Evidence for Evolution

[AndersonD]

Nonsense. The analogy was the one that you provided - comparing DNA to letters of the alphabet. Evolution's claim is, essentially, that random changes can happen in the DNA that add information and improve the coded instructions. And that if this happens often enough, instead of instructions on how to make a single-cell organism it turns into instructions on how to make a human being.

No, that absolutely is NOT the claim or premise of evolution by natural selection. There is nothing random about it.

Ken, I have a wonderful public library at my disposal. When you have a chance, can you please post a pic of your biology textbook that you teach from?

Also, what do you think of Stephen Meyer?

[Ken]

Nonsense. The analogy was the one that you provided - comparing DNA to letters of the alphabet. Evolution's claim is, essentially, that random changes can happen in the DNA that add information and improve the coded instructions. And that if this happens often enough, instead of instructions on how to make a single-cell organism it turns into instructions on how to make a human being.

No, that absolutely is NOT the claim or premise of evolution by natural selection. There is nothing random about it.

Really? You're claiming that mutations are not random?

Mutations can be random. But natural selection isn't a random process. I edited my response above to explain.

[Ken]

Nonsense. The analogy was the one that you provided - comparing DNA to letters of the alphabet. Evolution's claim is, essentially, that random changes can happen in the DNA that add information and improve the coded instructions. And that if this happens often enough, instead of instructions on how to make a single-cell organism it turns into instructions on how to make a human being.

No, that absolutely is NOT the claim or premise of evolution by natural selection. There is nothing random about it.

Ken, I have a wonderful public library at my disposal. When you have a chance, can you please post a pic of your biology textbook that you teach from?

Also, what do you think of Stephen Meyer?

This is the one we currently have. It isn't actually very good. Not nearly as good as others I have used. I don't much teach out of it but rather mostly just use it as a course outline and reference text. We only use it about 5% of the time in class. I also skip various sections due to time constraints and because some chapters are not as relevant as others to our state standards. https://www.mheducation.com/prek-12/pro ... L22M0.html



For AP Biology we have this text but we use it even less because the entire AP Bio curriculum is online via the College Board and there are so many other good resources https://www.savvas.com/solutions/ap-hon ... ll-biology We mostly just use it for occasional background reading.

[ken_sylvania]

No, that absolutely is NOT the claim or premise of evolution by natural selection. There is nothing random about it.

Really? You're claiming that mutations are not random?

Mutations can be random. But natural selection isn't a random process. I edited my response above to explain.

Exactly. And what eveolution asks us to believe, is that a random change can happen to the text of a book that will improve it such that the changed version is what will be copied more often than the original. Rinse, repeat several million times, and behold, a college level textbook on treatment of traumatic brain injury.

[AndersonD]

No, that absolutely is NOT the claim or premise of evolution by natural selection. There is nothing random about it.

Ken, I have a wonderful public library at my disposal. When you have a chance, can you please post a pic of your biology textbook that you teach from?

Also, what do you think of Stephen Meyer?

This is the one we currently have. It isn't actually very good. Not nearly as good as others I have used. I don't much teach out of it but rather mostly just use it as a course outline and reference text. We only use it about 5% of the time in class. I also skip various sections due to time constraints and because some chapters are not as relevant as others to our state standards. https://www.mheducation.com/prek-12/pro ... L22M0.html



For AP Biology we have this text but we use it even less because the entire AP Bio curriculum is online via the College Board and there are so many other good resources https://www.savvas.com/solutions/ap-hon ... ll-biology

Thank you, Ken.

[Ken]

Really? You're claiming that mutations are not random?

Mutations can be random. But natural selection isn't a random process. I edited my response above to explain.

Exactly. And what eveolution asks us to believe, is that a random change can happen to the text of a book that will improve it such that the changed version is what will be copied more often than the original. Rinse, repeat several million times, and behold, a college level textbook on treatment of traumatic brain injury.

Evolution doesn't imply that something is better, more developed, or improved. Simply that it is more adapted to its particular environment. Nor is there any plan or end point.

So, for example, if there is an ancestral bear species that spreads across North America you would expect those bear populations that habit the far arctic will evolve traits that make them more successful in that environment (white fur to better camouflage them when hunting seals on white ice sheets, wider paws which are better for swimming in artic seas, smaller heads which are better for penetrating seal blow holes, and longer sharper teeth as they are 100% carnivorous). Likewise, you would expect those bears that habit more temperate climates to develop (evolve) adaptations that make them more successful in those habitats (brown fur for better camouflage in mountains and forests, blunter teeth because they are more omnivorous, etc.)

Does that mean that polar bears are more evolved or more advanced or better than grizzly bears? Absolutely not. The two species have simply evolved differently in response to different selective influences. One is not better or more advanced than the other. And if we see a long period of global warming where the arctic is ice free then one would expect that polar bears will either adapt over time or be replaced by grizzly bears. Either one could happen. Likewise, if we saw a new ice age and glaciers once again covered north America then we would expect polar bears to expand and grizzly bears either adapt or be replaced.

[temporal1]

Why am I hungry for bananas ?

Bananas should be turning into monkeys to avoid being consumed,
seals should evolve into polar bears, etc.

[Ken]

Thank you, Ken.

The thing to understand about textbooks is that teachers tend not to use them very much anymore. The Inspire series is what my school district adopted and bought a few years ago for all the schools here (we have 6 high schools). But many teachers don't even use it anymore and are shifting to an online curriculum being developed in this region called Patterns Science. It is online in the sense that all the curriculum materials are online and open source rather than provided through textbook companies. But it is still intended to be used in traditional class settings rather than via distance learning: https://sites.google.com/beaverton.k12.or.us/patterns/

I'm not using it this year because I'm old and set in my ways and it is still in beta form and being field tested. But most of young teachers have switched over to it. I mostly use the Inspire Textbooks as a course outline and for when kids need online assignments if they are out sick for extended periods of time (they have online access to the textbook). But that is about all I use it for.

What I actually use a lot is the HHMI Bioactive web site: https://www.biointeractive.org/ which is a very high quality online curriculum put out by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. When Howard Hughes died he left many hundreds of millions to medical research and science education and the HHMI Biointeractive site is one result of that. Teachers around the world use it and all the resources are free.

So, for example, if my textbook course outline tells me that I am on lesson 7.1 on cell structure and function I might look to see if HHMI has better material than the textbook to cover that subject and will find all of these resources and decide that one is better than what the textbook has to offer: https://www.biointeractive.org/classroo ... opics%3A35

[ken_sylvania]

Mutations can be random. But natural selection isn't a random process. I edited my response above to explain.

Exactly. And what eveolution asks us to believe, is that a random change can happen to the text of a book that will improve it such that the changed version is what will be copied more often than the original. Rinse, repeat several million times, and behold, a college level textbook on treatment of traumatic brain injury.

Evolution doesn't imply that something is better, more developed, or improved. Simply that it is more adapted to its particular environment. Nor is there any plan or end point.

So, for example, if there is an ancestral bear species that spreads across North America you would expect those bear populations that habit the far arctic will evolve traits that make them more successful in that environment (white fur to better camouflage them when hunting seals on white ice sheets, wider paws which are better for swimming in artic seas, smaller heads which are better for penetrating seal blow holes, and longer sharper teeth as they are 100% carnivorous). Likewise, you would expect those bears that habit more temperate climates to develop (evolve) adaptations that make them more successful in those habitats (brown fur for better camouflage in mountains and forests, blunter teeth because they are more omnivorous, etc.)

Does that mean that polar bears are more evolved or more advanced or better than grizzly bears? Absolutely not. The two species have simply evolved differently in response to different selective influences. One is not better or more advanced than the other. And if we see a long period of global warming where the arctic is ice free then one would expect that polar bears will either adapt over time or be replaced by grizzly bears. Either one could happen. Likewise, if we saw a new ice age and glaciers once again covered north America then we would expect polar bears to expand and grizzly bears either adapt or be replaced.

Are humans a more advanced species than the single-celled organisms that people imagine were the first life forms to evolved from dead matter?

[Ken]

Exactly. And what eveolution asks us to believe, is that a random change can happen to the text of a book that will improve it such that the changed version is what will be copied more often than the original. Rinse, repeat several million times, and behold, a college level textbook on treatment of traumatic brain injury.

Evolution doesn't imply that something is better, more developed, or improved. Simply that it is more adapted to its particular environment. Nor is there any plan or end point.

So, for example, if there is an ancestral bear species that spreads across North America you would expect those bear populations that habit the far arctic will evolve traits that make them more successful in that environment (white fur to better camouflage them when hunting seals on white ice sheets, wider paws which are better for swimming in artic seas, smaller heads which are better for penetrating seal blow holes, and longer sharper teeth as they are 100% carnivorous). Likewise, you would expect those bears that habit more temperate climates to develop (evolve) adaptations that make them more successful in those habitats (brown fur for better camouflage in mountains and forests, blunter teeth because they are more omnivorous, etc.)

Does that mean that polar bears are more evolved or more advanced or better than grizzly bears? Absolutely not. The two species have simply evolved differently in response to different selective influences. One is not better or more advanced than the other. And if we see a long period of global warming where the arctic is ice free then one would expect that polar bears will either adapt over time or be replaced by grizzly bears. Either one could happen. Likewise, if we saw a new ice age and glaciers once again covered north America then we would expect polar bears to expand and grizzly bears either adapt or be replaced.

Are humans a more advanced species than the single-celled organisms that people imagine were the first life forms to evolved from dead matter?

They are more complex. That's certainly true. But the term "advanced" is not a term you would use in this context in biology.