Why do Americans not understand Evolution?

Yeah man, we need to completely take away any soverignty from the states, schools and parents - write the curriculum directly into Federal law and have strict punishments for anyone who doesn't send their kids to a public school from pre-K to Grade 12. It's really the only way to ensure they learn what they need to learn.

 

Changes in the size of the beak of certain species of Galapagos finches have bee observed.
And of course, species of insects developing resistance to pesticides, bacteria developing resistance to anti-biotics

 

Evolution has been observed. Why do you think antibiotics become less effective over time?

 

I take it you're meaning open minded as opened skull and brain fell out?

 

Actually, that's true, it's the main reason most civilized nations use Prussian models for education to this day. It may indeed be the basis of all modernity. What really gets me is that all these anti-science Xtians have no problem using the Internet, yet it's all based on the same science.

 

The Epigenome stuff really throws a wrench into evolution and the hard chromosome stuff.
We have the genes for gills. Had gills as embryos.
If Kevin Costner's Waterworld taught us anything, it is selective pressures could get those gill genes up and running.
And the earliest epigenome stuff looked like that. The body form of grandchildren seemed dependent on the grandparents nutritional status at a time of their development. Tell me that don't sound as weird as gills, etc.

And anytime you listen to evolution blah blah, it is mostly saying stuff like this evolved into that as an active process.
Rather, it is a Passive Process. Environmental pressures favored that and the this is replaced.
The first that having appeared by some lucky mutation that was beneficial.

Nothing like this deciding to evolve into that which is sort of how they teach it. Sort of.


Moi

No ​

 

I'm a fan of homeschooling and the decentralization of education generally. Schooling should be paid for in full by the family receiving the service. Curricula should be unregulated and determined by the schools themselves, and by proxy the parents.

As for what I favor in a curriculum, science and philosophy from an early age, English, math and whatever the child feels drawn to. I think schools teach in a far too structured way, and don't offer enough in the way of creativity and critical, individualistic thinking. That's why I enjoyed religion class (I went to a private school in my senior years) - it was basically a replacement for philosophy. That's how it was taught.

I don't really favor teaching any kids I have religion class, because I think what I gained from it can be much more effectively taught in philosophy.

[hr][/hr]

The teaching of evolution I got was very "to the book" and structured. Too much so. You need to go out and show kids how it works in the real world. There's a good opportunity to integrate study of the environment with study of biology and how it all works. Of course, you can't show them animals actually evolving, but you can show a variety of species in the chain. Get close and personal with some scorpions, show how they live, show how spiders evolved as a result, and for different aims. That sort of thing. Then you can bring it all back into context with the in-classroom study of natural selection and genetic mutation.

 

No, that's not how they teach it. (Outside of homeschool)

 

Well---------------earlier I posted the fact that my ancestors were Adam and Eve created by God. I said liberals and atheist claim their ancestors were apes. But then if you take evolution back even further, liberals and atheist ancestors were pond scum. I still dont have a problem with that. Claim whom ever you like. Like father like son.

 

They teach it right but,
on TV they express it wrong.
Listen how they say, "This evolved into that".
As if some rodent thingie decided to evolve into a primate thingie.


Moi

No ​

 

Hey, let's be FAIR here. After all, the repubs insist on publically trying to discredit science, ANY science their supporters and/or owners object to. This includes trying to force religion into the classroom with creation "science," AKA "intelligent design." When you have a major political party endorsing a form of what they call science which is only 2-3 thousand years old and out of date while, with consistent stupidity, calling evolution ONLY A THEORY, what do you expect? Time and again, the sane among us have explained the nature of scientific theory and time and again, this fact has been ignored.

Many Americans are "skeptical" of evolution because they have been consistently lied to for over a century by either a.) people who can't handle the truth or b.) other people willing to pimp for a.)

 

I don't know where you got taught evolution, but I sure wasn't taught that anything "decided" to turn into something else. Survival of the fittest ring a bell?

The mere fact that we have genes for gills etc in our genome is hard evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor at some point in the distant past.

- - - Updated - - -

As a matter of fact, there is clear evidence of "this" evolving into "that".

Look at the chain of hominids.

 

My dyslexia may have kicked in.
We agree ! Really.
It is those science shows I blame for casually making it sound like an active process;
this evolved into that.
Comprende ?

Maybe because it takes too many more words to state it in a proper "passive" manner.


Moi

No ​

 

Dogs.

(character limit)

 

comprende loud and clear.

Lowest common denominator and such.

 

Because the education system is screwed up and religious people are against changing the status pro.

 

A genotype has nothing to do with this argument. It shows that you are truly ignorant of the theory of evolution and are just throwing words out.

 

I am not saying evolution is wrong per say, but that the theory fails to meet the burden of proof. Despite what people say, evolution is not a "fact". I will grant you Christianity is not either though.And yes, genotypes have everything to do with evolution. We have no connection that ours are even close to how primates work.

 

Of course we know ours work pretty much like chimps--our genotype works like most other mammals. The thing is, they aren't our ancestors--we have a common ancestor.

If you were to skin a chimp, besides the proportion of it's arms and legs, it would be almost indistinguishable from a skinned human. When you say proof and science, I know for sure that you are ignorant. Science can prove nothing. It can just make the best current explanation with the evidence we know. That explanation changes as the evidence changes.

 

Science can prove nothing? Your calling me ignorant? This is a blatant double standard. By your standards, we can believe in evolution for the same reasons we can believe Christianity. A leap of faith. No, I require proof, before people can call me skeptical. That is in the OP, which is why I wrote this, not to deny evolution.

The OP made a firm stance that Americans are "Stupid" for not believing in evolution. I was simply stating a common reasoning why anyone can be justly skeptical, as the burden of proof has not been met. And yes, I would not ask anyone to believe in something that has not been proven beyond a doubt. That's idiocy. Evolution is a theory, and we have evidence that a lot of theories are true, but that does not mean all of them are.

If I were to believe everything we have a tab bit of evidence for is true, than I really am ignorant. Oh, and please tone down on the rhetoric ad hominen attacks. I simply disagreed with you.

 

Just telling the truth. Science does not prove things. It cannot. Anybody who doesn't understand that has not been taught science correctly. Not ad hominem, but just stating things as I see them. I have a master's degree in biology. I have examined the evidence for evolutionary in that study. I haven't found anything inconsistent with it.

Evolution is simply the best explanation based on the evidence. Is it rock solid? Of course not, but it is what the evidence shows us. If new evidence comes out, the theory will change. That is simply the nature of science. The same thing occurred with Newton's laws of motion. New evidence showed it to be incorrect in some situations outside of everyday life (i.e. when you go above about 1/10 the speed of light).

 

Yepp, science "did not proof a thing". Scientists calculated and they were thinking and theorizing.... They predicted and discovered a new planet, exploded the first A-bomb, developed vaccines saving millions of lives, etc. etc. Nobody among sciences can deny the fact of evolution. Debates still can continue about causes and driving factors of evolution, but the fact remains. This theory is based on overwhelming amount of observable facts: 1) fossil records, 2) geographic distribution of animals and plants, 3) fossils and current distribution is in agreement with geological time and plate tectonics, 4) comparative anatomy and systematics, 5)analysis and molecular genetics, 6) geographic variation within species, 7) genetics, embryological data and all tell us about evolutionary history of living organisms. Even entire universe is evolving, entire world is subject to evolution, this is a fundamental understanding of origin of everything, even matter, time and space are subject to changes... Look at geological and biological history of Earth, faunas and floras were changing with time. Enjoy it while we still did not extinct... Noting is forever.

 

Science doesn't prove. It does measure and provide facts, but it doesn't prove. It cannot, because a proof is absolute, and science changes based on the latest observation/measurement (at least theoretically). None of what you posted is a proof of anything. You do realize that the whole "proof" thing is a ruse the creationists use against science. They ask scientists to prove things, knowing (or maybe not knowing) that proof is not part of science.

 

It always cracks me up when conservatives use Latin in a vain attempt to seem more intelligent.

 

Minor evolutionary changes occur in populations. This is called micro-evolution. For example, development of resistance to pesticides in insects. Hundreds of examples. Switching of parasitic organisms to a new host occurs as a result of a new adaptive change. This can be done even under lab conditions. Resistance of microbial agents to antibiotics is well known. Development of resistance to microbial diseases occurs among rodents and insects. Even most devastating diseases do not kill 100% of the population. Some organisms have natural immunity and they will continue to breed. This is about microevolution. Formation of a new species takes a longer time, my be 10,000 years (on certain islands). Entire life time of human populations (Homo sapiens) is very short on geological scale. We cannot see genesis of new species, only extinctions, but we can observe and study incipient species and geographic races (subspecies). Each subspecies is potentially new species. Geologists could not see plate tectonics and formation of deposits of rocks, but they use fossil organisms an can predict where fossil fuel is likely to be found. A paleontologist or a geologist does not need to live 100, 000 years to understand evolution. How about evolution of stars and elements? Astrophysicists will tell you more about that evolution.