Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
28 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle, xongsmith (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,010 Year: 22,046/19,786 Month: 609/1,834 Week: 109/500 Day: 6/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 126 (538791)
12-10-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Peg's DNA
Granny Magda writes:

Your DNA is not identical to your parents, so how are you related to them? Congratulations, you have just argued your way to illegitimacy.

Or, you might like to rethink that question.

identicle wasnt the right word, you are right.

the DNA can tell you what type an animal you are examining...whether its human whether its horse or cow or pelican is what I meant.

why can the DNA do that if there is not a similar pattern to be found in the various species?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 5:53 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:32 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 126 (538792)
12-10-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 6:08 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Granny Magda writes:

Of course it is. You claim that it's Yaweh or the highway. That's a false dichotomy. You have excluded the mean, excluded all other options out of hand.

no you are wrong.

its not about which God at all. Its about creation vs evolution.

Granny Magda writes:

And the point that is being made ad nauseum is that either of those origins are compatible with evolution.

God created simple life... and it evolved.

Life arose through unguided chemical processes... and it evolved.

the very earliest lifeforms were far from simple, so there goes your first point

chemicals do not come to life, there goes your second.

DNA prevents species jumping the very real barrier that keeps them replicating in the manner of their parents.... so none of what you've said has any founding.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:08 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:40 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 78 of 126 (538797)
12-10-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Wounded King
12-10-2009 5:54 AM


Re: what kids are taught
Woundedking writes:

We can use genetic to determine degrees of relatedness in humans, what makes you think the exact same approach becomes impossible when we look at other animals?

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?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 7:19 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 79 of 126 (538798)
12-10-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
So you would be happy to accept that Brahma might have made the first life?

again, its not the issue.

Granny Magda writes:

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?

because the cambrian period shows a burst of life in great variety as opposed to a slow gradual increase

because 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

Granny magda writes:

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?

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.

granny magda writes:

Fixed that for you. Or perhaps you disagree. If so, please point out this boundary. I'd love to see it.

sterility

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 8:57 AM Peg has responded
 Message 84 by Woodsy, posted 12-11-2009 11:28 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 126 (539065)
12-12-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Wounded King
12-10-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Relatedness
Hi wounded king

Wounded King writes:

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.

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?

Wounded King writes:

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.

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 Bergman

his paper is talking about the issue of species not crossing over to change into new species...here is an excerpt:

By natural selection is usually meant, ". . . the belief that random variation can, when subjected to selective pressure for long periods of time, culminate in new forms, and that it therefore provides an explanation for the origins of morphological diversity, adaptation, and when extended as far as Darwin proposed, speciation"

Now that researchers have a tremendous amount of experience in breeding animals, it is clear that it can be carried only to a very limited level, and many traits tend to revert to where we started-fruit fly traits, after eight to ten generations, tend to revert back to normal (Tinkle, 1976). The fact is, extensive breeding by millions of researchers and breeders has not produced a single undisputed new species in 400 years of experimenting (Johnson, 1991). As Eiseley (1958, p. 223) noted:

... careful domestic breeding, whatever it may do to improve the quality of race horses or cabbages, is not actually in itself the road to the endless biological deviation which is evolution. There is a great irony in this situation, for more than any other single factor, domestic breeding has been used as an argument for the reality of evolution.

Deevey (1967, p. 636) concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.

Wounded king writes:

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.

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?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 7:19 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by DrJones*, posted 12-12-2009 6:17 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2009 7:34 PM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 87 of 126 (539067)
12-12-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Huntard
12-10-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
huntard writes:

Or do you deny "variation"?
for sake of discussion, let's go with the "created kinds" here. Do you deny they can have "variation"?

not at all

we know what guides variation - genetics. We can see it and test it.

Huntard writes:

You don't think small steps will eventually lead to something evtirely different?

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?

Huntard writes:

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?

because there is a species barrier....an internal law that stops a cat breeding with a dog or an ape breeding with a man

and 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.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 12-10-2009 7:48 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 9:07 PM Peg has responded
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 12-13-2009 3:07 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 126 (539070)
12-12-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 8:57 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Granny Magda writes:

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.

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?

Granny Magda writes:

I asked how you can demonstrate that evolution requires a natural origin.

isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?

Granny Magda writes:

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?

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.

Granny Magda writes:

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.

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.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 8:57 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 12-13-2009 3:21 AM Peg has responded
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 7:47 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 90 of 126 (539075)
12-12-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Wounded King
12-12-2009 7:34 PM


Re: Relatedness
Wounded King writes:

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 says

it also says that the offspring will continue to go thru changes until it is so different from its parents that it becomes a new species

Darwin 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.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2009 7:34 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2009 4:38 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 91 of 126 (539078)
12-12-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Woodsy
12-11-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
woodsy writes:

Do you think that life is a substance, or anything other than the result of certain arrangements of chemical compounds?

no i dont.

chemical compounds do not produce life.

Woodsy writes:

Chemicals "come to life" in the reproductive tracts of living things all the time.

no, living things contain chemicals, but chemicals to not produce living things.

the reproductive ability is not contingent on chemicals alone but on existing life. An organism can die and still contain all the chemicals that it had while it was alive...but those chemicals do not keep it alive nor do they work to bring the dead to life.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Woodsy, posted 12-11-2009 11:28 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 95 of 126 (539094)
12-13-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Iblis
12-12-2009 9:07 PM


Re: Ring Species!
Iblis writes:

We know that pairs of what are called different species of animals can interbreed and produce hybrids. As, for example, lions and tigers; horses and donkeys; sheep and goats; finches and uhm, other finches?

i did look up some sites about these sorts of hybrids and found it quite intersting.
One site did say that in the wild, lions and tigers would not normally breed though...this only happens because man interferes with them. Also, the offspring are infertile so it kind of backs up the point i made about the species barrier...they can only go so far.

Iblis writes:

So what I got to thinking was, a nice proof that this argument was wrong would be an animal A who could interbreed with animal B, and an animal C who could also interbreed with animal B, even though animal A could not possibly interbreed with animal C. Assuming evolution was right, we ought to have gobs of these kind of situations, right?

Ring Species!!

to be honest, i havent read a great deal about ring species. What is known about the genetics of the various ring species?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 9:07 PM Iblis has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 96 of 126 (539095)
12-13-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Huntard
12-13-2009 3:21 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Huntard writes:

Then you accept evolution. Now, all you have to realize is that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely Differnt, given enough steps have been taken.

that is pure speculation

No one had been around long enough to see an entirely new species develop. Everything we have today is the same as it was millions of years ago.

Huntard writes:

So, all the evidence we have does not exist?

perhaps the evidence you have has been fitted into the existing theory.

Huntard writes:

Now then, after a million generations, what makes you think all those small changes could not have added up and there is a very different species then the "original species", but very similar to it's own parents?

with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same. We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.

show me where we have changed dramatically? (and dont show me an ape)

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 12-13-2009 3:21 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Huntard, posted 12-13-2009 5:44 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 103 of 126 (539209)
12-14-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by hooah212002
12-13-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
hooah212002 writes:

No. Evolution is so fiercely contested by creationists mainly because it turns "THE creation story" into allegory. Most of the rest of the bible can still be taken at face value

no it can't. The bible is the communication from the one who created the man and woman in his image, and all the animals 'according to their kinds'

he does not say that the put molecular life on the earth and allowed it time to evolve. He says he created each kind of animal and finally created the human man and woman as separate creations.

This is exactly why christians contest evolution.

Hooah212002 writes:

But wait! THE creation story can still be *true* if you don't actually thk A&E were actual humans, but just the first lifeforms.

Jesus christ spoke about A&E as real people. They are even listed in his geneolgy...so if they are not real, then nor is Jesus.

hooah212002 writes:

on a side note (which hopefully isn't too far off topic): I asked on semi-almost-creationist friend of mine what race he thought A&E were. He said caucasion. I almost fell out of my chair. Do they really think that caucasion's were the first people? Was jesus caucasion as well?

Not all christians think that. The reason why some might is because most christians dont study their own religion. They should know that he was not a caucasian because caucasian people are decended from Noahs son Japheth who was the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European (Indo-Germanic) branch of the human family. The son Shem gave the line of Jews/Cannanites/Assyrians/Aramaeans etc.

It is pretty funny though to see a picture of Jesus with blonde hair...makes me cringe lol

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 7:47 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 12-14-2009 2:58 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 12-14-2009 7:14 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 104 of 126 (539211)
12-14-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Huntard
12-13-2009 5:44 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Huntard writes:

No it isn't. Look up "speciation" on google scholar (324,000 articles) and then tell me there's no evidence for it.

I know about speciation...there was a discussion on it here recently where I pointed out that the Golapogas finches were said to have developed into new species...but the facts are that the finch's are still finch's

Each 'kind' of animal has the genetic potential for great variety, thats why there are more then 400 different breeds of dogs. You might call it speciation, but the reality is that they are all still dogs.

Huntard writes:

No, that's not an ape, and yes, that is our ancestor. Now, tell me we haven't changed from that?

so a skull with a thick brow means a different species?

Im sure you could still find some people with very thick brows

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Huntard, posted 12-13-2009 5:44 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 3:09 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 107 of 126 (539215)
12-14-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
12-14-2009 3:09 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Huntard writes:

As they are also still birds, vertebrates, and so on, does this mean all vertebrates are the same "Kind"? If no, then where do you draw the line?

this is a good question in light of 'speciation' and im not sure what the answer is

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the bible account is accurate with regard to the existence of life.

A Genesis 'Kind' refers to life-forms with the ability for cross-fertility within its limits. We've seen how a lion and a Tiger can reproduce, but they go no further. This would make the lion and tiger the same kind...they belong to the same family and can breed to a point. The boundary between 'kinds' then should be drawn at the point where fertilization does not occur.

So when God instructed Noah to collect two of each animal together to put on the ark, it was animals according to their “kinds” that were collected. With the above description of “kind” in mind, and with the fact that there is a huge potential for great variety in one such 'kind', then Noah need only have one representative from each family group on the ark....and from them, all the cats we have today are possible thru genetics.... perhaps what you call 'speciation'

Huntard writes:

Not as thick as this one, and that's not the only difference, Peg.

This guy has a thick forebrow

These guys are completely different but still the same species

And the different shapes of these three are testament to just how much variety there is in the human frame

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 3:09 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 4:23 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 109 of 126 (539217)
12-14-2009 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Huntard
12-14-2009 4:23 AM


Re: Evolution and Origins
Huntard writes:

So, lions and housecats are not the same kind? Or lions and cheetahs? Just lions and tigers, as they can interbreed? Then what kind are cats,or cheetahs, or lynxes?

no because they are all types of cats...what i'm saying is there is no reason why the two cats taken on board the ark, could not have speciated to become all the many kinds of cat we see today.

leopards and juguars have been cross bred to produce whats called a Jaglion. Actually, while looking into this, i never realized just how much cross breeding has been experimented with. Here is a site with links to many hybrid cats.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 4:23 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 5:09 AM Peg has responded
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2009 5:12 AM Peg has responded
 Message 112 by Brian, posted 12-14-2009 6:16 AM Peg has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019