zenfisher said:Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.
Reverend Blair said:That would not have been possible without a working knowledge of evolution.
There are other examples. Dwarf grains are one. They likely prevented a major famine in Asia. They were developed over a few years because we understood the basics of evolution and were able to exploit them.
manda said:Blah!!!!!!
Everyone is wrong, and the answers will only become available to us for a brief shining moment when we die, so there!!!!End of discussion
Still, you haven't done any thing other than ASSERT that knowledge of evolution as a biological reality has provided a single practical innovation.
Blair, I've seen your posts on more than one forum and I respect your ideas, brains and tone so if we're gonna disagree seriously, I'd rather it were on the theism issue than this, because I think we basically agree on this one.
Why is it that all the good shit happens to people after they die
Why is it that all the good shit happens to people after they die
NosyNed said:zenfisher said:Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.
If we take "evolution" to mean "biological evolution" (and in this context that must be what we mean) then No, it is not evolution.
Bio Evolution can only happen to imprefect replicators with selection. The things just discussed to not f**, I mean breed. Without that basic match to biological organisms we do not have anything like biological evolution.
For example, one brand of computer (or whatever) can "borrow" (to be polite when industrial espionage occurs) a feature and it's implementation from another brand. This can't happen in bio-evo other than at the level of bacteria and their plasmid swapping games.
When separate lineages do separate they don't swap across the line .
zenfisher said:NosyNed said:zenfisher said:Exactly Andygal...we generally write it off as progress...but it is evolution, a natural sense of progreesion.
If we take "evolution" to mean "biological evolution" (and in this context that must be what we mean) then No, it is not evolution.
Bio Evolution can only happen to imprefect replicators with selection. The things just discussed to not f**, I mean breed. Without that basic match to biological organisms we do not have anything like biological evolution.
For example, one brand of computer (or whatever) can "borrow" (to be polite when industrial espionage occurs) a feature and it's implementation from another brand. This can't happen in bio-evo other than at the level of bacteria and their plasmid swapping games.
When separate lineages do separate they don't swap across the line .
hmmm ... We splice plants together to create a desired effect. No breeding.
Doesn't a mountain grow and change (evolve) over time. Why does evolution need to be limited to strictly biological entities? Change and adapting to change happens to everything. Excluding it because it is not alive, seems to eradicate the possibility that enviroment has an influence on evolution. ( ie ...a comet hitting the Earth would force living species to adapt.) Yet that comet flew through space for eons changing with each meteor impact, each speck of dust and each revolution around the sun until it finally crashed. To ignore these changes,to these inanimate objects seems to fly in the face of what we perceive as reality. A major cataclismic event that changed the pattern of evolution. Evolution happens to everything.
Only do that when it's relevant. Besides it's already in another thread. Y'know, there's no law that says you have to read it. :lol:I would perfer not to get a 25 page dissertation on the nature of reality..
. . . After carefully reviewing the latest version of the standards, the leadership of the National Academies’ National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council’s National Science Education Standards and Pathways to Science Standards, published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used. . .
National Science Teacher’s Association Letter
On October 26, 2005, NSTA sent the following letter to the Kansas State Department of Education, requesting that the Kansas Science Education Standards not quote or refer to the NSTA publication NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards because "the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology."
* * * * *
October 26, 2005
Dr. Alexa Posny
Assistant Commissioner of Education
Kansas State Department of Education
120 S.E.10th Street
Topeka, KS 66612
cc: Dr. Steve Case, KSES Revision Committee Chair
Carol Williamson, Committee Co-chair
Dear Dr. Posny:
Thank you for your August 22 letter asking us to examine the use of NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards: Guidelines for Moving the Vision into Practice, Middle School Edition in the current draft of the Kansas Science Education Standards. We appreciate the chance to review the treatment of our copyrighted material for accuracy and proper presentation.
Although the majority of the draft Kansas standards could proudly serve as a model for other states to emulate, there are significant errors regarding the theory of evolution. These inaccuracies are of such importance that they compromise the Kansas State Board of Education's (KSBE) stated vision and mission for these Standards, not to mention all of science.
Your mission statement reads, "Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and international communities."
Your vision statement begins, "Science education in Kansas is intended to help students to develop the understandings and intellectual abilities they need to lead personal fulfilling lives, and to equip them to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, equitable, and vital. The educational system must prepare the citizens of Kansas to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
We applaud these statements, but the standards, as currently written, will result in Kansas students being confused about the scientific process and ill-prepared both for the rigors of higher education and for the increasingly technological and scientific challenges we face as a nation.
Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES. Specifically, the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology. NSTA strongly supports this premise and calls for science curricula, state science standards, and teachers to emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. This position is consistent with those issued by the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the vast majority of scientific and educational organizations.
However, we believe that, working together, we can resolve the issues that stand in the way of our granting permission, and we stand ready and willing to work with the KSBE to ensure that your students receive the quality science education they need and deserve.
We do not maintain that science is superior to other ways of understanding our world nor do we think that scientific inquiry is inconsistent with a theological search for answers. Rather, there are profound differences between these ways of knowing and failure to understand them will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.
We appeal to the Board to reconsider its position and work with us for the benefit of your students, science teachers, and your state.
Sincerely,
Michael Padilla
NSTA President