Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology teacher resource help
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 31 of 81 (453489)
02-02-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by fishboy
02-01-2008 2:10 PM


Hi fishboy:
Two older books that I found to be very helpful and that are written for teachers.
Science on Trial, The Case for Evolution, by Douglas J. Futuyma, Pantheon Books, 1982
and
Abusing Science, The Case Against Creationism, by Philip Kitcher, The MIT Press, 1982

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fishboy, posted 02-01-2008 2:10 PM fishboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 02-02-2008 10:25 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 32 of 81 (453496)
02-02-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by fishboy
02-02-2008 2:38 AM


Re: something else to think about
I picked up on that. Thanks. However, it did give me a place to start. I've been hearing these types for years. Not that I don't value randman's opinion. Remember, I'm looking for a good place to start. I feel like I've already accepted the old earth way of thinking, so no need to go there, but anything else is welcome.
Be advised that PaulK is an Atheist-evolutionist who will always misrepresent anyone that does not agree with his pro-evolution views.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : add the word "not" between the words "does" and "agree" - thanks Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 2:38 AM fishboy has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 33 of 81 (453498)
02-02-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by fishboy
02-01-2008 6:04 PM


No, my question isn't about the age of the earth. And the textbook info only tells so much. I guess a better way to have stated my question would have been, If you had to convince someone, given that that person was somewhat intelligent, unbiased....SNIP
The first thing you need to realize is that everyone is biased - there are no exceptions. Everyone has an axe to grind. Anyone who denies is lying because it is impossible not to have a bias.
....that evolution was sound theory, where would you start?.
Evolution is not a sound theory. It is Atheist ideology packaged as science. And I suggest that you stick around in this Forum (EvC) and get educated that evolution is false.
Ray Martinez (Creationist-Designist).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by fishboy, posted 02-01-2008 6:04 PM fishboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 1:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2008 2:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 6:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 81 (453499)
02-02-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
02-02-2008 1:54 AM


Re: pretty wide-ranging topic
i'm sorry i know we're not supposed to turn this into a back-and-forth, but this comment is just so incredibly misrepresentative that i just have to correct the misinformation.
Best way I know to explain and illustrate this is with dog breeding. All canines (all canine species) can actually successfully interbreed, and you can take a group of canines or dogs and create specific forms. Pure-bred dogs are a good example of that.
But what happens when you do that?
The genetic range within the breed is diminished. That's one reason so many pure-bred dogs have so many problems.
the diminished genetic range in purebred dogs (and their genetic problems) are caused by inbreeding. pure breeds are often created by mating dogs that are very closely related. this does not happen (to this extent) in the wild, where genes are distrubuted normally in more random distributions. the difference here is breeding population size -- human meddling with artificial selection.
problems are also caused because that artificial selection is for traits that would not normally be selected for in the wild, produce dogs that are less fit for survival independent of humans.
artificial selection is not a good model for natural selection, because we humans select for different criteria than nature. "survival" may not even be one of them. i mean, look at ray comfort's banana -- it can't even breed on its own without humans. if such a mutation happened in nature, it'd be dead in the first generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 1:54 AM randman has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 35 of 81 (453503)
02-02-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object
02-02-2008 1:22 PM


Cold Foreign Object writes:
Be advised that PaulK is an Atheist-evolutionist who will always misrepresent anyone that does agree with his pro-evolution views.
So you are saying he lies about the people who agree with him?
How is this kind of inflammatory rhetoric (Atheist-evolutionist) helping fishboy in his quest for valid information about evolution, which is the topic of this thread? Does that make you a Radical Creationist Extremist?
Evolution is not a sound theory. It is Atheist ideology packaged as science. And I suggest that you stick around in this Forum (EvC) and get educated that evolution is false.
Creationism is not even a theory. It is warped biblical ideology that has no resemblance to science. If you stick around this forum (EvC) you will see that the Theory of Evolution is a very accurate explanation of the evidence that has been gathered from observations of the natural world.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 1:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-02-2008 2:22 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 2:52 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 81 (453505)
02-02-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object
02-02-2008 1:22 PM


quote:
The first thing you need to realize is that everyone is biased - there are no exceptions. Everyone has an axe to grind. Anyone who denies is lying because it is impossible not to have a bias.
...
Evolution is not a sound theory. It is Atheist ideology packaged as science. And I suggest that you stick around in this Forum (EvC) and get educated that evolution is false.
These paragraphs sound like a perfect example of the bias you were talking about!
Seriously, when there is a difference between competing ideas, the way to determine which is the most accurate is through evidence.
This is the basis of the scientific method.
Divine revelation and other non-evidentiary forms of knowledge, on the other hand, are poorly suited to such analysis. They rely, instead, on belief, dogma, and the like. Experiment, repeatability and replication are not the norm, nor are research and falsification encouraged.
Given the question in the OP, I think that good college-level biology and evolution textbooks would be the way to go. They rely on the scientific method, rather than revelation and dogma. Textbooks can be supplemented by internet research, but the range of opinion, and biases, there will be much broader than in the textbooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 1:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 2:56 PM Coyote has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 37 of 81 (453506)
02-02-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2008 1:58 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Be advised that PaulK is an Atheist-evolutionist who will always misrepresent anyone that does agree with his pro-evolution views.
So you are saying he lies about the people who agree with him?
I believe there's a typo in what Ray wrote: does => doesn't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 1:58 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 81 (453511)
02-02-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2008 1:58 PM


How is this kind of inflammatory rhetoric (Atheist-evolutionist) helping fishboy in his quest for valid information about evolution, which is the topic of this thread? Does that make you a Radical Creationist Extremist?
You have misunderstood. PaulK initiated the inflammatory rhetoric here: http://EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help -->EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help
I was merely pointing out his bias.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 1:58 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 39 of 81 (453512)
02-02-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
02-02-2008 2:13 PM


Divine revelation and other non-evidentiary forms of knowledge, on the other hand, are poorly suited to such analysis. They rely, instead, on belief, dogma, and the like. Experiment, repeatability and replication are not the norm, nor are research and falsification encouraged.
We already know that Atheists reject Divine revelation, and deny the evidence thereof, what is your point?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2008 2:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2008 3:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 02-02-2008 5:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 81 (453514)
02-02-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
02-02-2008 2:56 PM


quote:
quote:
Divine revelation and other non-evidentiary forms of knowledge, on the other hand, are poorly suited to such analysis. They rely, instead, on belief, dogma, and the like. Experiment, repeatability and replication are not the norm, nor are research and falsification encouraged.
We already know that Atheists reject Divine revelation, and deny the evidence thereof, what is your point?
I summarized my point in the final paragraph:
quote:
Given the question in the OP, I think that good college-level biology and evolution textbooks would be the way to go. They rely on the scientific method, rather than revelation and dogma. Textbooks can be supplemented by internet research, but the range of opinion, and biases, there will be much broader than in the textbooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 2:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 41 of 81 (453526)
02-02-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
02-02-2008 2:56 PM


Cold Foreign Object
We already know that Atheists reject Divine revelation, and deny the evidence thereof, what is your point?
What evidence?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 2:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 81 (453530)
02-02-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by fishboy
02-02-2008 2:30 AM


Re: something else to think about
quote:
I've specifically been interested in what genetics has to say about evolution. I get the feeling, others can elaborate on this issue as well.
Before DNA was discovered, there had been in use morphological trees of life that Biologists had constructed. Then, genetic trees of life were constructed by the geneticists. It turns out that the two trees were remarkably congruous, even though entirely different data in two different fields were used to make them.
Because of this, Genetics is the field that sealed the deal on the acceptance in the scientific community for evolution as the best and most complete explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, really, and the addition of the genetic piece to all the other evidence is referred to, in the aggregate, as The Modern Synthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 2:30 AM fishboy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 81 (453532)
02-02-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
02-02-2008 3:30 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
quote:
You and I have a VERY different opinion on the quality and validity of TalkOrigin material. I see it as basically propaganda and think my comments or anyone is on a par with it.....it's not exactly peer-review material, is it?
TalkOrigins articles heavily reference peer-reviewed scientific literature, as any perusal of the reference list and footnotes at the end of any article shows.
In addition, there are links to rebuttals by creationists, and links to the authors' responses to rebuttals.
So, there's lots of openness about sources and lots of openness with linking to criticisms of the articles.
Last time I checked, propaganda doesn't usually include anything like sources, references, or links to opposing viewpoints.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:30 AM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 81 (453533)
02-02-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object
02-02-2008 1:22 PM


quote:
Evolution is not a sound theory. It is Atheist ideology packaged as science.
Are you saying that the Pope is an Atheist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-02-2008 1:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 02-02-2008 10:16 PM nator has not replied

  
fishboy
Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-01-2008


Message 45 of 81 (453546)
02-02-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by molbiogirl
02-02-2008 4:04 AM


I like your style molbiogirl. Thanks for the wealth of information. Can't wait to finish those physics lectures. The first 20 min. or so I've just watched are fantastic.
fb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by molbiogirl, posted 02-02-2008 4:04 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024