Vibr8gKiwi

Neat idea. Challenge them to find a talking snake.

sciteach

scigirl--I donot think science is anathema to theistic belief at all-- I am not at all scared of science and embrace it in all its forms if it truly an open-minded search for knowledge and admitting new paradigms andideas. Unfortunately, ID cannot prove,nor can any material endeavor prove the existence of anything supernatural,we just feel it and no amount of your data will prove otherwise. We dont think that God has anything against using evolution for His purposes but that He just speeded creation up by the factorof a thousand or so! The theory of evilution does not disprove God, it is just a stout bulwark for those who are already predisposed not to believe in a divine authority. This is what I meant by data doesnt convince, it just deepens already held convictions on both sides of the fence.

Peez

Then you should learn more. You owe it to your students to learn about it before you try to teach it to them. I would also recommend that if you "know little about it", then you should be more receptive to the opinions of those who know a great deal about it. Of course you should not blindly accept every word of a qualified expert, but you should at least regard your own views with suspicion when a qualified expert tells you that you are wrong. It evolved from simpler ancestors. Others have answered this in more detail already, but it is instructive that you do not seem to have done any reading on this yourself. It was, until scientific tests were conducted. Given that you "know little about it", how do you know this? It is not. As scientific as it can be. The hypothesis that eukaryotes evolved from simpler ancestors, in particular involving the endosymbiosis of prokaryotes, is empirically testable and has been so tested. I don't know what you mean by "a sure thing", but NOTHING in science is a sure thing. No, I would say that is the hypothesis that scientists studying this topic have agreed on. They agree on it because the evidence supports that conclusion. Salts? I guess so, but that is a curious description. I highly recommend that you learn some biology before embarking on this teaching assignment. Why would the pace of evolution increase, and how is this relevant? Please explain the thermodynamics here, that is: please explain how much heat energy would be estimated to be released by these events, and relate this to the temperature on this planet under the prevailing conditions. Then explain how hot it must be before protein chains could not be stable. Huh? What "rules", and whose are they? It should be fairly obvious that scientists do think that 500 million years was enough. If you think otherwise, please explain. Although you "know little about it", biologists know a great deal about it (including what makes up a bacterial cell). Note that modern bacteria have been evolving for about 3.5 billion years. By the way, please do not teach your students that bacterial cells have organelles (they don't). You have already told us that you "know litle about it", so this is not surprising. Scientists consider evOlution a fact, because of the scientific evidence that supports it. Of course not. Creationism could not possibly be disproven, whether it was true or not. That is why it is not science. As I explained, NOTHING can be proved beyond all doubt in science, but that does not mean that we cannot accept certain things as facts. Please look up "theory" in a dictionary, and then consult a good introductory science text book. Note that a "theory" in science is not particularly tentative. That being said, there is a theory of evolution, but there is also a fact of evolution. If you are going to teach this topic, you should be familiar with both. The fact of evolution has been established with millions of fossils, but that is not all. The fossil evdience on its own is compelling, but even without it the DNA evidence would be plenty to establish the common descent of living things as a fact. Then there is biogeography, homologies, analogies, vestigial structures, etc. No, you have already made up your mind. The evidence is obviously irrelevant to you. In any event you are being exceedingly arrogant to have made your decision with such certainty when you still knwo "little about it". Except that there are thousands of other entirely equal ways to do it, and in any event the "design" is not very good. Perhaps that is because you are hard to take seriously. From your posts it would not be difficult to come to the conclusion that you are an "evolutionist" who is pretending to be a creationist to make creationists look bad. Of course I cannot say one way or the other, but I have tried to answer on the assumption that you are as you present yourself. What questions remain unanswered? Doubtless she will be along when she has time. I have to agree with Albion there. You would be a lot more credible if you spelled evolution correctly. As it happend, I did not see you say before that you would teach creationism as an alternative to evOlution. That is like teaching astrology as an alternative to astronomy. Don't forget to include the many versions of creationism, if you want to be "fair". While you are at it, include the four "humours" of the body, vitalism, Lamarkian evolution, the four "elements" of alchemists, etc. Really well, not "real good". Are you sure you are a teacher? But by all means send them here.

Peez

Dr Rick

Your entitled to your "feelings," but teaching your feelings as science is a terrible disservice to your students.

Rick

lpetrich

First, 500 million years is an enormous amount of time -- it's about the time from the present to the early Paleozoic. Our ancestors were jawless protofish back then.

And as to how the DNA -> RNA -> protein system got started, there is a hypothesis known as the "RNA world" that posits a much simpler earlier system: RNA both made copies of itself and acted as an enzyme.

But this RNA acquired a taste for using other molecules as helpers or cofactors, and some of these cofactors were amino acids. These cofactors eventually became well-developed enough for the RNA to drop away in many cases, which is why most present-day enzymes are proteins and not RNA.

Also, DNA emerged as a modification of RNA for master-copy duty.

This leaves open the origin of the RNA world, however, but that's no big disaster.

Various metabolic processes were developed as ways of extracting energy and of constructing biological molecules. Thus, an early organism that tends to eat up some relatively complicated molecule would have selection pressure for assembling it from some simpler molecules.

Cell membrane? That's rather trivial; it's something like a soap bubble in water. Though what is not so trivial is transport of materials across it. An early cell membrane may have had pores in it that can allow small molecules to enter and exit, but not large ones, like genetic material and enzymes; their descendants could then construct fancier pores that would let only certain molecules through.

Albion

What have you asked me that I haven't answered?

You started this thread by saying that you didn't know much about biology but were having to teach it to high schoolers. You then proceeded to make a whole lot of misstatements about the state of science research - "this hasn't been researched," " that hasn't been researched," "it's all just speculation," "it's all just conjecture," "you evilutionists have been sold a bill of goods, har har," and yet WE'RE the ones who know about science, YOU aren't - by your own admission. And the fact that you aren't even interested in doing anyting to find out, other than cutting-and-pasting from creationist sites, whose science you won't understand since you said you don't know much about it, shows that this whole thread was a total sham. You don't want to know about evolution or about science research, you want to let us know you're about to indoctrinate a school full of kids. Well, if that's a public school and you teach creationism, you deserve to get into a lot of trouble for it.

I still don't know why you think evolution has anything to do with denying God.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Abacus

FYI, it is evolution, not evilution. For the sake of your own credibility, please spell it correctly. Unless of course, you are a raving fundy (which I'm starting to suspect), and the misspelling was intentional.

RufusAtticus

That's because as you admitted you are completely ignorant about biology. If you really had and interest in education, you'd learn biology from biologists and not the pulpit.


How do you know this if you are ignorant about biology?

Influenza and HIV really show off the grandeur of you "Creator."

Then how do you explain how His "designs" are arranged in a bifurcating hierarchy relatively independent of niche and function.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Albion

Of course it was. This request for information about genuine questions lasted for precisely one question.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

scigirl

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

This is exactly why it shouldn't be in a science class!

By the way, I, as a MODERATOR of this board, find your use of the term evilution to be highly offensive, and politely request that you stop using it immediately.

Thank you,

scigirl