50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution • Hacker News Board

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#91

Post by tomrod » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #35

tomrod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! Have you ever played Conway's game of life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life It hasno algorithm, only a few simple rules from which order arises from chaos. Give it a shot, you may like it. As a practicing Christian, I see no reason evolution can't be exactly what we scientists observe it to be: a process by which beneficial adaptations are passed down to succeeding generations. Much like in sof…

A few simple rules is quite arguably an algorithm. Of course, one could say the laws of physics are the same...

Yeah, that makes sense.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#92

Post by inkaudio » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #84

inkaudio wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not every species would find a way to adapt. The issue is species have to be equipped to survive. How they get there ? Survival isn't passive but active. How do you survive a change in season with no time to adapt. For example animals that can hibernate must have that ability before it is required. But why would it evolved that ability in the first place ? Why is it that the animals that can hibernate are t…

You are thinking about it backwards. Of course first there were only animals who couldn't hibernate, and who couldn't fly (for example single cell life forms...). It's not as if god dropped some bears into Canada and then when winter came they suddenly had to evolve the ability to hibernate. Why don't you go grab a book about evolution theory that explains all those things? I don't know how long it took to evolve fli…

The reason I ask about the how long flight took to evolve was because it was argued that evolution does not take thousands of years, and that's not true.

I've read the books that's why I see the paradox. I'm not playing games, if there are factual answers I would not be asking questions here. If an animal could survive for thousands of years without hibernating there would be no reason for it. It could even prove disastrous making the animal easy prey.

Moreover the dynamics of traveling underwater and flying in air are different. Features that are great for flight are not so great for traversing underwater for an extended period of time. There are animals that can glide today, but even there ability to glide has to evolve, and during that evolutionary process an evolving glider is a disadvantage. It is not neutral, it slows the animal down. If you are going to debate with conviction your answer should not be "I don't really know".

Yes, biology is far finished so let's not pretend like it is.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#93

Post by pdeuchler » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

harrytuttle wrote: post #86

pdeuchler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems HN is just as prone to pulling out the "Save The Kids" rhetoric when it suits them. I wonder why you aren't lauding the NSA surveillance program, as it gives you exactly the kind of ammunition to perform such thought police style discrimination. You will never agree with everyone. The solution is never to "exclude" or "ban" a school of thought, but counteract it with logic and reason. I see no harm in teachi…

I think you have misinterpreted this entirely. This is not the "save the kids rhetoric". This is simply stating that rationality should be preserved above personal beliefs in education. Your rhetoric is the typical miscalculated rebuttal against that attitude, which I do not possess. An opportunity to explain beliefs should be presented in the correct context i.e. within the bounds of religious education, but that is…

I don't think they should, but I think they should be allowed to. You're never going to stop crazy people from saying crazy things, and sometimes those people might just happen to be teachers. Besides, if crazy ideas were verboten in education we'd still be in the dark ages slinging arrows at each other. Tenure was actually explicitly created for respected teachers to be able to say crazy things without getting fired. What are you going to do when a tenured professor starts teaching your child something you disagree with? Are you going to go with the same heavy-handed approach?

If you have a problem with the way your child is taught, bring it up with the teacher. Bring it up with the principal. Bring it up with the school board. Ask your child to be moved to a different class/section. Ask your child to be re-zoned. Or, all else failing, teach your own child. Maybe you should be more concerned about hiring standards for our teachers, or maybe consistent accreditation.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#94

Post by rdouble » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

pdeuchler wrote: post #93

harrytuttle wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have misinterpreted this entirely. This is not the "save the kids rhetoric". This is simply stating that rationality should be preserved above personal beliefs in education. Your rhetoric is the typical miscalculated rebuttal against that attitude, which I do not possess. An opportunity to explain beliefs should be presented in the correct context i.e. within the bounds of religious education, but that is…

I don't think they should , but I think they should be allowed to. You're never going to stop crazy people from saying crazy things, and sometimes those people might just happen to be teachers. Besides, if crazy ideas were verboten in education we'd still be in the dark ages slinging arrows at each other. Tenure was actually explicitly created for respected teachers to be able to say crazy things without getting fire…

Unfortunately a heavy handed approach is needed in the American public school system as teachers tend to waste a lot of the students' time with this sort of thing.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#95

Post by inkaudio » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #88

inkaudio wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not say there is no variation in population. Animals that survive have the ability to survive before environmental pressures. Why ? Yes there are variations among animals, and those that have the trait for survival, survive. The argument is how do these variations that survive get these important trait ? Especially when these traits are specialized to the environment. How do they evolve these specialized traits…

You are only asking for the basics of evolution, every textbook should have you covered (or even Google). And it doesn't happen the way you imagine it, those traits don't have to evolve from one day to the next. Bears can live in Canada because they can hibernate, they didn't live there and had to learn how to hibernate on short notice when winter came.

Have you not read textbook that explained specialized traits as reaction to the environment ? How could that be possible when these traits are needed immediately. You miss the point, why don't we have thousands of animals with the ability to hibernate that don't need them ? Of course traits don't have to evolve rapidly if you already have them or don't need them. But why would you already have the ability to hibernate efficiently if you don't need it ? Why would a bird of prey evolve the ability to hunt from the skies at relative high speed before it can fly ? I'm sorry I read the books there are no legitimate answers. Like said I love science and technology.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#96

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:22 PM UTC

bankIsSketch wrote: post #78

justinpombrio wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over time (and occasionally branched off or went extinct). If this weren't the case, scientists wouldn't believe in macroevolution either.

The thing is - there ARE plenty of scientists who disagree; they are just shunned by the rest of the academic circle-jerk for not following the wagon. So you, as a potentially scientifically-literate individual, are the victim of journal bias. Evolution is a _theory_ that is heavily debated- the cambrian explosion is one such debate that specifically has evidence against what your comment is. Too lazy to read? Watch…

Gravity is a _theory_.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#97

Post by boneheadmed » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:24 PM UTC

sandman223 wrote: post #89

boneheadmed wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So too, animal and plant species appear to be directly related to other prior species populations. But the connection is only in the mind of the Creator.

At this point, the molecular/genetic evidence for common descent is pretty unassailable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Examining the Earth, stars including the sun, living organisms and all that there is in front of us, makes it plainly known that there is a Creator.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#98

Post by AlisdairO » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:32 PM UTC

inkaudio wrote: post #65

AlisdairO wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's to say that species will adapt all the time? It could be that terns won't be able to adapt fast enough, and will die. There's die-offs of individual species all the time, and historically there's been several major multi-species die-offs when conditions have changed too rapidly. Mutations don't have to occur at the point of their necessity. Mutations that survive can be survivorship-neutral (or nearly so), but…

Don't underestimate natural selection. Animals need essential traits to survive at birth. Now consider that most animals are specialized to their environment, how did they get to that point ? What did an Eagle do before it eyes became specialized for air to ground hunting ? How did it survive before it can fly ? How did these animals survive is these environment during their evolution ? That's the paradox, natural se…

You're can't rewind an animal x million years and place it in the same environment. You have to rewind the rest of the ecosystem as well. One possibility, for example, is that when eagle's eyes were less specialised for air to ground hunting, rodents were less specialised to hide themselves from airborne predators - because they hadn't had selection pressures from such specialised birds of prey.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#99

Post by AlisdairO » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

boneheadmed wrote: post #61

Tichy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you observed god creating a new species?

God created everything in existence. We refuse to acknowledge it, because by doing so we have to come to terms with his moral law. This moral law is embedded in our conscience and becomes clear through an examination of the conscience. For example things like lying and stealing (which if we are honest most of us have done either or both at one time or another), become heavy burdens when examined in the light of our c…

You didn't answer the question.

Re: 50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution

#100

Post by harrytuttle » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

pdeuchler wrote: post #93

harrytuttle wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have misinterpreted this entirely. This is not the "save the kids rhetoric". This is simply stating that rationality should be preserved above personal beliefs in education. Your rhetoric is the typical miscalculated rebuttal against that attitude, which I do not possess. An opportunity to explain beliefs should be presented in the correct context i.e. within the bounds of religious education, but that is…

I don't think they should , but I think they should be allowed to. You're never going to stop crazy people from saying crazy things, and sometimes those people might just happen to be teachers. Besides, if crazy ideas were verboten in education we'd still be in the dark ages slinging arrows at each other. Tenure was actually explicitly created for respected teachers to be able to say crazy things without getting fire…

Tenure doesn't excuse a person from being responsible or being held up to rational standards.

Regarding standards, I now home school. This is wonderful for them. We have a network of professionals who they are taught by who do it out of interest and enthusiasm rather than a paycheque and job security with the state.