The Teaching Of Creationism

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Evolution cannot stand without macroevolution (a change of species) and there is no way to prove that this has ever happened, except to say that “It must have” and this is not scientific it’s faith.

The core of the theory is the fossil record and this does NOT show evolution in action; it shows abrupt changes from one type of life to another (with no clues between) after catastrophic events. There are no testable experiments that can be shown to prove the theory or we would have them in our faces.

Perhaps, such evidence could be manufactured?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm

Two species become one in the lab
14 June 2006

Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.

In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.

The process has been likened to building a new bike from a pair of second-hand ones.

The Heliconius heurippa butterfly appears to be the product of a process called hybrid speciation.

Most species are thought to form when groups of organisms gradually diverge from one another over successive generations.

But these distinctive red and yellow butterflies seem to be the product of two existing varieties.

Genetic mismatch

Hybrid speciation is thought to be rare or absent in animals where, it has been argued, hybrid offspring would be less likely to survive and breed than the parent species.

This is because genes from different species are sometimes "incompatible"

A well known example is the mule - a sterile hybrid between the donkey and the horse. It is useful for carrying heavy loads but is a reproductive dead-end.

A team of researchers from Panama, Colombia and the UK managed to recreate Heliconius heurippa in the laboratory by crossing two other species of butterfly; Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene.

"The fact we've recreated this species in the lab provides a pretty convincing route by which the natural species came about," co-author Chris Jiggins, of the University of Edinburgh, told BBC News.

Jesus Mavarez, another author from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, explained: "We found that a wing pattern almost identical to that of the hybrid can be obtained in months - just three generations of lab crosses between H. cydno and H. melpomene.

Wing patterns

"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."

In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish.

Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves.

Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern.

The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.

These species-specific patterns are also crucial in deterring predators. The butterflies produce toxins when eaten and predators learn to recognise and avoid a specific wing pattern.

This is so finely tuned that butterflies with even slight deviations in colour pattern suffer from higher predation.

So, what is your theory on the creation and differentiation of species, almond13?

 

[Mister_Awesome]

First of all, no science is completely for certain. It's possible evolution is false, but it has yet to be disproven. I've heard this business about how evolution being some sort of conspiracy that the scientists won't allow to be questioned, but this isn't so. All the arguements against it are shakey at best.

I have questioned evolution, and found no flaws. It is like a puzzle piece that fits the hole and finishes the picture with no visible problems. There is an off chance of it being the wrong piece, but nobody has been able to dispute it thus far.

It's not rammed down our throats any more than any other science. It is the facts as we know them. It requires no faith to believe in evolution; simple understanding will suffice.

Evolution is not a very specific science. It is why things happen and how they happen, not WHAT happens. It's very open. It's quite possible Cro-Magnons are older than we know. It's possible they did not evolve directly from the primitive people we currently think they did. questioning a specific example of evolution isn't questioning evolution. If we were wrong about certain aspects of the evolution of man, it doesn't change evolution at all.

Why is something being mathematically possible 'fudging,' or 'blinding with science?' Unlikely and impossible are worlds apart. Very early hominid fossils are very rare, and as I said in my prior post, the fossil record is extremely incomplete. It's extremely likely that there are many important pieces of the puzzle yet to be discovered.

What is the difference between evolution and 'adaption by default' exactly? What happened with Peppered Moths was a very clear example of evolution. Adaption by default is exactly what evolution is.

I recommend anyone who is curious see if that article I talked about from National Geographic is on their page, or find that episode of Cosmos. Both explain evolution in very thorough and clear terms.

And once again: the fossil record is very incomplete. Mostly large and highly successful animals from specific parts of the world are represented. Of course we don't have the full picture. That's not so much a question of whether or not evolution is fact, so much as a question of whether what we believe about certain animals may have evolved is true. The specifics are constantly being reassessed as new discoveries are revealed.

 

[almond13]

So, what is your theory on the creation and differentiation of species, almond13?

Thanks for the quote, I’ll stash it away with the rest.
These things have an unhappy way of quietly disappearing and I would think from past experience that this is likely to happen with yours. Someone will point out that something is not right and likely to aid the enemy and it will die the usual death.
However, good luck and if it still stands and more is added in say a year then let me know.

As for my own theory, there is so little in the way of hard evidence that it’s hard to even speculate.

I was looking at FT 35 1980- this morning and an article by John Michell “The Myth of Darwinism”. He starts by saying how upset some people are that he should doubt the theory. How every culture has its own creation myth and science is no exception.
Then, the history and the culture at the time of its nurture and inception. The rise of genocide as a result of the thinking that some are more evolved than others as an excuse for subjugating the indigenous populations of the colonies. This was the iconic propaganda of the time, that Victorian middle class man was the pinnacle of creation.

Very few positive results have stemmed from it. I’m not sure that the general public have had their monies-worth?

He goes on to say:
“So the important question. If Darwin is an inadequate biological theory and destructive in its effects as myth or paradigm, with what should it be replaced? Perhaps we do not need a formal creation myth at all. The attitude to nature commonly recommended by the wise is to serve it as it is without worrying about what it has been or how it might become, to discern its essential fitness, the beauty of its parts and the whole and the subtlety of its interactions. There is no enduring monstrosity in nature nothing in the process of becoming,
But everything as it apparently should and must be as if nature was created as a perfect organism, harmonious and self-regulating, and since it appears that children and good and simple people are therefore entitled to, a picturesque creation myth, it may be that that aspect of things should provide its basis.
Why see nature, as did the sickly Darwin, as a painful struggle of survival and
Why emphasise that aspect… “

I like that.

 

[OneWingedBird]

The rise of genocide as a result of the thinking that some are more evolved than others as an excuse for subjugating the indigenous populations of the colonies. This was the iconic propaganda of the time, that Victorian middle class man was the pinnacle of creation.

That isn't really the fault of the theory of evolution in itself though, so much as what some people chose to do with it. People have been killing, dominating or enslaving each other for pretty much the whole of recorded history, and only the excuses/justifications for it change. The ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures certainly did a pretty damn good job of all of the above without the concept of evolution to help them along...

Evolution cannot stand without macroevolution (a change of species) and there is no way to prove that this has ever happened, except to say that “It must have” and this is not scientific it’s faith.

Strictly speaking, speciation and certainly the taxonomic system are human concepts that rely on our perception, due to our relatively short lifespans (and i'd go as far to say, relatively short lifespans of our cultures too), in such a way that it gives the impression that species are a static thing. If we had lifespans that ran to perhaps tens of thousands of years, it would probably be more apparent to us that different species were shifting and changing around us.

The core of the theory is the fossil record and this does NOT show evolution in action; it shows abrupt changes from one type of life to another (with no clues between) after catastrophic events.

Fossilisation is a very rare event though, requiring particular conditions for it to happen. It's hardly surprising that it doesn't show us evolution in action, so much as a series of stop frames in time. One could just as well say, as an example, that because a species of dinosaur is only known from a single fossil, that it doesn't prove that any more than one of that creature ever existed. Which in itself it doesn't, though that seems very unlikely to be the case.

Or you could ask, if homo sapiens died out and another intelligent species came to dominate the planet in a few million years time, how many fossil examples of homo sapiens would they find? How often does one of us fall into a tar pit? Or died in a dried up river bed, to be covered by sediment?

The fossil record is far far from perfect, but there's perfectly feasible reasons for it to be that way.

The most recent publicised example of this is the Peppered Moth that is said to have darkened due to industrial pollution. If this were true (and I have other info about this) the light moths would be open to more predation than the dark ones and tend to die out.

The peppered moth example was being taught as an example of evolution when i took A level biology, cira 1988. More recent findings suggest that the original study was quite incredibly flawed, though to what degree and how it affects the conclusions seems to be a point of debate that's still awaiting further study. It's probably not a particularly good example to use, either for or against evolution, while it sits in such dispute:

The Peppered Moth

However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.

These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."

Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." (p. 155).
So, what's going on here?

Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.

When I asked the enlightened how this could happen in such a short time when millions of years are usually required I was told that it is mathematically possible. (Fudge, blinding with science)

Perhaps, if you find a particular scientific explanation flawed or erroneous, you might like to explain why you find it so, rather than dismissing it as a 'fudge'.

How every culture has its own creation myth and science is no exception.

I'd say science is an exception, in as much as that it proposes a theory and then looks at how that sits with the facts, rather than an abstract creation mythology, which is entirely untestable. Science isn't perfect, but it's still one of the more useful ways of looking at things.

It seems a little general too to make this comparison when there are so many different creation mythologies to choose from, many of them incompatable or offensive to each other.

As for my own theory, there is so little in the way of hard evidence that it’s hard to even speculate.

Oh go on. You must have some specific beliefs on the matter? I'm quite happy to lay my cards on the table as religiously, being somewhere between agnostic and atheist, and scientifically, being pro evolution but willing to accept that it just a theory. Perhaps you could do the same?

 

[almond13]

That’s one long post, but I will try to address it in my usual bumbling way.

““That isn't really the fault of the theory of evolution in itself though, so much as what some people chose to do with it.””

The theory has a chequered history and the quote was not mine. What it serves to show is the change in attitudes of articles in FT, increase in scientism and so-forth.

The whole of evolution rests on the fossil record and it does not show any sign of evolution. It’s a “must be” - not scientific. A search for evidence for the credence of the theory would have to include the fossil record and the arising of new species – there is nothing else.

I downloaded the “ Butterfly new species” and I find that there is already doubt that it is useful as evidence. Hybridisation is not new and it seems that these particular butterflies will reproduce with others anyway. New species dont.

I agree that fossilisation is rare and no one knows how it takes place. The snapshots should show some species in transition to new species and they don’t. The mammoth is maybe a good example – loads of fossils of healthy thriving animals that die-out completely. Islands made of mammoth bones – no shortage there and no explanation as to why. Again the catastrophic event is rejected on political grounds, or so as not to give credence to Velikovsky. Do you really expect me to take these people seriously?

Ah, the Peppered Moth; the one that was photographed dead and stuck to a tree trunk. I am told that they don’t frequent tree trunks, but hide under leaves. This being their way.

“”Perhaps, if you find a particular scientific explanation flawed or erroneous, you might like to explain why you find it so, rather than dismissing it as a 'fudge'.””

I know of lots of scientific fudges, but this subject will do for now. This fudge was that I asked why the time was so short between Bigfoot and modern man as it usually takes millions of years.

“”I'd say science is an exception, in as much as that it proposes a theory and then looks at how that sits with the facts,”” And if the facts don’t fit the theory the facts are wrong…. Einstein I think

But I think that I have established that there are no facts? What are they; I think we should be told?
There is a lot of fiction, Piltdown and what the ape-men and Neanderthal looked like.
The time-line of the development of man and the horse.

Don’t get me wrong; I think science is a good idea, its what the scientists have done with it that bothers me.

As for my theory: Looking at the facts as they stand I think that life was genetically seeded at regular intervals, maybe by virus and that we were genetically engineered from the ape-men ala Sitchin.

I think we will have to agree to disagree; I’ll stick to my facts and you to your faith.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I downloaded the “ Butterfly new species” and I find that there is already doubt that it is useful as evidence. Hybridisation is not new and it seems that these particular butterflies will reproduce with others anyway. New species dont.

...

Well, you just go ahead and post at least a link to the new findings and refutation of the 'new species' butterfly research, that you mention. Don't keep it to yourself.

That's how scientific enquiry is supposed to work. Peer review.

 

[BookOfMysteries]

Ah yes peer review... works a treat as long as the hagiography of modern narrowly-educated research is adhered to (cf Atiyah et seq)

From Lavoisier to today scientific inquiry has had to battle against a classic orthodoxy of thought in science as in all previous systems of thought.
________________________________________________
When an expert says something is possible he may be right. When he says something is impossible you can be sure he is wrong.


Arthur C. Clarke
________________________________________________

I think science needs to grow up and stop trying to answer every question with a hodge podge of nineteenth century determinism and twentieth century cynicism. It is ok if some scientists are scared of the dark, they don't have to drag all of us down into their own cold empty universal worldview with them.

Personally I consider myself an arch-skeptic prepared to believe anything for which there is evidence - be that evolutionary dynamics, space gods, electricity, parallel earths, the USA (I see pictures of this one all the time and it seems incredible, but I have spoken to people who claim to have been there so it may well be true), antibiotics working better than chicken soup, gravity... All sorts of crazy things might be true. And some perfectly commonsensical things like Velikovsky's theories, voodoo economics and the power of prayer may one day be proven false if evidence against their existence is somehow found.

Watching some would-be debunker trying to find something science-sounding to BELIEVE in rather than accepting evidence which is of sufficient quality to hang a man in the old days of our justice system is hilarious.

Example- the often trotted out "no physical evidence" "no good photographs" chestnuts re: UFOs. There are a myriad of physical items and photographs. What stops their acceptance amongst the current generation of graduate time-servers is the Lavoisier Effect. Since the phenomenon is not one they believe in there is no point in their investigating it. Classic and all too common. But not exactly "scientific".

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Ah yes peer review... works a treat as long as the hagiography of modern narrowly-educated research is adhered to (cf Atiyah et seq)

From Lavoisier to today scientific inquiry has had to battle against a classic orthodoxy of thought in science as in all previous systems of thought.
________________________________________________

..

Watching some would-be debunker trying to find something science-sounding to BELIEVE in rather than accepting evidence which is of sufficient quality to hang a man in the old days of our justice system is hilarious.

Example- the often trotted out "no physical evidence" "no good photographs" chestnuts re: UFOs. There are a myriad of physical items and photographs. What stops their acceptance amongst the current generation of graduate time-servers is the Lavoisier Effect. Since the phenomenon is not one they believe in there is no point in their investigating it. Classic and all too common. But not exactly "scientific".

Science, or at least the scientific method, expects proof of works. i.e. provide some testable proofs and we'll have a look.

If it means your saucer photos can be reproduced with the aid of some hubcaps and fishing line and that your recovered memories of alien encounters belong in the 'suggestible', pile, along with 'satanic ritual abuse', then tough titty, unfortunately.

e.g. If there's a refutation to be had, of a similiar quality to the experimental research which accurately reproduced a third known species from two closely related species of butterfly (see above), then I look forward to reading it.

If it's all going to be vapid cant and opinion quotes from, albeit brilliant, speculative fiction writers, then don't be outraged if the indicator on the dial turns to skeptical.

 

[FelixAntonius]

I for one have never met this fabled Christian who believes that the world was created in 4004BC. James Ussher (1581-1656), - This is propaganda devised by academic scientists to divert the debate from the real issues and in doing so keep themselves in a cushy job.........

Sadly in the late 1960's, I was taught by two teachers who belived this rubbish.

I can remember a writen debate on the subject being marked down to zero with the comment: "Where did you copy this from?". It was the moment that the entire class realised that there were some bloody strange people in the world & some of them were our teachers!!!!!

 

[almond13]

Sorry but to answer this I need to know what you mean.

“”Sadly in the late 1960's, I was taught by two teachers who belived this rubbish””

Did they believe the James Ussher (1581-1656) rubbish, or the “This is propaganda” rubbish?

 

[almond13]

Science, or at least the scientific method, expects proof of works. i.e. provide some testable proofs and we'll have a look.

Science won’t touch this stuff, they will debunk it, but they won’t study it. There is a very good reason for this and it’s because craft that do ninety-degree turns at five thousand MPH require new science. The rules of science forbid this because everything that they do has to fit in with everything that they have already done.
They like to give the impression that they have the universe stitched up. New physics will not be considered; this is exactly what is wrong with science.

 

[FelixAntonius]

Sorry but to answer this I need to know what you mean.

I had an English teacher who belived explicitly in the acount of the creation as related in Genesis....

This only came out, as during a commerce lesson, our teacher began to rant about our disbelief.....

More than slightly shocked we were still discussing this during our next lesson.... English.... when our teacher suggested that we each write an essay on our views on evolution & submit them to her.

They all got zero marks..... We belived in Darwin!!!!!!

 

[Mister_Awesome]

Almond13, why do you keep bringing up the fossil record? Two seperate people have told you it's not important.

The fossil record helps us explore the route evolution has taken, but it's like looking at a handful of random frames from a movie, along with where they appear in relation to each other, and trying to figure out the movie's plot. The theory of evolution is based more upon living creatures. Darwin figured it out by looking at divergent species in the Galapagos islands. A type of bird had adapted its bill to different needs, and thus become different species.

As for taxonomy... yeah, it's far from perfect. It's pretty arbitrary and based on incomplete information. They're finding that the species thing -- where only two animals of the same species can produce viable offspring -- isn't entirely binding. I wish I could remember the specifics on that...

I'm further mystified by your assertation that science doesn't want to prove their theories wrong. Whenever something inexplicable happens that flies in the face of known science, it produces a lot of excitment.

Science is indeed faith: faith in evidence that has not been disproven. Sort of innocent until proven guilty. I'd much rather believe in that than any alternative I've encountered.

Intelligent Design supporters seem to be more interested in debunking evolution than forwarding their own theory. I have yet to hear the supposed Intelligent Design theory. "Life is too complex to have arisen on its own" is a theory but not a scientific theory. Moreover they tend to misrepresent evolution. Debating with them gives an impression that you're talking about two different things altogether, but both calling them evolution. I never hear evidence for their side, only "evidence" against evolution.

This is your chance to be a cut above those types and show why you believe what you believe, Almond13. I'd love to hear your theory and all the evidence you've accumulated, as you seem pretty confident in it. A real alternative would shake evolution. But attacking evolution instead of putting out your own theory weakens it and makes it sound like you have an agenda.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Science, or at least the scientific method, expects proof of works. i.e. provide some testable proofs and we'll have a look.

Science won’t touch this stuff, they will debunk it, but they won’t study it. There is a very good reason for this and it’s because craft that do ninety-degree turns at five thousand MPH require new science. The rules of science forbid this because everything that they do has to fit in with everything that they have already done.
They like to give the impression that they have the universe stitched up. New physics will not be considered; this is exactly what is wrong with science.

We're jumping beyond the Evolution debate there, but it's true that Science, or at least Scientists, will reject data which refuses to fit into the available models, anomalies. Sometimes, that rejection really is a case of 'baby being thrown out with the bath water.'

There are a couple of Threads of Lamarckism, which are quite interesting because a mechanism for at least some form of Lamarckian Evolution has been discovered.

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339544#339544
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24019&highlight=lamarck

Unlikely as it seemed a few years ago, Epigenetics does seem to be a form of cellular level Lamarckism.

Eventually Evolutionists will have to re-assess Lamarckism, because the science has come up to meet the theory, from a different direction.

 

[OneWingedBird]

This is your chance to be a cut above those types and show why you believe what you believe, Almond13. I'd love to hear your theory and all the evidence you've accumulated, as you seem pretty confident in it. A real alternative would shake evolution. But attacking evolution instead of putting out your own theory weakens it and makes it sound like you have an agenda.

I was about to ask the same thing, but i got beaten to it.

Perhaps you could explain for us, almond, what you believe and how you see it fitting the available evidence better than the theory of evolution?

 

[almond13]

“”I was about to ask the same thing, but i got beaten to it.

Perhaps you could explain for us, almond, what you believe and how you see it fitting the available evidence better than the theory of evolution?

As for my theory: Looking at the facts as they stand I think that life was genetically seeded at regular intervals, maybe by virus and that we were genetically engineered from the “ape-men” ala Sitchin.

I think we will have to agree to disagree; I’ll stick to my facts and you to your faith.””

There are lots of posts to answer but I’ll try.

Thanks for the links Pietro_Mercurios I’ll look at them ASAP.

I’ve never really formulated a theory but there are one or two clues:
Fred Hoyle was not happy with the theory and I tend to think that his virus idea is more viable than most to get extra DNA/RNA to the first cells/life and for the purpose of genetic variability. As I understand it, a virus infection is not just to make us ill. It seems in some cases (this has been observed) that the virus adds genetic material that is capable of bringing about genetic change in the host. A whole new theory can be formulated based on this idea – but it will never see the light of day for reasons that are well known.

The arrival of modern man is something that has always intrigued me and IMHO the explanation as to how this came about is not good. The same applies to domesticated animals, fruit and veg’. I think that some Russian academy has been trying to duplicate the latter for about fifty years and failed. (I’ve lost the reference – anyone).
The only person to address this is Zecharia Sitchin – it took me about two years, on and off to read one of his books. No one else has gone into this territory as far as I know and it’s a better fit to the facts that any that I’ve come across. I can hear the sniggers and I’ll ad that I thought Erich von Däniken was rubbish when I first read him.

Look at the facts:
Man arrived without time to evolve.
Sumer had all the comforts of home.
All the cereal crops arrived. The idea of a hunter gatherer sowing grass-seeds that he foresaw would become edible corn in a thousand years is crazy.
Astronomy
Mathematics
Engineering…..


BTW, this is not my best subject. I do a better demolition job on geology and astronomy.

 

[almond13]

There are a couple of Threads of Lamarckism, which are quite interesting because a mechanism for at least some form of Lamarckian Evolution has been discovered.
As long as there was a mechanism that could do this of course
Emps
This is kinda the problem. I don't know of any theoretical reason why evolution can't work in a Lamarckian rather than 'Darwinian' way (I think that should really be Mendelian, but never mind). But we have a strong understanding of Mendel's mechanism and no strong candidates for Lamarck's. Unless morphic fields count, I really ought to get round to reading about them.
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 544#339544




Thu 3 Nov, 9:00 pm - 9:50 pm 50mins

The Ghost In Your Genes
At the heart of this new field is a simple but contentious idea - the idea that our genes have a 'memory'. That the lives of your grandparents - the air they breathed, the food they ate, even the things they saw - can directly affect you, decades later, despite never experiencing these things yourself. And that the things you do in your lifetime will in turn affect your grandchildren.
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... ht=lamarck

The only thing that I can remember of Lamark is from Sherlock Holmes “his farther was a hod carrier” – due to the slope of his shoulders I think?

I do have some personal experience of memory passed on though:
When I was young, I was quite week and sickly and often ill. During these bouts of illness I would have dreams just before waking, where the bedclothes and myself were made of what seemed like porcelain. I was like a cup between two plates, with all the squeaking and grating.

To my amazement, having never mentioned this to my kids, at the age of about ten, my daughter told me of dreams that were bothering her that were the same?

People having transplants acquire memories from the donor……

 

[OneWingedBird]

It seems in some cases (this has been observed) that the virus adds genetic material that is capable of bringing about genetic change in the host. A whole new theory can be formulated based on this idea – but it will never see the light of day for reasons that are well known.

Actually Dawkins addresses the role of viruses in (i think) The Selfish Gene*, it's a while since i read it, IIRC a virus that shares it's hosts methods of transmission/reproduction tends to eventually become indististinguishable from it's host. It certainly isn't a view that's either suppressed, or incompatable with evolutionary theory...


* If i'm wrong, then it's in The Blind Watchmaker

 

[barndad]

What almond13 might be referring to in his last post about russian domestication could be the studies done on silver foxes (Current Biology v15 R86). They started in the 1950s and bred one group for tameness and non-aggression to humans and a control group with no specific aim. After 40 years the "tame" group are pretty much what you would want in a domestic animal (and have some associated physiological changes such as floppy ears etc.). The evidence is there that domestication can proceed pretty quickly (40 years!) and produce concomitant behavioural and physical changes.
Its perfectly acceptable and actually preferrable to ask questions of evolutionary science. There are many things not well understood, but a good grasp of the facts is essential before creating any "theories". Epigenetic factors seem to be undergoing a bit of a resurgence, which is great but evolution is the backbone.

 

[almond13]

Actually Dawkins addresses the role of viruses in (i think) The Selfish Gene*, it's a while since i read it, IIRC a virus that shares it's hosts methods of transmission/reproduction tends to eventually become indististinguishable from it's host. It certainly isn't a view that's either suppressed, or incompatable with evolutionary theory...

This is not really what I was on about. I’ve not read about this for ages but the point was that this applies to all virus (viruses?) After infection the virus will transfer some of its genetic material to the host. This is what I meant when I said that this is a vehicle for genetic change/variation. This is what Hoyle was talking about.
As for Dawkins and “The Selfish Gene”; this is a whole new thread and I’d like to discuss it at some time.

What almond13 might be referring to in his last post about russian domestication could be the studies done on silver foxes.

This is a new one for me; I was talking about pre-genetic engineering. The Russians were trying to selectively breed a cereal type plant from a species of grass. This, I presume, was to verify the theory that ancient man did it. As I recall the experiment went on for about fifty years.
I recall reading about it years ago, but I can’t remember where. I’ll do a Google and see what I come up with, although I cant think of the search words to use.
I’ll let you know – unless someone knows about it?

This all ties in with the thread yesterday, being asked what my theories were. The selective breading failed and it needs genetic engineering to do the job. This is why I think that Sitchin’s ideas are the best so-far.

a good grasp of the facts is essential before creating any "theories". Epigenetic factors seem to be undergoing a bit of a resurgence, which is great but evolution is the backbone.

Hang on, there seems to be a crossed line somewhere? I recall saying that I don’t mind if science wants its own pet theories, but don’t ram them down our throats. I also said that I don’t have a theory, but pointed out that others, like Hoyle do/did. (as I recall Hoyle gave up his job because of the intransigence of academic science? him and one or two others I could name.)
I also posted the following quote from an FT article (FT 35 1980 by John Michell) and it just about sums up what I feel:


[/quote]”But everything is as it apparently should and must be as if nature was created as a perfect organism, harmonious and self-regulating, and since it appears that children and good and simple people are therefore entitled to a picturesque creation myth, it may be that that aspect of things should provide its basis.
Why see nature, as did the sickly Darwin, as a painful struggle of survival and
why emphasise that aspect… “

So you see that is why my knowledge is so meagre – it’s because I’ve seen enough, and what I have seen is not pleasant and I reserve the right to say so.

 

[barndad]

Well, if you're talking about failed Russian attempts at crop domestication i think you must mean Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism wasnt science, it was politics. A repackaging of lamarckism that was tied in with communist philosophy as more in line with party thinking. Through Stalin, many geneticists who disagreed with Lysenko were disappeared. As a result of his promotion of lamarckian inheritance crops failed and people starved.
Its a clear example of wishing something to be true because it would be so much nicer if it was. Unfortunately, the universe is deaf to human supplication and in this case, people died.
If you want evidence that domestication works, is easy, and takes little time, look at all the studies done on maize. Starting with the wild teosinte we have clear patterns of morphological, and genetic change over time to arrive at the modern product. Similarly, experimental studies have shown that over a few dozen generations you can play around with pretty much any aspect of the morphology, nutritional value etc.

 

[rynner2]

Them dam' Merkans are still giving it welly:

Home-schooling special: Preach your children well
11 November 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Amanda Gefter

TO THE unsuspecting visitor, Patrick Henry College looks like a typical American liberal-arts college tucked away amidst the rolling green farmlands of Virginia. Its curriculum is far from typical, however, and anything but liberal. Witness this lecture on faith and reason in an idyllic red-brick college building reminiscent of colonial America. As the speaker takes to the podium, several students silence their cellphones. One puts down his copy of The Wall Street Journal and takes out his Bible. They bow their heads and pray to Jesus, then stand up and sing a hymn, belting out "Holy, holy, holy" with gusto. Eventually, the speaker addresses the crowd.

"Christians increasingly have an advantage in the educational enterprise," he says. "This is evident in the success of Christian home-schooled children, as compared to their government-schooled friends who have spent their time constructing their own truths." The students, all evangelical Christians, applaud loudly. Most of them were schooled at home before arriving at Patrick Henry - a college created especially for them.

“Government-schooled children have spent their time constructing their own truths”These students are part of a large, well-organised movement that is empowering parents to teach their children creationist biology and other unorthodox versions of science at home, all centred on the idea that God created Earth in six days about 6000 years ago. Patrick Henry, near the town of Purcellville, about 60 kilometres north-west of Washington DC, is gearing up to groom home-schooled students for political office and typifies a movement that seems set to expand, opening up a new front in the battle between creationists and Darwinian evolutionists. New Scientist investigated how home-schooling, with its considerable legal support, is quietly transforming the landscape of science education in the US, subverting and possibly threatening the public school system that has fought hard against imposing a Christian viewpoint on science teaching.

Ironically, home-schooling began in the 1960s as a counter-culture movement among political liberals. The idea was taken up in the 1970s by evangelical Christians, and today anywhere from 1.9 to 2.4 million children are home-schooled, up from just 300,000 in 1990 (see Graph). According to the US government's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 72 per cent of home-schooling parents interviewed said that they were motivated by the desire to provide religious and moral instruction.

For these parents, religious instruction and science are often intertwined. This bothers Brian Alters of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who studies the changing face of science education in the US. He is appalled by some home-schooling textbooks, especially those on biology that claim they have scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. "They have gross scientific inaccuracies in them," he says. "They would not be allowed in any public school in the US, and yet these are the books primarily featured in home-schooling bookstores."

One such textbook is Science of the Physical Creation from A Beka Book, a leading retailer of home-schooling books based in Pensacola, Florida. It argues: "Evolution is a concept that attempts to free man from God and his responsibility to his Creator." Alters worries for the students who learn from such texts (see "Book learnin'"). "If they go on to secular university, home-schoolers are in for some major surprises when they get into an introductory biology class."

Home-school parents are able to teach their children this way thanks mainly to a group called the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a non-profit organisation based in Purcellville - like Patrick Henry College (PHC), which the HSLDA founded. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the practice was largely illegal across the US. "The mechanism that was causing home-schooling to be illegal was teacher certification," says Ian Slatter, director of media relations for the HSLDA. In 1983 two evangelical attorneys, Michael Farris and Mike Smith, founded the organisation to defend the rights of home-school parents. They fought to remove requirements that parents be certified to teach their own children. Through an impressive run of legal battles and political lobbying, they managed to make home-schooling legal in all 50 states within 10 years. "We rolled back the state laws," says Slatter.

Consequently, there is virtually no government regulation of home-schooling. "Some states say you need a high school diploma," Slatter says. "But we really don't have many problems getting people, shall we say, qualified." In Virginia, for instance, parents need a degree to teach at home, but there is a religious exemption, so those running a home-school for religious reasons don't need a degree. In contrast, a public high school teacher must have a bachelor's degree, and in some states a master's degree, plus a state-issued teaching certificate. Thirty-one states require teachers to take additional exams to show proficiency in their subject matter.

This lack of regulation may be skewing science education in US homes, says Alters. "Poll after poll shows that approximately one out of two people in America reject evolution. They think the scientists, teachers and textbooks are wrong," he says. An even higher proportion of home-schooling parents may reject evolution, Alters thinks. "And they're going to be teaching science?"

Many parents, however, are drawn to home-schooling precisely because it lets them teach the version of science they prefer. In the recent court case against the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, the court ruled that intelligent design - the creationist challenge to Darwinism - cannot be taught in a public-school biology class (New Scientist, 7 January, p. 8 ). This is encouraging evangelicals to abandon public schools altogether. "For some families, it was the straw that broke the camel's back," says Slatter.

Until recently, most home-schoolers who were learning the evangelical version of science chose to go on to secular universities because such institutions tend to be more academically rigorous than Christian colleges. Many such universities today accept home-schooled students, although this was not the case a decade ago. To judge home-school applicants, they rely mostly on standardised tests of factual knowledge. Such tests cannot, however, reveal whether or not a student understands scientific method, a compulsory subject in public schools but not for home-schoolers. "Very rarely do universities dig deep into the details to see what books a student has used," says Jay Wile, a PhD in nuclear chemistry from Rochester University in New York who left academia to write creationist textbooks for home-schoolers.

Evangelical interns
Now evangelical home-schoolers can also opt for a college like PHC. The school was founded in 2000 to "prepare leaders who will fight for the principles of liberty and our home-school freedoms through careers of public service and cultural influence".

It worked. By 2004, PHC students held seven out of 100 internships in the White House, a number even more striking when one considers that only 240 students were enrolled in the entire college. Last year, two PHC graduates worked in the White House, six worked for members of Congress and eight for federal agencies, including two for the FBI. "Patrick Henry is something to worry about because these kids end up in the administration," says Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which campaigns against the teaching of creationism as science.

Home-schoolers are drawn to PHC partly because of its political connections and partly because, unlike most Christian colleges, it boasts high academic standards. Besides the focus on creationism, much of the curriculum is dedicated to rhetoric and debate, preparing students to fight political and legal battles on issues such as abortion, stem cell research and evolution. The technique is effective. For the past two years, the college has won the moot court national championship, in which students prepare legal briefs and deliver oral arguments to a hypothetical court, and has twice defeated the UK's University of Oxford in debating competitions.

No wonder students are flocking to PHC, a sign of the growth in the home-school movement across the nation. The growth seems set to continue, as home-school advocates are pushing harder than ever to convince parents to keep their children out of public schools. "We've won all the legal battles now, thanks to HSLDA and groups like that," says E. Ray Moore, author of Let My Children Go: Why parents must remove their children from public schools now. "It's time to shift from defence to offence," he says. "We're encouraging Christians to become aggressive with home-schooling."

“It's time to shift from defence to offence. We're encouraging Christians to become aggressive with home-schooling”Moore is the director of Exodus Mandate, based in Columbia, South Carolina, an organisation that urges Christian parents to pull their children out of public schools. Exodus Mandate has spent the past few years trying to win over the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), a Christian denomination with more than 16 million members. Each year the SBC holds a convention at which members vote on various resolutions. Last year, Exodus Mandate introduced a resolution asking SBC parents to conduct a "homosexual school risk audit" of their local public school, a survey to "make Christian parents and pastors more aware of the aggressive homosexual activism being sponsored by many public schools". The resolution was passed. The "risk audit" claims, among other things, that being homosexual "reduces life expectancy at age 20 by at least 8 to 20 years" or "substantially increases the risk of contracting breast cancer".

This year the organisation is pushing for a resolution that will ask parents to plan for home-schooling their children. The effect of these resolutions could be momentous. "If the Southern Baptists got on board and said home-schooling and Christian education is the preferred method of education, that would be transformational," Slatter says. "It would easily double or maybe triple the number of home-schoolers overnight."

Exodus Mandate is urging each home-schooling family to bring one new family into the movement. If they succeed, several million families could take to home-schooling over the next several years, Moore says. "If we could get up to 30 per cent of public-school students into home-schooling and private schools, the system would start to unravel and at some point implode and collapse," he says. "The government would be forced to get the states out of the education business altogether. It would go back to the churches and the families. It's a strategy for the renewal of society."

Overthrow of materialism
The phrasing is reminiscent of the Center for Science and Culture, originally named the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which has been the main promoter of intelligent design in the US and is part of the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, Washington. The institute claims that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies". In a 1999 conference entitled "140th Anniversary of Darwin's Origin of Species - Evolution or Creation", the institute's co-founder Philip Johnson reportedly announced, "Home-school moms are allies."

However, not all home-school parents have a religious agenda. "There are probably some wonderful home-school parents, some of whom may be evolutionary biologists themselves. But I have a feeling after talking to a lot of home-schoolers that this is the minority," says Alters. Indeed, evangelical Christians do dominate the home-school movement. "It's disconcerting, to say the least," he says.

The home-school movement is often described as a grassroots effort, scattered among a dispersed group of quiet, rural families. The reality is that the movement is well organised from the top down, led by groups with strong political ties. Taken together, organisations like the Discovery Institute, Exodus Mandate, HSLDA and Patrick Henry College are working to sculpt a new generation of students armed with the skills and the motivation to fight for their religious beliefs and their version of science.

"Home-schoolers are going to be leaders in their field," says Wile. "They are going to change science and how science is done."

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

Biology is not the only science being rewritten in home-schooling textbooks. Other sciences are also being modified to suit the creationist perspective that God created Earth about 6000 years ago. Take for instance this advice on climate change in the book Science Order and Reality published by A Beka Book: "Because most environmental scientists see the universe and even life itself as mere products of chance, it is easy for them to visualise potentially catastrophic changes occurring on the Earth. As Christians we must remember that God provided certain 'checks and balances' in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists." For those who still worry about global warming, another A Beka book, Science of the Physical Creation, flatly denies it is happening: "All of the scientific evidence gathered indicates that there is no danger of a global warming disaster."

Chemistry textbooks argue that radiometric dating is unreliable and therefore not a concern for those who believe in a 6000-year-old Earth. And geology books claim that the Grand Canyon in Arizona - a gorge carved by the Colorado river, exposing 2 billion years of Earth's history - was formed rapidly during the worldwide Biblical flood, and all the sedimentary strata visible in the canyon walls were deposited then.

Even astronomy is being rethought to address what many creationists consider their most difficult challenge: explaining how starlight from billions of light years away has reached the Earth in only a few thousand years. Books like Taking Back Astronomy by Jason Lisle suggest possible explanations: maybe God created the light already en route; or maybe the Milky Way sits in a large gravitational well where the time-stretching effects of general relativity can explain the anomaly; or - the creationists' favourite - maybe the speed of light was much, much greater in the past.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... 225776.100

 

[barndad]

this is deeply, deeply worrying. When a generation of children arent being given the tools to use their mind in a critical and logical fashion the only possible outcome is suffering. Why must people be so f***** obtuse? Believe what you want, but to wilfully distort factual evidence to confirm to your narrow worldview is the grossest of perversions. Any semi-rational belief system must be able to incorporate evidence from the natural world, and when the two are at odds either the system is wrong and must be rejected completely, or it must be able to incorporate the new data.

 

[almond13]

Believe what you want, but to wilfully distort factual evidence to confirm to your narrow worldview is the grossest of perversions. Any semi-rational belief system must be able to incorporate evidence from the natural world, and when the two are at odds either the system is wrong and must be rejected completely, or it must be able to incorporate the new data.

I read your post through several times before replying and I think you are sincere in your answer, but I can also think of many reasons to reject main stream education. You seem to imply that it’s as near perfect as is possible and this is the problem that bothers me. The fact that there is a verbal civil war going on in the US with both sides entrenched is reason for dismay. The fact that this article is from New Scientist and the fact that science would – given the opportunity – remove all traditional belief from education and replace it with humanism is even more worrying.

All of the institutions and guardians of my well being that I was taught to respect in school have turned out to be money orientated crooks or just plain liars and now you are advocating more of the same. Some people genuinely care about the education of their children and want better. When I left school my idea of what I wanted to do was ignored and I was sent for factory fodder along with all the rest. Things are even worse today with some kids force-fed on drugs because they don’t conform to standards laid down by the above.
Education is not encouraging kids to think, it’s telling them how to think which is entirely different.

 

[Peripart]

Believe what you want, but to wilfully distort factual evidence to confirm to your narrow worldview is the grossest of perversions. Any semi-rational belief system must be able to incorporate evidence from the natural world, and when the two are at odds either the system is wrong and must be rejected completely, or it must be able to incorporate the new data.

I read your post through several times before replying and I think you are sincere in your answer, but I can also think of many reasons to reject main stream education.

Education is not encouraging kids to think, it’s telling them how to think which is entirely different.

I appreciate that you have something of a downer on science generally, almond, but you can't lump all science together and claim that all scientists are deceiving crooks.

Science would - given the opportunity - remove all traditional belief from education

That's a pretty breathtaking generalisation, don't you think? Barndad wasn't advocating blind acceptance of all science - he seemed simply to be bemoaning the rise of Creationist education, which attempts to undo years of genuine scientific progress through bending the facts and inventing news ones where the evidence does not support their view. Isn't this just the kind of woolly thinking that you rightly criticize in your near-daily condemnation of scientists?

I've no problem with genuine faith at all, but for the believer faced with something seemingly inexplicable, surely the right thing to do is to look for an explanation, and if none is forthcoming, it is fine to say "I don't know". It's far worse to make up facts willy-nilly, and the school quoted above seems determined to take us back to the science of the Middle Ages or worse.

 

[barndad]

Hello almond13 and peripart.
thanks for your posts. To prevent any further misunderstanding ill just elaborate that i share the same views as peripart. I think religion has a valuable part to play in modern life- i definitely dont advocate humanism for everyone. My last post was quite strongly worded because i was still reeling from a conversation (my first) with a genuine creationist last week. He was canvassing for the jehovahs witness and although as far as i understand it, creationism is not advocated by this group, he was a biblical creationist. We talked (politely i should add with no raising of voices and mutual interest in the others opinions) for about an hour before i had to go to work. What dismayed me was that he was an educated man (university physics degree) yet he still had the most illogical views on evolutionary theory. Our topic of conversation ranged from "why hadnt people evolved to eat grass?" to "why are there no ape-men?" to that old chestnut, the irreducible complexity of the eye. These questions have been addressed again and again and again by evolutionary biologists yet many religious groups (and their leaders) have a vested interest in distorting the explanations. I am a fledgling evolutionary geneticist (nearly finished my phd) so i was able to discuss topics like the lack of a cornea and lens in the eye of the nautilus (showing that eyes are not irreducibly complex) and neanderthal man and flores man (ape-men that only disappeared comparatively recently). This man had no problem with electromagnetism, black holes, and quantum theory yet he had wilfully blocked himself off from the huge amount of evidence for evolution by natural selection. By evidence i mean fossils, DNA phylogenetics, comparative morphology etc. All things that any genuinely curious individual can visit, find for themselves and read about. It is not secret. It is not hidden away from the public. I just dont understand it.
If i have any questions i want to understand i go and find all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Then if i find something new that doesnt fit with my previous conclusion i rethink and try to incorporate the new data.
I feel very sorry for you almond13 as you seem to have had a terrible experience with formal education. It seems to have made you understandably distrustful of authoritarian pronouncements on "truth". All i would recommend is that you read about things yourself, without an intermediary and decide for yourself what things are supported or not. In my opinion, evolutionary theory is one of those things which is as well supported as it is possible to get in this world. Like peripart says, there are many things for which we dont have an answer yet (just take a look on the fortean forum!) but one thing that science has right is that it says "i dont know" when there is no data.

 

[almond13]

I've no problem with genuine faith at all, but for the believer faced with something seemingly inexplicable, surely the right thing to do is to look for an explanation, and if none is forthcoming, it is fine to say "I don't know". It's far worse to make up facts willy-nilly, and the school quoted above seems determined to take us back to the science of the Middle Ages or worse.

I have to admit that I know nothing of “Creationist Education”, but if they are bending the facts I will say so.

I think that my Daily Condemnation is nessessary as no one else is prepared to do it. If they really are trying to return us to the middle ages, then I am against it. Maybe I got a distorted slant on the post.

I feel very sorry for you almond13 as you seem to have had a terrible experience with formal education. It seems to have made you understandably distrustful of authoritarian pronouncements on "truth". All i would recommend is that you read about things yourself, without an intermediary and decide for yourself what things are supported or not. In my opinion, evolutionary theory is one of those things which is as well supported as it is possible to get in this world. Like peripart says, there are many things for which we dont have an answer yet (just take a look on the fortean forum!) but one thing that science has right is that it says "i dont know" when there is no data.

I’ve changed my mind and I stand by every word. I’ve been reading for at least fifty years and past bad experience does not cause a problem, just a heightened sense of reality. I have no intermediary and I belong to no organisation, ism or schism. I do not support the ideas of any cult and every thing that you read of mine is mine alone. I’ll bet my balls that you cannot say that with any conviction.

 

[Peripart]

I think that my Daily Condemnation is necessary as no one else is prepared to do it.

I do not support the ideas of any cult and every thing that you read of mine is mine alone. I’ll bet my balls that you cannot say that with any conviction.

Fair enough - as long as we all bring something to the debate, the more different points of view, the better. And I'd much rather read someone's own opinions, whether I agree with them or not, than see articles quoted without comment.

 

[almond13]

Thank you Peripart

 

[barndad]

almond13. i didnt mean to be critical in my last post- my intention was to get an idea of how you approach problems and get some idea of your attitude to school education. Im not sure if your response was angry or not.
A lot of what i say is not original. I think it is very difficult to have any original thoughts. Most things have been thought about in the past in greater detail than any one individual can do in the present. All im saying is that ive had a look at the evidence for evolution by means of natural selection and the evidence for creationism and everything ive seen seems to support an evolutionary scenario. The evidence ive experienced personally include -
-digging for fossils and seeing direct evidence for presence of extinct animals.
-Working with DNA sequences which show that there is a relationship between species that supports common ancestry.
-Wide reading of both the scientific and the creationist literature and observing the misrepresentation of many facts in the creationist tracts. Make no mistake- this is a creed that distorts facts for its own purpose. Typical example is the problem that Archaeopteryx poses for creationism and the dishonest ways they have tried to discredit it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeo ... rgery.html
hope this clarifies things