Headteacher claims evolution "not fact" - twitter explodes

[StriderX]

My wife is a logical and rational person because she was lucky enough to have had a decent education herself. She has a good knowledge of world religion and Greek history which is of course taught in the school. I am not proud she has come to this logical standpoint. My glee was more self indulgent than that. My monkey brain was excited to see her reaction as I knew she would roll her eyes and give a look of despair.

What she believes is that equipping children with confidence, resolve and ethics will allow them to live a happy life with good relationships and choices. She wants children to believe in themselves and the consequences of their own actions not that they are weak and that praying to a higher power is the answer. For that I am very proud.

Can we share her?

 

[Rroff]

But rhen ypure ignoring the major differnces in mamal evolution verus bacterial.

Sexual reproduction
Geographical seperation of groups.
Sexual selection.

Not ignoring - just pointing out the limits of what we have observed in a lab compared to the overall theory.

 

[The Running Man]

Your aware the universe is like, super really old, right? Or are we going to have to have that talk with you too?

Yeah but..the earth isn't that old. Sure it's old. But we are talking billions of huge changes here. Some concurrently yes many sequentially.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

If the day of reckoning comes when we're all summoned before the throne to be judged, I am so going to raise this thread with God.

Just call me Judas.

 

[aardvark]

Yeah but..the earth isn't that old. Sure it's old. But we are talking billions of huge changes here. Some concurrently yes many sequentially.

we are also talking about extrapolating those test tube experiments to a world wide scale - thats trillions of more chances for big changes to happen.

 

[Muz333]

I wonder what their thoughts on the theory of mavity are?

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Evolution is an unobserveable theory, fact. mavity is an observeable one.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Yes it is observable or do you stick to the tried and tested religious standpoint of ignoring anything that requires you to question your beliefs?

Your second paragraph was complete nonsense.

The teacher is an idiot.

 

[Gilly]

Yeah but..the earth isn't that old. Sure it's old. But we are talking billions of huge changes here. Some concurrently yes many sequentially.

Billions of changes couldn't happen in billions of years then?

 

[Skeeter]

Not ignoring - just pointing out the limits of what we have observed in a lab compared to the overall theory.

The dog example above shows just how quickly we can observe changes when we actively managed it.

 

[mrk]

Going from a single cell organism into multi-cell one happens naturally as recently found out. This is key to the evolution of complex life and in turn, intelligence. There is no doubt on this, it is this way. This also means complex life most likely does exist on other planets out there.

I wonder what their thoughts on the theory of mavity are?

Just put them on a really high ledge, and then prod them. They will surely be saved by a miracle

 

[mid_gen]

Yeah but..the earth isn't that old. Sure it's old. But we are talking billions of huge changes here. Some concurrently yes many sequentially.

Like, billions of organisms over billions of years

The number of bacteria on earth RIGHT NOW (ish)

5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

[Rroff]

Billions of changes couldn't happen in billions of years then?

Some of those changes have a fixed time span of about 25 million years they would have to have happened in - while the results in the lab so far (if you ignore variable/unexpected rate of change and external catalysts) point to requiring more like 2.5bn years. There are ways to explain it once you start bringing in other factors like radiation, etc. but to my knowledge they are only bits that appear to fit the puzzle rather than proved to have happened. That isn't to say I disbelieve it - just less inclined to rush to call it done and dusted than some.

 

[Gilly]

Some of those changes have a fixed time span of about 25 million years they would have to have happened in - while the results in the lab so far (if you ignore variable/unexpected rate of change and external catalysts) point to requiring more like 2.5bn years. There are ways to explain it once you start bringing in other factors like radiation, etc. but to my knowledge they are only bits that appear to fit the puzzle rather than proved to have happened.

There are lots and lots of 25 million year timespans in 4+ billion years

 

[Tefal]

Not ignoring - just pointing out the limits of what we have observed in a lab compared to the overall theory.

No ignoring. You even said yourself ignoring a variable rate of change.

 

[Rroff]

There are lots and lots of 25 million year timespans in 4+ billion years

I don't mean like that - but rather that in some cases the oldest known example gives a fixed point 25 million years ago for the changes that are attributed to have happened in-between to the present day.

No ignoring. You even said yourself ignoring a variable rate of change.

Talking about the difference between what has been reproduced and seen in action under controlled conditions and what is proposed to have happened in cases which don't fit what has been actually observed in action.

 

[mid_gen]

The number of bacteria on earth RIGHT NOW (ish)

5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Quoting myself.....but hey ho. It's ok to not being able to grasp very large numbers, human brains aren't very good at numbers this size.

If every one of those bacteria bought a lottery ticket, this is how many jackpot winners there would be :

357,142,857,142,857,142,857,142

The prize pool would be pretty impressive though.

 

[aardvark]

I don't mean like that - but rather that in some cases the oldest known example gives a fixed point 25 million years ago for the changes that are attributed to have happened in-between to the present day.



Talking about the difference between what has been reproduced and seen in action under controlled conditions and what is proposed to have happened in cases which don't fit what has been actually observed in action.

well obviously you can't replicate the original conditions in the lab, that would be ridiculous.

 

[platypus]

it is critical that teachers do not water down the science to accommodate religious perspectives if that means sacrificing the acceptance of evidence

Spot on.

 

[The Running Man]

Like, billions of organisms over billions of years

The number of bacteria on earth RIGHT NOW (ish)

5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

A bacteria didn't evolve into a lion overnight or in a hundred or thousand years. So the number of bacteria on earth right now is immaterial.

How long does it take for a single cell organism take to turn into a fish for instance? And then from a fish to a mammal. And then from a primitive mammal to a human?

there are vertain way points that must be hit before the process can progress. I.e there must be a fish before there can be land animals. So although the earth is 4.5 billion years old, land animals have only had 400 milliom years to evolve ftom amphibians to reptiles to mammals, birds and everything you see today.

 

[Rroff]

well obviously you can't replicate the original conditions in the lab, that would be ridiculous.

Hence why I'm not so quick to jump on the bandwagon - there is a big difference between the factors that have been irrefutably demonstrated in a lab and the factors involved in the evolution from say primitive mammal to human being even though there is a wealth of largely compelling evidence.