Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

[Tbs77]

More drama in the desert !

 

The Arizona Department of Education hopes to make changes to science standards, which will affect K-12 districts and charter schools. The changes include removing the word "evolution" in some areas and describing it as a "theory" in others.

 

Some educators and scientists are outraged by the change. 

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2018/05/22/arizona-draft-school-science-standards-removes-evolution-diane-douglas-intelligent-design/628941002/

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

 

[Stavro]

Quote

In one area of the draft focusing on life science essential standards for high school students, "evolution" is replaced with the words "biological diversity." This section reads: "Obtain, evaluate, and communicate evidence that describes how inherited traits in a population can lead to evolution biological diversity." 

 

In an area regarding the "Core Ideas for Knowing Science," it reads, "The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution organisms. Our countless generations changes resulting from natural diversity within a species are believed to lead to the selection of those individuals best suited to survive under certain conditions." 

If they're removing the word but keeping the teaching, what's the point of the change?

[Brother_Bliss]

It's a fine line of sorts. Biological diversity is not evolution, inasmuch micro-"evolution" is not the same as macro-"evolution".

 

 

[Desert Dan]

We do believe micro evolution happens, correct?

[Stavro]

15 minutes ago, Desert Dan said:

We do believe micro evolution happens, correct?

We agree with the clearly observable phenomena that has been termed "microevolution", but we disagree that millions of years of microevolution has a cumulative effect of macroevolution and the creation of entirely new species.

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

[Brother_Bliss]

"Micro-evolution" can simply be thought of as adaptation - or even selective breeding.

[Bob]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 3:48 PM, Tbs77 said:

 

More drama in the desert !

 

The Arizona Department of Education hopes to make changes to science standards, which will affect K-12 districts and charter schools. The changes include removing the word "evolution" in some areas and describing it as a "theory" in others.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

That is really disappointing, not because I believe children should be taught evolution, but because its outrageous that is appears religion is again attempting to slowly force its beliefs into the public school system, on every child, regardless of the wishes of the parents.

 

You don't want YOUR kids believing evolution, do your job as parents and teach them at home.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bob

[Wm-Scott]

Evolution is a proven fact, living things do and have evolved, but non-living things can't. Hence evolution can not really explain the origin of life or major sudden changes in the fossil record of life on earth. But, evolution is key to understanding the evolution of new diseases and the evolutionary pressures on animals in an ecological system, the web of life. In the life sciences, to not teach evolution is like teaching the earth is flat  in the earth sciences. Trying not to teach evolution cripples the schools life science instruction and does a major disservice to the students who will encounter the evolutionary theory in college or in the media, and will be unprepared or equipped to respond to it. Think of sending a child home schooled by flat earthers, off to college. Did his parents home schooling adequately prepare him for college or just reading popular science articles? Allowing various community groups to remove portions of the school curriculum brings up the old story about the small town that let everyone cross off any books they didn't want in the library from the book list the librarian had made. Once everyone in town had crossed off the books they were opposed to, there were no books left on the list and the library shelves remained empty.  If groups are allowed to remove sections of proven science from the curriculum, this could eventually lead to a resurgence of the flat earth theory along with astrology and faith healing. 

[humblebee]

:22Evolution is a proven fact, 

 

Is it?  Last I heard, ALL bio physicists who have studied the human genome since it was fully documented in 2002 state that, rather than moving FORWARD from some primeval amoeba to perfection over billions of years, we are actually moving backward FROM perfection with each new generation. In fact, the speed at which the human genome is degenerating seems to indicate that  we may have had a level of near perfection some 10k or less years ago and may be extinct a couple of thousand years from now! All very contrary to the theory of evolution!

In short, each new generation is passing on its own defects and all those of the generations before it. That is why God’s word says “unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved. . . “ Matt 24:22

[Tortuga]

It seems to me that if evolution is actually survival of the fittest, then why didn't evolution stop at the silver back gorilla? 

[hatcheckgirl]

On 6/3/2018 at 8:55 PM, Wm-Scott said:

Evolution is a proven fact, living things do and have evolved, but non-living things can't. Hence evolution can not really explain the origin of life or major sudden changes in the fossil record of life on earth. But, evolution is key to understanding the evolution of new diseases and the evolutionary pressures on animals in an ecological system, the web of life.

If schools were prepared to teach evolution in this context, rather than the evolution of the species to explain how life got here, there would be no conflict.  Evolutionary science tries to explain how we got here, not just how change occurs through adaption.  It attempts to explain those jumps between species, rather than just the interspecies differences over time.

 

Jehovah, we know, created all things according to the "kinds", and they obviously had the ability to "evolve" further within their kind, as the animals did after the flood.  Out of one pair of cats, dogs, horses, chickens etc came all the differences in breeds, as an example.

 

So, I am a bit confused.  The Bible and science are friends, not enemies.  However, man does not believe Jehovah is the creator, so their scientific explanations don't align with the truth.  They are seeing the same evidence of creation we see, but giving it their own interpretation - and then feeding this lie to the children at school.

 

They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. - Rom 1:25

[Guri]

Many believe in evolution, despite a century of research which shows that mutation or so called micro-evolution (adaptation or even selective breeding or whatever they believe and mean by this term) have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. So I do not understand, really, what is the foundation of the belief of evolutionists. Do they simply chose to believe it because they decided so and don't want to listen to God and his standards? I don't get it.   

Edited June 10, 2018 by Guri
spelling

[Vinnie]

2 Cor 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through

 

Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen

 

 

[Shawnster]

On 6/3/2018 at 8:55 AM, Wm-Scott said:

Evolution is a proven fact

Depends on the definition of evolution. 

 

All life evolved from inorganic matter /a single cell?  Nope. Not proven. Not a fact. 

 

All life adapts go changes in environment?  Favorable genetic mutation or change /differentiation helps species adapt to different environments?   Yes. Proven fact. 

[Stavro]

2 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

All life evolved from inorganic matter /a single cell?  Nope. Not proven. Not a fact. 

The question of the origin of life is often lumped in with "evolution", but it's an entirely different field of study. Darwin himself was deliberately silent on the subject, and his writings were purely on the adaptation of existing life forms.

[Pjdriver]

On 5/26/2018 at 4:10 PM, Stavro said:

If they're removing the word but keeping the teaching, what's the point of the change?

Maybe they feel that “evolution” is an inflammatory word for many and this is an effort to make it a politically incorrect word so as not to offend. Kind of silly I think but why else would they do that?  

[Wm-Scott]

11 hours ago, humbleebee said:

Last I heard, ALL bio physicists who have studied the human genome since it was fully documented in 2002 state that, rather than moving FORWARD from some primeval amoeba to perfection over billions of years, we are actually moving backward FROM perfection with each new generation. In fact, the speed at which the human genome is degenerating seems to indicate that  we may have had a level of near perfection some 10k or less years ago and may be extinct a couple of thousand years from now! All very contrary to the theory of evolution!

In short, each new generation is passing on its own defects and all those of the generations before it. That is why God’s word says “unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved. . . “ Matt 24:22

5

Your claim was answered by a biologist on a website.

 

"There is absolutely no good scientific evidence to support any of the statements you make. The rate at which the human genome is changing is not increasing. Nor is it clear to me how one would retrospectively measure such changes and over what timescale. Similarly as a species we are healthier and living longer than at any time in our history. Please post again providing links to the websites you mention so we can comment on them directly." http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=12514

 

The human genome is not deteriorating. The human race is not in any danger of dying off due to genetic effects. Individuals, however, are genetically breaking down due to old age and things like cancer. The theory you refer to seems to be limited to born-again religious websites and is not found on science websites dealing with genetics. You are misapplying Matthew 24:22, the dangers are listed in the earlier verses in the chapter, and human genome breaking down is not mentioned.

[Wm-Scott]

11 hours ago, Tortuga said:

It seems to me that if evolution is actually survival of the fittest, then why didn't evolution stop at the silver back gorilla? 

Is that a crack about my grey hair?

[Wm-Scott]

11 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

If schools were prepared to teach evolution in this context, rather than the evolution of the species to explain how life got here, there would be no conflict. 

Brilliant post, you got it in one. Yes, Jehovah created life with the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Evolution is but a design feature of created life, not how things originated since non-living things can't evolve since they don't even have DNA and can't reproduce.

[Wm-Scott]

11 hours ago, Guri said:

Many believe in evolution, despite a century of research which shows that mutation or so called micro-evolution (adaptation or even selective breeding or whatever they believe and mean by this term) have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. So I do not understand, really, what is the foundation of the belief of evolutionists. Do they simply chose to believe it because they decided so and don't want to listen to God and his standards? I don't get it.   

"In a study published in Science, researcher Justin Meyer, an assistant professor of biology at UC San Diego, and colleagues explain that they first cultured a virus known as bacteriophage lambda, which can infect E.coli bacteria using two receptors (molecules viruses attach to outside a cell’s wall). Then the researchers gave the virus two types of cells to infect, each with its own type of receptor, and watched as it evolved into two completely new species, each specializing in one receptor type." https://futurism.com/breakthrough-scientists-see-the-evolution-of-a-new-species-occur-in-a-flask/

 

The viruses evolved in a flask in a lab, under controlled conditions. Evolution is a fact, however, life was created by Jehovah since evolution is only a life process and not a life maker. It can't create life, only change it over time. Over long periods of time, this gradual changing has changes species into different species. We have living examples of this in animals like horses and donkeys, which are two separate species that when mated produce sterile mules which cannot breed. But the fact that they can produce mules, shows that horses and donkeys were once one species. 

 

"But on a Grand Mesa ranch, the once-in-a-million, genetically “impossible” occurrence of a mule giving birth has only drawn keen interest from the scientific world. That, and a stream of the locally curious driving up from the small town of Collbran to check out and snap pictures of a frisky, huge-eared, gangly-legged foal.

“No one has run away in fear yet,” laughed Laura Amos, the owner of the foal, along with her husband, Larry.

The foal is being called a miracle because mules aren’t supposed to give birth. Mules are a hybrid of two species – a female horse and a male donkey – so they end up with an odd number of chromosomes. A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62. A mule inherits 63. An even number of chromosomes is needed to divide into pairs and reproduce."https://www.denverpost.com/2007/07/25/mules-foal-fools-genetics-with-impossible-birth/

 

In Theory, it may be possible to breed the Mule foal with another mule and create a population of fertile mules, a new species. Now if a single genetic miracle can potentially create a new species right in front of us, what may have happened over millions of years before Man was created? 

 

"The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized,^[1] forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete outline of the evolutionary lineage of the modern horse than of any other animal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

 

We know from scripture, that Jehovah created a number of different animal "kinds" over a long period of time. But what animals Jehovah directly created and what animals evolved from those created kinds, we do not know. Did Jehovah create just a few animals or many different species? Apparently He directly created a bat and a dolphin. 

 

"But in 2010, Stephen Rossiter, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary, University of London, and his colleagues determined that both types of echolocating bats, as well as dolphins, had the same mutations in a particular protein called prestin, which affects the sensitivity of hearing. Looking at other genes known to be involved in hearing, they and other researchers found several others whose proteins were similarly changed in these mammals.

Now, Rossiter’s team has expanded the search for this so-called molecular convergence to the entire genome. They sequenced the genomes of four species from various branches of the bat family tree, two that use echolocation and two that don't. They added in the existing genome sequences of the large flying fox and the little brown bat, another echolocator. Evolutionary biologist Joe Parker, also at Queen Mary, University of London, compared the bat genetic sequences to those from more than a dozen other mammals, including the bottlenose dolphin. He focused on the 2300 genes that exist in single copies in all the bats, the dolphin, and at least five other mammals. He evaluated how similar each gene was to its counterparts in various bats and the dolphin. The analysis revealed that 200 genes had independently changed in the same ways,Parker, Rossiter and their colleagues report today in Nature.  Several of the genes are involved in hearing, but the others have no clear link to echolocation so far; some genes with shared changes are important for vision, but most have functions that are unknown. 

“The biggest surprise,” says Frédéric Delsuc, a molecular phylogeneticist at Montpellier University in France, “is probably the extent to which convergent molecular evolution seems to be widespread in the genome."

Genomicist Todd Castoe from the University of Texas, Arlington, is also impressed: “I’m pretty convinced they are finding something real, and it’s really exciting [and] pretty important.” However, he is critical about the way the analysis was done, suggesting that the approach found only indirect evidence of molecular convergence.

The discovery that molecular convergence can be widespread in a genome is "bittersweet,” Castoe adds. Biologists building family trees are likely being misled into suggesting that some organisms are closely related because genes and proteins are similar due to convergence, and not because the organisms had a recent common ancestor. No family trees are entirely safe from these misleading effects, Castoe says. “And we currently have no way to deal with this.”" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/09/bats-and-dolphins-evolved-echolocation-same-way

 

The evolutionist's "convergence evolution" of identical genetic sequences in non-rated species, seems to be a case of "cut and paste"  where Jehovah reused a genetic sequence in more than one created kind. If more of these "cut and paste" examples are found, it may be possible to identify what the original animal kinds were.  

[humblebee]

1 hour ago, Wm-Scott said:

Please post again providing links to the websites you mention so we can comment on them directly.

 

 

[humblebee]

2 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

The human genome is not deteriorating. The human race is not in any danger of dying off due to genetic effects. Individuals, however, are genetically breaking down due to old age and things like cancer. The theory you refer to seems to be limited to born-again religious websites and is not found on science websites dealing with genetics. You are misapplying Matthew 24:22, the dangers are listed in the earlier verses in the chapter, and human genome breaking down is not mentioned.

Very interesting and I have quoted the post above, which is seemingly credible because the interviewee claims to be a Biophysicist. If this is totally inaccurate, then we all need the accurate knowledge so that we are not misled, or indeed mislead others - and for that, I thank you for contributing. 🏆

[Greg Dent]

Im sorry but the human race is breaking down on a massive scale. Someone else posted a site that said there are more diseases and health problems in the workforce that cause people to take emergency time off and use sick benefits than there has ever been. 

 

We simply cannot fight off the bugs and viruses like we could years ago. More people die of influenza than have ever in the past. I am not talking of the black plague is spanish flu. Common flu that goes around every year kill more and more every year. The flu vaccine continues to be ineffective as a preventative measure.

 

More and more defects in babies are coming out. 

[Greg Dent]

I was taught evolution this way. A volcano erupts on the sea floor and it causes and island to form. Pretty soon sea birds come and deposit thier donation of seads and plants start growing. After that sea life comes to drop eggs in the rocks and fruit starts growing and attracts new birds and animals from the sea to eat it. Pretty soon the island has an entire ecosystem that evolved from a few bird droppings on the rocks. Pretty simple and factual account of the evolution of the island. We would agree with everything stated but not the no birds landed and from bird dropping and primordial ooze started building single cell organisms. This things developed into monkeys and people came from them. That is ridiculous.

[Tortuga]

Speaking of evolution, I was just wondering.

If scientist every find any indication of life (past, present or future) on another planet, would that conflict with the bible?

I don't think so. Our current understanding is that earth has the only human life on it but we don't know if Jehovah has placed plant or animal life on other planets or how he may have used them in the creation process. So even if scientists find the building blocks of life on Mars, that doesn't mean it's the beginning of an evolutionary process that would create life.