Kids avoiding science because of Evolution debate

[JUGGERNAUT]

You are flat out wrong when you say that genetics is bottom-up which makes me question the courses you have taken. As I have stated earlier I am entrenched in computer science & in the particular field I am working now we are equally entrenched in studying biological processes as we attempt to mimic them for applications in the computer world.

 

I have written code specific to the application of genetic code deciphering so I have a fairly good understanding of the mathematics behind it. That work is predicated on using the most basic codes found in all life (including single celled organisms & branching down from there). All tree structures are top-down in design & that is the predominant data structure for this work.

 

Any process has an inheriant function of probability to it. That's the basis of state machines, petri-nets, & various other intelligent networks we use in computer science to build process oriented systems. That is not the problem with natural selection. Since you seem confused I will try & explain it again.

 

Because of genetics we now have the ability to use mathematics to not only trace the past generations of the evolution of a sequence but also to predict the future evolution of that sequence. Now that science is far from perfect at this stage but with each generational level increase in hardware capabilities the computer industry affords us the work is progressing rapidly. That produces not only data on the probability of change during that evolution but also the time it takes for that change.

 

That which we know for certain matches up. All of which biologists theorize does not. There are 3 prevailing areas of genetic science that conflict with natural selection.

 

1- dormant genes : Natural selection tells us that life in an effort to surive will change over several generations. But what if genetics tells us that those very characteristics were present in such life generations before that change occured? Genetic science has proven that dormant genes are a reality & they do not just reflect characteristics that are outdated for the species.

 

2- rapid change : There is evidence surfacing even today that some change is occuring at a rapid rate. Not over generations but decades. Check out sciencedaily.com if you are interested in the details of these cases. I recently read one relating to fish that was observed in the 60's & then later observed in the 90's & had evolved in less than a 25 yr period. The thing about this case is that there was no severe climate change or predatorial change that would suggest the fish needed to evolve in that way.

 

3 - mismatch time data : It's not happening all the time but every now & then data surfaces from geneticists that contradicts the theories of biologists as too how much time it took for a species to evolve in a certain way.

 

Again you can visit sciencedaily.com if you are interested in the specifics.

 

But the thread clearly shows a difference of opinion in how science is taught & I have to strongly disagree with some of you in that regards. Today's science-fiction is tomorrow's science. This has been proven time & again in the last 200 yrs. It's a belief that was shared from the most famous science fiction novelists of all time that probably have a better knowledgebase for general science then most of us. It's also a belief that was shared by Einstein himself.

 

If you are interested in reading the correlation between the two I can point you to some very good links.

 

My point is this. Mathematics is the only real truth in science. If the math behind a theory is sound then no one can dispute it. You can still question it especially when observation may not neccessarily match the math but you can't disregard it or discredit it.

 

Teaching by example (or analysis) is a good thing. In the world of tomorrow genetics will play a much greater role in our lives than biologists studying natural selection. Not only will we have the ability to clone endangered species but also control our environment to some extent. What is fiction about this is the applications that exist today. The basis is rooted in facts or the building blocks of what we have today. If you think nano-machines will only be used to prolong the life of our human bodies you haven't read enough. Before this century is over on some scale they will be at work in the air we breathe, the water we drink, & the food we eat.

 

My theory of teaching is you let students figure things out for themselves.

Your job is to give them a good solid general knowledgebase to do so. That means leaving few stones unturned. Whether a student chooses to belief that life is the result of God's intellligence at work or simply chaos & natural selection is up to them. They might even come to the conclusion it's a little bit of both. In teaching them science it matter's not. What matters most is teaching them the details. That applies to any theory. For every prevailing theory a science teacher should teach at least one other predominant theory that highlights the weaknesses of the prevailing one.

In the case of natural selection ID would be that theory.

 

Like any argument a theory's strength & weaknesses lie in it's premises. I will always choose facts rooted in mathematics over suppositions offered by humans.

Humans are biased. Even in the fields of science. It can't be helped. It's a foundation for our ego's to cling to that which we believe to be right & discredit anything else. You have to develop discipline to combat against this. In doing so you will lose some of your humanity. I've been accused as such. Some family friends think that I am so diverse & so open to so many things that there is no real definition to myself beyond that. There is little room for bias in my life.

 

I choose to believe in God because of the logical & mathematical relationships that support that belief. It's got nothing to do with my family, friends, or anything I learned at bible school when I was younger. If I had been born in an atheist family I would more than likely still chosen this belief. I do not blindly choose it. I have read books authored by atheists to convince me otherwise. But I've yet to find one who can present a more convincing argument rooted in logic & math that is better than my own.

 

This debate is not unlike the unified theory one that wages in world of physics today. Hawking still believes it exist. Many scientists have put forth their own UT's. But not one has endured the most highest scrutiny of the mathematics supporting these theories. A weakness always pops up when analyzing the correlations of the UT as it applies to waves, particles, & such.

 

Does that mean there is no merit in teaching the most prevailing UT? Some of you obviously think there isn't but people like myself believe there most definitely is. I try to keep the youngling's in my life aware of such things to reinforce the rudimentary concepts behind them. There is great merit in teaching the most prevailing UT because students get a much greater understanding of the entire world of physics in doing so. I take the same attitude with natural selection. That which we learn in the study of genetics only reinforces our understanding of natural selection.

Edited June 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Soxy]

You are flat out wrong when you say that genetics is bottom-up which makes me question the courses you have taken.  As I have stated earlier I am entrenched in computer science & in the particular field I am working now we are equally entrenched in studying biological processes as we attempt to mimic them for applications in the computer world.

Computer modelling does not equal actual biological systems and why they occur. No way no how.

 

Looking at some of the modelling techniques (McCullough Pitts neuron, neuromodelling, etc) there just isn't a good correspondance to nature. Not to mention success rate is pretty low, and the moderate success for modeling has come with extremely simple tasks that don't correlate well to humans. Sorry, but that is a completely different field.

Edited June 8, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[Wong & Owens]

My head just exploded. I think I'll go check out the "Hot Chick 2003 Contest" thread.

[southsider2k5]

[JUGGERNAUT]

Today's Sun-Times Metro section pg 12 has a revolutionary story.

Based on research out of U. of C. Bruce Lahn claims natural selection is not as simple a process as Darwin first thought & most evolutionists believe.

 

The title is "Revolution in Evolutionary Theory". Apparently there is order & discipline going on in the selection process for mutations. Imagine that an intelligence behnd natural selection itself.

 

I can't find a link to the article on the web so you will have to check out U. of C. yourself to read more.

http://www.uchospitals.edu/

 

In effort to find the article I found an even better source at sciencedaily.com. Do a search on Bruce Lahn there & you will get some very interesting articles.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50111170714.htm

Humans Are A 'Privileged' Evolutionary Lineage

 

"The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented," Lahn said. "Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keywor...&sort=relevance

[FlaSoxxJim]

You are flat out wrong when you say that genetics is bottom-up...

 

I said that Intelligent Design is a bottom-up argument. A person observes an amazingly complex and ordered living system and reasons that it had to be the result of rational design and therefore invokes some "undefined" agent of rational design. Or, the agent of design has a vision for the complexity of a system as envisioned a few billion years down the line and begins on a dircted path toward that end goal. Either way it's too much teleology for my taste.

Edited June 9, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[Nokona]

Scienes is teh dum.