lysenkoism

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Considering that most people will agree that Evolution is merely a "Theory," I propose that schools teach lysenkoism as well. Lysenkoism proposes that one's will is involved in the changes that occur between generations of animals. A giraffe for example was once a horse like creature that wanted to eat food from tall trees. Fans of role playing games will be familiar with this theory as it was featured in the Chocobo breeding minigame. Fans of the game will remember that an S-Rank Chocobo will yield a superior baby Chocobo than a lower ranked one. Similarly, a lifetime of excersise will result in a more athletic child.

If the "theory" of evolution is acceptable in school, so should lysenkoism.

[Ravens-Grin]

In order for a theory to be taught in school it must be thoroughly researched. Put some research behind it and it just might be incorporated into some aspect of learning.

[CountPoopoo]

For some reason that sounds ALOT like Lamarck, which is an archaic theory that has been proven wrong a long time ago. SImply because there is no way for your genes to obey your mind, or for your genes to change during a lifetime.

[Gunter45]

At 1/13/05 10:57 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: For some reason that sounds ALOT like Lamarck, which is an archaic theory that has been proven wrong a long time ago. SImply because there is no way for your genes to obey your mind, or for your genes to change during a lifetime.

Could not have said it better myself. Lamarckianism is not a theory, it has been proven to be erroneous. It would be like teaching the "theory" that 1+1 does not in fact equal 2.

[CountPoopoo]

At 1/13/05 11:04 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Could not have said it better myself. Lamarckianism is not a theory, it has been proven to be erroneous. It would be like teaching the "theory" that 1+1 does not in fact equal 2.

It equals 1 you n00b : )

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

[Gunter45]

At 1/13/05 11:06 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: a = 1
b = 1

(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)

Here's your mistake (I realize this was meant to be humorous, but I'll point it out anyway in good fun). If a = 1 and b=1, then how do you propose we divide something by (a-b), since that would equal 0. And we all know, you can't divide by 0, it's high treason. You could have gotten me an easier way, simply by stating that 1+1 = 10 in base 2. Heck, anything from base 2 on up to base 9 works.

[CountPoopoo]

At 1/13/05 11:13 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Here's your mistake). If a = 1 and b=1, then how do you propose we divide something by (a-b), since that would equal 0. You could have gotten me an easier way, simply by stating that 1+1 = 10 in base 2. Heck, anything from base 2 on up to base 9 works.

You get a cookie : )

[DancingTurkeyGod]

At 1/13/05 10:42 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Fans of role playing games will be familiar with this theory as it was featured in the Chocobo breeding minigame. Fans of the game will remember that an S-Rank Chocobo will yield a superior baby Chocobo than a lower ranked one. Similarly, a lifetime of excersise will result in a more athletic child.

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious he used a fictional game to prove his point? Honestly, if it's in Final fantasy, you know it's false.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

At 1/13/05 10:45 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: In order for a theory to be taught in school it must be thoroughly researched. Put some research behind it and it just might be incorporated into some aspect of learning.

It's not my theory, it was developed by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko in the Soviet Union. This theory was the official theory in the Soviet Union for years.

[Proteas]

At 1/13/05 10:45 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: In order for a theory to be taught in school it must be thoroughly researched. Put some research behind it and it just might be incorporated into some aspect of learning.

So if you research a topic enough, it can still be bullshit and taught in schools anyway? Is that what your saying?

[BeFell]

The scientific definition of theory is very different than the average person's definition of theory. A hypothesis can become a theory only after it has been proven several times in repeated expiriments by many people.

[FeatherSnake]

At 1/14/05 09:11 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/13/05 10:45 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: In order for a theory to be taught in school it must be thoroughly researched. Put some research behind it and it just might be incorporated into some aspect of learning.

So if you research a topic enough, it can still be bullshit and taught in schools anyway? Is that what your saying?

I think he meant that you need to research the topic so you can put some reasonable proofs behind your theory. Then it can be taught.

[mrpopenfresh]

NOES!1!

ADAM AND EVE!! ADAM AND EEEEEEVE!1!1!!!!!

The truth, and nothing but.

[Proteas]

At 1/14/05 12:54 PM, BeFell wrote: The scientific definition of theory is very different than the average person's definition of theory. A hypothesis can become a theory only after it has been proven several times in repeated expiriments by many people.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

Meriam-Webster's dictionary.

So... a "theory" can be taught as a scientific fact or truth even though it's still techincally just someones idea on the subject?

Isn't the whole idea of something being a "theory" that it still may have several bugs in it that keeps it from becoming a scientific law?

[metalhead676]

hte evolution theory is a mixed view and not everone agrees ith it so why use it in schools?

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/14/05 03:48 PM, Proteas wrote:
So... a "theory" can be taught as a scientific fact or truth even though it's still techincally just someones idea on the subject?

Exactly, Prime numbers are a theory because we never got to the end. It is still believed because with the progression we have got, it works. Theories are a very important part of science, and they make up quite a few mainstream beliefs, even if they haven't been proved 100%.

[Gunter45]

The fact of the matter is, Lysenkoism, which is virtually the same as Lamarckianism, is not merely unproven, it has been proven false, time and time again. Teaching theory in schools is fine, but I think most people would agree that teaching something we know to be wrong is ridiculous.

[BeFell]

At 1/14/05 03:48 PM, Proteas wrote: So... a "theory" can be taught as a scientific fact or truth even though it's still techincally just someones idea on the subject?

Scientific fact is a theory. Theories become accepted because they are the only way something can be reasonably explained. In this case the theory actually makes less assumptions than any other means of explaining our existance. To accept evolution we simply have to observe the fossil record and expiriments that prove it to be true. To believe in creation we have to accept the fact there is a divine being and all of things in the bible which have not been proven must be true. On top of that we must ignore all evidence in favor of evolution.

Science is not out to kill God or destroy religion. Evolution is simply the only explanation one can reach using scientific explanation. Science is a neutral in the matter because if there were any evidence indicating that God did indeed create mankind then it would be accepted. Unfortunately the only for sure stuff we know points to evolution.

Isn't the whole idea of something being a "theory" that it still may have several bugs in it that keeps it from becoming a scientific law?

No not at all. The fact that it's a theory means it could be explained by other means but it is the best explanation.

[spanishfli]

At 1/14/05 03:51 PM, metalhead676 wrote: hte evolution theory is a mixed view and not everone agrees ith it so why use it in schools?

Because the ones who don't agree on it aren't the ones with the Ph.D in quantam physics or whateverology that great outweighs everyone's opinions here on NG.

It is a duty to give students a free secular education that the Gov.n't has to offer. Just because not every agrees on this issue doesn't mean it's wrong. The scientific Theory of Evolution, which has been based with the best evidence and technology and is conclusively accepted through out the scientific community, is much more different the the theories a lot of people have in mind. Nobody didn't just make this up suddenly... People observed things like Darwin and Mendel, and started to wonder how these things came to be and tried their best to give their explaination. Soon after, many other scientists soon started to find evidence to support this weird thing called Evolution.

A science class teaches science. Evolution is the best scientifically accepted explaination to us. You may not like it, nobody says you have to. You don't have to believe in it, but it is the government's duty to have evolution in text books. You personally believe it is wrong, that's fine. Just learn the little "lies" and then forget them.

[spanishfli]

At 1/14/05 05:11 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The fact of the matter is, Lysenkoism, which is virtually the same as Lamarckianism, is not merely unproven, it has been proven false, time and time again. Teaching theory in schools is fine, but I think most people would agree that teaching something we know to be wrong is ridiculous.

Actually, I did learn that in high school biology. Had a diagram of a lizard becoming a snake. But it was taught as part of the history of what people believed, and I remember the book and teacher saying that this not the best scientific explaination.

Lysen... or Lama-thingie... whatever... has been proven false, and that is why it is not taught as a theory. Evolution has not been proven false, that is why it is being taught. It is not fact because it is nearly impossible to create an experiment of the earth and see if organisms change with time. But there are so many evidence to say that this is true, that the only reason why Evolution is called a theory is because people can't test out Evolution in a lab.

[Gunter45]

At 1/14/05 06:26 PM, spanishfli wrote: Actually, I did learn that in high school biology. Had a diagram of a lizard becoming a snake. But it was taught as part of the history of what people believed, and I remember the book and teacher saying that this not the best scientific explaination.

Yeah, I learned it in hs, too, since it was in the book. The teacher had one class about it and basically said that it was complete crap.

Evolution has not been proven false, that is why it is being taught.

That's what I was getting at. The topic is about lysenkoism and why it isn't taught, so that's why I didn't bring up evolution. I've never argued that evolution shouldn't be taught, it's the best explanation that science has come up with so far, all I've ever said is that it's not good enough to be passed off as a fact, since it isn't that sturdy a theory.

Really, the only thing missing from macroevolution would be to prove that it is possible for one species to have a mutation that would allow for a new species to arise out of it, and, thus far, this has never been proven or disproven. The tricky part about that, is that the mutation would have to happen twice, and even still, it would have to occur for both a male and female (in sexually reproducing species). Not only that, but the mutation would have to make it so that the resulting offspring would not die (very rare), and what's more, fertile (extremely rare). For the exact same mutation to occur in the fertilization of 2 seperate zygotes from two different sets of DNA (as it would be the closest thing to impossible as you could get mathematically to have the mutation from the same set of parents) and that the gender of both of these organisms would have to be opposite, is somewhat rare. For this to be the reason of every single organism in the world's existance is a little bit too improbable for my tastes. I recall the probabilty as being something like 1.7x10^197 : 1, or something to that effect, the 1.7 I'm shaky on, but I'm pretty certain that it was 10^197. When you're talking about exponents that high, the 1.7 really doesn't matter anyway.

Like I said, however, it is the best that science has come up with, so I am all in favor of it being taught, especially since microevolution is a wonderful theory that is absolutely brilliant. Darwin was really on the ball when he determined that species can adapt to their environment by passing on the traits with the best survivability, that was a stroke of genius, and that is not a theory at all, but has been proven time and time again. Microevolution has opened a tremendous amount of doors, scientifically speaking, it's a shame that it gets lumped together with macroevolution, and thus gets relegated to the theory status.

[spanishfli]

You know what's funny about lysenkoism? I wish it could be true...

Imagine, if all our male ansestors started their "own evolution" by pulling, wanking, surgerying their pen0rs to incredible sizes, and men today like you and me inherited those genes...

We could had done kick stands with for limbs in the air...

[Gunter45]

At 1/14/05 08:33 PM, spanishfli wrote: You know what's funny about lysenkoism? I wish it could be true...

Imagine, if all our male ansestors started their "own evolution" by pulling, wanking, surgerying their pen0rs to incredible sizes, and men today like you and me inherited those genes...

We could had done kick stands with for limbs in the air...

If only it were true. As it is, we just have to hope we get the good pen0r genes.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

So is the consensus leaning to the idea that an explanation for a phenomenon that contradicts the facts and is only appealing because it agrees with people's ideas of how things 'should' work
(In the Soviet Union it was a popular idea because if it were true, it would mean that a hard working mother and father who gave their all to the greater good would be rewarded with a child who was a perfect little comrade toddler)
is completely inappropriate for a public school curriculum?

Would I be correct also that the example of Lysenkoism demonstrates that even if you don't use the scientific definition of theory,
(a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena)
but instead use the more familiar definition that is more similar to a scientific hypothesis, one still can agree that some 'theories' are much more valuable and true than other 'theories' to the extent that the clearly false 'theories' should not be included as viable alternatives to 'theories' that do not conflict with experimental data in public education?

[Maus]

I don't see why not.

I mean, if we are going to teach intelligent design (which, let's be honest folks, is a cultural allegory for how human beings got to where we are) as a scientific theory, then why not?

[Apathetic-Tragedy]

i think the only reason that evolution is even taught is that because its been around for like what 200? 300? years?

and it has still withheld itself as a possiblity.

so yah. i dont think that schools are try to say "Evolution Is Correct! It IS the answer to our creation" i think the schools are just trying to say "hey, evolution is one possibility, choose to believe it if you want to"

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

They present it as being as probable as the theory of quantum mechanics. There's a good chance that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is probably not exactly accurate, nor is our current understanding of evolution. No one denies that it is possible that we are completely incorrect, but just because it's possible that it's wrong is no reason for supporting an explanation that barely explains anything.