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.
Those committees included several evolution critics and creationists. They have consistently urged the board not to adopt the books unless publishers highlight more flaws in the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.
One reviewer suggested that coverage of “creation science” be required for every biology textbook. But that would violate a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ban on the teaching of creationism in science classes.
Other reviewers found fault with the books’ positive treatment of Darwin’s theory and his fundamental tenets.
For example, Pearson Education’s textbook reads: “All historical records are incomplete, and the history of life is no exception. The evidence we do have, however, tells an unmistakable story of evolutionary change.”
Further, the book adds, “every scientific test has supported Darwin’s basic ideas about evolution.”
One of the reviewers argued that the second statement is “not just misleading, but dishonest.” The reviewer, who was not identified in the report, called the statement a “factual error” that must be corrected.
The reviewer also attacked the book for stating that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. He called that “a very outdated view.” Many creationists maintain that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old.
Publishers submitted proposed textbooks this summer, but committees of Texas volunteer reviewers — some nominated by creationists who are current and former Board of Education members — raised objections. One argued that creationism based on biblical texts should be taught in science classes, while others objected that climate change wasn't as settled a scientific matter as some of the proposed books said.
Evolution is a continuum and as such there are no discrete "links" to be "missing." Taxonomy and phylogeny are tools for conveniently mapping information, no such precise delineations occur in nature. It's analogous to viewing the visible spectrum and then demanding to be shown the "missing link" between orange and red.
Evolution is a theory with NO supporting evidence in the fossil record or ANY missing links for any species.....
50,000 generations of bacteria prove that evolution never stops
In a remarkable experiment that's been going on for nearly a quarter century, biologists have shown that lab-grown bacteria — even in a stable, unchanging world — will continue to evolve in a way that makes it increasingly good at reproducing.
Back in 1988, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski took some E. coli bacteria and put them in a dozen glass flasks. These 12 populations of bacteria have been there ever since, eating and dividing in isolation — over and over and over again. Now, some 25 years and 50,000 generations later, the strain has demonstrated some very noticeable changes.
What he and his colleagues at Michigan State University in East Lansing discovered was that, even in the static, boring lab flask, the bacteria never stopped evolving.
Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.
The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]
When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]
...Environmental adaptations arent evolution....thay are just the result of a process of environmental selection favoring the genetic exchange of one group over another over time.
What is Evolution?
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. ...when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Lenski affair
The Lenski affair was a poorly conceived stunt by Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia to denigrate the groundbreaking evolutionary research of Michigan State University professor and National Academy of Science member Richard Lenski, in which Lenski and his student Zachary Blount actually observed evolution happening. Schlafly's stunt backfired completely and led to one of the best responses to creationism to date. It is now one of the most famous incidents in creation/evolution circles on the Internet.
tadaman
reply to post by boymonkey74
boymonkey.... I really like you so don't take this personally or the wrong way...
Evolution is a theory with NO supporting evidence in the fossil record or ANY missing links for any species.....
It does not explain how life started since the probability of the right proteins (20) out of a hundred.forming a complicated (even for a single cell organism) form are many millions of times over what mathematical law dictates as even possible.
The fact is that evolution is as much faith based as any god head or other ideology about creationism ...
There is no proof and less evidence as time and greater catalogue of the fossil record shows with every passing decade.....we just don't like to say "I have no idea"
I would prefer honesty as intelligence over faith in absurdities ........
an unproven theory has NO place in accepted scientific truth void of the scientific process .....which evolution lacks....and as far as probability ...... 1 in 10 to the power of a 100 is not sound math. Ultraviolet light would have destroyed any genetic soup and water would have made such a combination impossible in primitive earth
......
so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.
That famous test in the 50s of reproducing the building blocks of life in primordial earth atmosphere only produced 4 of the 20 necessary proteins for life...and they had to be quickly removed from the electric current so they wouldn't be destroyed ......without mentioning that all would somehow magically coalesce into a complex single organism in water....which wouldn't help that process ....
we don't know.......this theory is wrong....move on and get back to science ...not faith based beliefs in theory....
UndercoverJoe
I think that if they want to continue teaching the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's theory, they should also put Creationism in the books also. Creationism isn't any more way out there than thinking that there was a Big Bang and everything came into being or thinking that we came from monkeys. I don't think that I have ever seen a monkey in a zoo evolve into a human being and I don't care how hard you slam some rocks together, they will not form anything but busted up rocks.
Everything in this world is perfect just the way it is, so something had to design it. There had to be some intelligent being that created everything. Things don't just come out of nowhere and form into perfect things. There is something called the "Golden Ratio" or the "Fibonacci Sequence". You can take this sequence of numbers and they equal to the shape of almost everything that is in existence today. If almost everything is equal to the Golden Ratio, there had to be some intelligent being, far more intelligent than we are, that created everything. Even many scientist today are believing that some intelligent being had to create everything.
Teachers teach our children these "Theories" like they are Fact. A theory is no more fact than Santa clause or the Easter bunny is fact. You can say that there is a Santa Clause and you could make a very good theory about that he lives in the north pole and that he gives children toys once a year and that he has flying reindeer, but unless you can show me a "Real Santa Clause", it is just a theory, not a fact.
So, if you want to teach the children of the world about the "Big Bang Theory", "Darwin's Theory", or any other theory, you have to let Creationism be taught also and let the children decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
There is plenty of evidence to support evolutionary theory. Here is the timeline of human evolution:
Timeline of human evolution
Evolution never claimed to explain how life started. Abiogenesis does that. Stop mixing up your scientific theories.
That isn't a fact, that is an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that. Just because you want to ignore the evidence to support the theory, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As time goes on, the fossil record becomes more complete not less complete, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Maybe some links and proof to back this claim up would help.
Absurdities like some magical god "poofed" the universe and all of life into existence 10,000 years ago?
You are right about unproven theories. Creationism is an unproven theory. Therefore it has no reason to be included in a science textbook. Your probability is flawed, since it must assuredly happened in the past since we are here having this conversation. And AGAIN you are referencing Abiogensis. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the difference!
so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.
That famous test in the 50s of reproducing the building blocks of life in primordial earth atmosphere only produced 4 of the 20 necessary proteins for life...and they had to be quickly removed from the electric current so they wouldn't be destroyed ......without mentioning that all would somehow magically coalesce into a complex single organism in water....which wouldn't help that process ....
Proof?
Please read this link: What is a Scientific Theory?
Your definition of a scientific theory is SERIOUSLY flawed. We wouldn't be calling evolution a theory if scientists didn't have countless amounts of corroborating evidence to support it.