Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
Why keep proving that you cannot read. This paper talked about known deleterious mutations in one species being subsequently discovered in another species in the wild. The conclusion was ...Thus, compensating mutations must occur and become fixed very frequently in populations.
The authors concluded that some other presently unknown mutation(s) had to compensate for the presently known deleterious mutation in the wild species. The harmful mutations were fixed in the genome of the wild species.
Take it up with Darwin. That was a quote from "Origin of Species".
You may choose to read my posts in the worst possible light. I am, after all, not a professional writer. The sickle cell gene that causes some individuals to suffer is beneficial to other individuals in some environments. The question I was addressing was whether a "bad" gene could be beneficial to a population.
It is possible for individuals to benefit a population without reproducing. Agressive individuals can make good soldiers and benefit their community, even if they die before reproducing.
But the trait dies with the individuals and is not passed on. Therefore, you will not have aggressive individuals except by accident.
Nonsense. recessive and multivariate genes do not die when individuals die. Their frequency in a population depends on their usefulness to the population.
False. Non-reproducing individuals may extend the breeding lives of reproducing individuals. Ants and bees have evolved this to a nicety. The breeding individuals cannot even survive to breed without the non-reproducing individuals.
"When it comes to fully understanding the world God created, I must say I am more than retarded. Thank you for asking."
You can say that again.
The sickle cell is a bad gene in a non-malarial climate, but in a malaria area it is a good gene. This is why Andrew and the other science terrorists should really study up on biology. They are full of noninformed opinions.
Good and bad are relative to the environment of the population in question.
I think your analysis of the Science article is badly flawed. Nice obfuscation, though.
I think you don't understand the context. Cite the page number in Origin of Species so we can check it out.
Andrew is a professional misunderstander. He dotes on typos and loosely worded phrases. He is quite smart enough to discern other people's intentions, but chooses to make the worst possible reading.
Quoting Darwin on genetics is a dishonest tactic, since Darwin lived before genetics was invented. Darwin was aware of two possible implementations of genetic information: discrete and blended. He observed blended traits and therefore believed that is the way the underlying implementation worked. He was wrong.
It remains a fact that genes detrimental to individuals can be preserved because they benefit a population.
Let's get straight what is being discussed. The traits that Darwin and the quote you do not like are those that are novel and seeking to be fixed. The idea is that to be subject to preservation(fixed in the genome) you must not be harmful to the organism. Now are you positing a new and improved evolution where nothing(traitwise) is extinguished only preserved to different degrees(danger where are all of the intermediates)?
>Agressive individuals can make good soldiers and benefit their community, even if they die before reproducing.
I believe the point Andrew is making is that, insofar as non-breeding species do not pass genetic material from one generation to the next, they have no effect on the species per se. If you want to turn his point into an argument about the effect of experience and environment on a species, we might as well talk about how butterflies can start weather patterns that result in thunderstorms.
The question being argued is whether genes that prevent an individual from breeding can nevertheless be beneficial to the population. The answer is yes.
Genes can be detrimental to the individual and beneficial to the species in the same environment.
We are discussing evolution, not factories. No breeding individuals can survive without the sun. So what.
That has been your problem all along. You are wrong. And you taught biology? What nonsense. Amino acid replacements that are harmful in D. melanogaster were often observed as the wild type in D. pseudoobscura. That statement is hard to misread but you have.
And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html
I think you meant to say non-breeding individuals, rather than non-breeding species.
It makes no difference. Individuals that do not breed can nevertheless benefit the population that shares their genes.
Oh shut up. LOL You don't know what point you are trying to make.
Tell me what an allele is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.