Global Warning/Climate Change

[Ken]

There is also the type of evolution that does not touch on "monkey theory" and does not deny God and His Creation. Rather it is the simple process of adaptation to the environment, something that I believe is programmed into our complex organisms. It is this particular type adaptive change that Darwin was referencing.

Yet the textbook publishers took it to extremes with a primate hypothesis and tried to promote it as being Darwin's theory in order to sell their inventory to school districts. Thus the erroneous confusion and distortion of Darwin's theory has happened since. This is not the first time textbook publishers have conflated and distorted facts, neither will it be the last time. After all they have a profit to mind.

Humans are just one of over 8 million species on earth. Most HS biology textbooks spend very little time on human (or primate) evolution at all. That sort of thing tends to be covered more in college level paleoanthropology classes.

For example, neither human nor primate evolution is even covered in AP Biology which I taught this past year. Not even mentioned. This is the complete course outline for AP Biology which is the most common advanced HS biology course in the US. You will find no mention of human evolution: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/medi ... ance_0.pdf

Is that so? Is it common for a teacher to simply ignore the items that the course highlights as the "Big Ideas" that tie the course together?

Unit 7: Natural Selection (20–23 Class Periods) CR2
Big Ideas: 1,4
Enduring Understandings:
ƒ EVO-1. Evolution is characterized by a change in the genetic makeup of a population
over time and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
ƒ EVO-2. Organisms are linked by lines of descent from common ancestry.
ƒ EVO-3. Life continues to evolve within a changing environment.
ƒ SYI-3. Natural occurring diversity among and between components within biological
systems affects interactions with the environment.
Textbook Chapter Resource:
22. Descent with Modification: A Darwinian View of Life
23. The Evolution of Populations
24. The Origin of Species
25. The History of Life on Earth
26. Phylogeny and the Tree of Life

Examples of Activities:
1. Students will complete a modeling activity titled Investigating Common Descent.
They will first hypothesize a morphological tree of interrelatedness of a gorilla,
chimpanzee, and human. Using colored paper clips, students will work in groups
of four to “synthesize” strands of DNA of all three organisms, including a “common
ancestor.” They will use their models to test hypotheses and, using graphs, determine
which one is best supported by data. In addition, students will explore the impact of a
nucleotide substitution mutation on the outcome of the relatedness of the organisms.
(Science Practices 2, 4, 6) CR5 CR7 CR9

Yes, that is actually so.

Human evolution as in the evolutionary history of humans going back through the fossil record is not covered in AP Biology or most other HS biology curriculums such as the NGSS standards (which is basically common core for sciences and has been adopted by about 20 states). So no Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. And none of this stuff. In fact not one bit of it: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/human-evolution.html

That is not to say that human examples won't pop up here and there in every part of the course from cell biology to genetics and yes, molecular evolution and phylogenetic trees as in the example above. Humans are not written out of biology. As in the example above, you can use DNA sequencing to examine the relationships between any two species or any groups of species including humans. And you might find that humans share about 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees and about 95% with bottlenose dolphins. Or you can do the same thing with dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Or in one lab commonly used in AP classes that I used this year, anole lizards in the Caribbean: https://www.biointeractive.org/classroo ... irtual-lab The skill and topic being taught is how to use DNA sequencing to build phylogenetic trees. The topic isn't human evolution.

In any event, this is getting way off topic from climate change. If you want to talk more about evolution feel free to start a new thread.

[ken_sylvania]

Humans are just one of over 8 million species on earth. Most HS biology textbooks spend very little time on human (or primate) evolution at all. That sort of thing tends to be covered more in college level paleoanthropology classes.

For example, neither human nor primate evolution is even covered in AP Biology which I taught this past year. Not even mentioned. This is the complete course outline for AP Biology which is the most common advanced HS biology course in the US. You will find no mention of human evolution: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/medi ... ance_0.pdf

Is that so? Is it common for a teacher to simply ignore the items that the course highlights as the "Big Ideas" that tie the course together?

Unit 7: Natural Selection (20–23 Class Periods) CR2
Big Ideas: 1,4
Enduring Understandings:
ƒ EVO-1. Evolution is characterized by a change in the genetic makeup of a population
over time and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
ƒ EVO-2. Organisms are linked by lines of descent from common ancestry.
ƒ EVO-3. Life continues to evolve within a changing environment.
ƒ SYI-3. Natural occurring diversity among and between components within biological
systems affects interactions with the environment.
Textbook Chapter Resource:
22. Descent with Modification: A Darwinian View of Life
23. The Evolution of Populations
24. The Origin of Species
25. The History of Life on Earth
26. Phylogeny and the Tree of Life

Examples of Activities:
1. Students will complete a modeling activity titled Investigating Common Descent.
They will first hypothesize a morphological tree of interrelatedness of a gorilla,
chimpanzee, and human. Using colored paper clips, students will work in groups
of four to “synthesize” strands of DNA of all three organisms, including a “common
ancestor.” They will use their models to test hypotheses and, using graphs, determine
which one is best supported by data. In addition, students will explore the impact of a
nucleotide substitution mutation on the outcome of the relatedness of the organisms.
(Science Practices 2, 4, 6) CR5 CR7 CR9

Yes, that is actually so.

Human evolution as in the evolutionary history of humans going back through the fossil record is not covered in AP Biology or most other HS biology curriculums such as the NGSS standards (which is basically common core for sciences and has been adopted by about 20 states). So no Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. And none of this stuff. In fact not one bit of it: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/human-evolution.html

That is not to say that human examples won't pop up here and there in every part of the course from cell biology to genetics and yes, molecular evolution and phylogenetic trees as in the example above. Humans are not written out of biology. As in the example above, you can use DNA sequencing to examine the relationships between any two species or any groups of species including humans. And you might find that humans share about 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees and about 95% with bottlenose dolphins. Or you can do the same thing with dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Or in one lab commonly used in AP classes that I used this year, anole lizards in the Caribbean: https://www.biointeractive.org/classroo ... irtual-lab The skill and topic being taught is how to use DNA sequencing to build phylogenetic trees. The topic isn't human evolution.

In any event, this is getting way off topic from climate change. If you want to talk more about evolution feel free to start a new thread.

I have no interest in a discussion about evolution. I was just pointing out that your statement (that neither human nor primate evolution is mentioned in AP Biology) is false. And it is. Because human and primate evolution is mentioned in the AP Biology course.

[Soloist]

There is also the type of evolution that does not touch on "monkey theory" and does not deny God and His Creation. Rather it is the simple process of adaptation to the environment, something that I believe is programmed into our complex organisms. It is this particular type adaptive change that Darwin was referencing.

Yet the textbook publishers took it to extremes with a primate hypothesis and tried to promote it as being Darwin's theory in order to sell their inventory to school districts. Thus the erroneous confusion and distortion of Darwin's theory has happened since. This is not the first time textbook publishers have conflated and distorted facts, neither will it be the last time. After all they have a profit to mind.

Have you actually read “The Origin of Species”?

He observed micro changes and gave a hypothesis that macro changes were possible. The theory of evolution was never about a beak changing a little. The theory that Darwin himself wrote about was about major changes and modern science has built on this idea.

No Christian would argue against simple adaptation such as dogs being selectively bred for certain traits. Arguing that a dog could become a different species is a different argument.

[MaxPC]

... evolution is a false man made theory that denies that God created the earth and created man. The fact the “secular world” doesn’t deny this simply proves they have an anti-Bible agenda.

There is also the type of evolution that does not touch on "monkey theory" and does not deny God and His Creation. Rather it is the simple process of adaptation to the environment, something that I believe is programmed into our complex organisms. It is this particular type adaptive change that Darwin was referencing.

Yet the textbook publishers took it to extremes with a primate hypothesis and tried to promote it as being Darwin's theory in order to sell their inventory to school districts. Thus the erroneous confusion and distortion of Darwin's theory has happened since. This is not the first time textbook publishers have conflated and distorted facts, neither will it be the last time. After all they have a profit to mind.

I would like to state that this is your perspective and opinion. You are welcome to have it and others are welcome to have theirs. We do not need to tell someone they are wrong, just state our perspectives and move on.

I am not saying I disagree, just using this as an example of how we can have differing perspectives and not have to hit each other over the heads.

It was not my intent of hitting Josh over the head and I apologise if he took it that way. Thus the problem of late night posting. I was simply offering some historical insight into the conflation of Darwin with the primate extremism in evolution supporters by those seeking to push a radical idea; not unlike the extremism in other science disciplines we see today.

Darwin himself did not propose this notion as relative to humans but rather to other species. In his Descent of Man, Darwin pointed out the similarities between birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles and suggested that all life is related. He did not however push that man is directly descended from primates.

[Josh]

I can do you one better. How about Brasilodon quadrangularis which dates back to the Triassic and is a possible common ancestor of all mammals. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/pres ... cords.html Or the first vertebrates that emerged in the Precambrian: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fir ... tal-waters

I said “most recent”, not “most distant”. In other words, there aren’t intermediate forms or apparent ancestors between chimpanzees and humans at all.

In any event, the existence or lack of a fossil record isn't evidence of anything in particular. By some estimates, up to 99% of all species that have ever lived have left no fossil record. And we only actually have fossil records for about 10% of current species. Which only indicates how rarely the perfect conditions exist for fossilization. Only an infinitesimally small percentage of organisms that die leave a fossil behind. And we have only excavated an infinitesimally small percentage of the earth's crust to look for fossils.

If 99% of the evidence for something is missing, it is safe to say we have no certainty it happened at all. Much like “Global Warming”, the evidence is missing.

But again, if you want to educate yourself about evolutionary theory, find a textbook. I don't have the time or energy to do it for you.

I’m well aware of what is in textbooks.

I am simply opening the discussion that much of what I feel you claim is “settled science” in fact has no evidence at all.

[MaxPC]

I’m well aware of what is in textbooks.

I am simply opening the discussion that much of what I feel you claim is “settled science” in fact has no evidence at all.

Indeed and I agree. The notion of "settled science" is exemplary of a misunderstanding in how scientific method works. First there is hypothesis; then theory; then if consistent data is achieved through proper studies, it can be named a Law.

The only "settled science" has been classified as a "Law" as in the "Law of Gravity". Yet even then there is some leeway given for further modifications of that Law as new data emerges. One such example of modifications to a scientific law is that data that is coming from deep space observations using the James Webb and other space-based telescopes. Some fascinating bits coming from those efforts, I must say.

Lastly, as I mentioned before, school textbooks are not always the best references for good information. Some are quite poor in their editing and information. Publishers of texts are seeking customers not accuracy. I prefer reading the dedicated scientific journals of a given discipline.

[Josh]

Back on the topic of AGW, there really isn’t much data or “law” to refer to. We really don’t know what the impact is of burning lots of fossil fuels.

Likewise, our current science can’t explain why the universe is allegedly mostly made of dark matter and dark energy, or why the evolutionary tree of life (family tree) has so many intermediate forms that we have zero fossil or otherwise record of.

[Ken]

I’m well aware of what is in textbooks.

I am simply opening the discussion that much of what I feel you claim is “settled science” in fact has no evidence at all.

Indeed and I agree. The notion of "settled science" is exemplary of a misunderstanding in how scientific method works. First there is hypothesis; then theory; then if consistent data is achieved through proper studies, it can be named a Law.

The only "settled science" has been classified as a "Law" as in the "Law of Gravity". Yet even then there is some leeway given for further modifications of that Law as new data emerges. One such example of modifications to a scientific law is that data that is coming from deep space observations using the James Webb and other space-based telescopes. Some fascinating bits coming from those efforts, I must say.

Lastly, as I mentioned before, school textbooks are not always the best references for good information. Some are quite poor in their editing and information. Publishers of texts are seeking customers not accuracy. I prefer reading the dedicated scientific journals of a given discipline.

This is actually not true. Scientific ideas do not mature from hypotheses to become theories and then finally graduate to become laws. In science, laws and theories are two completely different things:

A scientific law is simply an observation about the natural world that seems to be consistently true. There is not necessarily any explanation of the WHY behind a scientific law, it is simply an observed relationship in nature, often expressed as a mathematical formula. The law of conservation of matter, the law of conservation of energy, Newton's laws of motion. Ohm's law, etc.

A scientific theory is an explanation that proposes WHY something happens, or why a relationship exists in nature. So, for example, the germ theory of disease, atomic theory of matter, quantum theory, theory of plate tectonics in geology, cell theory in biology, and the central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins. And yes, the theory of evolution by natural selection. None of those are going to graduate up to become "laws" simply because there is enough data to support them. Because they are explanations rather than observations.

As for gravity? Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation simply expresses the mathematical relationship of the attraction between any to objects based on their masses and the distance between them. It provides the math behind how an apple falls from a tree, how the tides rise and fall, and how the moon orbits the earth. But it doesn't actually explain WHY those things happen. Newton had no idea why, and we still don't completely understand the WHY behind the universal gravitational force. Einstein suggested in his general theory of relativity that the shape of spacetime is what gives rise to the force we experience as gravity. That the reason WHY gravity pulls you toward the ground is that all objects with mass, like our Earth, actually bend and curve the fabric of the universe, called spacetime. That curvature is what you feel as gravity. But we still do not understand much of the WHY behind gravity.

[Soloist]

central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins.

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

[Ken]

central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins.

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.