Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Critical Evaluation of Evolution ^ | March 2004 | Ohio State Board of Education

[js1138]

Critical Analysis of Evolution – Grade 10 

 

Life Sciences

 

Benchmark H

Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

 

Indicator 23

Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

 

Scientific Ways of Knowing

 

Benchmark A

Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world.

 

Indicator 2

Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science.

 

Indicator 3

Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

 

Lesson Summary:

 

This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates' critical analyses of evolution theory.

 

Estimated Duration: Four to six hours

 

Commentary:

 

This lesson should be used midway or toward the end of a unit on evolution. This will allow students to “carry over” their knowledge of basic evolutionary concepts into this lesson. The strength of this lesson lies in having students research topics that interest them about evolutionary biology. Students are encouraged to consider the research and discuss their findings with fellow students.

 

Pre-Assessment:

 

·        The following items can be used to stimulate dialogue with the students.

·        Instruct students to copy the following items from the chalkboard in their science lab notebook.

1.      Describe anomalies and explain why they exist.

2.      Are there any benefits to exploring scientific anomalies?

3.      How do scientists make and test predictions?

4.      How do scientists critically analyze conflicting data?

5.      Define the following terms in your own words:

§         Theory

§         Critical analysis

§         Natural selection

§         Biological evolution

§         Macroevolution

§         Microevolution

·        Direct students to respond to the questions in their science notebook in as much detail as possible leaving space to record information from the ensuing dialogue to add to their notes.

 

Scoring Guidelines:

 

Collect pre-assessments and evaluate for indication of prior knowledge and/or misconception. Sample definitions for question five in the pre-assessment include, but are not limited to, the following:

·        Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

·        Critical analysis
The separation of an intellectual idea into its constituent parts for the purpose of a careful, exact evaluation and judgment about those parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole. (This definition combines the definition for critical and analysis.)

·        Natural selection
The principle that in a given environment, individuals having characteristics that aid survival will produce more offspring, and the proportion of individuals having such characteristics will increase with each succeeding generation.

·        Biological evolution
Changes in the genetic composition of a population through successive generations.

·        Macroevolution
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

·        Microevolution
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

 

Post-Assessment:

 

• Describe why scientific critical analysis of evolution is important.
• Describe one major pieces of evidence used to support evolution and explain why it is important.
• Describe one piece of evidence used to challenge evolution and explain why it is important.
• Compare and contrast the supporting and challenging information regarding the aspect of evolution you studied.
• Evaluate the scientific data supporting and challenging areas of evolution in light of the scientific method. In other words, is the data that is used to support or challenge evolution consistent or inconsistent with the scientific method? Are there any limitations? (NOTE: steps of scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, test, retest and conclusion)

 

Instructional Procedures:

Instructional Tip:

Scientists make a distinction between two areas of evolutionary theory. First, scientists consider mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow (immigration and emigration) as the processes that generate evolutionary changes in organisms and populations. Second, the theory of universal common descent describes the historical pattern of biological change. This theory maintains that all living forms have descended from earlier living forms and ultimately from a single common ancestor. Darwin envisioned the theory of universal common descent as a necessary result of evolutionary changes in organisms and populations, and represented it in his branching tree of life. Students will investigate and analyze these two areas of evolutionary theory in this lesson.

 

In addition to the distinctions between different areas of evolutionary theory, scientists also find it helpful to distinguish amounts of biological change or evolution. Microevolution refers to evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. These terms are helpful distinctions in the course of analyzing evolutionary theory. These terms have appeared in OhioLink research databases, numerous Internet sites, and biology and evolution textbooks. Though “micro” and “macro” are prefixes, it is quite clear that the scientific community recognizes and acknowledges the distinction between the words. To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.

 

Student Engagement

 

1. Write the following statement on the chalkboard or overhead:
   Anomalies are observations in science that depart from the general consensus of the time. Many anomalies occur in science. Scientists create hypotheses to explain these anomalies and then carry out experiments to try to disprove their hypotheses. Disproven hypotheses are rejected and those that are not disproven are subjected to further testing.
2. Ask students to think through the following science topics and discuss where anomalies led to the collection of data that further explained the phenomena and contributed to changing scientific understandings.

·        Spontaneous generation versus biogenesis
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is Francesco Redi’s observation that flies must contact meat in order for maggots to appear on the meat.

·        Geocentric versus Heliocentric
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is the observed phases of Venus.

3. Ask students to cite additional areas where critical analysis is needed by the scientific community.

 

Teacher Presentation

4. Present supporting and challenging information for five aspects of evolution found in Attachment A. This will give students background information concerning both supporting and challenging evidence. Students can use this information to focus their research.

 

Instructional Tip:

Alternative strategies for beginning this lesson could be to engage students in a Socratic discussion or a mini-lecture. See the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for guidelines on the Socratic method. The Web address is listed in the Technology Connections section.

 

Student Research

5. Form groups consisting of two to four students. Assign each group a number to help monitor their activities and assignments during the lesson.
6. Allow the groups to pick (or assign) one of the five aspects of evolutionary theory. Assign two groups to research each aspect. The aspects are:

Aspect 1: Homology (anatomical and molecular)

Aspect 2: Fossil Record

Aspect 3: Anti-Biotic Resistance

Aspect 4: Peppered Moths

Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis

 

7. Distribute Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, to help guide research. Allow time for the two groups assigned the same aspect to research their topic by answering questions on the Investigative Worksheet. Have groups use the worksheet as a guide to help them research supporting and challenging data on their particular aspect of evolution. The worksheet will help students organize their ideas and facilitate their critical analysis.

 

Instructional Tip:

Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, has questions that can be applied to all five aspects. This will help students become familiar with the data, and therefore be able to critically analyze the evidence for either the supporting side or the challenging side. As they complete the worksheet, the group members may all work together on each question, or divide the questions among themselves and then share their findings as a group.

 

8. After the groups have completed their research, collect the Investigative Worksheets and review them. Return the worksheet to them prior to the next step of the instructional procedures; the critical analysis activity. The Investigative Worksheet is a formative assessment which will enable the teacher to check the student work and if necessary, assist in any way to help ensure student success on his or her critical analysis activity.

Critical Analysis Activity

9. Allow the students to spend time researching and preparing for the critical analysis activity on both the supporting and challenging information. Prior to the activity, randomly determine which of the two groups will present supporting information and which will present challenging information. You may have groups draw cards to help objectively determine if they will research the supporting or challenging information.

 

Instructional Tip:

Encourage all students to participate in the critical analysis activity because the experience will be a learning opportunity. Be prepared, however, to distribute alternate assignments to students who do not want to participate.

 

10. Hand out Attachment C, Critical Analysis Rubric, to help students understand the materials they need to prepare and how they should conduct their presentations.
11. Ask each group to write out their introduction, outline their presentations and write their conclusions. Have students practice their presentations to be sure that they are concise.
12. Have two pairs of students address each aspect. Have one group present the data that support an aspect and the other group present the data that challenge the aspect. Flip a coin to decide which group begins the critical analysis activity. Instruct each side to present its research. The teacher will serve as facilitator to assure that the groups remain on task and on time. There are no winners or losers in this critical analysis activity. This is a sharing of the results of their research concerning evolution.
13. Encourage students to actively participate as they critically analyze their assigned aspect. To ensure that they remain engaged as they watch and listen to the other groups, distribute copies of Attachment D, Critical Analysis Worksheet, and have them take notes. At the conclusion of the lesson, this worksheet will be turned in for a grade.  
14. Use Attachment C, Critical Analysis Rubric, to evaluate each group's presentation.
15. Proceed to the post-assessment to evaluate students' understanding.

 

Differentiated Instructional Support:

Instruction is differentiated according to learner needs, to help all learners either meet the intent of the specified indicator(s) or, if the indicator is already met, to advance beyond the specified indicator(s).

• Make a copy of the post-assessment available to all students at the beginning of the lesson. This will allow students to clearly understand what is expected from them.
• Have students submit an outline of their presentation, including introductory remarks and conclusion, to assist in their organizational skills. This allows the teacher to give feedback to the students and to help prepare them for the critical analysis activity.

 

 

Extension:

Have students consider other aspects of evolutionary biology that are critically analyzed by scientists. Possible topics include:

• Hox (homeotic) genes
• Biogeography
• Vestigial organs
• Four winged fruit fly
• Galapagos finches

 

 

 

Interdisciplinary Connections:
Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard
Benchmark A	Evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources.
Indicator 1	Determine the credibility of sources by considering the following: a.       The qualifications and reputation of the writer; b.      Agreement with other credible sources; c.       Recognition of stereotypes; d.      Accuracy and consistency of sources; e.       The circumstances in which the author prepared the source.
English Language Arts Research Standard
Benchmark B	Evaluate the usefulness and credibility of data and sources.
Indicator 3	Determine the accuracy of sources and the credibility of the author by analyzing the sources’ validity (e.g., authority, accuracy, objectivity, publication date and coverage, etc.).
Benchmark C	Organize information from various resources and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.
Indicator 2	Identify appropriate sources and gather relevant information from multiple sources (e.g., school library catalogs, online databases, electronic resources and Internet-based resources).
Indicator 4	Evaluate and systematically organize important information, and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.

 

 

Materials and Resources:

The inclusion of a specific resource in any lesson formulated by the Ohio Department of Education should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that particular resource, or any of its contents, by the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio Department of Education does not endorse any particular resource. The Web addresses listed are for a given site’s main page, therefore, it may be necessary to search within that site to find the specific information required for a given lesson. Please note that information published on the Internet changes over time, therefore the links provided may no longer contain the specific information related to a given lesson. Teachers are advised to preview all sites before using them with students.

 

For the teacher: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

For the student: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

 

Vocabulary:

• Biological evolution
• Critical analysis
• Evolutionary theory
• Macroevolution
• Natural select ion
• Theory

 

 

Technology Connections:

• Access the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, at http://set.lanl.gov, for guidelines to the Socratic Method. From the homepage, navigate to Programs, and then Critical Issues Forum.

 

Research Connections:

Marzano, R. et al. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria: Associat ion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2001.

 

• Identifying similarities and differences enhances students’ understanding of and ability to use knowledge. This process includes comparing, classifying, creating metaphors and creating analogies and may involve the following:
  • Presenting students with explicit guidance in identifying similarities and differences.
  • Asking students to independently identify similarities and differences.
  • Representing similarities and differences in graphic or symbolic form.
• Summarizing and note taking are two of the most powerful skills to help students identify and understand the most important aspects of what they are learning.

 

General Tips:

• Students should use school library resources such as InfOhio's Access Science to locate information on aspects of evolutionary theory.
• See the following resources for information that supports or challenges different aspects of evolution.

 

 

1.      Ayala, Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, 239:3 (1978): 56-69.

2. Brickhouse, Nancy. "Diversity of Students’ Views about Evidence, Theory." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37:4 (2000).
3. Carroll, Robert L. (1997/98). “Limits to Knowledge of the Fossil Record”. Zoology. 100 (1997/98): 221-231.
4. Carroll, Robert L. “Towards a New Evolutionary Synthesis.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2000): 27-32.
5. Cherfas, J. "Exploring the Myth of the Melanic Moth." New Scientist. (1986): 25.
6. Chinn, Clark. "An Empirical Test of a Taxonomy of Responses to Anomalous Data in Science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35:6 (1998).
7. Chinn, Clark. "The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction." Review of Educational Research. 63:1 (1993): 1-49.
8. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975.
9. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1986.
10. Doolittle, W. Ford “Uprooting the Tree of Life,” Scientific American, 282 (2000): 90-95.
11. Erwin, Douglas. “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,” Evolution & Development 2 (2000): 78-84.
12. Erwin, Douglas. “Early Introduction of Major Morphological Innovations,” Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 38 (1994): 281-294.
13. Evans, Margaret E. "The Emergence of Beliefs About the Origins of Species in School-Age Children." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 46:2 (2000): 221-253.
14. Faust, David. The Limits of Scientific Reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
15. Fitch, W., and E. Margoliash, "Construction of Phylogenetic Trees." Science 155 (1967): 281.
16. Gilbert, Scott F., et al. “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Journal of Developmental Biology 173 (1996): 357-372.
17. Jeffares, D. “Relics from the RNA World.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 46 (1998): 18-36.
18. Lee, Michael. “Molecular Phylogenies become Functional” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 14 (1999): 177-178.
19. Levinton, Jeffrey S. “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution.” Scientific American 267 (1992): 84-91.
20. Lewin, Roger. "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire." Science. 210 (1980): 883.
21. Mahoney, Michael. "Publication Prejudices: an Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System." Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1:2 (1977): 161-175.
22. Margoulis, L., and D. Sagan. "Bacterial Bedfellows." Natural History 96 (1987): 26-33.
23. Martin W., and M. Muller. "The Hydrogen Hypothesis for the First Eukaryote." Nature 392 (1998): 37-41.
24. Mikkola, K. "On the Selective Forces Acting in the Industrial Melanism of Biston oligia Moths." Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 (1984): 409-421.
25. Mynatt, Clifford. "Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference." Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology. 29 (1977): 85-95.
26. National Academy of Science. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington: National Academy Press, 1998.
27. National Academy of Science. National Science Education Standards. Washington, National Academy Press, 1996.
28. Pennisi, E. “Direct descendants from an RNA world.” Science 280 (1998): 673.
29. Philippe, Herve, and Patrick Forterre. “The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999): 509-523.
30. Plous, Scott. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill, 1993.
31. Samarapungavan, Ala. "Children’s judgment in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition. 45 (1992): 1-32.
32. Shubin, Neil H. and Charles R. Marshall. “Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Novelty.” Deep Time (2000): 324-340.
33. Smith, John M., and Eörs Szathmáry. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
34. Smith, Mike U. "Counterpoint: Belief, Understanding, and Teaching of Evolution." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 3:5 (1994): 591-597.
35. Thagard, Paul. Mind, Society, and the Growth of Knowledge. Philosophy of Science. (1994): 61.
36. Thomson , Keith S. “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992): 106-112.
37. Thomson, Keith S. "Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution.” American Scientist. 70. (1982): 529-531.

 

Attachments:

Attachment A, Five Aspects of Evolution

Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet

 

Attachment A

Five Aspects of Evolution

 

Aspect 1: Homology

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Different animals have very similar anatomical and genetic structures. This suggests that these animals share a common ancestor from which they inherited the genes to build these anatomical structures. Evolutionary biologists call similarities that are due to common ancestry “homologies.” For example, the genes that produce hemoglobin molecules (an oxygen carrying protein) in chimps and humans are at least 98% identical in sequence. As another example, bats, humans, horses, porpoises and moles all share a forelimb that has the same pattern of bone structure and organization. The hemoglobin molecule and the “pentadactyl limb” provide evidence for common ancestors. Also, the genetic code is universal, suggesting that a common ancestor is the source.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry. The nucleotide sequence of hemoglobin DNA is very similar between chimps and humans, but this may be because they provide the same function for both animals. Also, if similar anatomical structures really are the result of a shared evolutionary ancestry, then similar anatomical structures should be produced by related genes and patterns of embryological development. However, sometimes, similar anatomical structures in different animals are built from different genes and by different pathways of embryological development. Scientists can use these different anatomical structures and genes to build versions of Darwin family trees that will not match each other. This shows that diverse forms of life may have different ancestry.

 

Aspect 2: Fossil Record

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research. 

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The fossil record shows an increase in the complexity of living forms from simple one-celled organisms, to the first simple plants and animals, to the diverse and complex organisms that live on Earth today. This pattern suggests that later forms evolved from earlier simple forms over long periods of geological time. Macroevolution is the large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The slow transformations are reflected in transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx (a reptile-like bird) and mammal-like reptiles. These transitional fossils bridge the gap from one species to another species and from one branch on the tree of life to another.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. The fossil record as a whole shows that major evolutionary changes took place suddenly over brief periods of time followed by longer periods of “stasis” during which no significant change in form or transitional organisms appeared (Punctuated Equilibria). The “Cambrian explosion” of animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example, of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record.

 

Aspect 3: Antibiotic Resistance

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The number of strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as of Staphylococcus aureus, have significantly increased in number over time. Antibiotics used by patients to eliminate disease-causing bacterial organisms have facilitated this change. When some bacteria acquire a mutation that allows them to survive in the presence of antibiotics, they begin to survive in greater numbers than those that do not have this mutation-induced resistance. This shows how environmental changes and natural selection can produce significant changes in populations and species over time.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.

 

Aspect 4: Peppered Moths (Biston betularia)

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: During the industrial revolution in England, more soot was released into the air. As a result, the tree trunks in the woodlands grew darker in color. This environmental change also produced a change in the population of English peppered moths (scientifically known as Biston betularia). Studies during the 1950s have suggested a reason for this change. It was observed that light-colored moths resting on dark-colored tree trunks were readily eaten by birds. They had become more visible by their predators compared to their dark-colored counterparts. This different exposure to predation explained why the light-colored moths died with greater frequency when pollution darkened the forest. It also explained why light-colored moths later made a “comeback” when air quality improved in England. This whole situation demonstrates how the process of natural selection can change the features of a population over time.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population. They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter—i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.

 

Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis (formation of cellular organelles)

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Complex eukaryotic cells contain organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. These organelles have their own DNA. This suggests that bacterial cells may have become established in cells that were ancestral to eukaryotes. These smaller cells existed for a time in a symbiotic relationship within the larger cell. Later, the smaller cell evolved into separate organelles within the eukaryotic ancestors. The separate organelles, chloroplast and mitochondria, within modern eukaryotes stand as evidence of this evolutionary change.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.

 

 

Attachment B

Investigative Worksheet

 

This activity will help you to prepare for the critical analysis activity. Complete the following table by addressing the following points when you record supporting and challenging data for one aspect of evolution. Record your responses on the appropriate space on the chart.

 

• Write a brief summary of what you have read and discovered regarding your particular aspect and how it supports evolutionary theory.
• Write a brief summary of what you have read and discovered regarding your particular aspect and how it challenges evolutionary theory.
• Were any scientific tools, instruments or other forms of technology used by scientists to support this evidence and how it supports a key aspect of evolutionary theory?
• Were any scientific tools, instruments or other forms of technology used by scientists to challenge this evidence and how it challenges the key aspect of evolutionary
• How do scientists critically analyze this aspect of evolution?
• Is the information you found supported by using the scientific method? Are there any limitations?
• Are there any other type(s) of research that scientists need to do in order to critically analyze evolution? Briefly explain your answer.

 

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . said he had disproven the cleric's speculation by a "reductio ad lapidum".

Yeah. That's one of the reasons I reject Scientology.

[Elsie]

"Science is a way of seeking principles of order in the universe."

I agree with this statement. Do you?  Yes

"Science, as an intellectual activity, encompasses observations about the natural world that can be measured and quantified, and the ideas based thereon can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified."

I agree with this statement. Do you? Yes, but tested, verified, are VERY important!

"Scientists, when speaking about scientific finding, do not speak in absolutes as is done in the name of religion."

I agree with this statement. Do you? Yes

 The word "impossible" is an absolute, is it not?  Yes; and so is done in the name of religion."

[Elsie]

Pretty much my interpretation too.

If, in the front of the book, you guys interpret it that way, how do you interpret what Luke and Paul write, later in the book?

---

Acts 17:26

  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

 

 

Romans 5:12

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

 

 

Romans 5:15-19
15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man,death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

[Elsie]

How would you for instance, verify the claim that our universe has been created last Thurday with all our memories, appearance of age, etc.? And how can you tell that the date of creation wasn't instead on Thursday two weeks ago?
This scenario may be true after all but it is simply not falsifiable and therefore it ain't science.

 

Oh, just about the same way as this one.................

 

How would you for instance, verify the claim that our universe has evolve from a speck, 15 billion or so years ago, etc.? And how can you tell that the date of creation wasn't instead 16 billion years ago?
This scenario may be true after all but it is simply not falsifiable and therefore it ain't science.

[Elsie]

...the problem is that we cannot tell one way or the other simply because we don't have any other universes (which have been designed resp, not designed) as a reference.

You are absolutely right here. All we can do is to look at the world that surrounds us, and make judgement calls.

---

What we have to be sure of is that we do not have an idea of how something happened, before we examine the evidence, for that may taint our conclusion. Now we also know that THIS is highly unlikely, but at least by being AWARE of it, we may then be on guard for it.

Jury selection can play a bIG part in the outcome of a trial.

[Elsie]

"....every man a liar."


;^)

[Elsie]

...it seems to me that you are frustrated because you can't prove you're correct when it seems so obvious to you.

Which is exactly the same feeelings the "E" people have, for exactly the same reason!

Why oh WHY can't these "C" folks see the TRUTH??

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's still my opinion that God wants us to have to make the "leap of faith" - to believe in Him even though we can't quantitatively prove His existence.

Science wants us to make leaps of faith, too. If the validity of every hypothesis were dependent solely upon proven (or even provable!) facts, there would be no such thing as a hypothesis.

[js1138]

I don't know what all the fuss is about the "Fall." Eating of the forbidden fruit only gave man knowledge of good and evil. Before that, man was, like the animals, blissfully unaware of the distinction. I've always looked at this as an allegory for the development of consciousness in hominids.

One of my favorite bits of fringe speculation is the theory that people didn't associate sex with babies until they started domesticating animals. This may have been within the last 10,000 years, which would coincide with the age of the earliest religious stories.

[js1138]

Science wants us to make leaps of faith, too. If the validity of every hypothesis were dependent solely upon proved (or even provable!) facts, there would be no such thing as a hypothesis.

The difference is that science is an iterative process: observe, speculate, test, repeat.

Another feature of science is that old theories seldom get proved wrong. They just become special cases of a larger theory that explains more data. For example, the Copernican solar system has many advantages over the earth-centered universe, but didn't really work computationally. In short, it failed a key test. More speculation occurred: orbits are elliptical. This speculation subsumed the sun-centered system and predicted data better.

But why would anything follow an ellipse when everyone knew intuitively that circles are the most natural shape. Enter gravity, and the equations that describe it.

At each step in the way there is a refinement in the explanatory power of the theory, without overturning centuries of observational data. This applies to relativity also. It is a refinement in the theory of gravity that explains extreme cases. Relativity is not needed at all to navigate within our solar system.

Faith is believing without evidence, and regardless of comments to the contrary, the standard interpretation of "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test," is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and it is sinful to try.

Science does not deal with why the world is. It deals with how the world is. It is not attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is examining the way things work.

Centuries ago people, including astronomers, took quite literally the statement that the sun rose, traveled overhead, and set, then hurried back to its starting place. There is no internal evidence in the Bible to dispute this interpretation. Now that science has given us a different visual image of what is happening, we can look at the Bible and say, "Oh, that's just a figure of speech." But it wasn't a figure of speech until the discoveries of science forced that interpretation.

The current battle over evolution is the same thing all over again. Science has forced a reevaluation of the way we interpret Genesis. Most people, including most Jews and a lot of churchgoing Christians, have decided we must interpret Genesis as a parable. That does not mean the moral lesson is untrue, but it means that you do not have to assume Genesis is a science textbook.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Faith is believing without evidence . . .

Perhaps by your definition. But faith cannot exist without evidence of some kind. There must be a proposition before faith can make it's leap. Faith is always based on a propsiton, a hypothesis, if you will. And a hypothesis is normally rooted in the intelligent world - a world that is well-organized and, to my reckoning, real.

. . . the standard interpretation of "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test," is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and it is sinful to try.

Now that's a new twist. Use a passage of Scripture that acknowleges the existence of God to cobble up some moral prohibition against proving the existence of God. Do you realize how preposterous your statement is? What? Is Scripture in this case an authoritative source for you?

[BMCDA]

How would you for instance, verify the claim that our universe has evolve from a speck, 15 billion or so years ago, etc.? And how can you tell that the date of creation wasn't instead 16 billion years ago? This scenario may be true after all but it is simply not falsifiable and therefore it ain't science.

Uhh? Are you serious or is this just a joke?
We verify this claim by observing the universe and what we observe so far (CMBR, redshift of distant objects) is highly consistent with the big-bang model.
However, if you don't believe me you can ask a more authoritative source like RadioAstronomer.
I'd also recommend this website for additional info: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html

[balrog666]

I do not think it would be reasonable to make such a claim, and would certainly not attempt to verify it. I would, on the basis of what I perceive to be factual data, point to artifacts which, to the experience of most observers, date beyond last Thursday.

Isn't that the exact point we make to the YEC-ists?

Clearly the two beliefs, YEC-ism and Last Thursday-ism, are equally indistinguishable, both intellectually and philosophically. And equally indefensible with respect to any material evidence.

[js1138]

Whether scripture is authoritative or not is beside the point. If you are a believer you are prohibited from asserting that this occurrance or that occurance will prove or disprove the existence of God. In short, you are prohibited from using the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God.

By extension, science and its findings are irrelevant to the question of the existence of God.

[js1138]

Perhaps by your definition. But faith cannot exist without evidence of some kind. There must be a proposition before faith can make it's leap.

this evidence is generall provided by witnesses. But you are not allowed to try to replicate a miracle or assert that the absense of divine intervention proves anything.

In short, you are not allowed to use scientific reasoning to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Clearly the two beliefs, YEC-ism and Last Thursday-ism, are equally indistinguishable, both intellectually and philosophically. And equally indefensible with respect to any material evidence.

Perhaps, but why should evolutionism fall outside the same indefensible proposition? In other words, what makes "one-billion-yearism" any less susceptible to the fact that our observation of time is limited?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Whether scripture is authoritative or not is beside the point.

Then why did you quote it to MAKE a point?

[js1138]

Our "observation of time" is limited to the immediate present. All references to the past are based on memory, evidence, and interpretation of evidence. Individual memory is compelling to the individual, but in fact is not particularly reliable. Any police training group can happily demonstrate that witnesses frequently fail to recall key elements of an event correctly.

Over the centuries we have developed correctives for human memory -- methods of gathering evidence and interpreting evidence.

There is an interesting tidbit along those lines. Married couples remember thei own past better when they are together than when they are apart. Having multiple sources of evidence is better than having a single source.

[js1138]

There is a difference between being correct and being sef consistent. You are reasoning like a democrat here.

In five minutes I was able to find half a dozen articles backing up my interpretation of that scripture. I think before you respond to me again you should consider finding a Christian writer of Biblical scholar who supports the notion that God can be experimentally demonstrated. That IS what "testing" means, performing an experiment.

If you look at the original incident that led to this prohibition you will see that there was a scientific experiment performed to test for the presence of God. It worked, too. This incident must have caused a bit of trouble for later leaders, because later scripture specifically prohibits trying to repeat this experiment.

I have posted extensive links to this story on this thread. I'm not going to post them again.

[Right Wing Professor]

Would you care to mathematically corroborate the number of cases where "some complex objects self-assemble from random components without intelligence or design" vs. the number of cases where complex objects otherwise exist?

Doesn't matter. As long as there is one instance where a complex object self assembles, the assertion that complexity requires design is refuted.