I'm doing a presntation on the controversy about teaching Darwin's theory in American school's. Can anyone recomend me any good book's, websides or articles on the subject?
shareAbusing Science by Philip Kitcher is a great book.
THE MARQUIS: HES IN UR PRISONS, RITIN TEH SMUTFIC
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is a look at the Creation-Evolution controversy--maybe a good place for background info, and in-depth knowledge of creationism's short-comings.
shareIt has been noted that "The Blind Watchmaker" is not an accurate title. The actions of a blind watchmaker would be intentional. It has been suggested that a better title would have been "The Unconscious Watchmaker".
share"The Blind Watchmaker" is a metaphor for evolution. It might seem designed to some people because life is complicated, but evolution explains it pretty well. You know, the whole mountains of evidence and such. Just sayin'.
shareA good evolutionist debunker is
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_16.htm
A good creationism debunker is a brain.
share"A good creationism debunker is a brain. "
Aw shucks, we were sure some evolutionist would see some humor at
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_16.htm
For example, we learn:
1) Concerning the theory that human embryos have "gill slits" -
"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form."
With human "gill slits" still being taught 93 years later at public expense shows evolution continuing with its own mindless energy.
Anyone who wants to know what pharyngeal arches are can find out at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngeal_arches
2)The vestiges argument was one of the few "scientific evidences" the evolutionists were able to present at the 1925 Scopes Trial. *Newman, a zoologist, made this statement on the witness stand for the defense:
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."—*Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268.
3) One final laugh -
All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggs—while one of them, the Nectophrymoldes occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta, a yolk sac, and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humans or vice-versa—or what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos. (Another frog is a marsupial.)
Your website is full of falsehoods my friend. Many organs have gone from being classified as vestigial to being classified as useful, that much is true. I read the paragraph about interior ear muscles still being necessary, and I will believe that on faith, however this does not explain the muscles that can wiggle a person's ears. How do you explain this? It is clearly no longer useful, but it once was when our evolutionary ancestors needed to hear their surrounding and avoid predators. Explain why humans would have that muscle. Here is a link providing information about that specific muscle and another link with information about the evolutionary purposes of the muscle.
http://www.wonderquest.com/ears-wiggle.htm
http://lo.karloba.at/postcomments-tid-2869.htm
Also how do you explain the drastic changes in the flu year after year besides with evolution. There is a real-time example of evolution in action.
Like a monkey ready to be shot into space...
Based on my own experience, ear muscles are used subconsciously in situations like being outdoors on a dark night and hearing sounds of a possible threat. This alert response would be useful for people alone in the wild, as our first two ancestors were.
My search on virus evolution tells us there are two mechanisms:
Gene reassortment
There is an evolutionary advantage in having a segmented genome. Different strains of a virus with a segmented genome, from a pig or a bird or a human for example, such as Influenza virus, can shuffle and combine with other genes producing progeny viruses or (offspring) that have unique characteristics. This is called reassortment or viral sex.[38] This is one reason why Influenza virus constantly changes.
Genetic recombination
Genetic recombination is the process by which a strand of DNA is broken and then joined to the end of a different DNA molecule. This can occur when viruses infect cells simultaneously and studies of viral evolution have shown that recombination has been rampant in the species studied.[40] Recombination is common to both RNA and DNA viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
Based on this description viruses are descended from viruses and produce other viruses. This cannot explain how viruses came into existence in the first place
or how viruses will evolve into anything except viruses.
The best explanation is that viruses were created as part of the curse of Genesis 3:19. This would be an example of why human remedies for the curse are only temporary.
That is slightly *beep* crazy.
Like a monkey ready to be shot into space...
Wrong. You would make a terrible scientist. There are several possibilities outlining the origin of viruses. The reason it is so difficult to detect the common descent and origin of viruses is because it evolves (yes, evolves) so fast and is so easily demolished once dead that the oldest examples we can deal with are a few decades old.
However, we can sequence all or part of the genome of all known varieties of viruses, including the largest and smallest types. With the help of these genomes, divergence patterns can easily be drawn to determine the common ancestry and ultimate origin of viruses. The divertence of Geminiviruses have an origin that is traceable by phylogenetics to approximately 200 Mya. This is supported by geographical diversity, and genetic divergence of vectors and of plant hosts.
The same goes for Potyviruses and Bymoviruses, who spontaneously form new genome components. All cladistics in comparitive genetics and phylogenetics point to an origin with replicase associated functions of viruses with RNA genomes. DNA possesing viruses share a common origin of the reverse transcription function. This says that the early viral evolution was modular, with a number of successful core modules, such as that of the retrovirus pol gene, and picornavirus-like protease-Vpg-polymerase module appearing in several highly varying viruses.
What am I saying here? That the evolution of viruses is not DNA based, it is modularly based. This is why certain animal viruses such as picornaviruses and alphaviruses have relatives among plant viruses that don't share the same morphology, genome components, genome organisation, or number of genes. This explains why we see picornoviruses, which contain ssRNA and only a single component, have the same module as comoviruses.
In a way, viruses can be defined as organisms which can only undergo a life cycle inside the cells of a host organism using at the very least the metabolic enzymes and pathways and ribosomes of that host to produce virion components which get assembled into infectious particles.
One possibility is that endigenous retroviral DNA was able to detach itself from single cell prokaryotes that were able to sustain an independent life cycle within the cell. (Guess what! This has been observed in the lab, and in nature, countless times.) But it does not at this stage count as a virus. Eventually it became subject to natural selection because it was so independent, and thus it would be favored if the properties of the virus could lead it to be more competitive. This leads to multicellular transport, and more rapid reproduction. Viruses are the ultimate product of evolution, they only live to increase their reproductive function, therefore natural selection only selects for such a thing.
You fail at science.
Its rather unfair for a person uneducated in virology to run into an actual virologist (beefstew2011) who has a degree in microbiology on this board.
Can you say educatiOWNED?
Lol.
This alert response would be useful for people alone in the wild, as our first two ancestors were.That's funny, it seems to me that Adam and Eve didn't really have a need for an "alert response" seeing as how they had GOD there, and everything. I don't recall the "hiding from the predators" segment in Genesis.
Based on this description viruses are descended from viruses and produce other viruses. This cannot explain how viruses came into existence in the first place
or how viruses will evolve into anything except viruses
To address Roqueforts complete lack of knowledge in embryology as well as biology in general apparently
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
3) One final laugh -That's Nectophrynoides. Looks like your creationist OCR isn't working very well.
All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggs—while one of them, the Nectophrymoldes
occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta,It requires no such things.
a yolk sac,All frogs, and indeed all animals born from eggs, have yolksacs
and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humansGet a clue! Humans are not the only animals born alive.
or vice-versa—or what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos.Yes, to expel an egg that hatches outside the body, or to retain it in the body until after it hatches is a relatively minor modification - much more minor than you seem to imagine. Just a matter of timing.
(Another frog is a marsupial.)Yes, you see them hopping all over the place. Duh. The pouches of frogs that have them are very different from the pouches of marsupial mammals. To evolve a pouch is a very small matter, just a change in the configuration of the skin.
There are sites and youtube videos that promote the idea that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. However, one evolutionist article points out that the genes were already human at the time of this fusion.
"At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
ALL articles point out that they were already hominid chromosomes at the time of fusion, thats the point, had it been before the split between our ancestors chimps would have it too. Of course there are going to be differences, we've been diverging for 7 million years with average mutation rates at 100 per generation.
share[already hominid chromosomes ]
The point you missed: "genes exist elsewhere in the HUMAN genome..
You really have no idea what your own post means do you? That just means that duplicate genes were added onto the end after the chimp split and before the chromosome fusion.
shareThe articles point is: "PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9."
The reason we disagree with your theory that those genes were hominid is because evolution would have been required to simultaneously and identically update regions of 2 separate chromosomes.
Hominid genes are an unnecessary assumption.
The easiest explanation is that they were human genes at the time of fusion.
You don't disagree, you only lack understanding. No 'simultaneous updating' would have been required, genes are duplicated and shifted all the time.
It wasn't an assumption that they were hominid, it was a prediction, one that was confirmed
Because the end-on-end fused chromosome was so rare and difficult we can conclude:
(1) The fusion was intentional re-design,
(2) The incentive to mate bewtween the first 46/46 was because there were only two humans in existence,
(3) The reason the descendants were genetically capable of inbreeding was because there genes were newly created.
Uh, no, telomeric fusion itself has little to no effect on gene expression. Different organisms of the same species with different chromosome counts are capable of successfully breeding because of this. New genes are continually created, its cumulative, populations evolve not individuals.
shareTelemeric fusions are from genetic redesign. In nature, end-to-end fusions result from telemeric failure and cause cell death.
Here's another little tidbit that is sure to please you.
Time magazine spent the second half of the twentieth century writing puff pieces on Lucy and the Leakey family.
Then in 09OCT06 p. 50 they tell us:
"That could explain why some of the most ancient fossils now considered human ancestors have such striking mixtures of chimp and human traits - some could actually have been hybrids."
"Telemeric fusions are from genetic redesign."
Evidence?
"In nature, end-to-end fusions result from telemeric failure and cause cell death."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=517405
Time is not, nor has it ever been a scientifically peer reviewed source
The first statement in you web referenece is :
"Terminal deletions of Drosophila chromosomes can be stably protected from end-to-end fusion despite the absence of all telomere-associated sequences."
Human chromosome 2 has an end-to-end fusion which is in nature is cell destructive.
"end-to-end fusion which is in nature is cell destructive."
I would really love to know your source on that one.
Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death.
When this structure is absent, end-to-end fusion of the chromosome may occur, with ensuing cell death.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482667_1
Our first two ancestors each had 2 identically end-to-end fused chromosomes with the extra centromeres suppressed,
but that is not evidence of an accident. Au contraire.
Except that absolutely noone has claimed that either telomere was missing, try actually paying attention, you'll be amazed at what you miss.
There was no suppressed centromere, one became deactivated but its still there
[Except that absolutely noone has claimed that either telomere was missing]
Nor do I claim a telemere was missing.
Can you give an example of a human cell surviving an end-to-end fusion more recently than our first two ancestors ?
Can you give an example of a human de-activated centromore more recently than out first two ancestors ?
"Nor do I claim a telemere was missing."
Actually thats exactly what you did when you said
"Telomeres protect the chromosomes from end-to-end fusion, recombination, and degradation, all events that can lead to cell death.
When this structure is absent, end-to-end fusion of the chromosome may occur, with ensuing cell death."
Not only that, you ignore the fact that the telomere is what causes the fusion.
Asking for an example of fusion or centromere deactivation while ignoring chromosome 2 is another example of moving the goalposts
[you ignore the fact that the telomere is what causes the fusion]
No, a failed telemere is what causes the fusion, and the fusion causes cell death, unless somebody has an example of a survivable first generation end-to-end fusion.
The point is that there are two types of end-to-end fusion:
(1) A random fusion resulting in cell death, which is what telemeres prevent.
(2) Our first two ancestors with (not one but) the two only known successful end-to-end fusions in human history and which occurred without telemere failure, which is one of several reasons for condidering it non-random.
I remember you, didn't you argue once that Adam and Eve were "genetically stronger" then modern humans so that their offspring weren't born inbred or some BS like that? I see that you are still trolling these boards. Begone troll, least I cast my level three fireball spell on your troll arse.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER --mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it :-(
[that their offspring weren't born inbred ]
The offspring of the first two humans, like the offspring of every species, certainly ARE inbred. Richard Dawkins' own definition of a species is: an inbreeding population.
There is only one possible explanation for why those original genes were so good.
Populations evolve, not individuals, at no point were there ever only two humans.
share[Populations evolve, not individuals, at no point were there ever only two humans. ]
To those persons capable of enough science and logic to realize there was a first occurrence in human ancestry of something (human,ape,or hominid) with 46 chromosomes, then there was an immediate necessity to find a member of the opposite sex with 46 matching chromosomes.
A person need not be real bright to conclude that all humans have inherhited 46 chromsomes and the loci of their genes within those 46 chromosomes from that original pair, and that original pair was quite human.
No, number of chromosomes is generally unimportant, chromosomes are basically just suitcases for genes
share[No, number of chromosomes is generally unimportant, chromosomes are basically just suitcases for genes]
As a defense contractor once said, "We had contracts for spare parts for 25 years. Nobody cared whether it worked or not."
We been through this before 'tard: different number of chromosomes does not prevent reproduction. If there was a "first human" with 46 chromosomes, he or she would have no trouble mating with another human with more or less. The actual number is not an indication of similarity.
Before you bring up Down's Syndrome: that's another case (trisomy) altogether.
Talk of "superior" genes is hogwash. Adam and Eve's children would be inbred and down the line the children would eventually be mad and stupid.
$ sudo make CHEEZEBURGER --mayo -off
system made you CHEEZEBURGER but ated it :-(
[different number of chromosomes does not prevent reproduction]
No, but fused chromsomes are a permanent impairment to reproduction.
A Robertsonian fusion "has only a 2 in 6 (33.3%) chance of having a baby that has the correct TOTAL amount of genetic material; one of these will be entirely chromosomally normal and the other will be a translocation ‘carrier’ just like herself. Two-thirds of her babies are at risk for being chromosomally ABNORMAL"
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/pregnancy_childbirth/2008/01/case-of-robertsonian-translocation-and.html
[Before you bring up Down's Syndrome: that's another case (trisomy) altogether]
"The extra chromosome 21 material that causes Down syndrome may be due to a Robertsonian translocation in the karyotype of one of the parents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Assume 1 in 1000 apes has a fused chromsome, total 47.
1 in 1000000 might have 46 chromosomes.
1 in a trillion random ape matings would be 46/46.
Evolution would depend on the first 46/46 mating to be siblings with disabled descendants.
No, but fused chromsomes are a permanent impairment to reproduction.
A Robertsonian fusion "has only a 2 in 6 (33.3%) chance of having a baby that has the correct TOTAL amount of genetic material; one of these will be entirely chromosomally normal and the other will be a translocation ‘carrier’ just like herself. Two-thirds of her babies are at risk for being chromosomally ABNORMAL"
Assume 1 in 1000 apes has a fused chromsome, total 47.
1 in 1000000 might have 46 chromosomes.
1 in a trillion random ape matings would be 46/46.
Evolution would depend on the first 46/46 mating to be siblings with disabled descendants.
Look at the gibberish in your own web reference:
"One way we may have all ended up with 23 pairs of chromosomes is if there was some advantage to having the chromosomes fused together. This would counter the disadvantage of increased risk of miscarriage.
Then we can easily see how it could spread in a population. This is how natural selection works after all. But we have no evidence to support this."
They might as well say: "We have the contract for 25 years. Nobody cares if it works or not."
Look at the gibberish in your own web reference:
They might as well say: "We have the contract for 25 years. Nobody cares if it works or not."
(1) Source?
(2) Ive actually cited a number of examples of telomeric fusion with little to no effect on gene expression
I wonder how many people realize there hasn't been a controversy in the scientific community about the theory of evolution for over 100 years.
shareThe ability to realize and even accept an obvious fact (which disagrees with the personal opinion), needs a minimum of rationality, objectiveness and honesty.
« Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis »
If you want an example of baffled evolutionists,
(1) First they told us that;"Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study. "
This was based on mitochondrial DNA.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080812-neandertal-dna.html
(2) Now they tell us: "Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in indigenous sub-Saharan Africans having no Neanderthal DNA, and Caucasians and Asians having between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
The hole in this theory is that Eurasian humans do not have any evidence of Neanderthal mtDNA.
The evidence therefore is that Neanderthals were the product of human males with Eurasian DNA mating with non-human females, probably Heidelberg or homo-whatever. Humans have no ancestor species. The hominids were ape/human hybrids.
(1) Can you explain how this would disprove the theory of evolution, or how it contradicts the mechanisms of evolution?
(2) Who are those 'baffled evolutionists'? First of all, 'Evolutionists' don't exist in science, like there are no 'Gravitationists' or 'Atomists'. And yes, it happens that scientists are sometimes baffled by new research results, and science barely leads to a 100% concensus. Here a few examples of 'baffled' physicists:
First, 'they' told us that atoms look like a plum pudding (Thomson), then 'they' told us that they look like little planetary systems (Rutherford, Bohr), and nowadays 'they' tell us atoms don't consist of little beads, but of quanta described by a wave function (atomic orbital). According to creationist logic, this is proof enough that atoms don't exist at all.
You think gravitation is a fact? You shouldn't, regarding all the baffling theories and hypotheses about it. There is Einstein's general relativity which explains gravitation. But there are many more valid theories: The TeVeS (Bekenstein's Tensor-vector-scalar gravity), the Brans-Dicke theory, the MOND theory, the quantum field (Induced gravity) theory, Bekenstein and Hawking's 'Entropic Force' hypothesis, and many more. Quite baffling, isn't it? And - to baffle you even more - Newton's theory (which many people call a fact) isn't even among those theories since it's obsolete for more than 100 years (though the gravitation laws found by Newton are of course still valid for non-relativistic physics).
« Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis »
(2) "Baffled evolutionists" would be anypone who believes both:
(A) Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed
and
(B) interbreeding took place
(1) [how it contradicts the mechanisms of evolution?]
If the only allowable possibilities, according to evolution are:
(A) Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed
and
(B) interbreeding took place
Then the unthinkable possibilty is that
(C) Neanderthals are the product of hybridization.
Such a line of reasoning would unravel the theory of hominid evolution and the fossil dating system.
Utter nonsense.
However, that neither disproves evolution nor leaves it baffled 'evolutionists'
Thanks for [not] answering my questions.
« Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis »
And really, isn't that the GREAT thing about science? When new information comes in, theories can be reworked so that the new information is included. Science isn't based on belief it is based on evidence, unlike religion and mythology which one must have BLIND FAITH OF A CHILD (religionists words, not mine), which translates to ignorance and willful ignorance. In order to believe that an invisible superman lives in the sky, and cares who you marry, where you put your genitals, what you eat, watch, listen to, wear... one has to suspend logic and have BLIND FAITH OF A CHILD.
I'll take the scientific evidence, the MOUNTAINS of it that evolution has to back it up. It certainly beats thinking that there's a little faerie living in my refrigerator turning the light on for me when I open the door.
Do you mean Darwin's original theory or the modern theory of evolution?
« Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis »