American Federation of Teachers: Statement on Bush & Intelligent Design

"I have never seen an evolutionists present the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the theory of evolution. No evidence exists except for a handful, and I mean a handful, of bones and no, absolutely, no transitional species in the fosil record except those that have been proven to be fake. Id and evolution have exactly the same amount of evidence, NONE.

Check out PatrickHenry's and Ichnueman's websites for information that counter what you just claimed.

Here is the Theory of Evolution :(A theory is a set of hypotheses that have passed testing and not been falsified)

Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended,exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.

1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the evironment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles--genes--that retain their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.

5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.

Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory from laboratory genetics.

6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species (see point 11).

7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.

8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time. Very slight differences between organisms can confer slight differences in survival or reproduction; hence natural selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the earliest stages of evolution of new traits.

Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory of population genetics.

9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)

10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.

11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish individuals within populations. A genotype that is rare in one population may be predominant in another.

12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between different populations of the same species, show that most of the differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect. This finding provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.

13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time, often with considerable intensity.

Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.

14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.

15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding population. Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools, which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically determined differences between them.

(This is one version of the biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily represent the origin of a new species.

16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational step.

17. Speciation--the origin of two or more species from a single common ancestor--usually occurs through the genetic differentiation of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic differences from developing.

18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."

Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists who studied particular taxonomic groups.

19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and descendants. Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record. But the fossil record also includes examples of gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different descendants. Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and closely related species). Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain the evolution of populations and species.

20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change (although they do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient explanation). There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt origins by major mutations.

Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.

D.J. Futuyma. 1997. Evolutionary biology 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachussetts.

And teachers are not union members either.

Beautiful. Yet another Creationist Classic:

Here is a link for you: Macroevolution.

From the link:

Conclusion There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.

Do you guys even bother to read at all the stuff you post?

Y'all are giving conservatives and christians a bad name. Please stop.

There it goes again, we're all living in the past, a bunch of hayseed bible-thumpers and such. Some very important ACTUAL scientists were christians, james clerk maxwell for one, and his contributions have little to do with evolutionary theories. Regardless of where you think we come from, i really dont care it's your business not mine, it has little to do with where we're going. Just a theory is all

And don't forget Sir Issac Newton. He didn't buy any of this evolutionism nonsense.

You betray your ignorance, friend.
The authors who have written about intelligent design do not fit your name-calling, whether one agrees or disagrees with them.

Which just goes to prove that evolution in the classroom is more about politics than education or science. The left sees it as a wedge tool that can be used to denigrate and undermine the faith of the student's parents.

Most of evolutionary theory is scientific. Most of what is contained in the mountains of data, observations and assumptions is simply biology.

The problem comes when trying to distinguish different types of science and the relevance and accuracy of each. I regard mathematics as the purest of sciences, while some do not regard math as a science. On the other hand I do not consider natural history to be a science, while others (evolutionists particularly) appear to elevate this "science" to the highest place of honor.

Historical facts are unlike scientific facts. Evolutionists cannot tell them apart. It is a historical fact that Booth shot Lincoln. Science may be able to assist in corroborating historical facts, but history CANNOT be duplicated in a laboratory.

The idea that ID or creationism should not be discussed in a "science" class is ludicrous. Should we prohibit other non-science disciplines from their utility in learning science? How about grammar? Shall we throw that out of the science class? How about history? I seem to recall a lot of historical asides in most of my science courses. But they should go too, right? Some evolutionists think math is not a science. Should we eliminate math from the science classes?

Students should be told that evolution is a theory about how species came to exist. They should be told that whether they believe it or not will not affect their grades, only whether they can accurately demonstrate an understanding of the essential facts presented in the course. They should be told that the purpose of teaching evolution is to enhance an understanding of biology. They should be told that as a theory, evolution is accepted as true only until proven otherwise. It could be true but is not sacrosanct. They should be told that some people object to evolution because they cannot reconcile their religious beliefs to the theory. They should be encouraged to put forth alternative theories that follow sound scientific principles. They should not be discouraged from exploring the possibility that religious ideas could POTENTIALLY be expressed in a scientific manner.

I pointed the same line out to him. He didn't listen to me either.

I'm glad somebody lives on the same planet as I do.

Apparently some dude living on Pluto is writing our science books.

Your logic indicates you are not a teacher.

The cluckhead leftist can only grasp one concept - "What anti-Bush statement can I use my soapbox to proclaim".

She has her 10 minutes of fame, during which she has demonstrated herself to be an idiot who can't even quote the President correctly before finding fault with him.

Diva's Husband

President Bush simply said contrasting ideas should be taught in schools, not that Intelligent Design should be taught in the science class.

"...because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

His statement was disappointingly politic. Better he had said nothing at all.

Thanks for the ping!

You were once a single celled organism too. Unless you believe a stork delivered you whole?

Cute but irrelevant to what the subject is.

Did you perchance read John's conclusion at the end of the paper?

Yep. Theories should be supported by evidence, not other theories.

that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

This we will never know. Is this a possible explanation? Yes. Is it evidence that this is what happened? No.

Conclusion There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.

This is a pro evolution site. This statement is based on a theory, not any evidence which is being used to support evolutionary theory. Which means it is utter BS.

Do you guys even bother to read at all the stuff you post?

Yes, I have been over all the evo and creationist sites, including many Ich... posts. Bottom line is when you get to the tough questions, one theory bolsters another and so on, each with their own set of evidences, all neatly tied in a bow.

Y'all are giving conservatives and christians a bad name. Please stop.

Drama Queen!

The more the ignorant yahoos of religious fundamentalism are emboldened to push their mythology on the rest of us, the worse off we will all be.

But how can we ever be as smart as you guys if you refuse to talk about it?

OK, you're saying Dubya is wrong but the teachers union is right? Well, you had your chance last November to vote your choice. LOL.

Those who think conservatives are all a bunch of Christian fundementalists should visit a few of these threads.

Ask them how long it will be before it evolves from the Theory of Evolution into the Law of Evolution. Also, why don't they allow for natural selection of thought so we can determine the survival of the fittest idea?

This is a pro evolution site. This statement is based on a theory, not any evidence which is being used to support evolutionary theory.

??

That wasnt very coherent. Lets start over.

Do you accept that mutations occur within a species and natural selection operates on these variations?

A teacher's mind is such a terrible thing to waste!