Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Request for Tranquility Base
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (19188)
10-07-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-04-2002 2:52 AM


*******************************************
EVIDENCE FOR A CREATED ORIGIN OF LIFE FORMS
*******************************************
A 2 lesson alternative origins syllabus outline
for senior high school science courses
http://EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base -->EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base
Version 1.5
By Tranquility Base
Registered member
Creation vs. Evolution Forum
October 2002
NOTES
1. This is a feasibility study in creation education.
2. Although a specific textbook would be helpful to educators, until something specific appears along these lines, this outline, together with mainstream and existing creationist books and web resources, should enable an instructive pair of lessons to be prepared.
3. Rebuttals of obvious evolutionary counter arguments are not included for the sake of brevity.
4. A serious attempt has been made to restrict both the details and interpretations presented to either agreed facts or arguably logical steps so that it can be, in the best case, presented bias-free by educators.
5. There are no (i.e. zero) conditions on the reuse of any of this material in whole or part except of course for any attempt to restrict conditions on the open reuse of this rendition or its parts. Citation is not required or requested.
LESSON 1
---------------
* INTRODUCTION
It is possible that the life forms on earth are due to creation by a higher intelligence at some point or points in the history of our planet. Although the higher intelligence is presumably not able to be studied by science it is not necessarily unscientific to study features of life forms which reveal signs of creation. Discuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'. Introduce the concepts of microevolution as the fine-tuning of existing traits and macroevolution as the introduction of new traits (as defined by mainstream Erwin, see Lesson 2).
* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES
The tree of life constructed by comparing anatomies highlights differences as much as it highlights similarities. The distinctness of the basic types of organisms, anatomical features and genetic parts are approximately what one would expect following the creation of basic kinds for distinct purposes followed by the operation of Darwin's natural selection, generations of reproduction and hybridization. Examples of anatomical novelties (e.g.: multicellularity, respiration, circulation, the nervous system, the backbone, jaws of jawed fish, limbs, legs, wings, the shelled egg of birds/reptiles, the placenta of mammals, feathers of birds) that distinguish higher groups. Examples of distinct kinds identifiable by hybridization criteria (e.g.: Canidae = dogs/wolves/foxes/jackals, Equidae = horses/donkeys/zebra & Funariaceae = mosses).
* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record similarly displays distinct anatomies of extinct organisms and the fossil gaps predicted by Darwin have generally not been filled in by paleontologists digging for over a century. Although some examples of organisms with mixed features such as whale-like animals with legs or reptiles with mammalian features can be found there is still a systematic lack of evidence of gradual transitions. The lack of good examples of gradual transitions has led to the well known evolutionary theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which explains that evolution occurs in jumps in small populations in such a way that the transitionary fossils are rarely left behind. Alternatively it is possible that the kinds of organisms simply cover a very large 'space' of anatomies but were still created separately as suggested by the gaps. Examples: Cambrian explosion, backbones, limbs, digits, wings, bat sonar.
* FOSSIL ORDER
The fossil order is approximately in agreement with evolutionary trees generated from anatomical and molecular similarity which in turn are approximately complexity arrangements. However, in many cases the trees predict 'ghost' lineages where organisms are predicted to have existed but are not present in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years of supposed geological time. The creation possibilities for explanation of the fossil order include (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilized organisms at different layers based on the interpretation of much of the seawater and freshwater layers on land as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) explains the fossil order through an evolution-like creation order. Although some good evidence of catastrophic formation of the geological column exists (including fossil graveyards and strong ripple effects evident in many layers), option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence currently, that this could generate the observed fossil oderings. Discuss potential mechanisms of fossil ordering: Relative mobility of organisms, water sorting properties and ecological zoning as well as problems such as the stratagraphical separation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals.
* CONVERGENT FEATURES
Anatomical features of organisms don't always appear in a 'monophyletic' fashion meaning that a feature wont always only appear once and then in every organism in that 'branch'. Vision and flight both appear in multiple parts of the tree separately. In the evolutionary scenario wings and eyes have each separately evolved on multiple occasions. There are hints that such 'convergences' may be too unlikely for evolution and special creation easily explains the appearance of anatomical features for designed purposes. At a finer level, all trees constructed by evolutionists have problems with 'convergences' with features appearing and reappearing at multiple positions along branches suggesting that instead, each creature was individually created. Large scale examples: wings in insects/dinosaurs/birds/bats. Eyes. Small scale example: show a tree with convergent features.
LESSON 2
-------------
* ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is the process by which a variable population of organisms can change through selection by the environment. As Charles Darwin noticed, a migrating population of finches containing a mix of traits will have its mix changed at the new location due to differential survivability. This 'microevolution' works on existing traits (and underlying genes) and in the creation model operates as it does in the evolutionary model - as a fine tuning mechanism and source of speciation. In the creation model the extrapolation from beak shape changes to the origin of beaks is considered to be unjustifiable as the former requires no new underlying traits whereas the latter does. Discuss the Galapagos finches, artificial dog breeding, agricultural breeding (wild mustard leads to broccoli, cabbage & cauliflower by selecting for features including leaf, stem and flower size) and viral resistance.
* DISTINCTNESS IN GENETICS
Genes are the lists of DNA bases that store information about our anatomical characteristics or traits. Blue/brown eyes, type A/B/O blood or short/tall are variants on the traits of eye color, blood type and height. These variants are called 'alleles'. A blue eyed person has two copies of the 'blue' allele - a gene with DNA that gives blue eyes. A tall person carries a 'tall' growth factor allele in his DNA. But the DNA is not a random series of 'bases'. Most random sequences result in a useless gene. So although it is very easy for a 'type A blood gene' to mutate into a 'type B blood gene' the genes for height or eye color have no similarity to those that code for blood type. Height, eye color and blood type genes all code for proteins that do a particular biochemical job. So although natural selection (an example of microevolution) and mutations can easily change alleles within a trait they can't easily do this from one trait to another. Some mainstream published research agrees that if macroevolution were true it would be 'more than repeated rounds of microevolution' (Erwin DH. Evol Dev. 2000 vol 2, pp78-84.). Discuss the issues with respect to information, gain, loss vs. allelic change.
* GENES CODE FOR PROTEINS WHICH DO VERY SPECIFIC JOBS & THE SYSTEMS APPEAR TO REQUIRE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF THEM
The distinct gene 'families' do very specific jobs in cells and organisms. That is why most mutations are disadvantageous or simply change the 'strength' of an already existing function. This is why it is easy to lose a function or change the shape of a beak or become resistant to a drug through mutations. For the same reason nobody has seen the evolution of new systems in bacteria after millions of bacterial generations in the laboratory. Not only is the evolution of a new gene type difficult as described above, but anatomical, physiological and cellular systems appear to require a minimal number of such parts before they can work. Example of protein jobs: the ribosome, an enzyme & hemoglobin. All organisms have a ribosome to make proteins but only organisms that transport oxygen or electrons have hemoglobin family members. A simple example from M. Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'. Discuss issue of alternative use of parts in the evolutionary scenario as a hypothesis.
* CONCLUSIONS
The facts of 'homologies', a tree of life, convergences, organisms with mixed features, fossil order, genetic flexibility and natural selection are mostly agreed on by all. These facts are however interpreted differently in the creation and evolutionary models. What is seen as evidence of common descent can be viewed as evidence of a common creator. In the creation model the similarities, differences and complexities of life are seen as evidence of a common creator that is consistent with the known adaptive processes of biology. So although all of life shares certain genes, cellular systems and anatomical features, and although these can adapt to the environment, organisms also contain 'group specific' genes, cellular systems and anatomical features suggestive of creation.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-04-2002 2:52 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 4:09 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (19194)
10-07-2002 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
10-07-2002 4:09 AM


^ Point taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 4:09 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (19265)
10-07-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 3:15 AM


Update 3 is up. I'll probably add a few more concrete examples in each section over the next few days and then leave it at that.
Any ideas from evolutionists about fossil order? From a US first ammendment POV can we mention a large flood as a possible cause of the fossil record or not? I am happy to leave it out but, to me, it seems unscientific not to mention flood geology as an alternative model of the geo-col?
What about a paragraph like:
The only possibilities for creation explanations of the fossil order appear to be (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilised organisms at differnet layers based on the interpretaion of continental marine stata as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) expains the fossil order through an evoltuion-like creation order whereas option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence, that a cataclysmic flood could generate the observed fossil orderings via mobility-sorting-ecology considerations.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:15 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 5:15 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (19270)
10-07-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
10-07-2002 10:09 PM


^ I think as I sumariize it in my lesson plan it is justifiable as an optional part of the creation model, listed along side progressive creation? If there is an alternative theory which has evidence then there are stll always parts that are not well supported that still need to be mentioned.
I think there is very good evidence of a flood origin of the geo-column as you know. However I agree that the fossil order is not well explained.
I could easily list hundreds of PhDed sceintists who side with flood geology including dozens of PhDed geologists. That is a sufficient basis for mention in what is already an 'alternative theories' lesson. It simply is a creation fossil order possibility but I leave that paragraph as optional if it ruffles too many feathers.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 10:09 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 10:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (19275)
10-07-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
10-07-2002 10:48 PM


What's Chicago got to do with it Edge? I've obviously missed something here. The list is basically the ICR, AIG and '50 scientists with PhDs' book list. PhD became a verb to save time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 10:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 10-08-2002 12:40 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 44 (19281)
10-08-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
10-08-2002 12:40 AM


^ Thanks for educating me on Chicago politics. I could reasonably easily track down ten creationist geologists/geophysicists with PhDs. Dozens (plural) would require real work, you're right. Although your distinguishment of geology/geophysics is not without merit it is also a convenient way to halve our numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 10-08-2002 12:40 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 10-08-2002 10:53 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (19343)
10-08-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
10-08-2002 1:47 PM


^ I've sifted through that article. If you think there is anything of value in it why not summarize it. I found very little.
That book was put together in a very simple way via a grassroots church/contacts email campign by Ashton. I was invited to write for it three years ago and chose not to at the time (I was not tenured at that time and felt it wasn't wise). There are 50 PhDed scientists who responded and they are in the book. They cover all areas of science as it should be.
That critisism seems utterly pathetic. It is a fine book that is pure and simple testimony of how PhDed people can be YECs. Nothing more, nothing less.
In that artilce the last section on the geolgoist who believes in 6 days despite the evidedence is fine with me. The idea that the continents moved that quickly and of accelrated decay are bizaree. Without accelerated decay geological YECism is ridiculous. It is not clear cut but at the same time there is enormous evidence of catastrophism in the geo-column layering as well.
I have met PhDed YECs in 2 out of 3 departments I have been in. They do not all preach from a pulpit. only a handful of my collegues know that I am a YEC for example.
Your best coffee table buddy could be a YEC!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 10-08-2002 1:47 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 44 (19344)
10-08-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
10-08-2002 10:53 AM


Percy
At least '95%' (probably more) of YECs beleive the flood caused most of the geological-column. That is undeniable. What you are arguing is quite harfd to stomach. Is our pioint of disagreement over OECs? Many OECs pretty much call themselves evolutionists so it's hard to say anything definitive about OECs.
And in my paragraph I put progressive creation along side the flood anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 10-08-2002 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 8:35 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (19348)
10-08-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nos482
10-08-2002 9:44 PM


^ The very point is that most of creationists are not working on C vs E. That is the point. That book is simply a series of testimoneis and the individual should judge it for themselves. It proves nothing except that science PhDed researchers can be YECs in the scores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 9:44 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nos482, posted 10-09-2002 9:50 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 44 (19454)
10-09-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
10-09-2002 8:35 AM


Percy
Empirically we already know the earth was innundated by the oceans during the formation of the geological column. Most of the geological column is on land and is marine as I'm sure you're aware. So regardless of mechanisms we emirically know innundation happened and the only further empirical burden for creationists is (i) how quickly and (ii) could it have been completely global? Mechanisms are not quite as important as whether it happened or not.
With mountain ranges lower there is absolutely no reason for there not to have been a near-global covering at some point in the geolgocial column even in a mainstream context.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 8:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (19455)
10-09-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mammuthus
10-09-2002 10:29 AM


Mammuthus
No.
If they are members of the ICR etc they are required to currently believe in literal recent creation/flood. In this way the membership can be cited as evidence of beleivers in this model. Anyone can publiush in the journals and even the members can 'accept' any data they wish as evidenced in ICR and AIG tech publicaitons where evience is frequently discussed that is not favouable to creatonism.
You can call the membership policy biased but that does not extend to publishing or restriction of anyones' view of any particular data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 10:29 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 5:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 44 (19584)
10-10-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
10-09-2002 11:23 PM


Percy - I mainly agree with you. But don't be too surprised if some creationist stuff gets published mainstream somewhere down the track. It is an uphill battle but I personally consider that a possibility based on the nature of the data.
I am utterly convinced, as biased as I am, that the data is interpretable both ways.
As for consensus. You're right. But the consencus of opinion of the American people (for example) is that evolutionists are also very biased and that that may be the reason for the mainstream bias. The American people know that evolution is considered a minastream near fact and yet about 50% or more of the public choose to beleive they are wrong.
I am NOT arguing that science be decided on the basis of a vote but I think the survey data shows that the American people think your bias is responsible for your scientific consensus. I agree with the collective voice of the American people (in this instance).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 9:24 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 44 (19585)
10-10-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
10-10-2002 5:11 AM


Quetzal
I will complete it by Monday Australian time so it will definitely be complete by your Monday morning. I'll essentially add 2 or 3 specific examples in eacjh section, each with brief descriptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 5:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-11-2002 2:05 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (19810)
10-13-2002 10:29 PM


A semi-final version of a trial 2 lesson creation syllabus is up at:
http://EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base -->EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-13-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-14-2002 8:00 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 11-01-2002 10:32 AM Tranquility Base 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