Denying Evolution Is Denying Biology

NY Times ^ | 2/2/04

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I have always been amazed at the ability of the Christian right to bully educators into diluting the teaching of evolution and promoting so-called creation science in public school classrooms. I suspect that part of the reason for this is a misappreciation of the importance of evolution by the general public.

Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent.

Can you imagine asking a physics teacher to cover everything except Newton's laws?

Maybe soon a small group of reactionaries will persuade a school board to teach students that apples do not fall to earth because of gravity, but because of some mystical phenomenon that can neither be studied nor understood. ALBERT E. PRICE

New Haven, Jan. 30, 2004

The writer is a research fellow, department of cell biology, Yale University School of Medicine.

[Jim Noble]

Biology concerns itself with cell differentiation and speciation - - -two obvious components of any first-year bio lab course. Evolution is at the basis of these phenomena.

In what way is evolution "at the basis" of cell differentiation and speciation? In fact, now that we're on the subject, what does evolution have to do with them at all?

Not studying evolution in a biological context is tantamount to taking organic chemistry without any calculus foundation.

So? I not only studied organic chemistry, I also studied biochemistry and physiology, and graduated from medical school.

Calculus, to the extent that I understood it, had nothing whatsoever to do with anything else I ever studied-including organic chemistry.

[ZULU]

I would say they are both interrelated.

[spunkets]

"offspring of gill breathers having lungs, by mutation"

The code determines what proteins will be produced and they in turn determine structure and function. I would say the coding for gills is covered up by additional code in humans.

"4 weeks:
The embryo is now about 1/5" long. It looks something like a tadpole. The structure that will develop into a head is visible, as is a noticeable tail. The embryo has structures like the gills of a fish in the area that will later develop into a throat."

Of course the mechanism hasn't been elaborated on, but pics tell a thousand words. It's not so unbelievable given the present state of molecular biology. What would be unbelievable is that there is no connection between the two.

"If macro evolution did not occur, the essence of biology would not change one whit"

What is, is. All of what can be seen, known and understood is real. If macroevolution did not occur, then all of physics fails. The universe was created as it appears to have arisen. There is no deception inherent in it at all. In fact, I am sure abiogenisis occurred and the scientific theory outlining it will continue to grow. That is from scientific consideration and the following, which I take as a partial proof.

Matt: 38-42" Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here."

The fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God and the fact that God is not a deceiver completes the proof.

[whattajoke]

but as for the origin of the species, I'm thinking evolution was recognized as bankrupt a long time ago.

If by that you mean, "origin of life" (which is what I gathered from the context of your full post), then you are correct. An elementary reading of the theory of evolution will bear this out; there is no mention of the origin of life, and it plays no part in the theory. Thanks for clearing that up for all the creationists present.

[whattajoke]

And there are scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution -- Behe is a notable one. Should he be attacked?

Yes, and for good reason. Behe did not submit his ID hypothesis to any peer reviewed journals. Behe published them in a mass marketed book. He circumvented the vetting process and by doing so, showed his hand. Remember the cold-fusion cranks? Same thing.

Once his "work" and creative numbers game became public, scientists actually did look at it and have since debunked all of his ideas. In fact, in an ironic twist, his "work" created a cottage industry of biologists who worked on the side to shore up some of the research in things like the flagellum motors and such. So, in a way, we can all thank Behe for furthering evolutionary knowledge.

[Tribune7]

Yes, and for good reason. Behe did not submit his ID hypothesis to any peer reviewed

Here is Behe's description of his experience peer reviewed journals and open debate about his ideas. It sounds a lot like what goes on, on these threads.

[Blessed]

>The code determines what proteins will be produced and they in turn determine structure and function. I would say the coding for gills is covered up by additional code in humans.<

What is the cause (source)of the code?

[spunkets]

The code evolved, probably from initial RNA assemblies that occurred, because of physical reasons. As for the ultimate source, that was built into the physics by the One that knew you before the universe existed and answered all your prayers then.

[Tribune7]

The code evolved, probably from initial RNA assemblies that occurred, because of physical reasons.

Now, that's a statement of faith.

[spunkets]

It is not faith where I sit. Faith is a belief in something that can't be proven. I have faith in nothing and all of what I believe in can be proven.

[mrfixit514]

I am reading a book called "In Six Day: why 50 scientist choose to believe in creationism". I have learned two facts so far: First of all, there is no evidence of evolution. It is all guesswork. Secondly, it takes just as much faith to believe in the fairy tale of evolution as it does to believe in creationism. Evolution is a religion to the atheist. It requires them to believe in something that can't be proven.

[stanz]

O.K. doctor. You studied biochemistry and physiology and you're asking me what evolution has to do speciation? How does one study an organism without having knowledge of its relationships to other organisms and morphologic complexes...or its physiological adaptations over time? Most pre-med programs require physical anthropology and comparative anatomy or related courses somewhere along the line. At the heart of those curricula are the evolutionary processes which speak to not only where we are as a species, but from where we have come. I guess when we concentrate on making life-saving decisions, overcoming pathology, physiologic dysfunction and trauma that it's possible to be less interested in questions about our origins.That is as it should be. But, I cannot envision any biology program which does not operate within the framework of evolutionary thought.

BTW, no one I know ever got into into organic chemistry without pre-calculus and calculus pre-requisites and I gather, neither did you.

[Junior]

I am not sure how you would test the theory that macro changes (offspring of gill breathers having lungs, by mutation) are possible.

The lungs originated as the air bladder possessed by most fish. Fish that live in stagnant waters have developed a technique for gulping air at the surface by contraction of this air bladder to assist breathing. You can see this in goldfish, for instance. Lungfish have developed this even more and have functional lungs.

[Jim Noble]

BTW, no one I know ever got into into organic chemistry without pre-calculus and calculus pre-requisites and I gather, neither did you.,p>No, I didn't, either.

However, I am still puzzling, 35 years later, why I had to take calculus, and what it had to do with my premedical or medical studies.

AFAICS, nothing.

[spunkets]

The understanding the fundamentals of chemistry require calculus. Bonding bonding itself is due to minimized energy configurations which are only understood by arriving at the picture by the use of calculus. Understanding radiological methods and pathogen growth rates requires it.

[Stellar Dendrite]

an "intelligent" and "educated" individual would have responded, rather than dismissing with the copout: "i dont even know where to begin"....

if an individual were so "intelligent" and "educated" they would KNOW where to begin, rather than admitting confusion.

am i to assume that being "intelligent" and "educated", according to you does not allow an individual to be wrong?


your assertion that i'm a "creationist" was wrong. its' an assumption that an "intelligent" and "educated" individual would not make.

i do not subscribe to creationism, evolution, or any particular religious belief system.


i've always found that individuals (such as yourself) that insult others are projecting their own feelings of inferiority.

[Monti Cello]

Yes, but one doesn't need to genuflect before Darwin in the morning in order to conduct most biology.

I interact with many plant physiological ecologists and it's hard to get them to focus on timescales longer than a single day, or at most a single year.

Although the field rests on adaptation as a key explanatory mechanism for the amazing connections among plant morphologies, functions and environments, it's not required to conduct good research. Just checking my plant eco-phys text, adaptation is mentioned ONCE in the introduction. Then the meat of the discipline is laid out in exquisite detail without any further need for reference to evolution.

Inasmuch as science is a practice, as Jim Noble points out, macroevolution is not a particularly useful tool or concept for most as a practical matter, except those paleo-types who deal with population changes over long, long periods of time. To the rest who study cells, or organisms over shorter time periods, the macroevolutionary 'state' is simply a constant, and of little relevance except to philosophical discussions.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"A stellar dendrite perhaps, a stellar scholar - not in any way!"

what a "stellar" assumption. only the ignorant would make that assumption based on such a small data "sample".

is a "scholar" ever wrong? according to your post, an individual who you deem incorrect on an issue is NOT a scholar. i guarantee you've been wrong before, so according to your logic....you yourself are not a "scholar".

again, i find individuals like you and zulu who insult others are themselves projecting their own feelings of inferiority.

[Ben Chad]

I notice that you didn't get a response to your request.

[Ben Chad]

A steller post! Dud, you are funny.