXX are not a necessary result of all possible mechanisms of universal common descent. They are understandable within a Neo-Darwinian framework of random mutation and natural selection, but since Dr. Theobald has chosen to argue for common ancestry without regard to any mechanism of descent, he cannot offer as evidence data that can be explained only by particular mechanisms of descent.
Moreover, even Neo-Darwinism does not demand XXXXXXXXXXX; it simply accommodates them. They can exist or not exist with equal ease under the theory and can appear with any frequency. Any result can be explained by appeal to the randomness of mutation and the uncertainty of the selective pressures that were at work in any given lineage.
In this regard Camp is right. Just as creationists cannot use use the “God done it” statement since it negates the ability to falsify a creation theory, evolutionists need to treat carefully with the “there are no natural laws that prevent it” statement in order to ensure that all possible ways of falsifying the theory are not eliminated (because then, it’s no longer a theory … or science).
My only problem with the “unbroken line” thing is that there are quite a few “dotted lines” in the phylagenetic tree, connecting modern organisms with the common ancestor. Actually, science isn;t sure if it’s one primitive type of cells, or a few different types of cells, and whether they arose at the same time, or at different times. We don’t know if abiogenesis happened once, twice, three times a lady, or more, or if at all.
The broken line represents the fact that we dont have every single fossil there ever was available for study. That’s not a huge problem for me. Neither is 1, 2, or several original cells or what have you. We’ll probably never know, though it’s fun to speculate.
Fact may be too strong a word for evolution, but as a scientific theory it’s a whole lot more compelling than creationism or ID. I haev no problem with a critical look at the theory of evolution, and I do think it should be anaylzed and modified as additional evidence compels us to. But I’m talking about a rational, scientific, and unbiased analysis. Not a sneaky attempt for creationists to discredit it.
What I don’t understand is why so many people feel so threatened by evolution. Do they really think if they don’t believe in a literal 6-day creation that they will go to hell? I think it’s useful to point out that no matter how you think life started and evolved, you don’t have to exclude God from that. Couldnt you call the biblical creation of Adam a type of abiogenesis?
==========One problem I see, and Art may have actually pointed this out in an earlier thread, is that the evolution theory has changed to be able to accept almost any outcome due to the random nature of the process.
I hear this a lot but dont really understand the issue. Any good theory is modified as more eveidence becomes available. Can you give me some specifics as to what you see is problematic?
Actually, I found a good article describing “fact of evolution”.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
I don’t understand how scientists call it a fact.
I agree. Many are too fast and loose with “facts”. Probably because they have tested a theory in every conceivable way and found that, for the tests performed, the theory was valid. They forget that even the best theory stands only until a sliver of verifiable physical evidence is found to disprove it. Also, they may be troubled by the layman’s definition of the word “theory” (very roughly equivalent to a scientific hypothesis). They incorrectly use the word ‘fact’ to desribe a theory that has been through a long series of grueling scientific tests.
One thing I notice is how many times the words “incomplete” or “not yet understood” keep coming up regarding the subject. I don’t necessarily view “lack of evidence/understanding” as negative evidence, but I do think it should cause “caution and hesitation”.
All scientific fields use similar language. Its the nature of the business. Important research is at the margins of what is known and what is not known. Essentially; “we were here, the research took us forward to here, but this is what we have yet to figure out.” Hence, the uncertain language. But the uncertainty is a beautiful thing. It leaves us all something to look forward to when you publish your dissertation.
Trader
Edit: Triplethreat beat me to it! The article from his post above does a much better job that my feeble attempt.
Actually, I found a good article describing “fact of evolution”.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Fantastic article. I still may have a small semantics quibble with the use of the word fact, but it’s really not the issue at hand.
I hear this a lot but dont really understand the issue. Any good theory is modified as more eveidence becomes available. Can you give me some specifics as to what you see is problematic?
There are tons of things that “could happen” or “are not prohibited” that would be “problematic”. For example, there is no natural law that would prevent a mammal from evolving feathers or a bird evolving teeth. Those would be problematic, but not prohibited.
I am simply stating caution that if science says too loudly “anything and everything is allowable”, then you are creating a situation where falsifiability is hindered or even removed … and that is the straw that breaks the “creationism in the classroom’s back”. The, “if you can’t falsify it, it ain’t science” thing.
Scientists certainly would not expect to find examples of the ones I listed , but the examples, themselves don’t necessarily falsify the theory.
I think there are plenty of fossil finds that could falsify evolution. How about finding human remains from the same era as dinosuars? According to the creationist wouldn’t they have co-existed before the flood?
Such a finding would not falsify anything. The various time lines would just change.
That is the problem with evolution. Nothing can test it. Nothing can confirm it. Nothing can negate it. Ditto for all the other “theories.”
Gee, how about if we teach that there are these X number of ideas floating around, some with more evidence than others, none of which do we have any idea whether they approach “the truth” or not, and we probably never will?