You can find this at the website of Texas Citizens for Science. Or, you can find it buried on page 47, in with all the other testimony at the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) website, in .pdf form.
Or you can just read it here:
Statement of Edwin S. Darrell
Dallas, Texas
Before the State Board of Education Textbook Hearings
Austin, Texas
July 9, 2003
My name is Ed Darrell. I represent myself and my family today. We have two kids in the Duncanville, Texas, schools, both of them science nuts.
I am a lawyer. I paid much of my way through undergraduate school working as a botanist in air pollution research. For much of a decade I staffed the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which deals with education issues; subsequent to my service on Capitol Hill I was for a brief, wonderful time Director of Information Services at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), during the late Reagan administration; my tenure there included responsibility for the redesign of the ERIC Library system, and I had responsibility for the Education Library which includes the largest collection of historic textbooks in the U.S.
My interest in these new books is to make certain that evolution by natural and sexual selection is covered well. Evolution is one of the great concepts of western civilization. Our children need to know what it is, accurately, and how it is thought to work, accurately, in order to function in school and the world.
For much of the past 30 years I have monitored biology textbooks, both in official and unofficial capacities. I have reviewed the books proposed for acceptance before you now, and read a few of them rather deeply. Generally, these textbooks are all acceptable in terms of the material they cover. Specifically, some of these books are outstanding. The photos and illustrations are vastly improved in the past 20 years. Publishers are recruiting top-notch authors – Kenneth Miller is one of the nation’s better biology instructors, and Peter Raven, in addition to being perhaps the world’s best botanist, is a past winner of a MacArthur Foundation grant. I have had the pleasure of working with Gilbert Grosvenor and the people at the National Geographic Society, and their participation in one of these texts is quite obvious in the improvements seen in the texts.
All that said, I think that, generally, evolution needs better coverage even than it gets in these books. There are simple, four- or five-step explanations for evolution by natural selection, especially as developed by Ernst Mayr. The Glencoe book lists the four-step version, but only as captions to illustrations. It should be incorporated better into the text. None of the texts is particularly outstanding as I would like them to be about the history and biography of the people in biology. Darwin’s great genius, and his great good nature which endeared him to all who knew him, is barely on display. Science is rarely done by dull men in white lab coats, in reality, and it would be nice to know more about some of the people who do the work. One text features interviews with scientists – including Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton, the two who have recorded evolution in real time, and Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago, the great dinosaur hunter whose use of technology to make great finds will make him legendary. This is great stuff, and there needs to be more of it.
Those criticisms are beyond the scope of the review you are allowed under the law, however. These might be classed as errors by omission, and I hope the publishers, authors and editors can find a way to fix the problems in the future.
So let me direct my most serious comments to you and this process. I suspect that most of you did not get a great education in Darwinian theory before you graduated high school, and you may have missed it in college, too. That’s the story of most Americans. The great biologist G. G. Simpson wrote an article for a journal in 1959, at the centennial of Darwin’s most famous work, titled “One Hundred Years Without Evolution is Enough.” 44 years later, it’s even more true. Especially for Texas kids, we cannot afford to give them less than the best education anymore. Knowledge of evolution is important the health and economic well-being of our state.
1. Evolution is necessary for understanding health care
Randolph Nesse at the University of Michigan [moved to University of Arizona, by 2018] has been making the case for 15 years now that evolution knowledge is essential in health care. Evolution theory aids in understanding infectious disease, not only in the development of antibiotic resistance, but also in the understanding of increases and decreases in virulence of pathogens. Defenses against infection, such as fever and immune responses, are now understood as products of an evolutionary arms race. Sexual reproduction, and all its inherent problems, is also evolutionarily informed. Genetic diseases are inherently evolution based. Evolution even informs research in diseases like atherosclerosis and myopia, which are thought to be the result of the mismatch between our environment today, and the environment in which our species evolved. This is essential knowledge for all health workers, in the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, and common ear infections.
2. Evolution is necessary for Texas economic development
Texas’s economy is based on evolution in large part. The Rio Grande Valley is home of the best grapefruit grown on Earth. Grapefruit, of course, is a new species that did not exist just over a century ago. The Rio Reds that are currently the largest cash crop in Texas grapefruit are the result of a sport mutation in grapefruit a half-century ago, and specifically the result of an intense, evolution-based breeding program by Texas A&M University.
In a different vein, there is hope today that the cotton boll weevil will be eliminated from the United States in the near future, a result of careful eradication programs, based on evolutionary theory. The imported fire ant, on the other hand, still does about $1.2 billion of damage to Texas every year. Because of evolution in the species since it hit U.S. shores in the 1930s, any hope to slow or stop the spread of this nasty pest rests in an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. The multi-queen, mega-colonies of fire ants clearly demonstrate how misunderstanding evolution can make our pests more virulent.
We should also note that the Texas oil, gas and coal extraction industries are based on a companion science, geology, which will most likely be attacked here today. Biology textbooks mention geology because that science gives us good information on the ages of fossils, formerly living things which clearly demonstrate evolution. Geology is critical to the Texas economy, and attacks on geology should not be considered acceptable.
3. Evolution is necessary for student achievement
The Advanced Placement biology examination our high school kids take is 29% based on evolution, according to the College Board. Evolution is the linking framework in all biology, and we should not be surprised. The model curriculum laid out by Education Secretary Bill Bennett in 1987 included evolution as one of the key concepts kids need to know. That is true today more than ever.
You will hear today, I predict, that there are competing ideas to evolution which should be added to the texts. I urge you to leave such intramural fights to the scientists, and to the very formal processes science has to settle such fights. Curriculum writers base their curricula on what is in the science journals, not on hopeful assertions that have not been proven in the laboratory or in the field. Our kids need to get the best information, and we should not dither on that point at all.
Finally, I want to note that you will be urged to make changes to make evolution more palatable to some religious sects. That is not in the scope of the law that brings us here today, and I would caution you that any dilution of the information our kids get, will have consequences later on. It may be that there is some error in Darwinian theory. But that error will not be found by a kid who does not have a firm understanding of what Darwinian theory is.
Evolution today protects our health and feeds our people. It is impossible to walk down the produce aisle of any supermarket and fail to see the real results of evolution and its benefits. From corn, to broccoli, to grapefruit, to Canola oil, from genetic disease to insulin treatments for diabetes, evolution theory applied in the real world makes our lives better. Let us make sure our kids know that.
Thank you.
__________________________________
Added in 2013, for indexing purposes from NewScientist.com: Five skulls belonging to some ancestors and relatives of modern humans. From left to right, the skulls are: Australopithecus africanus (3-1.8 mya); Homo habilis (or H. rudolfensis, 2.1-1.6 mya); Homo erectus (or H. ergaster, 1.8-0.3 mya, although the ergaster classification is generally recognised to mean the earlier part of this period); a modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) from the Qafzeh site in Israel, which is around 92,000 years old; and a French Cro-Magnon human from around 22,000 years ago (Image: Pascal Goetcheluck / SPL)
Other testimony in TEA sources on textbook selection:
September 3, 2003, final hearing, transcript, page 460
September 3, 2003, submitted written testimony, here, page 230.
2004 testimony on health care texts, p. 102, here.
Commenters on several threads asked for information about evolution. These are a few of the excellent sites available that explain evolution:
- Gateway to the “Understanding Evolution” site for teachers and students, hosted by the University of California at Berkeley
- Evolution home page, accompanying Evolution series from WGBH/PBS
- Evolution page from the Museum of Natural History, London; here is a simple explanation of evolution theory, from that site
- Nature magazine’s Focus on Human Origins, collection of key papers in human evolution
- The National Center for Science Education, an organization dedicated to high academic standards in textbooks and curricula; the only organization dedicated to promoting the accurate teaching of evolution
- TalkOrigins Archive, probably the most encyclopedic site on evolution available on the web; it features sections that specifically answer creationist objections (I wager you cannot find an anti-evolution argument that is not answered at that site.)
- Science and Creationism, a book from the National Academy of Sciences, dealing with issues of creationism in the classroom, and why it should not be taught as science in science classes.
- Randolph Nesse’s website; Nesse is the most active advocate for evolutionary medicine, the teaching of evolution to physicians to improve diagnosis and treatment of disease, and safety in the practice of medicine. [Nesse’s updated site, as of March 2018]
- The Panda’s Thumb, a weblog with several highly-qualified contributors dealing with evolution issues as they arise. Content is relatively unedited, information sophistication is high; this is not for the faint-of-heart creationist. Ignorance is tolerated so long as it is uncoupled from arrogance or hubris.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Let me illustrate the power of their technology:::
The gods create the perception of global warming by beeming heat into (cold out) of the polar icepacks, ultimately causing rising sea levels. As they can listen to your thoughts and affect your behavior so can they the animal kingdom, which is behind the changing migrating patterns of hundreds of millions of birds and animals all at once, changing growth patterns for foliage as well as the changing weathern patterns we all experience.
Similarly, the gods can alter your percption of food. They can beem sugar out of fruit, flavor out of meat.
I suspect like the biotechnology issue they use genetic engineering to accomplish the goal of bland produce (and reduced nutrition) to eliminate their culpability, but do not paint with such a broad brush. Rather it occurrs on an individual-by-individual basis. This way they can maintain control::::Conditioning/reinforcement and denial at the same dinner table.
Realize they can also affect taste, so their options are open. As with the retard, military draft vs. volunteer force and other examples from earlier, expect it boils down to an issue of culpability::If the gods don’t accept blame they don’t have to “make it up to us” and the decay we experience accelerates when you are reincarnated without their assistance.
The gods placed us all into our own corners of the globe. As such for thousands of years we spent time and reproduced with out own kind.
This is why mobilty/travel, biracial unions/offspring and partaking of other cultures is a sin::::
Each has it’s own elements of disfavor, and by experiencing other cultures you are being exposed to these disfavors, which if people may adopt will make their state even worse than prior.
The United States has been considered a “melting pot” where rejects from around the world were sent when kicked out of their motherland.
Remember, this concept of cultural diversity is an element of the liberal platform the gods used to promote societal decay, revealed on the map with the “beast” that is the SanFranciscoBayArea and the spread of social deterioration that spread to the rest of the country and eventually to the entire globe.
The gods are in possession of absolute power and always have had total control over proceedings on Planet Earth using the tools at their disposal to manage and achieve the desired perception and results in society. One of these tools is clone “clone host” fake people.
As people age the gods bestow wisdom according to their level of favor. All people would achieve this wisdom at some level, and some would change their path in life. Because of the importance of the upper eschelons in Earth’s decay the gods used this tool of clone hosts to ensure nothing changes as would when their “reals” learned::A constant turnover of eager 20 year-old preditors fresh out of high school ensures a fresh new supply of young people eager to “earn”. Ironic it is the youth who ensures Planet Earth’s stagnation, whereas society says something quite opposite.
Only through a historical event like this Situation is large-scale change possible. It’s not only an issue of the 20 year-olds learning they made a mistake with their choice but also of the gods still being willing to allow this macro change.
As with some things in this life “less is more”. Sex is one of those things. They used the liberal age to promote casual “free” sex intentionally::Combined with “women’s lib” and their initiation into the “trenches” of the workplace people experineced a mass masculinization of their females.
The gods use sex as temptation. This is why the most disfavored among us are preoccupied with it. While some may feel being well-endowed is a sign of favor the truth is just the opposite. And often the result is misogyny, a belittling of the favored gender, and stagnation of the people as a whole.
Less is more. When young women experience passing thoughts which say you’re doing something wrong instead of fighting or dismissing the though you should heed the warning. Sadly in today’s world too many experience prolonged periods of promiscuity in their lives, whereas if married by 15 like throughout human history this disfavor was avoided.
The gods used Christainity as temptation to repel people away from themselves. The pentagram is charecterized by xtianity as a symbol of Satan but ironically the reality is the opposite:::The god’s holy symbol. Similarly, the penticle, the reverse pentagram, is the real symbol of hatred of the gods. As far as the gods see it if those foolish enough to behave in this manner hate the gods then they should have the real thing, which will cost them in the end.
Don’t forget::::It is not a house of Jesus.
Christianity is evil. It is responsible for slavery of Africans. It is responsible for this wicked reject dumping ground known as the United States which was used to destroy the Old World around the globe.
There is a major difference between how Europe and the rest of the world were inflicted with xtianity:::Push vs. pull strategy. As a result, expect the “1000 years with Jesus on Earth” may be reserved for the Europeans and few others who were forced into this evil religion:::The god’s management of culpability defines the level of compensation everyone receives.
The god’s primary goal with this Situation was their minimization of culpability arising from inflicting us with the 20th century and/or liberal counter-culture. Everything I have taught is true. Now that this Situation is complete the disfavored have been taught. The gods are no longer/minimally responsible from this point forward, pitiful “reach around” compensation for ruining your Planet Earth, which is what liberalism has done. Their empty promise to me “We’ll make it up to him.” has been met with similar inadequate compensation in your case, and the gods will find a way to wash their hands of this obligation to me as well.
If they were honest how little they ultimately intended to grant us our sacrifice would have ended long ago, but they used this lie “We’ll make it up to them.” to further our misery, with absolution of obligation on the agenda for the future.
My experience is obscene. I paid everything. But at least the gods got what they wanted.
The gods offered Clues about my importance, who I am. They occurr on a weekly, even a DAILY basis. The tip of the iceberg is listed below::
Air France’s Concorde
Christa McAuliffe, Concord, NH
Carnaval’s Costa Concordia
Concord:::In the “eye of The Beast”
Downey Savings
1998:: “He gets 4 years.”, “(His chance is OVER!!)”:::2.1.03 (SS Columbia) & 11.26.03 (Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde).
My miracle of Ocean Beach, witnessed by MILLIONS on the West Coast
Diablo’s Mt. Zion:::Slowly being eaten away until one day paradise is gone forever
Carry That Weight
Unit 731::TSUSHOGO
Zastava Koral
Had I did the right thing and prayed/worked on my problems instead their audience would have been decieved with developments::::
1. When I got sick, punishment for being PUSHED into my evil, they would have told the disfavored I was being f***ed for not doing as I was told.
2. When I continued and reached the maximum progress the gods would allow in this life they would have killed me and sold it to the disfavored as if I refused to change. This would have effectively eliminated any dissention and/or attempts to change on their own.
Both these developments are good, contrary to appearances. The goal in life is to make as much progress as quickly as possible and be reincaranted, for society is constantly in a state of decay, enhancing temptations, and new things are added which could trip up a young candidate. The addition of HD video games and social media illustrate how new media captures targetted genders.
As it turned out I instead explained how the gods do business, how they used liberal politics to initiate a path of deterioration. Also realize how crucial this is, a requirement to the disfavored’s ability to change their lives, because they needed to understand before they could accept they went the wrong way for all these decades.
LikeLike
Hi Abby May!
Are you aware that one can be a devoted disciple of Jesus and still believe evolution was the process God used to create everything?
You might want to google the name Frances Collins.
I like the sign we had posted in our church: “Hearts and lives transformed by the love of Jesus. Brains left intact.”
It’s okay to use your brain. It’s a gift from God. Enjoy!
Jim
LikeLike
Good catch, Mike!
No, I wasn’t intentionally channeling Laplace. I’m merely pointing out that Abby May’s reaction is knee-jerk, not considering either scriptures which I’ll wager she claims to defend, or science, which it appears to me she has not studied.
One might get the impression that Napoleon adopted Laplace’s one-liner philosophy, in many other areas.
LikeLike
Laplace! ;)
LikeLike
No faith required for Big Bang. Just follow the evidence.
The COBE project brought back the photos — you deny photographic evidence? Nothing in Christian scripture has photographs.
Perhaps, Abby May, you need a refresher on scripture and science. Sciptures say God did it, God is responsible for creation; but scriptures are silent as to how God did it.
Science tells us in detail what happened, and how it happened. Science doesn’t say God is not responsible or not the primary cause.
Why are you trying to pick a fight?
LikeLike
It’s very simple. Either you believe in the big bang, that something spontaneously came from nothing, or that it was created. The big bang takes even more faith than Christianity does!
LikeLike
This is why the explanation for an extraterrestrial origin of life is both handy. The search for the origin of life is a research field that has been virtually left side. Because it is too complex, it may be best to approach it slowly, studying its “building blocks” one by one, in the hope that the knowledge of the parties may give some insight into the composition of the whole.
Now if we can say that life came from space, it gives us precious time, since our access to space is too limited for any serious research that you want. This would remove any need for staff to understand the origin of life on Earth, today grappling with a cumbersome theory of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis. Apparently, the experiments of Francesco Redi, made in 1668 do not apply when considering a space big enough – like Earth – a time long enough – anything seems possible since you can make use of the widely used “scientific argument” of “over millions of years.”
The academic science has been trying to escape the geocentric centuries. However, although intuitively there is no evidence to support arguments for an alleged exclusivity of earthly life, the academics will admit only the life out of the earth when they can examine it. This has led to ultra-conservative positions in various fields of research, but it’s hard to imagine a practical alternative that is also able to “defend” the science against a flurry of guesses and hunches, however well intentioned they are.
But it is important to realize that there is a causal relationship between finding “building blocks” of life in a comet or meteor, and assigning the origin of life on Earth these celestial bodies.
What has been demonstrated experimentally so far is that molecular elements present in living organisms can arise anywhere, even here on Earth. The usual way of speaking – basic elements of life originate in space – the space in contrast to earth, as if the earth was not part of this space – probably still a remnant of the geocentric ages.
DNA fragments of the meteorite and the search for origin of life
Scientists have an explanation for the strange life using chirality of a prebiotic terrestrial environment. [Image: Jason Hein]
Pre-life
By one of those remarkable coincidences, but very common in science, the day before the announcement of NASA research, Nature Chemistry published a paper that presents a solution to the long debate on the chirality of biological molecules, essential for the recognition Molecular and replication processes, both in turn, essential for the origin of life.
Everything happening here on Earth, the group at the University of California, Merced campus, showed a route to synthesis of these basic building blocks of life through a combination of relatively simple sugars and amino acids in a prebiotic environment.
Biological molecules such as RNA and proteins, can exist in different forms, called enantiomers. What no one could explain why so far is one of these forms, just the way it is necessary for life, became predominant.
Scientists have shown that abiotic chemical reactions can produce the natural form of the precursors of RNA – the present form in living things – by the inclusion of simple amino acids.
The natural enantiomer of the precursor RNA formed a crystalline structure visible to the naked eye, which can potentially remain stable until they put the conditions in which they transmute into RNA (“over millions of years”, as is usual in such cases) .
In short, the scientists showed that it is possible that a prebiotic terrestrial environment preferably manages the molecules necessary for life – other scientists had tried to explain the chirality of life based on meteorites:
Thus, these basic building blocks of life can originate both there and here. But for convenience, we assume that they originated there and came here, so we can continue leaving the subject – the origin of life – the position of the philosophers.
The next logical discussion would be to consider whether and how these blocks, wherever it is emerging, unite to form life. But then it is of academic science want to require something she can not give, or can??.
LikeLike
I know abiogenesis isn’t the same area of study as evolution, but given some of the posts, I thought this would interest many here, as there is some great news from an abiogenesis study that solves a lot of puzzles all at once (including concerns about RNA stability):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809144517.htm
If the link is down:
“Study Builds On Plausible Scenario for Origin of Life On Earth
ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2011) — A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry.
The study shows how the precursors to RNA could have formed on Earth before any life existed. It was authored by Jason E. Hein, Eric Tse and Donna G. Blackmond, a team of researchers with the Scripps Research Institute. Hein is now a chemistry professor with University of California, Merced.
Biological molecules, such as RNA and proteins, can exist in either a natural or unnatural form, called enantiomers. By studying the chemical reactions carefully, the research team found that it was possible to generate only the natural form of the necessary RNA precursors by including simple amino acids.
“These amino acids changed how the reactions work and allowed only the naturally occurring RNA precursors to be generated in a stable form,” said Hein. “In the end, we showed that an amazingly simple result emerged from some very complex and interconnected chemistry.”
The natural enantiomer of the RNA precursor molecules formed a crystal structure visible to the naked eye. The crystals are stable and avoid normal chemical breakdown. They can exist until the conditions are right for them to change into RNA.
The study was led by Blackmond and builds on the work of John D. Sutherland and Matthew W. Powner published in 2009 and covered by outlets such as The New York Times and Wired. Sutherland is a chemist with Cambridge’s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology. Powner is a post-doctoral scholar with Harvard University.”
LikeLike
Harun Yahya is a pseudonym for an Islamic crank. He relies on the disproven work of Texas’s Institute for Creation Research — whose “science” was found to be so shoddy they could not get accredited in Texas to offer degrees.
See here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/adnan-oktar-creationist-crash-much-racier-in-spanish/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/schadenfreude-alert-turkish-creationist-gets-three-year-sentence/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/embarrassing-lure-of-creationism/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/turkish-creationists-censor-1-million-wordpress-blogs/
LikeLike
Unfortunately access to the page you referred me blocked: Visit Harunyahya.com but I will not deny that science has been wrong many times.
Unfortunately my English is still poor, but soon will be putting a
wider comment.
LikeLike
Evolution has been proven wrong many times in relation to the creation of man etc. Refute upon credible refute. Visit Harunyahya.com and have a read, let me know.
LikeLike
Actually science defines differently the word “theory” than it is understood by the layman.
I agree with Ed Darrell
LikeLike
Phil writes:
The theory of evolution is exactly that it is a theory
Gravity is a theory. Are you going to say that gravity isn’t a fact, phil?
You might want to realize, Phil, that the layman’s definition of the word “theory” isn’t how science defines the word.
LikeLike
P.S. In science, nothing is ever really “proven,” in a scientific sense. Instead, in science we make hypotheses and test them in a way to disprove them. If the test shows the hypothesis doesn’t work, we discard it.
Evolution has been tested thousands of times in thousands of ways. It’s never been disproven.
In a colloquial sense, then, we can say evolution theory is “proven.”
Evolution is not “proven” in a scientific terms — but that doesn’t mean it’s not proven in practical, daily applications, and in the colloquial sense I think you intended, Phil.
Evolution theory is much more solid than the theory of gravity. Tell us why you don’t believe gravity works before you get to evolution, will you?
LikeLike
The facts of evolution are facts, Phil — especially the five key things Darwin observed.
“Theory,” in science, means “stronger than fact” among other things. Theory is the framework that explains why the facts are the way they are, and allows the facts to be used to make predictions about what will happen, or what will be seen.
In short, “theory” in science does not mean “guess,” but instead means something more like “so solid that we use this to treat diseases in your children, whom you love more than gold, and whose welfare you wish to improve — so you use the best.”
It bugs me when people try to twist the definitions scientists use, and try to explain that evolution is much less sound than it is. Every part of evolution theory has been observed in the wild and in the lab, in action, and all of evolution actions have been observed, too.
So, “theory” means it’s much more solid than fact.
We shouldn’t teach our kids to doubt the laws of the universe, nor the theories that explain why the universe is the way it is.
LikeLike
The theory of evolution is exactly that it is a theory. Fact – science has not proved the theory. I must agree that evolutionary theory is very compelling and am not against continued research and discussion. I do object the theory being presented as indisputable fact – that practice int itself is anathema to science. The pursuit of promoting the status of this theory(as the header article does) is just as dangerous and even more insidious than apparently leaving it to educators and the citizen to determine its efficacy.
Ironically, the wholesale belief in evolutionary theory could well be charaterized as mere “faith” in a concept – something evolutionists disparage in the proponents of alternate theories of life.
LikeLike
EPA ”wrote”
Evolution did not happen
yes and no
yes things evolve
no they do not mutate beyond their gene pool
(no big bang, no humans from monkeys)
LikeLike
EPA, Wrote:
Evolution did not happen
yes and no
yes things evolve
no big bang, no humans from monkeys
LikeLike
EPA, Wrote:
Evolution did not happen
yes and no
yes things evolve
no big bang, no humans from monkeys
LikeLike
Peter and Rosemary Grant, from Princeton, discovered that evolution can proceed at astounding speeds in some cases.
But the populations evolving must have the genetic material to evolve with. Sometimes, when times are tough, a population will not have a path to change to, in order to survive. Then we get extinctions.
Most population biologists think we are now in a great extinction period.
LikeLike
I remember seeing a discussion like this on evolution and technology on a Facebook community page http://www.facebook.com/thewatchmansrattle
Here’s a link to the actual video on evolution.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1492968725894
Here’s my summary of the video
There are moments throughout time where evolution pushes forward and different species are capable of evolving at a faster rate than usual. However, this accelerated rate of change takes anywhere from 10,000 years to a million years to occur. With the acceleration of technology in the past 50 years it may become impossible for human evolution to keep up with the pace of technology. What do we do when evolution can’t keep up with the rate of change in technology that humans are now forced to confront?
LikeLike
We watch record numbers of extinctions, if technology outstrips the ability of evolution to keep up with changes.
Like now.
LikeLike
Evolution- Biology- Rate of Change
There are moments throughout time where evolution pushes forward and different species are capable of evolving at a faster rate than usual. However, this accelerated rate of change takes anywhere from 10,000 years to a million years to occur. With the acceleration of technology in the past 50 years it may become impossible for human evolution to keep up with the pace of technology. What do we do when evolution can’t keep up with the rate of change in technology that humans are now forced to confront?
LikeLike
Matter in motion is everything! Everything on our planet is moving and evolving! Matter is energy that evolved from one form of solid matter to another form of energy matter. All forms of matter evolves in a scientifically predictable way. Because opposites interact it is possible to predict with scientific certainty relative to the amount of verifiable evidence the way that matter will react to other forms of matter. Everything is in motion and when the motion slows down the process of decay and falling apart takes place. The only possible option after falling apart is the option of coming back together! What comes together is qualitatively different more evolved and a refinement of what it was before it fell apart. It has to be that way because all forms of matter reflects the changing surroundings of it’s environment, so when the environment changes from the simple to the complex that what occupies that environment must reflect that change so as to be in harmony with it’s surroundings.
It is predictable that all things evolve from the simple to the complex, and then back to the simple again but on a level that is more complex then the simple and complex level that was it’s former reality. This spiral of matter moving up and beyond from where it formerly was is the process of matter in motion and the refinement of and evolution of all that exists in it’s journey of evolutionary change!
You cannot create or destroy MATTER IN MOTION, you can only change what it looks like, so we have to presume that it always existed in one form or another and that it has evolved in it’s journey through time, and will continue to evolve!
LikeLike
“Believing in “EVOLUTION” is a contradiction in terms!
The scientific method is to not BELIEVE.”
Right. As a kid I would have thought that this is a trite statement. But in todays atmosphere of mainstream bully-boy behavior, this sort of thing cannot be said often enough.
Science isn’t about belief, and certainly it isn’t about mainstream tribal positions. Its not about peer review. Peer review itself is neutral to science, and neither makes valid, nor falsifies anything in the real world. But the current peer-review-dogma is not the least bit neutral to science. Where the peer-review-dogma begins, science ends.
Science isn’t about peer-review or belief. Science is about the application of the scientific method. The scientific method in this information age is more about building and culling. And culling is more important than anything else when we are bombarded with information and bizare claims. Especially bizare claims believed by the authorities.
Empirical evidence is not empirical evidence unless it has the following requirements.
1. There is the data itself of course. Often misunderstood to be evidence when it is not.
2. There must be a specific and clearly stated hypothesis.
3. One must be related to 2 by a process of human reason.
Anything that does not follow these requirements is not evidence at all. Its not evidence that on its own falls short of proof. Its not even evidence.
People these days have fallen into the habit of regarding the belief, or tenor, or wording of some sort of research project, as if this gives us some sort of evidence offered by the people who have written up the research project. But this is not evidence, until it fulfills the above requirements.
LikeLike
I”m actually quite impressed by this statement ED. But is it concealing a deal where you don’t like alternatives taught? You see its certainly a good thing to teach the mainstream view of evolution. But its an even better thing to teach this, and then give a hearing to those who are not convinced by all aspects of this mainstream view.
For example, do you have any thoughts on the mystery of the Cambrian explosion? Do you suffer no ill-ease at the extreme complexity of the cell, insofar as it brings into question the idea of this evolution being a single-planet-only affair?
Research in the last few years seems to have given a picture of the cell of the complexity that one would not have expected to have built up in pre-Cambrian earth. And yet it is this complexity (and perhaps more) that would have been needed to have made the Cambrian explosion possible, if indeed this explosion was possible, as an internal matter, involving earth-alone.
I cannot think of anything more healthy then to have those who don’t agree with all aspects of this matter, being able to duke-it-out in front of the kids. Like you I would want the mainstream view taught. And then I’d want it to be subject to heavy critique.
LikeLike
Believing in “EVOLUTION” is a contradiction in terms!
The scientific method is to not BELIEVE.
Belief is subjective, based on NOT knowing, that is why believers have to have “FAITH” to overcome “DOUBT.”
When you operate on faith you are functioning on a subjective level and you do not need verifiable objective evidence to prove to you what is true and real.
If it feels right it is true! You do not need objective verifiable evidence to prove your subjective notions of what is real and what is not real.
Scientists either KNOW, or they DO NOT KNOW!
They do not BELIEVE!
When SCIENTISTS seek objective scientific evidence to verify what is true and not true they remove from their thinking pre-conceived ideas and thoughts that can and will prejuidice the outcome of their findings. They do so as much as humanly possible.
The scientific method is to go where the objective verifiable evidence leads them, and to reject all subjective notions of what is real because the verifiable evidence is not present.
The understanding of “EVOLUTION” is a scientific pursuit of how and why things evolve from one thing to another thing,
This scientific pursuit is not based on subjective BELIEF, but it is based on the building of objective knowledge.
LikeLike
Does this paper get close to what you remember, Dave?
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/studies_in_american_indian_literatures/v016/16.3schweninger.html
Schweninger, Lee.
Myth Launchings and Moon Landings: Parallel Realities in Susan Power’s The Grass Dancer
Studies in American Indian Literatures – Volume 16, Number 3, Fall 2004, pp. 47-69
LikeLike
I’m looking for a quote by an American Indian Chief, when he was asked what he thought of the moon landing, or upcoming moon landing.
I seem to remember hearing it as a kid but can’t seem to find any thing like it.
Help anyone?
LikeLike
Hi Ed,
Just wanted to congratulate you on a great Blog, addressing some really important issues.
I started off life as a biochemist, and I have to say that the most interesting classes I took in college related to the biochemistry of evolution. Still, I didn’t appreciate the significance of what was being discussed. Hopefully our young people today are more informed and understand better the relevance of what they learn at school.
LikeLike
Matt, proteins came first. Not all proteins require DNA to assemble them — many, including many necessary for life today, assemble spontaneously.
Moreover, RNA assembles spontaneously (some forms), and replicates. Do a search for “RNA World.”
Also, cells form spontaneously. The only step we’ve not observed actually occurring is the injection of DNA into a cell.
LikeLike
Ok biology question. If it takes around 75 protein molecules to form 1 DNA and protein can’t form without the coded instructions from DNA. What came first protein or DNA. The odds of that happening naturally are zero.
LikeLike
i would like to study in your convenient school to be a good scholar.thanks for offering me the opportunity to come and learn in your good and wonderful school.
LikeLike
Each one of us is a God in potential …
We create more and more … intelligence is endless … The day we discover what is really the universe, what every thing really is … perhaps the intelligence is limited and the emptiness and loneliness and boredom prevails.
Up here where I am in Abu Dabhi, Emirates Arabes Unidos, the times I look at the desert and the stars and know it will take much to know the background which is everything.
A kiss in your heart …
LikeLike
I’d rather believe that I am wonderfully and fearfully created by God according to His image, rather than think that my anscestors were big monkeys..
Very nice post Ed! I’ll surely bookmark this.. :-)
LikeLike
It has been revealed to me that our universe is actually a pimple on the balls of a giant ant!
It has also been revealed to me that the ant that is the home of our universe was created by an intelligent species that had evolved very little in the scheme of things.
Intelligence is relative! Who is to say where intelligence ends. Or if it ends!
It’s evolution!
I’m GOD!
LikeLike
Evolution is the objective scientific knowledge of change. It has nothing to do with “religious dogma!”
Religion brings forth the result of having “peace of mind” regarding the fact of dying and no longer having consciousness. By believing what religion says is true and a “fact” does not make it an objective fact, it makes it a subjective notion that it is true and not false. Science objectively either “KNOWS” or does not know! ..Science does not BELIEVE. Belief is the absence of knowing that is why religion needs Faith to support belief and erase doubt from your conscienceness.
True science is not concerned about the subjective notions of what exists in your brain. True science is interested in what exists outside of your subjective consciousness. That what exists independent of your consciousness is that what is objectively real and true. It is true because it is verified by verifiable evidence and is not prejudiced by subjective notions of the real world.
http://blogdespicable.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Nick Kelsier,
I would very much like to believe in the Bible, so I would have something concrete, but I have my doubts … but respect you think.
Love you and God.
LikeLike
I believe in the Bible, Jose, after all I am Catholic and have been all my life.
I just don’t buy into the nonsense claim that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.
LikeLike
Nick Kelsier
Dear Friend: As you, I do not believe the Bible, but I believe the supreme being. I believe the energy that if moves,I believe in the energy that evolves.
LikeLike
Jose, since this Christian does not believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God, you’re kind of preaching to the choir.
LikeLike
Nick Kelsier,
It is a book written by humans … a book several times translated … and each translation was placed a row of each policy translator … Will be difficult if to claim it’s the “literal and inerrant Word of God” is to elevate it to the status of being a deity in and of itself and as such is idol worship.
LikeLike
i enjoy reading the discussion. Thanks Ed!
LikeLike
Human beings are just a higher form of animal. We share similar functions with animals (we eat, sleep, reproduce, etc.), so to get to the point, evolution doesn’t disprove intelligent design and vice-versa. Evolution simply means that a species will eventually develop new traits that allow it to adapt to an environment, this allows for organisms to survive changes that occur on earth. If it weren’t for evolution survival on earth would be impossible. So if creationists argue that God would not allow for evolution, they are preaching a false ideaology. If anything it wouuld make sense that God would want humans to evolve so that we could fill the earth and take control of it; I believe this concept is somewhere in Genesis?
LikeLike
You’re the one saying evolution is false, EIF, and you say we’re the ones not seeing the beacon of truth?
Oh please, you got that very much turned around.
LikeLike
you guys just dont see to the beacon of truth that the earth has given you telling if its predatting life it lived
LikeLike
I’m not saying He couldn’t have, Hannah. I’m saying He didn’t. Could God have simply conjured everything? Yeah…but the actual evidence says that isn’t what He did. Sorry, you don’t get to wave your hand at the world and wish it all away just because the idea that God used evolution as a tool offends your religious sensibilities.
What you’re trying to do, Hannah, whether you realize it or not is trying to put forth the contention that God lied. That God created the world and everything in it but that all the evidence that says how the world and everything came to be is a fraud and that the real answer is to be found in a human written book that was written well after the fact.
And as for what you said in your first paragraph..yes it does take time. Just like it took 10 million years for the light from a star 10 million lightyears from the Earth to reach the Earth.
At least I’m letting God be honest. You’re doing nothing of the sort.
LikeLike
Not to be overly snarky, Nick, but don’t evolutionary processes require longer periods of time than just a day, two hours, fifty-two minutes? Anyway, here’s my partial response, partial only because finals week for me just began.
1) My contention is technically not comparable to Edison, frankly because Edison was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, both attributes of God (at least my God; I don’t know about yours…).
2) What happened next, you ask? “Then God said…and there was…” If God is omnipotent, why could He *not* have simply spoken all things into being?
More later. Studying now.
LikeLike
Come on, Hannah, I’m waiting for you to explain what happened after God “spoke the Universe into being.” I don’t have all year.
LikeLike
Ok, Hannah, I’ll bite. So when He “spoke the Universe into being” what precludes that from somehow meaning that God used, to name one process, evolution as a means to an end? Because your contention is a bit like if you said Thomas Edison said “I created the light bulb.” and just by him saying those words a light bulb *poof* appeared.
Because if you say that God “spoke” the Universe into being and somehow exclude all the actual physical evidence of how the world, how the universe and all the life therein came to be you are doing nothing more than calling God a liar.
God may be found in the Bible, Hannah, but that isn’t the only place God is found.
LikeLike
How does “speaking into existence” work in creating heavier elements, like carbon, from hydrogen? Or does it?
Psalm 33.6 suggests God uses magic. To the Psalmist, it must have appeared so. But that does not mean that it was magic, nor does it mean we cannot discern how things happened.
Especially, when the evidence God left suggests a process other than magic, we are quite obligated to take God at His word, are we not? Creation is, to Christians, a second testament of God — but from God’s own hand (in contrast to the Bible, which is written by men). As such, it is more credible than the Bible. In a conflict between creation and the Bible, creation generally should be given greater credence. We depend on science to reveal that testimony.
LikeLike
The Genesis account doesn’t explain how? Perhaps you might look at Psalm 33:6 – “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” Why couldn’t He have spoken the universe into being?
LikeLike
John, pay attention here.
The Creation account in Genesis says who and why. It does not explain where, when or most importantly how. Nothing in the Creation account precludes evolution. Nothing in the theory of evolution is anti-God or anti-Christian.
Indeed it can be more successfully argued that creationism, meaning the interpretation of the Creation account you’re engaging in, is far more anti-God and anti-Christian because creationism’s base proposition is that God lies.
If God created the world and all life on it, John, then does it not stand to reason that how God did it was how the world and all life on it indicates? As opposed to human interpretatation of a human written book?
Because, brother Christian, that is what the Bible is. A human written book. A tool, something to be used to teach. To claim it’s the “literal and inerrant Word of God” is to elevate it to the status of being a deity in and of itself and as such is idol worship.
LikeLike
Relax folks…just a clever quote I came across:)
LikeLike
You shouldn’t begrudge the attempts of people possessing inadequate courage and meager intellectual gifts to somehow provide context and meaning in their efforts to combat the yawning chasm of existential despair that awaits anyone who ponders their role in an arbitrary and capricious existence on a flyspeck of a world endlessly circling an inconsequential sun in a backwater galaxy careening through an unending Universe that is doomed to an everlasting stillness of entropic death.
LikeLike
But to those of us who believe in God and accept Jesus as our savior, evolution is no threat to our faith. One does not “believe” in evolution, just as one does not believe in gravity, or germ theory, or the Pythagorean theorem. One accepts the evidence, or one rejects reality.
It’s blasphemous to claim in any way that Christ died to cover up God’s role in creation, or that Christ died to defend the falsehoods of creationism against reality. Your post is really offensive, Dodge. And your unevidenced, false assumption that anyone who understands science is not Christian or otherwise faithful is an insult to scientists, and especially insulting to Christians. Christ died to take away our sins, not our minds.
You need to do something about your own hatreds evidenced in your post.
LikeLike
To most of you guys who “believe” in evolution it is simply your religion. Your hatred for God will be with you in eternity and your own words will condemn you forever. Yet it need not be so..humility is the path to honour, put down your pride and realize Christ died for you…because of his great love for you he paid the price for your sins…there is life after death but there is also a death after this life depending on your relationship with a perfect all powerful all knowing God.
No man can prove or disprove the existance of God but he has given us his creation as a starting point and his Word(bible) as divine understanding and his Spirit as the inner witness. He chooses to remain unseen yet not unknown to those whose heart is towards him. Use the faith he has given you to reach out before you die because “its appointed unto man once to die and then comes the judgement”
LikeLike
assumed that the issue of gods existance is settled. That is correct: he doesn’t exist never has existed and never will exist.
why did GOD permit it you are a dammmed fool for saying such words but not my problem
GOD gave us a free mind to do the things we so wont to and people will soon understand what the big picture is all about sorry about the disease you just got but it is your fault
LikeLike
glad to see that you read your bible love the person hate the sin
LikeLike
Hey, John, do you believe we should stone homosexuals to death? Is that not God’s word?
LikeLike
I find Genesis 1 to be exactly what it purports to be: A poetic account of creation, using the Babylonian creation story to tweak the Babylonians.
During the Babylonian captivity, priests for the Israelites worried that the people would lose their faith over years (they were held for — what — 86 years?). Particularly worrisome was the fact that the Babylonian astronomers/astrologers were so respected in the world. The Jewish priests worried that Israelites would be attracted to their reason and faith.
So they developed a rebuttal. Genesis 1 recounts the Babylonian creation story almost exactly. The differences are these: Every place where the Babylonians would claim that a deity was created — the ocean, the sky, the Sun, the Moon, the trees, the plants, the animals — the Israelite version points out that it was the God of the Israelites who made the objects that the Babylonians worship as gods — so God made the Babylonian gods, and consequently, the God of the Israelites is superior to the gods of the Babylonians.
Genesis 1 is one of about eight different creation stories in the Bible. Consistently, they say that God is behind creation, the motivating force, and that God created out of love. The methods of creation differ quite radically. This may be seen clearly in comparing Genesis 1 with the different story in Genesis 2. The orders of creation differ. In Genesis 1 humans are created last. In Genesis 2, humans are created before the other animals.
This particular discrepancy was noted by Jewish scholars two thousand years ago. They had fundamentalists then, too, who argued the stories should be literal; and they had others who pointed out that those two stories especially conflict. The fundamentalists invented a way around the conflicts. They said that the woman created in Genesis 1 was Adam’s first wife, Lilith. Lilith was cast out of Eden for refusing to be submissive to Adam, and so, in Genesis 2, Adam is alone again. This time God took a rib from Adam to fashion a new bride, Eve.
This satisfied the fundamentalists, reconciling the conflicts and explaining the djinn Lilith, who in medieval times was considered to be an evil spirit who tried to break up new marriages and steal the lives of babies in the crib.
Genesis 1 is wonderful poetry. John 1 surpasses it in the majesty of the faith revealed, I think. Neither one is intended to be a scientific explanation of creation.
And none of the creation stories was intended to be literally taken.
The Bible is a book of scripture, for building faith, for telling how faith is to be used in making life better, and achieving salvation. It is not intended as a science text, and using it as a science text exposes scripture to abuse and grave misunderstandings. Genesis 1 is “true” in the sense that it makes the theological case, that God is the creating force for the entire universe, and that God created out of love.
Christians do not take a contract-of-the-whole view of the Bible. If one part were found to be inaccurate, that does not nullify the message of God (in the OT) nor of Jesus (in the NT).
I find it odd to think of people who would be professing Christians while thinking the Bible is literally accurate, in its entirety. Literalness is a relatively modern invention, from the 19th century. It’s not the traditional way Christians viewed scripture, and it leads to gross error.
Have you ever wondered about the snippets of the creation story in Job, for example? No Adam, no eve, no Eden? A dragon, and God battling the dragon for dominion over the Earth?
Even worse for literalists, that comes from the Mouth of God. So much for Genesis, eh?
LikeLike
Mr. Darrell, you profess to be a born again Christian. So what do you think about Genesis ch.1? Do you not believe this to be true? If not, how can one be a Christian and not believe the Bible in it’s entirety. Thanks
LikeLike
Keep up the good work, Ed!
People need to realize that we came from *something* and there are facts that show that it was *not* the most romantic notion that earth was created magically with a snap of god’s fingers 6000 years ago. Many folks simply don’t like that ugly idea and continue to believe what they want because it is the path of least resistance for them. Humanity is of the earth, we evolved just as everything else did, and we will one day die off as many other species did and will continue to do. But really, unless someone actually invents a time machine, all proof is merely speculation because we weren’t actually there. Common sense dictates that evolution is more factual than not.
I think where things get dangerous, is when we decide that we know without a doubt, without question, blind faith in something….or anything, for that matter. It is important to go back in history to figure out the facts, just as it is important that we as individuals go inward and figure out our own personal truths and beliefs. Outward and inner beliefs are seperate ideals. The beauty of humanity is that we get to think for ourselves, learn, believe, and best of all…question! Questioning eventually leads to truth….no matter how ugly it may be. One should always be questioning as it eventually leads to stronger faith…and maybe one day, stronger humanity. One would hope, anyway :)
LikeLike
sorry for the typos its late
LikeLike
Rafeal stated the opening position in the last text dump that it is assumed that the issue of gods existance is settled. That is correct: he doesn’t exist never has existed and never will exist.
The whole of the universe is in the process of being explained by Physics which is supported not only by the empirical evidence but also the theories. They are not complete but they are rational. The fact that theories have not been fully explained or proven or that some phenomena are yet unexplainable does not lead to the conclusion that they must be God’s creation.
The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and others was a start point from which our understanding has moved on. Oh and DNA manipulation does exist – I’ve done it myself.
One question for the God squad – if Stem cell research is so objectionable you why did God permit such an activity – surely through Intelligent design it could have been avoided.
LikeLike
Why study evolution? because its good for some stupid teenager and child to learn right (not trying to put children down but they are stupid before they get taught anything)
but to learn and be brainwashed into thinking evolution is something that is acctually true and give the adolesent a lie into also brainwashing into the child to get GOD out of their brain as much as they can (anything to get GOD out of society)
LikeLike
Hey, looks like we agree on one subject at least. :-)
Lorna
LikeLike
[…] Why study evolution? […]
LikeLike
The Church of Englad apparently apologized to Charles Darwin recently:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055597/Church-makes–8216-ludicrous-8217-apology-Charles-Darwin–126-years-death.html
Rafael, is that another sign of the Apocalypse? Please keep your answer to less than 2 Terabytes.
LikeLike
Ed, some days you must feel like the tiniest candle of reason being overwhelmed by the vast blackness of ignorance and superstition. Keep fighting the good fight.
Why do I get the sense that rafael pastes the same thoughtless drivel on posts all over the net. Maybe someone can take up a collection to buy the poor guy a LINE FEED.
LikeLike
rafael mistakenly thinks that the number of words he uses is equal to the substance of his comments. I find his tactics abusive and pointless.
LikeLike
[…] Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub August 25, 2008 I don’t know, I can appreciate the title. Do you know who Millard Fillmore is? He was I believe the last Whig to serve as POTUS. Just a shout out for the blog. […]
LikeLike
@ Rafael: do you use ctrl C – ctrl V? :-)
LikeLike
[…] Why study evolution? […]
LikeLike
[…] Why study evolution? […]
LikeLike
Sounds like the teachers in Texas – okay, everywhere – could use some allies to help defend biology in the Religious Right’s war on science. You are probably already familiar with them all, but just in case, here are links to a few:
The National Center for Science Education – Eugenie Scott and staff are THE go-to crew to defend evolution in public school science classes:
http://www.natcenscied.org/
The Texas Freedom Network is a great organization a little closer to home, raising the alarm and organizing opposition when creationist politicians abuse their power to force their dogma on the citizenry. For example, see TFN’s informative expose of creationist Don McLeroy at
http://www.tfn.org/publiceducation/textbooks/mcleroy/index.php GOP Governor Rick Perry appointed McLeroy to chair the Texas State Board of Education, and McLeroy was one of the most outspoken of the creationists at the last review of Texas Biology Textbooks in 2003 (along with Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, and David Bradley). Unfortunately, more anti-science creationists have since gained seats on the Texas State Board of Education, apparently one seat shy of having a majority. Fortunately, Barney Maddox was defeated in his recent bid to oust Pat Hardy (both of the GOP); Hardy seems content to have valid science taught in science class, and religion taught elsewhere.
Texas Citizens for Science also has occasional articles on the circus of Texas Politics as it relates to science:
http://www.texscience.org/
I also have seen Ed Darrell in action defending science against the creationist Luddites at the Texas Textbook Hearings – and you know about his fine blog already.
LikeLike
From a biology teacher in Texas…thank you for sharing, and thank you for sticking up for science.
It isn’t just the depth of coverage in the textbooks that is the problem, unfortunately. So many teachers are scared to REALLY teach evolution because they do not want to “stir the pot”. They fear the parents who might object…they fear the reaction of the administration to those parents…and they even fear co-workers opinions and reactions to teaching it. Just the other day a co-worker of mine stated, “If they make us incorporate intelligent design, I’m retiring.” While not the course of action I would personally take, her statement certainly clarified her stance on teaching evolution properly. However, a few days later, that SAME teacher said, “I’m not going to spend a lot of time teaching evolution this year. I’m going to say it’s “change over time” and leave it at that.” She explained she didn’t want to have to go through the “bother” of some of her kids and parents who would object.
Teachers, scientists, parents, textbook authors and publishers, anyone who wants a quality science education for their kids…we have to STAND UP and DEMAND it. And we need to do it NOW as the state board is getting ready to review science curriculum later this year.
LikeLike
I love how anti-evolutionists get all hung up on the word “theory”. Like, oh, it’s just a theory so it’s not really true or proven.
Guess what, people! Gravity is a theory, too. So is electromagnetism. And the whole idea of the atom. Yet, if someone said, “Oh gravity isn’t real. It’s only a theory!” you would snicker at them and think them quite daft.
In science, the word “theory” simply does not mean what it does in everyday vernacular. In day to day speech, a theory is more an idea, a hunch. In the realm of science, a theory is an idea that has already been proven and accepted as fact. Discoveries and further proof may come along to tweak the theory a bit, but by and large the theory is here to stay.
THEORY = ACCEPTED TRUTH. Get over it!
LikeLike
I believe in God, and Jesus is my savior. I understand Darwin’s theory, and he was right. No offense, but have you ever studied the theory in any formal way, using science books instead of hack religion tracts?
Do you believe in the founding of America, Ch0? If Americans came from Europeans, Africans and Asians, why are there still Europeans, Africans and Asians today? Does that mean that immigration halted already? Your question’s kinda not well thought out, to me.
I just got back from Houston where we took the kids to see Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old woman who may be our ancestor. Do you “believe” in fossils, or as creationists, do you deny their existence, too?
LikeLike
do you guys also believe in darwin’s theory of evolution?
no offense, but i really cant see any sturdy basis on that.
was just thinking, if we really came from bunch of apes, monkeys and gorillas, why did it so happened that there are still apes and gorillas today? does it mean that mans evolution halted already? kinda weird for me.
its not that im an anti-evolution or something. just the darwins’ i think.
have a good one guys :)
LikeLike
There is broad agreement on the operation of evolution as Darwin described it, as boiled down to five points by Ernst Mayr:
I cannot imagine where one would get the idea that “there are as many opinions as research grants.” There are too few research grants in the first place, which suggests some unfamiliarity with the how of science funding, and there is very little disagreement on the broad aspects of evolution theory.
The facts of evolution are amazingly easy to teach — see the list of the five observations above. Now, start with an oak tree, or a coral, or a fish, and follow through the reproductive and life cycles. Done. Easy.
Anomalies? Where? Can we teach the five million species where it works exactly as the book says, first?
There is no effort in science to “force this Evolution Only inquisition.” In the past 82 years, more than 100 times creationists have introduced legislation against teaching the science of evolution. Only once did anyone introduce a law requiring evolution, in Wisconsin, in 2006 — and scientists were quick to contact the sponsor and get the bill killed. Science isn’t done by legislation. Stick to the facts, you’re good as gold. That’s all scientists ask.
The court cases have each resulted from attempts by creationists to stop the teaching of science. Stopping the teaching of science has proven, in each case, to be religiously motivated, and therefore illegal under our religious freedom laws.
Keep an open mind, yes. But one must open one’s mind first, in order to keep it that way.
LikeLike
There is no agreed upon unified evolutionary theory. There are as many opinions as there are research grants being handed out. I think it is impossible to TEACH evolution as fact, I think that it would be imprudent to disregard the many anomalies that abound for the sake of a neat and tidy science curriculum.
The scientific communities attempt to force this “Evolution Only” Inquisition on us all does not bode well for keeping an open mind when it comes to nonconfomity in scientific theory.
LikeLike
Origin of life study is called biogenesis. It’s not part of evolution theory. If you’re interested in origin of life research, check out Andy Ellington‘s lab at the University of Texas, and check out Astrobiology Magazine, which covers the serious research into biogenesis, mostly done by NASA and NASA-affiliated people as part of the research to determine what to look for in the search for life on other planets. “Primordial ooze” rather went out with flappers and bathtub gin. Craig Venter’s group has assembled a genome completely from scratch — don’t rule out life in a test tube until you review the data. Also, see the work of Sidney Fox and protocells, as well as the Urey-Miller experiments and many followups.
No, evolution does not hinge on the existence of ooze. Evolution is what we observe in living things today.
There are no huge holes in evolution theory. Evolution theory undergirds much of modern medicine, including the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes, the search for cures and treatments of cancer, and especially the search for treatments, cures and vaccines for HIV/AIDS. Evolution theory is fundamental to American agriculture as well. Evolution is only important if you want to live past 40 as a healthy person, or if you want to eat. It’s also key to much of our efforts to preserve endangered and threatened ecosystems — so it’s important if you like beauty and nature.
Evolution is not a theory of how the world begins. That would be Big Bang for the origins of the universe, and probably planetary formation theory for how planets form — neither of which is dependent on evolution theory (nor is evolution theory dependent on them). There are many ways to test these theories and determine how close to “exactly right” they are. You’re probably unaware of the COBE project, which has photographs of the universe at about 200,000 years old — about 13 billion years ago. Photographic evidence ranks pretty high in my book as being dispositive.
No one is proposing that we worship science as a god. However, proposing that we stop doing science because God is unhappy with it is a dangerous policy to follow — and it strikes me as bad theology, too — but then, I’m a Christian, and neither Christ nor Christian policy has any thing opposed to evolution, so what do I know.
I think you’ll find science incredibly exciting, much better than what you learned in school — why not check out some of the links and see?
LikeLike
ok, but remind me. Where did they recreate the part when all life started?? I haven’t seen any studies for that one. There are speculations about a primordial ooze (i’m sure there’s a more refined word for it than that) that had all the DNA blueprints necessary for life within in. But I don’t think they’ve been able to find it, or create it out of nothing. Does evolution not hinge on the existence of such a substance. Science has not been able to recreate ordered life from chaos. It is impossible to recreate that as there is no way to recreate the very beginning of the universe.
I didn’t say that evolution was all bad. I was trying to communicate that there are holes in it that cannot be completely explained. I did learn about evolution in high school, though you would argue that I didn’t learn it well enough, I’m sure. It is interesting, but I do not think that it is as integral to understanding the world as you seem to think it is.
Evolution is a theory, a good one yes, but a theory of how the world begins. There is no way to know for sure that scientific studies etc. are exactly right because the reality is, no one was there and so we are creating our educated best guesses.
Science is great. I find it incredibly fascinating, more so as I learn. I am not suggestion that we don’t need it, and shouldn’t learn about it. I just don’t think that science should be worshipped as a god. It is fallible because those who practice it, while incredibly gifted at their tasks, are also fallible.
LikeLike
Melissa, someone is pulling your leg. In science, “theory” means “survived all the tests we could think of and more solid than the Rock of Gibralter,” or something akin to it. Evolution is considered a theory because it well and exquisitely explains the facts of evolution, and it explains why the laws of biology subservient to the theory work so well.
Here is the latest version of the National Academy of Science’s explanation for why evolution deserves to be studied as science, including a definition of theory. (You may download the entire publication for free there.)
Every aspect of evolution has been tested in a laboratory and verified, and/or observed in the wild in real time. Speciation, the creation of a new species from old, is a common occurrence, and has been documented dozens, if not hundreds of times, since the first documented observation published in 1870.
Processes by which single-celled critters become multi-cellular colonies are well known — most jellyfish are single-celled critters, living in colonies, for example. From there to a multi-cellular organization is a small step. We know of no multicelled creature today that does not have a line of ancestry leading to it.
We can know with great specificity the conditions on Earth in the past, through geology, dencrochronology, radioisotope dating, ice cores, and modeling.
Science classifies evolution as a theory, like atomic theory, because it works. In lay terms, it’s “proven” every bit as much as atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease, or even more than gravity theory. Take a look at the NAS document for the terminology Science uses.
LikeLike
One question. You seem to be very frustrated with other suggestions about how the world was developed/created/came into being because they cannot be proven in a laboratory. But last I heard, Evolution is still considered a theory, because it, also, has not been fully proven in a laboratory.
I do think that this theory provides some helpful pointers into understanding this world, but I’m not sure it deserves all of the accolades that you have given it. Scientists can not recreate the Big Bang where chaos was able to create an ordered universe in which a star of just the right size and gravitational pull, could have a planet which orbits it at exactly the right distance, on the right axis, with the proper oxygen and temperature to support human life. They have yet to show for certain how a single celled organism could morph into multiple celled organisms, into fish, amphibious animals, reptiles, birds, mammals (including humans). In fact, in order for the theory to work there are missing links which have yet to be discovered, and which may never be discovered — because no one knows if they even ever existed.
People do not disagree that adaption or micro evolution happens. you have demonstrated certain instances. But please recognize that science has only classified Evolution as a theory, or you called it a concept — it is not a proven fact at this point.
LikeLike
poor ed.
you do get the worst trolls on your blog. it looks like that scene in Life of Brian with all the idiots standing on half-barrels and boxes making inane speeches to the crowd.
nice post, btw, as usual.
best of luck in your endeavors to straighten this mess out in Texas.
LikeLike
Sara, Rio Reds were bred from the red sport mutation. A sport mutation is “new information” of a sort that creationists, including especially intelligent design advocates, say cannot occur.
But the new species was grapefruit itself, a couple hundred years ago.
So we have a new species, and just for icing on the cake, we have a clear sport mutation more recently, carefully observed, that shows that new information in genes does arise spontaneously, and beneficially.
Yes, it’s a new variety of grapefruit. While the Rio Red is an example of selective breeding, the red variation is a sport mutation, not selective breeding, arising spontaneously and not as a result of any breeding (prior to its rising, no one had a clue that red was possible, nor that it would be sweeter). The red color and sweetness were purely serendipitous — no selection could achieve it.
The new species was the grapefruit itself.
Overestimate evolution? I suppose that depends. Evolution theory is the key behind the green revolution and Norman Borlaug’s work. It’s the key to curing cancer and genetic diseases, like cystic fibrosis. It is the key to treating diseases short of a cure. Evolution theory is the key to the eradication of malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, polio, typhus, ebola and HIV.
Hitler knew nothing about evolution, really. He espoused a “blood heritage” hypothesis right out of the Old Testament — unfortunately for tens of thousands of German troops who could have been saved with blood transfusions. Hitler disallowed blood banks and transfusions, for fear “Jewish blood” would turn his troops into Jews.
All science can be abused or misused. To prevent that, we need to understand it.
Consequently, to cure and treat disease, to feed people, to preserve the planet and species and genetic diversity, and to prevent the rise of a new Hitler, we need to study and understand evolution.
LikeLike
O.k. I am still confused about point #2 the evolution of grapefruit. Is the rio red still a grapefruit? It seems to me that it is a new variety of grapefruit, not a new species. Wouldn’t that be considered selective breeding? I studied geology in college and have always loved science but lets not overestimate the value of evolution on society or we start sounding like Hitler and his stunning eugenics programs, (oh the master grapefruit).
LikeLike
Rafael. You sound like an escapist,dude!you give christianity a bad name. go back and read couple of quantum mechanics textbooks for dummies. Accepting scientific truths doesn’t turn u into an infidel. wonder what God would do that to me…so lame. owh, btw, what does this ‘AUTHENTIC RECORD AND GEOLOGY SCIENTIS CAN’T CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH’ has got to do with heaven and hell, God and Satan, and your lengthy little sermon? gosh…!!
LikeLike
wow rafael, that’s quite a speech. Even our parish priest never quote as many bible verses as you just did. First of all, i’m a catholic and and i’m in support of our pope stand in evolution: catholics believe in evolution. Along with it of course the big bang theory and all attempts by science to search the truth.
If you intend to understood genesis literally, you ought to expect god giving a speech each time a disaster struck as he often did in the bible. But that is not how things work. Quoting Pope John Paul himself “divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided”.
Evolution is different from adaptation. A modern version on the definition of Evolution can be correctly summarized as the change in genetic makeup of a species either in adapting to new environments or dispensing certain attributes that are unnneeded. In Physics we call this as the Principle of least action.
The big bang is of course undisputable as of now and snugs quite well with the genesis. Try comparing the dumb down version of the Big bang theory with genesis:
1) The early Universe begin as a singularity
2) Then the few moments after its expansion, the state of matter is liquid. A sea of matter.
3) Then after a while, solids are created
4) Then this form the sun and moon and all the stars.
the rest are well explained in the bible.
The genesis version of Universe creation:
1) In the beginning there is only God
2) Then God created the Sea
3) Then there is earth
4) Then God put the sun and stars in the sky
and the rest are obvious.
So, as we can see science is simply another religion praising the almighty. Except that it includes more details and harder to understand for the majority of the masses. There is more similarity between science and christianity beliefs such as the descriptions on hell and end of time. As for those awaiting judgement day, jesus himself told us not not to wait for them (i forgot which verses, i’m leaving that for the bible experts). If you don’t understand what i meant by matter, tough luck. In those case you just had to stick on just genesis.
LikeLike
Breathe, Rafael! Breathe! Take a breath. Breathe!
LikeLike
All due respect, Fred, the development of new genes to do new chemical processes in an insect is not “adaptation,” but “evolution.” The creation of new species is not adaptation, either.
If you need a study course, I’ll be pleased to offer suggestions.
LikeLike
[…] Why study evolution? […]
LikeLike
Sorry to burst the man’s bubble : One should not confuse adaptation with evolution. The one does not imply the other. The THEORY of Evolution for all intents and purposes is a myth that has not been proven and that CANNOT be proven.
Adaptation to environment is another kettle of fish. We know that it occurs on a microscopic level and yes, it does help to explain most of what is mentioned regarding biological survival at the microscopic level.
So the challenge for Mr Ed Darrell is to go and re-acquaint himself with what exactly is evolution and what is adaptation. Right now he sounds exactly like the religious zealots he is so adamantly trying to negate. Please Mr Darrell go and do your homework properly so you’ll be able to inform the school kids properly.
And do have fun whilst doing it!!!
LikeLike
Evolution did not happen.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this Ed! I have a better sense of your background now, too.
LikeLike
good ones.. :)
LikeLike