Biology Textbook

[mark kennedy]

I've started a project to create a public domain Biology textbook based on Genetics. This whole business of teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design in the Public Schools can resolved by teaching the Life Sciences. I will be using my own Discussion board called Genetics4Creationists.info. I would be interested in getting input from Creationists.:

[shadow=red,left]"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same."

(Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome and International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, Nature 2001)[/shadow]

Basic Genetics

• Nucleotides
• The Genetic Code
• The Double Helix: of DNA
• DNA recombination in meiosis
• DNA Repair
• DNA Replication
• Transcription of DNA
• Transcription factors: Isolating and footprinting.
• RNA (miRNAs; snoRNAs, ncRNAs, mRNA, dsNRSE, shRNA, siRNA)
• Translation of messenger RNA
• RNA editing
• Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene cluster
• Ribozymes
• Operons
• Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

Basic Cell Biology:

• The Cell Cycle
• Cell Junctions
• Cell membranes
• Cell signaling
• Cell-specific gene expression
• Cellular Respiration

Biological Tools and Molecular Mechanisms:

• Mitosis and Meiosis
• Mutations: causes and significance
• Polyploidy
• Recombinant DNA and Gene Cloning
• Genetic recombination in bacteria
• Restriction Enzymes: the tools upon which molecular biology and biotechnology depend
• Restriction Fragment Length
• Polymorphisms (RFLPs): and their use in medical diagnosis and law enforcement
• DNA sequencing, including more recent advances such as 454 pyro and Solexa
• Microsat and SNP detection
• Genomics
• Phenomics
• Proteomics
• Transcriptomics
• Metabolomics
• Primary database repositories, including ncbi, golden path, ebi and ensembl
• Epigenetics, including gene silencing and methylation
• gene expression arrays

Change in Living Systems

• Transduction in bacteria
• Transformation in bacteria
• Transgenic Animals
• Transgenic Plants
• Transposons: mobile genetic elements

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't think we know enough yet to positively prove our point. But when we can demonstrate not only how complex the genetic code is, but also bow it works, then we can prove this.

For I am satisfied that when we can demonstrate how the DNA molecule affects physical structure, first within a cell and then in complex organisms, then we will see that only specific combinations work.

In the transmission of language, changing a few letters can sometimes transform one word into another. But it usually results in pure gibberish. There is no way to derive usable information from gxstbwr. Even so, there will be no way to derive usable information from genetic codes that do not "spell" something.

So when the actual workings of genetic coding are understood, it should become easy to demonstrate that no sequence of small changes could transform a code that produces one useful molecule to a code that produces a similar useful molecule.

But until we have this knowledge, we will not be able to produce proof so strong that most evolutionists will admit defeat.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think we know enough yet to positively prove our point. But when we can demonstrate not only how complex the genetic code is, but also bow it works, then we can prove this.

Evolution as natural science and evolution as natural history are two different things. I intend to prove nothing else.

For I am satisfied that when we can demonstrate how the DNA molecule affects physical structure, first within a cell and then in complex organisms, then we will see that only specific combinations work.

The DNA and RNA is how the physical structure is built. The molecular mechanisms that adapt the living systems in all their vast array were designed by God to do exactly that. I am on a quest to learn both how things adapt and what the limits are for them (See my signiture)

In the transmission of language, changing a few letters can sometimes transform one word into another. But it usually results in pure gibberish. There is no way to derive usable information from gxstbwr. Even so, there will be no way to derive usable information from genetic codes that do not "spell" something.

Mutations when they have an affect strong enough for selection to act are most often deleterious. That means the means of adaptations are already in the genetic code.

So when the actual workings of genetic coding are understood, it should become easy to demonstrate that no sequence of small changes could transform a code that produces one useful molecule to a code that produces a similar useful molecule.

But until we have this knowledge, we will not be able to produce proof so strong that most evolutionists will admit defeat.

We are evolutionists whether you know it or not. From Noah's Ark proceeded the last common ancestor that draws breath on this planet. The only way this is even conceivable is a radically accelerated evolutionary process by which they went from thousands of parental forms to the millions we see now in all their vast array.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

For I am satisfied that when we can demonstrate how the DNA molecule affects physical structure, first within a cell and then in complex organisms, then we will see that only specific combinations work.

In the transmission of language, changing a few letters can sometimes transform one word into another. But it usually results in pure gibberish. There is no way to derive usable information from gxstbwr. Even so, there will be no way to derive usable information from genetic codes that do not "spell" something.

Modern biology is fairly confident about how DNA molecules affect physical structure up to the protein level. Scientists have elucidated most of the processes along the following chain of influence:

DNA -> RNA -> proteins -> macroscopic morphology + behavior

The weakest link in the above is how proteins affect morphology and behavior - that is, how to get from protein A coded by a particular genetic sequence to the fact that, say, rabbits hop or bees do the waggle dance, if it is even a protein thing. However, at the protein level, it is safe to say that any genetic code will indeed "spell something". In the English language there are far more nonsense 3-letter codes than not - "msp", "okt", "riw", etc. all have no meaning. But in DNA there are no nonsense 3-symbol codes (codons). There is junk DNA that isn't transcribed - but if it was, it wouldn't transcribe as "nothing", it would transcribe as a sequence of amino acids which you could assemble as a protein. Of course, that protein might then go on to do absolutely nothing - which is what I said earlier, we don't yet know everything about how a particular protein will affect a particular behavior.

That's the gist of it. Historically creationists have found the most purchase in trying to work with that last link - showing that most proteins don't work. You could try looking into that. Of course, I'd wager you wouldn't find much, but that's just me being naughty.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question before us is what a Biology textbook should teach.

 

[shernren]

If it's for a high school level then I agree absolutely - don't put evolution into it.

A similar situation happens in physics textbooks which I absolutely detest. The textbook will have been going on and on about things which the high school mind can grasp, verify, and deduce for themselves. Then, almost as an afterthought, the book will introduce this strange thing called "relativity", with half a dozen different formulae that must be taken on faith and one or two score questions about space ships doing strange things to each other which have absolutely no relevance to the pre-university study. Just leave it out, I say. Why teach students about relativity, and quantum mechanics, and the fate of the universe when they don't have the fundamental mathematical machinery and conceptual maturity to understand it?

Same with evolution. I never learned anything about evolution formally in high school, and I think that was actually good for me in the long run - I fully came into contact with evolution being able to understand the evidence and mathematics involved. (Of course, "not teaching evolution" is not the same as teaching creationism.)

 

[mark kennedy]

If it's for a high school level then I agree absolutely - don't put evolution into it.

Oh evolution will be a part of it but the scientific definition which is the change of the frequency of alleles in populations over time. Not the Darwinian Tree of Life a priori assumption of universal common ancestry. How things adapt with be what it all is focused on and what they are learning about RNA these days have my curiosity peaked.

A similar situation happens in physics textbooks which I absolutely detest. The textbook will have been going on and on about things which the high school mind can grasp, verify, and deduce for themselves. Then, almost as an afterthought, the book will introduce this strange thing called "relativity", with half a dozen different formulae that must be taken on faith and one or two score questions about space ships doing strange things to each other which have absolutely no relevance to the pre-university study. Just leave it out, I say. Why teach students about relativity, and quantum mechanics, and the fate of the universe when they don't have the fundamental mathematical machinery and conceptual maturity to understand it?

Just learning the language of science is tough, then you can at least communicate. Genetics is growing and I think if I can get Creationists interested in the Life Sciences just on their own merit it could go a long way to resolve some of the ongoing controversies.

Same with evolution. I never learned anything about evolution formally in high school, and I think that was actually good for me in the long run - I fully came into contact with evolution being able to understand the evidence and mathematics involved. (Of course, "not teaching evolution" is not the same as teaching creationism.)

I would not teach creationism to school age kids, in fact, I wouldn't teach it in a church. I would encourage anyone who is interested in Genesis 1 as literal history to learn Genetics as a complement to their Biblical studies. Science is not opposed to theology it's just not related. That's where Darwinism makes it's mistake, it intrudes into metaphysics that science has no business intruding into.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

It sounds like an interesting project. I find genetics a fascinating topic and I still have a lot to learn in that area. I don't have any input at this time but look forward to reading the material as it grows.

 

[FallingWaters]

...
I would not teach creationism to school age kids, in fact, I wouldn't teach it in a church. ....

Mark, you know I like you, so this isn't a criticism in any way, but I don't understand why you believe this. I suppose in your paradigm it makes sense to you, but to me, it doesn't make sense.

Evolutionary thinking is taught in every medium available. I've seen it in picture books for kids! We can't stand idly by while our children are being indoctrinated in lies and the expect Creationism to sound like truth to them when they're older when it's been so inculcated in every aspect of their thinking, they think we're idiots.

I have taught Creation in Christian elementary school and in church and I will keep right on doing so. The reason we're in this mess today is because we didn't have a Biblical response when that whole Scopes thing happened in 1925.

You must have some good reason for believing the way you do, but as for me... I am getting 7 new Creationism DVDs for Christmas this year and I expect my kids to watch every single one. They will never be exposed to an alternative to evolution otherwise.

By the way, the first line in that kids' book was something like this: The universe came into existence 4 billion years ago, and that's a fact! (The part I underlined is the part I remember for word for word.)

Our enemy prowls about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour! Well, it ain't gonna be my kids!

Evolution is taught everywhere. We must speak up and say something!

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you know I like you, so this isn't a criticism in any way, but I don't understand why you believe this. I suppose in your paradigm it makes sense to you, but to me, it doesn't make sense.

Evolutionary thinking is taught in every medium available. I've seen it in picture books for kids! We can't stand idly by while our children are being indoctrinated in lies and the expect Creationism to sound like truth to them when they're older when it's been so inculcated in every aspect of their thinking, they think we're idiots.

I have taught Creation in Christian elementary school and in church and I will keep right on doing so. The reason we're in this mess today is because we didn't have a Biblical response when that whole Scopes thing happened in 1925.

You must have some good reason for believing the way you do, but as for me... I am getting 7 new Creationism DVDs for Christmas this year and I expect my kids to watch every single one. They will never be exposed to an alternative to evolution otherwise.

By the way, the first line in that kids' book was something like this: The universe came into existence 4 billion years ago, and that's a fact! (The part I underlined is the part I remember for word for word.)

Our enemy prowls about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour! Well, it ain't gonna be my kids!

Evolution is taught everywhere. We must speak up and say something!

Wow! That was surprising, I had no idea you felt that strongely. Let me explain, one of the reasons I would not have Creationism taught in the public schools is because there is too much theology involved. Now in a church I wouldn't mind if they were into the subject but other then that I don't think it would be productive.

I teach my kids ok and I will tell anyone who is interested. It's just that my version of Creationism involves Genomics, Genetics and some pretty hard to read scientific literature.

Now for Scopes, did you know that the whole thing was over social darwinism? Darwinism gave rise to things like eugenics and has died a hundred times but always finds a way to come back. The Scopes trial was set up, it was not fundamentalists storming around persecuting Scopes for teaching evolution. Scopes was asked if he wanted to be part of a test case and Scopes agreed. Darwinism has died as a scientific theory a hundred times but won't stay dead, they keep blending it in with real science. You take Darwinism away from Mendelian genetics and you have pure science. You take Mendelian genetics away from Darwinism and you have nothing. Back in the thirties they blended them together and if Creationists could just see the difference the problem would solve itself overnight. They are trying to make Darwinism synonymous with science and evolution, it's not and we do well to emphasis that point. Darwinism is not science, it's supposition and the agenda is nothing more then to abolish religion.

I would not teach Creationism in the Public Schools but I wouldn't ban it in the Public Schools the way it has been. I wouldn't teach it in Church but I would be more the willing to share what I have learned with any Christian who took an interest. What I think should be taught in the public schools is Biology and that has absolutely nothing to do with the mythology of what was going on 4 billion years ago. Natural science and natural history are two totally different things. If I was going to teach my kids or someone in church anything it would be that.

I mean seriously, when you look at that list I have in the OP. Is there anything in there that offends your religious convictions? Of course not, that is the dirty little secret. It's not science that is at fault here, it's the Darwinians who have slipped their worldview into the genuine article of science so you have to take them both at the same time. That's what they do and they even infiltrate seminaries. I've been doing this for quite some time, it has become painfully obvious to me that we are dealing with deception here, not science. That is way I would not teach creationism in the Public Schools, if you teach the genuine article of science the problem goes away. Same thing in church, I would not bring up this divisive and contentious issue. The only thing that would really matter is that science and supposition are two different things. I just don't think that people think about science and theology in the same way. As a matter of fact, most people have very little use for systematic theology. Science does not help much, good tools but no real use to religion. They desperately want you to think this is a threat to you faith, thats a lie.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

...
What I think should be taught in the public schools is Biology and that has absolutely nothing to do with the mythology of what was going on 4 billion years ago.
...

I agree.

 

[FallingWaters]

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree.

I'm reading a book on the Leakys, a famous family of paleontologists. They find the Austrophithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus all together which is odd since we are supposed to have descended from them in reverse order. Well this comes as no big surprise to a creationist but it is the opposite of what an evolutionists would expect. I think that way I keep pursuing this study, I find things like this every time I read up on the subject.

 

[Paul365]

I suppose you mean the Leakeys. Australopithecus africanus lived at the same time as Homo habilis, which was a predecessor of Homo erectus. Fossils of all three are found in Kenya where the Leakeys discovered them. Why you consider this the opposite of what an evolutionist would expect is beyond me.

 

[busterdog]

I'm reading a book on the Leakys, a famous family of paleontologists. They find the Austrophithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus all together which is odd since we are supposed to have descended from them in reverse order. Well this comes as no big surprise to a creationist but it is the opposite of what an evolutionists would expect. I think that way I keep pursuing this study, I find things like this every time I read up on the subject.

No surprise here either.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I suppose you mean the Leakeys. Australopithecus africanus lived at the same time as Homo habilis, which was a predecessor of Homo erectus. Fossils of all three are found in Kenya where the Leakeys discovered them. Why you consider this the opposite of what an evolutionist would expect is beyond me.

According to an article in the liberal New York Times this is certainly is a surprise.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

By the way Paul365, I'm curious. How can you be a Christian and yet be an atheistic evolutionist?

 

[Paul365]

According to an article in the liberal New York Times this is certainly is a surprise.

Yes, but not for evolution. The surprising discovery was that homo erectus lived several 100,000 years earlier than previously assumed, and at the same time as homo habilis. What I didn't understand is what this has to do with challenging evolution. It's the ancestry of homo erectus that is challenged.

By the way Paul365, I'm curious. How can you be a Christian and yet be an atheistic evolutionist?

I think it would be difficult to be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time. I'm a Christian who happens to accept science. Feel free to ask if you think this requires further elaboration.

 

[shernren]

This is not the right place to promote evolution.

 

[Paul365]

This is not the right place to promote evolution.

Sorry if I offended someone! In fact I was not sure that I'm an evolutionist at all ... I accept science and also believe God created life, what does this make me, maybe an evolution-creationist? Anyway I will take care not to promote evolution here.