Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)

You are being unreasonable and evading the point. Comparitively simple life then. OK?God made comparitively simple life... and it evolved.How can you rule this out? You seem to have no trouble doing so; on what basis do you dismiss the idea? No chemical that you know of has come to life. Unless you are suggesting that you have observed every single individual example of a chemical substance that ever existed, you do not know whether chemicals come to life or not. On what basis can you rule this out? That you have never seen it? I have never seen the creation of the Earth, but I have a feeling that it happened nonetheless. Fixed that for you. Or perhaps you disagree. If so, please point out this boundary. I'd love to see it.

I'll split that into two parts.First: Scientists aren't 'debating the theory' in the sense of debating whether it is true. They are debating which parts have more impact than another.Second: However, it could still be true that a theory could be wrong. Science adopts the principle of fallibilism.
Why do you think this is important enough to stress here? It is true of all theories. The evidence strongly suggests that this is so. They share a common ancestor that was a vertebrate. They share a common ancestor that was in the Order Carnivora. I don't have identical DNA to my brother. And yet DNA testing would confirm that he was likely my brother (assuming he actually is). No. There is no reason to base relatedness on the ability to create viable offspring.abe: Let me expand on this. It is true that if we have one population that can freely breed and one which has difficulty interbreeding and one which can never interbreed we can use this as a method of sorting relative relatedness. But if I had a sister, and our genetic makeup meant that any child of ours had an 80% chance of not being viable (incest), that would not indicate that we were not closely related. Little to none, depending on what we mean by fossils. I didn't imply we could find genetic evidence in fossils. You seemed to be of the opinion that if scientists cannot presently do something after spending some time trying, that means that it is impossible. You thought this was a killer argument against abiogenesis research, but you failed to realize that it applies to all ongoing research into subjects that have taken some time so far.Such as Cancer research. By your reasoning we should shut down Cancer research because it is impossible. I don't understand what it means. What does 'come to life' mean? Is the carbon in my body 'alive'? Every part of my body was once non living matter, has it come to life? No they haven't. They have shown that there are some interesting structures that can spontaneously self form, replicate, transmit information and under differential reproductive success. Is that 'coming to life'? I don't know. But even if they had completely failed so far, that isn't the same as showing something to be impossible. Why not? I used to think that God pressed his finger against a primordial pond and this zapped the first life forms into existence and from there evolution occurred. How could this not be true? You aren't expected to believe anything. You have not shown that any 'good' science has shown that life could not originate naturally.

the fact that all creatures have dna does not mean they are related.Isnt it sterility that determines what species are related and what are not?
And isnt it true that breeding experiments have shown that appearance and similarity in genes (ie ape and man) is no basis to determine who is related?

again, its not the issue. because the cambrian period shows a burst of life in great variety as opposed to a slow gradual increasebecause the genetic code stops a plant or animal from moving too far from its parents appearance. There is great variety i agree(eg humans, cats, dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another...genetics and dna determine what a creature will look like, not random mutations.because what we actually see in living things is stability and a limited range of variation so you believe there is a chemical out there that has the ability to come to life?
I wouldnt know, but im not going to base my world view on something that could be out there. I cant prove that its not out there...perhaps if scientists find it we will have the answer to abiogenesis. sterility

That wasn't what I said. Is asked why if similarities in genetics are sufficient to determine relatedness in humans then why not between animals and humans? There could quite easily be all sorts of organisms which used DNA but had a totally different set of genes and proteins than any other, but that isn't what we find, what we find is that organisms seem to share very large complements of genes and that a lot of genetic variation is based upon multiple variants of genes common to many organisms. For example the genetic complements of human and chimpanzee's are much more similar to each other than either is to a mouse. It isn't simply the fact that DNA is involved, it is the specific sequences of DNA. No it isn't, sterility doesn't really say anything about relatedness at all. One definition of distinct species is that when they mate they do not produce fertile offspring, this is post-mating reproductive isolation. We might assume that more closely related species are less likely to produce non-viable or sterile hybrids, but this need not be the case since only two or three mutations may be sufficient to cause offspring to be non-viable. No, I don't think it is true, perhaps if you could be a bit more specific about what breeding experiments you mean I could give you a clearer answer. Offhand I say that almost all comparative genetics suggests you are completely wrong and in fact genetic similarity is probably the very best way to determine relatedness.

Then they are wrong. Evolution isn't about the origin of life. Peg, please, write it down on a post it and stick it to your screen, perhaps then you'll remember. Why does it not register, why? If it's about evolution, then yes. Argument from authority. Did he believe in the germ theory of disease? Did he believe in the Theory of general and special relativity? Argument from authority once more, which prompts the question: So? None of this is relevant to evolution. Like I said, even if god started all life, and even if it was the "created kinds" then evolution would still hsppen. Or do you deny "variation"? Oh? And you know this how? Because the bible says so? But ok, for sake of discussion, let's go with the "created kinds" here. Do you deny they can have "variation"? Then you accept evolutiopn. Really, that's basically all it is saying, things change over time. That's all, that's it, nothing more, simple as that. You don't think small steps will eventually lead to something evtirely different? Sexual selection, yes. This by no means drives all evolutionary change, keep that in mind. No idea, I did not see the show, so can hardly comment on what he said. If all that was different was indeed the colour, and he did indeed say what you said he did, then I would have to question the programme's scientific accuaracy. But like I said, I didn't see it, so can't really comment. {ABE}:After reading Wounded King's Message 75 seems I was rght, colour isn't the only difference. If it were indeed these fish.So, we're now at this stage, you basically accpet evolution (your eally do Peg, evolution isn't what creationists say it is), yet you doubt it's ability to change things radically over a very long time. Now, why is that?

I'm sorry, but it is.You are ruling in one explanation for the origin of life; the Jewish creation story.You are ruling out all other creation stories, any and all natural explanations...On what basis can you say that one is compatible with evolution and another incompatible?The main point that started me on this thread is simply this; evolution does not depend on any particular explanation for life's origin. Could you at least give me some kind of signal that you understand what I'm saying? Even if you disagree, it would be nice to know that you are getting my point here. Again, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I didn't ask why you don't believe in evolution. I asked how you can demonstrate that evolution requires a natural origin. I'm trying to get at the fact that many possible origins are compatible with evolution, both natural and supernatural. Do you see where I'm coming from? The fact that life exists and that it is composed of chemicals proves beyond doubt that this is true. The only bone of contention is how life started. I am trying to show you that evolution is compatible with pretty much any origin, certainly it is compatible with a natural origin or a supernatural origin. Indeed, we should not believe what we cannot evidence. For my part, I don't believe in any particular origin of life. I have no idea what happened. I believe that a naturalistic explanation is more likely, but that's simply because every single other workable and well evidenced explanation for a phenomenon has been naturalistic. Supernatural explanations have an appalling track record in explaining the world. Historically, supernatural explanations have only ever been proved wrong. This alone is good enough reason to expect every phenomenon, including life, to have a naturalistic explanation. It is also the case that a number of reasonable naturalistic hypotheses exist regarding origins and progress is being made. It seems a little premature to rule them out and resort to "God-did-it" just yet.Just another quick point; even if scientists create life in a lab tomorrow, we still won't be able to say definitively that this was how the original life arose. It might be, we wouldn't be able to tell for sure.I believe that WK has answered your point about sterility.

What do you mean by "come to life"?Do you think that life is a substance, or anything other than the result of certain arrangements of chemical compounds?Chemicals "come to life" in the reproductive tracts of living things all the time.

im not using the right word here and im not sure what you call it...im talking about 'sterility' in the sense that a cat and dog cannot produce offspring. I thought it was called sterility but obviously any individual can be sterile.
So if a cat and dog cannot produce offspring its because they are a different species and therefore they are not related. What do you call that? the breeding experiments im talking about are the ones where scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants to try and develop new forms of life.Here is a paper entitled 'Some biological proglems associated with natural selection' by Gerry Bergmanhis paper is talking about the issue of species not crossing over to change into new species...here is an excerpt: I agree that in some respects genetics can prove relatedness. But man and ape are said to be related and yet they cannot produce offspring...not even hybrids.... so how are they related?

They are related through a common ancestor. They've evolved from this ancestor and are no longer inter-fertile.

not at allwe know what guides variation - genetics. We can see it and test it. No i dont because its been proven over and over again as impossible.
Darwin did believe that animals could go in any direction and he believed that new species could be created by selective breeding.but centuries of cross breeding have not produced any new species...none whatso ever. If we cant do it deliberately, what makes you think nature can do it accidently? because there is a species barrier....an internal law that stops a cat breeding with a dog or an ape breeding with a manand as this papershows, breeding experiments bring animals to definite limits of improvement but no further.also the fossil record shows animals unchanged for millions of years, and a sudden appearance of life in many forms in the cambrian period.

Yes, i do get the point. Evolution is the development of the species after life somehow appeared on earth.But do you also understand that life must have begun on the molecular level before natural selection could have selected any animals to survive and reproduce offspring? isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists? Yes i can.And if, by evolution, you are refering to the 'variations' found within a species, then i dont have a problem with it. I know species of animals develop over time and show different features.But if your version of evolution includes the idea that species can develop so much change that they become a new species, then i dont believe that there is any evidence for that. I agree that many creation storys are rediculous...but not so with the bibles creation account which is why I accept it over other stories such as Brahman for instance.The bible creation account shows animals created according to their 'kinds' and going forth to multiply. this is in perfect harmony with what breeding projects have found with regard to species. Species reproduce according their parents.

Even if you use more accurate terminology such as 'interfertility', the reproductive compatibility of two organisms to produce viable fertile offspring. It doesn't change the fact that interfertility is not a measure of relatedness, only of specific genetic compatibility. In some cases genetic incompatibility can be established by very few mutations, which is why it isn't a good measure of relatedness.The essential reason why a cat and a dog can't successfully interbreed and why 2 genetically incompatible people cant interbreed is the same, genetic incompatibility, in the case of the cat and dog the incompatibility is considerably wider spread because they have had time to evolve in different directions since they last had common ancestors within one breeding population. Over this time their chromosomal organisation may have changed significantly, including the number of chromosomes, the arrangement of genes on the chromosomes and the specific genes themselves. All of these differences may contribute to the genetic incompatibility. Oh, you mean fictional ones made up by creationists, thanks for clearing that up. None of the things Bergman refers to were experiments with the intention of developing 'new forms of life'. Just blindly repeating the same question doesn't help, They are genetically related, you just agreed genetics can tell us about relatedness, but now you are taking it back and saying it can't because ... well no reason really, except that you don't like evolution. I have explained twice now that producing offspring is not the measure of relatedness, do you get it yet? No matter how often you try to claim it is you will never be right. Apart from creationist lies what make you think people have been trying to do it deliberately? Plus nature has had a lot longer and a lot more resources. Thats because you think becoming a new species means a cat will become a dog because you're understanding of evolution is based on creationist propaganda rather than, say, actual evolutionary theory. That is what evolution says as well, it just also says that the offspring can differ slightly from their parents which is indeed what we see.

that is not only what evolution saysit also says that the offspring will continue to go thru changes until it is so different from its parents that it becomes a new speciesDarwin said "favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species."and that is Not what we see.