It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Johannmon, very well put.

Slank, the boat hasn't left the dock and you've already missed it.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
.
Sorry dubious one your boat doesn't float.

To state "Evolution is NOT a fact" is to assert knowlege you do not possess.

The point of a theory is to explain that which is believed to be a fact.

To be neutral is to accept that it may or may not be a fact.

The sticker states with certainty that it is Not a fact. Therefore the sticker has decided that Evolution is Not a fact.

The whole point of an active theory is to see if the data support the proposed fact. To say that it is not a fact is to invalidate the theory that it is a fact.

It is NOT neutral.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Slank, my socks are dry.

Let's go back to the sticker. It says:



"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."


You agree that evolution is a theory. You object to the statement that it is "not a fact".

So, you would have no objection if the phrase "not a fact" was removed. Perhaps we should contact the school board to make this change and obviate the whole controversy:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Regarding the origin of living things, evolution is a theory. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

That's about as neutral and true a statement as I have ever seen. Not a hint of religious connotation. Even the secular humanist U.S. District Court Judge would have to agree.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Interesting, i see yet another member has lost their head over something.
(looks like hammer time for Damned)

For referance, here is the sticker again,
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Slank you grasp at splitting hairs,

What is the differance between saying something is a theory not a fact,
and saying
something is not a fact?

By definition, theory IS NOT FACT, didnt we talk about that earlier?
So stating this truth is indeed both a blanket and neutral statment!!!!
SO WHAT?

Slank sees this somehow???


What they said in the sticker says that Evolution has been proven false.
I cant see HOW you dreampt up this one...saying something is theory means its an accepted LIKLEY truth, and always leaves open the possibillity that science could disprove it at some future point.
In NO way does it imply that it IS false, mearly that its possible, however unlikley.
BIG DEAL, its telling the truth.

Slank at the plate again...ohh a swing and a miss,


The sticker says Evolution is NOT a fact, so logically something else must be the fact.
AGAIN you try to imply that evolution IS a fact and not a theory.
Because theory is not fact, something else COULD be the fact...even the theory itself COULD be proven as fact at some point.
It seems that the sticker spoke truely then when it said that evolution could not be proven as fact or that other things (un named) could also become factual, or at least be CONSIDERED hypothetical while examing evolution.

You claim bias, yet how, from the true statement that evolution is indeed NOT fact but theory, can you GUESS Bias, and if so how can you GUESS what the bias is?

lets apply science to test my hypothosis...
Hand the book to a 1000 people from all over the country and have them read the sticker and compare what they say was inplied by it...you'll get several hundred different answers ill bet. Ask them after that if they have any knowledge about the stickers creator. yet another spread of wild GUESSES is what you'll get.
Even taking into account that SOME of them may have an awareness of this case, ill bet its in the smallest bracket of the breakdown in answers.

3rd grade reading comprehension skills are still useful today.

The only way you can claim bias is becaues you are willing to deny a truthful statement because you dont like the messenger's reasons for speaking the truth.

Slank said before, and ill hold him to this now.


Truth is truth whether or not there are any people to or who recognize it.
So if a pedophile said, "that young girl is pretty", and she was a known kid model (making millions a year) and really was pretty, you would deny that she was pretty because you despise the speaker or his intentions?

Based on your stated reasoning,
this is exactly the thing it appears that you are saying to do with the sticker.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
.
Assertions without proof or evidence are hollow and meaningless.


. . . Evolution is a theory, not a fact

If it happened it is a fact. If Evolution happened it is [the/a] fact.

To assert the converse that "Evolution is not a fact" or "not the fact" or simply "not fact" has to be backed up with proof or evidence.

It can be either proof/evidence that Evolution did not happen, or proof/evidence that something "that was not evolution" did happen.

If you go into the courtroom and say "Scott Peterson killed his wife is a theory and not a fact" you have to prove that he was somewhere at the time of his wife's death or that someone/thing else killed his wife, such as Sammy Joe's bloody fingerprints are all over the murder weapon or she was struck by lightening.
Otherwise people can not take you seriously. You would be laughed out of the courtroom or advised to see a psychologist.

Without proof or evidence to the effect that "Evolution is not a fact" it is simply an empty meaningless statement.

If we are going to allow empty meaningless stickers on the front of textbooks [or any books] who knows where it will end.

If your argument or viewpoint doesn't stand up you need to do some work on it.
Wishful thinking does not make something suddenly not a fact.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
.
dubiousone,
Your re-do of it certainly does a much better job dancing around the issue.

Semantically i see no technical flaws.

And in a converse sort of way the whole class might easily become semi-expert on all the arguments of evolution. By picking all the intricate aspects of it apart they would learn it in greater detail.

In the best of all worlds i would prefer they do science because they like or love it. Kudos for learning evolution, but i wouldn't want it to detract from all the other science [physics, chemistry, general biology]. [Do you want your kids becoming experts in evolution? just curious] Considering all the nanotech that is becoming organically based genetics sure wouldn't hurt.

If it works really well maybe we should make other important subjects sound like racey religious political controversies. The kids will be eating it all up. Math? Engineering?

Honestly CazMedia, if i knew the person to be a pedophile i probably wouldn't reply to their comment. I would probably quietly walk away. Might be a good idea to make sure the parents had the heads up on the circumstances. And you wonder why i don't believe people are special, sainted or chosen? People are animals. If you want them to behave intelligently and in a civilized manner you have to make it difficult for them to act badly and as easy as it is possible for them to behave well.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
That analogy is way off, Slank.You are the one trying to make the assertion that evolution is a fact and needs to be disprooved, when it is still a theory and needs to be proven as fact.

A better analogy would be You the DA in the Peterson case calling Peterson a convicted murderer, while the police are still investigating the crime. You still have no motive and can't explain how the crime even occured,you have no idea what or where the murder weapon is, but yet with little or no evidence you, the DA, are calling him guilty already. Calling evolution a theory and not fact is like the media and everyone else calling Peterson the alledged killer until he is convicted.


You make it sound as though all theories are the absolute truth until disproven, when in reality all theories are just theories until proven as fact.
Evolution may be the best theory we have at this point but it is not yet a proven fact.




Wishful thinking does not make something suddenly not a fact.


Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
What are we arguing here??? I cannot believe this thread has gone on for so long! some people just are so full of themselves....Cazmedia.

Whether the judge ruled correctly or whether evolution is a fact? ....

What is the judges responsibility??

The judges responsibility is to make a fair and proper judgement.

How will the judge make that fair and proper judegement?

The judge will look at all the evidence presented to the court.

What is Evidence?

Evidence is defined as .....

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
2. Something indicative; an outward sign
3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
4. all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

Side Note......There are many types of evidence which can be submitted to a court of law.....see link below..

dictionary.reference.com...

What will the Judge do with all the evidence collected?

The Judge will make a decision based on ALL evidence submitted to the court by the defence and prosecution (in some cases). The Judge will not make assumptions, he is there to look at hard facts presented to him.

He will also look at the intent of the sticker as this is admissable in a court of law and will be regarded as evidence.

definition of Intent....

adj.

1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
2. Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.

noun.
1 .the act or fact of intending


Now obviously the Judge found that there was enough EVIDENCE and INTENT shown by the school board for him to make a legal judgement for the stickers to be removed.

Do any of you, who say that the judgement was incorrect, have the same level of competence or years of service as the Judge who made the decision??...........

I thought not.

case closed.........and i hope this thread is too!!! (that is until the appeal come through!!! lol!!)



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Gee where is this threads creator to still not answer my questions?

guess we wont get to hear from banned member (damned) any more, not that he had a clue either

even every other person that stuck around this debate couldnt explain away their stance

now only slank remains to hopefully embrace enlightenment
(no not god silly)

I cant help those that refuse it.
yet i cant deny the truth.
decisions, decisions....

ill see if anyone after reading this thread wants to step up and eith help slank out with something more substantial
or
if anyone else pops in and says
deny ignorance



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Caz, maybe people are tired of beating thier heads aginst your relentless dogma?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
These are very interesting statements:

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983"

Worth a quick read.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
If the material being taught in the classroom either by the teacher or by the text itself belittles a religious system by presenting another religious system as the only reasonable alternative then the sticker is a constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.

Sure, however, science can't be said to belittle religion on the face of it, and no one is forcing the students to accept some 'science religion' in place of their own one. If the text book presented evolution incorrectly, or as a religion, and th sticker makers were aware of this and this was their complaint, then the textbook would've been removed, not had a sticker put on it.

Here then is the rub. If science textbooks stuck to the science of evolution and how it creates diversity with a variety of species and promotes specialized subspecies and even suggests that it is possible that this apparatus may apply to creating a new species that is just fine because it is purely science. The problem is that evolution is almost never presented that way.
Since thats what evolution is, when is it not presented this way?

Are you actually saying that because there is no consensus on the theories of how life came about in the first place, that this sticker is warranted and that teachers can't educate their students about the work being done in that area?




['quote]. Those who have been intellectually honest on this thread recognize that this is pure speculation backed by only tenuous evidence to suggest its validity.
This is not true. The evidence is very much in support of this theory.


communicated to them that evolution is the best explanation of our origins currently available.

It is the best scientific explanation of our origins. If you know another one I'd like to hear it.


there is a religious war taking place in our society today between the humanist who do not believe in God and the theists who do believe in God.

Science is not humanism.

The humanist are just as fanatical about their beliefs as many of the theists are. Our current education system is by and large run by humanists
Demonstrate this. Actual Humanists are very very few in number, and, as this demonstrates, its the local school boards, at most the states, that 'run' the education system. Do you suggest that throughout the country school boards have been infiltrated by insidious humanist operatives?

who would like to remove all reference and suggestion of a divine entity from public life.


Thus for the judge to deny the theists elected to the school board the right to put a semantically neutral but balancing sticker

It is neither semantically neutral nor balancing. It throws things out of balance by putting far more in the favour of irrational beleifs than is warranted.


on the textbook that the humanists are using to promote their ideology of "no god"

Science not requiring a god to operate is hardly an atheistic ideology. Science, including evolution, does not say 'no god'. It is silent on the existance of god, because there is no evidence for or against it.



slank
It asserts that "Evolution is NOT a fact.

They should have said 'not yet a proven fact'

Slank, facts don't have to be proven. They are either obviously and blatantly true or they are not facts. Its a fact that I am sitting in my chair, it requires not theoretical understanding to state that. Its a fact that its a little past nine o'clock. Its a fact that populations of organisms change over time. Its a theory that that change occurs primarily thru the mechanism of natural selection. Natural Selection isn't a 'thing' thats out there and that can be captured, or scrutinized under a microscope. Its not an object, its a theory, it can not become a fact.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

If the text book presented evolution incorrectly, or as a religion, and th sticker makers were aware of this and this was their complaint, then the textbook would've been removed, not had a sticker put on it. .

The point here is that most high school classes that teach evolution do not limit themselves to the substantiated portion of evolutionary theory but almost without variation cross over to the unsubstantiated inference that observed micro-evolution is substantiated scientific explanation of the origin of life on this planet. This statement has religious implications that directly support a humanistic point of view while denigrating much of theistic religion. Therefore religious influence is exerted by how evolution is being taught and the sticker is a valid counter to that influence.
If you really believe that a textbook would be removed from the curriculum simply because it directly implies that evolution is a substantiated theory about the origin of life on this planet then you are living in a dream world bereft practical reality. Yet directly imply the above is an endorsement of the anti-theistic religious view.


Since thats what evolution is, when is it not presented this way?

Since I was in high school back in the 80’s until now when my nieces and nephews are in high school biology. Neither they nor I have been taught the theory of evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint. Instead it is always laced with claims of being an authenticated explanation of how life began and has progressed to what it is today. If you doubt this fact, just ask any high school kid, who has been taught evolution whether he believes evolution as a theory of origins is a fact or not. 9 times out of 10 unless that kid has had prior religious education they will state that evolution is a factual account of the origin of life on Earth. This is an injustice to the science of evolution since the best in the field of evolution will not make that statement. It blinds them not only to theistic ideas of origins but also to the need for further exploration into the theory of evolution itself.
Therefore to invite students to critically examine evolution and its tenants is a wise and perfectly constitutional counterbalance.


Are you actually saying that because there is no consensus on the theories of how life came about in the first place, that this sticker is warranted and that teachers can't educate their students about the work being done in that area?

Far from it actually. I fall into the center of the three categories that I identified earlier in that I would prefer that the pure science of evolution be taught in the classroom without the religious inferences that accompany it. Unfortunately, in the real world every student and teacher that comes into the classroom brings their religious beliefs with them, hence it is nearly impossible to teach this subject without addressing its implications to the beginnings of life and its subsequent development. Therefore, since this particular science cannot be practically taught without engaging the student’s philosophy and or religion, it is acceptable and even desirable to add a balancing sticker of neutral verbage to the textbook.






This is not true. The evidence is very much in support of this theory.

There is good evidence to support the theory of evolution as it pertains to the evolution of species, subspecies, and related species. There is less substantial evidence to indicate that evolution can take place between types of fauna ie fish becoming mammals. There is no substantiation to the idea that the theory of evolution is a factual explanation of how life began on this planet and evolved from bacteria to the complexity we see today. The goo to you by way of the zoo theory does not have any credible substantiation and most evolutionary biologist recognize this and even welcome its challenge to find proof.
It is the best scientific explanation of our origins.


Science is not humanism.

True science is not humanism but humanist attempt to use science to both prove the validity of their philosophy and belittle the validity of competing philosophies and religions.

[qutoe]Its the local school boards, at most the states, that 'run' the education system.
The above statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the educational system our country employs. While local school boards are given oversight of the educational process, the design of the curriculum and how that curriculum is taught is determined outside of the local school board. To be frank most local school boards have neither the interest, will, nor expertise to address the totality of creating and implementing a course of study. Instead they mostly address the local community’s specific concerns about the already established curriculum and how it is being taught.


It is neither semantically neutral nor balancing. It throws things out of balance by putting far more in the favour of irrational beleifs than is warranted.

Only a partisan could see the statement as throwing things out of balance. Even the judges decision recognized that it was the partisanship behind the sticker that colored its usage. My supposition is that the partisanship already exists in this realm and that the neutral verbage of the sticker, while it can be interpreted as partisan, is a balancing of the partisanship that already exists rather than a tipping of the scale.
To me it is ridiculous to imply that two sentences that state that evolution is a theory could be seen as “throwing things out of balance” when the entirety of the text deals with the evidence for evolution as a theory. The time given to the teaching of evolutionary theory is exponentially greater than the time and attention that one little sticker affords. “Thrown out of balance” that is just plain silly.

Science not requiring a god to operate is hardly an atheistic ideology. Science, including evolution, does not say 'no god'. It is silent on the existance of god, because there is no evidence for or against it.

Science that denies the possibility that God exists is not science, since the possibility that intelligence has formed and affected the laws, principles, and evidences that we study would be fundamental to understanding those things fully should the divine exist. Hence to be scientifically honest you have to examine all evidences from both the perspective that there is no God and the perspective that there is and see which is more probable. To fail to do so is to threaten your conclusion by not testing your assumptions.
Let me here state a personal belief. I am a lover of science in all its forms, both those that agree with my religious beliefs and those that may seem to contradict them. I believe that all true science will reveal God since God is the essence of all that exists. For me Science at its heart is always the study of God. I welcome those who wish to study science from the perspective of no God because it is my belief that eventually their findings, if they remain scientific, will reveal Him. If God chose to use evolution to create all that we see then lets figure out how it was done for in learning this God will be revealed. If it was not evolution that formed all we survey then the true study of evolution as a theory will most likely lead to clues as to what mechanism was used and when. My beef comes with those who try to proclaim absolute fact when they do not have such, whether they are religious nuts or secular nuts. Those who do such things cloud the minds of the ignorant and suppress the genius of the imaginative by suppressing their curiosity and inquisitiveness with dogma masquerading as science.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone


Let's go back to the sticker. It says:



"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."



This statement very much needed to be removed from text books....

The first sentence sets up the focus of the thought.

The second sentence is limited; evolution is in regards to the spreading and adapting of life. Placing a not in there immediates a negative and proposes an alternative.

The third sentence sets up suspicion. The word should is an authoritive imploration, or a subtle instruction and reinforces the alternative
alluded to in the second sentence. The word critically connotes a negative as well; i.e. to be criticized.

The word studied is the clincher. What high school student doesn't immediately reject that which is to be studied!!


The statement does subtly attempt to negate evolution or construe the concept in a negative fashion. It needed to go.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
.
Dear CazMedia,


fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt) n.
2. b. A real occurrence; an event:

Evolution is a fact is an assertion.
The theory of evolution has volumes of real evidence to support it.

Evolution is not a fact is an assertion.
The second asserts that evolution is NOT a real occurrence.
To assert that you have to provide proof/evidence or it is just so much hot air.

Either you have to show the bulk of the evidence for evolution is faulty or that there is more/stronger evidence that something else occured to result in the diversity of life.

Ante up or get out of the game.

Now my biggest gripe with getting caught up in Evolution or Religion, They both tend to be backward looking.

Children should be focusing on the present and future.

Archeology, Anthropology, History, evolution, religious history all may contain useful insights, but they all tend to look backward. I hope some people study these things, but i hope many more study the hard sciences [chemistry, biology, physics], engineering and math and use their creative imaginations to work with and act to create a more desirable future.

Children tend to focus on the present & future, why do we insist on dragging them back into the past? over and over and over again.
No wonder so many of them rebel.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank

Evolution is not a fact is an assertion.
The second asserts that evolution is NOT a real occurrence.
To assert that you have to provide proof/evidence or it is just so much hot air.

I'll step up to this challenge. Fact: There is not one shred of empirical evidence that shows how extra chromosomal pairs can be added to the DNA of simple life forms via random mutations and natural selection.

Fact: If a methodology cannot be established by which extra chromosomal pairs can be added to the DNA of simple life forms then no method is known by which life forms with fewer chromosomes in their DNA can evolve into more complex life forms with a greater number of Chromosomes.

Conclusion: Until such a method is discovered by which chromosomes can be added to the DNA of simple life forms through natural processes, the Theory of Evolution as it pertains to the diversification of life from simple life forms to more complex life forms is purely speculative.

There is your evidence. I support the study of evolution. I support the effort to find the mechanisms by which this science can be substantiated in its suppositions pertaining to the origin of the higher forms of life from the lower forms. I do not support those who put blind faith in a theory simply because a portion of it is strongly supported. To make the jump from microevolution to macroevolution without identifying a mechanism by which it can be done and then verifying that mechanism, is scientifically irresponsible and creates a scientific dogma that clouds the true pursuit of the workings of reality.


Now my biggest gripe with getting caught up in Evolution or Religion, They both tend to be backward looking.

Children should be focusing on the present and future.
.

Those who rush ahead into the future without first understanding their past will arrive where they know not because they know not even themselves.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
.
Duplication - A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material.
chromosome abnormalities
It is not that uncommon in humans, the species we keep an eye on. We spot it because when someone is unhealthy we try to figure out why.
With microorganisms if they are unhealthy we don't see and aren't aware of them. They probably tend to die in most cases. If they do survive and reproduce enough we would identify them as a different species or a sub-species.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Considering that evolution really hasn't addressed the myriad exceptions in a manner that moves it from hypothesis to theory, having a sticker that proclaims it a theory isn't an affront to the "notion"...it's an unfounded substantiation.

And to say that the act of informing the student of the unproven nature of evolution is in anyway connected to religion is a blatant confessional to bias that obfuscates the core issue here. Evolution IS a hypothesis which requires an open-mind.

We're trying to raise good scientists, not convert.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And to say that the act of informing the student of the unproven nature of evolution is in anyway connected to religion is a blatant confessional to bias that obfuscates the core issue here. Evolution IS a hypothesis which requires an open-mind.

We're trying to raise good scientists, not convert.


Let us see, I am a scientist and I hear about the debate evolution vs. creationism everyday. Then I see a sticker in the biology book saying that evolution is just a theory.

Hmm. I wonder who put it there. Creationists who just happen to argue the same thing or the scientists who say that evolution is a pretty darn good theory, so good that it is accepted by over 99% of the scientists. (I remember seeing that stastics somewhere, just don't ask me where.)

"The more we question our beliefs and theories, the stronger they become." I know somone said that before, I just don't remember who.


Surf



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Duplication - A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material.
chromosome abnormalities
It is not that uncommon in humans, the species we keep an eye on. We spot it because when someone is unhealthy we try to figure out why.
With microorganisms if they are unhealthy we don't see and aren't aware of them. They probably tend to die in most cases. If they do survive and reproduce enough we would identify them as a different species or a sub-species.
.


This is not a method by which a new chromosome is added. What is being described is a third copy of an existing chromosome. This creates a nonfunctioning chromosome, because instead of two identical strings you have three identical strings. This kind of mutation only degrades the viablility of the person who has it. It never results in a new chromosome pair that has additional information useful to add complexity to the organism. I have studied this particular mutation quite extensively. I did so because my youngest daughter has 3 chromosomes in the 21 chromosome. It is called trisonome 21, also known as Downs syndrome. To suggest that a genetic disease is responsible for creating higher life forms is a stretch of imagination at best. In every case where a chromosome is triplicated instead of duplicated, not only does a new chromosome not form but the old pair no longer functions properly and terrible defects arise. Trisonome 21 is the most benevolent of these defects yet as I witness what it does to my daughter I have to admit that the suggestion that this is how life evolves seems baseless in fact and offensive to me in implication.

Let me stress that it has never been shown where triplication of a chromosome results in either new genetic material or a new chromosomal pair. All you have is an extra copy of what is already there, no new material and that extra copy greatly degrades the functionality of the chromosome that is triplicated. I am open to the possibility that some unknown form of chromosomal abnormality may yet be discoverd that may prove a mechanism by which evolution can be further substantiated but what you posted is most certainly not it.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Johannmon]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Johannmon]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join