Creationism In Biology Curriculum

Thanks for the response Pro.My analogies are fine.With the baseball analogy, I said that the ORIGINS of the stadium, not the stadium itself, were largely irrelevant to in-game-statistics.The origins of the stadium would be a bunch of construction workers with tools and raw materials. This is a stadium's origin, and if this is a statistician's focus for in-game-statistics, then they are missing the point of in-game-statistics.I assumed that the majority of a baseball statistician's focus was players throwing, catching, and hitting the ball during the game, not construction workers digging, filling, and constructing during the formation of the stadium.Pro's example of Mets' stadium and the fences being too far are therefore not about the origins of the stadium, rather the stadium's current form. Yes, the origin is not the current form; they are different.Also, the idea of wind affecting the game's statistics is not an example of the origins of the stadium either, rather it points to natural meteorological fluctuations that may influence a game's happenings.So, the universe's origins are largely irrelevant to biology like the stadium's ORIGINS are largely irrelevant to in-game-statistics.Furthermore, I maintain that my language analogy is valid. (Latin-->Spanish :: Ape-->human)But first...Pro thinks:"[Creationism] should be included in the biology curriculum as a possible alternative"My response:Let me deal with this possible alternative claim...Here's a small, but true story:I was hanging out with the social studies department at lunch the other day, and I asked some of them: "Do you guys ever get students who claim that the version of history you are teaching is flawed?"Some of the teachers said no, but two of the teachers said yes, and their stories are interesting. Both teachers mentioned that several of their students, in the students' culture, were taught that the holocaust didn't happen.So when World War 2 came up in the curriculum, the students were vocal about their complaints, and they thought that it was unfair that the history books didn't represent their version of no holocaust during World War 2.Pro, is a no holocaust world war 2 another possible alternative?Please follow me here.Having a biology teacher teach creationism is like having a history teacher teach World War 2 without the holocaust...I further argue, denying evolution is akin to denying the holocaust......and here's why:-Chromosome 2Our second chromosome is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.http://genome.cshlp.org...Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.Telomere - Centromere - TelomereTelomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones) --- But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like the chromosome on the right: Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - TelomereThis shows fusion.How do we know what fused?Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.We found the base pairs of ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So Pro needs to understand that my language analogy still stands.Just like "we have writings through history that allow us to trace a definite evolution in each language," we have genetics through history that allow us to trace a definite evolution in organisms. We also have fossils which indicate the same thing. Well, the fact that our 2nd chromosome is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes, ape to human is much like Latin to Spanish. We don't really need the intermediary language or fossil to show that Spanish descended from Latin, or that humans descended from apes respectively.Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce typically pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to "living long enough" to reproduce.Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment.Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species. This is macroevolution.The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics.Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors; we are in fact modern apes.This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely.Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which satisfies macroevolution, evolution is true.Pro claims:"if we only teach one theory about the diversity of life on our planet, we hinder our pursuit of the truth by insulating that theory from challenges."My response:We're teaching facts about the diversity of life on earth, and if there are legitimate challenges to these facts, we acknowledge them. Do any real research on evolution, and you will find actual challenges to preconceived concepts of evolution that merit another look. Creationism does not merit any looks due to its invocation of supernature, and its lack of empirical evidence.Then Pro continues:"We have evidence in the fossil record of microevolution, but not of macroevolution. Until we find more clear evidence in the fossil record of transitory life forms, the theory of macroevolution must continue to be questioned and researched in the field of biology."My response:This micro-macro thing is not a real issue.Look, saying that you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution is like saying that you believe that I can walk to the end of my driveway, but given enough time and resources, you don't believe that I could walk to the end of the city, or the state. Macroevolution is at or above the species level.So here are animals who have been directly observed speciating:The hawthorn fly has speciated to the apple maggot fly.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The three-spine stickleback fish has speciated to different fresh water and salt water fish.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The myrtle warbler bird and black-fronted warbler bird have speciated to Audubon's warbler bird.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So BOTH microevolution and macroevolution are proven...no more macro-micro arguments please.Pro baldly asserts:"Until we gain more evidence of transitory life forms in the fossil record, we must teach alternative theories in the public school curriculum because we have not obtained positive proof of macroevolution."My response:So the fact that our 2nd chromosome is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, the fact that we have great ape transitory fossils of H. laietanus, the fact that we have hominid transitory fossils showing ancestry, and the fact that we've directly observed macroevolution (speciation) in maggot flies, fish, and birds, we don't have positive proof of evolution?Pro, really?Where is this level of evidence for creationism?Why should we teach an unscientific theory in a biology class when we already have a theory that's demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions of the biodiversity of life on earth?Why should creationism, an unscientific theory, be a MAJOR part of the curriculum?Pro indicates:"For another species group to evolve from that species group, the DNA structure would have to be "reconfigured" through mutations. The likelihood of this occurring successfully is extremely low as I pointed out in the previous round."My response:Yeah, reconfigured DNA like our 2nd chromosome? It's literally two ape chromosomes fused...come on!Or reconfigured like the millions of examples of polyploidy?"Polyploidy, the multiplication of entire sets of chromosomes beyond the normal set of two, has occurred extensively, independently, and is often repeated in many groups of fish, from the sharks to the higher teleosts."http://link.springer.com...I guess the likelihood aint so low, huh?Pro surmises:"Second, most of the experiments done on abiogenesis have been done in labs. Sure, they have shown that it is possible for life to originate from non-living matter, but how? The combinations of these organic compounds had to be directed by the scientists conducting experiments."My response:Pro didn't bother to check my sources on abiogenesis.The replication of the Miller-Urey experiment yielded more amino acids and a more likely earlier earth's atmosphere was used. "We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H2S, CH4, NH3, and CO2. A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples."http://www.pnas.org...They used an electric charge.Lightning occurs without life and on planets with atmospheres.They used hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.These compounds and their concentrations in the atmosphere appear without life and on planets with atmospheres.Why is it such a leap to say that likely conditions can yield organic compounds?This does not require "supernatural powers."Regardless, this all points to the idea that biology doesn't really need an alternate theory to explain things. Especially an unscientific one like creationism.I reject the resolution.Though irrelevant, pro says:"How do we know that the Big Bang occurred naturally or was it started by a supernatural force?"My response:http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...