Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jewish School Removes Evolution Questions From Exams

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the everything-that's-fit-to-know dept.

Education 431

Alain Williams writes "Religious sponsored ignorance is not just in the USA, a school in Hackney, England is trying to hide the idea of evolution from its pupils. Maybe they fear that their creation story will be seen for what it is if pupils get to learn ideas supported evidence. The girls are also disadvantaged since they can't answer the redacted questions, thus making it harder to get good marks."

cancel ×

431 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If you don't like it.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416797)

Then don't send your kids to a Jewish school. Religious freedom is part of that whole "freedom" idea that some folks are pretty fond of.

  "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi

Re:If you don't like it.... (4, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 5 months ago | (#46416877)

A shame the kids themselves don't get a say in their indoctrination & skewed education. I know parents need to make choices on behalf of their kids, but it's not always easy to watch.

Education is mandatory in most countries, regardless of religious beliefs, but I wonder how much control that allows over the curriculum.

Re:If you don't like it.... (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 5 months ago | (#46417053)

Well, almost everything I learned about evolution I learned outside of school, by reading books. The idea that the only chance anyone will get to learn anything is in the classroom is a lot of nonsense. So I say schools should be free to teach it or not. Richard Dawkins, after all, spoke of his awakening to biology when a teacher told him plants were green because it's a pleasant colour to the eye and such nonsense didn't do him any harm.

Now if the school is State funded then that's a different matter. Otherwise, let them teach whatever they want.

Re:If you don't like it.... (0, Troll)

lucm (889690) | about 5 months ago | (#46417131)

A shame the kids themselves don't get a say in their indoctrination & skewed education.

Islam has five pillars: declaration of belief, daily prayers, alms, fasting and Mecca pilgrimage.

Liberalism also has five pillars: democracy, darwinism, global warming, gay marriage and right to elective abortion.

Anybody who adheres to one of those religions believes that their children should be taught the relevant five pillars. That does not mean that people who disagree are idiots or ignorant.

Re:If you don't like it.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417305)

Well I say, ignorance seen as a virtue, isn't that proper for a good believer? Nice of you to show your cards and to tell the entire world that you are a theocrat and a totalitarian. Because I've only ever heard theocrats and totalitarians decry democracy in principle. There's also no such thing as Darwinism. There's science, and science has shown that Evolution is an observed fact, and Natural Selection is its best explanation. Global Warming is also an observed fact, and its consequences can no longer be ignored (I guess you believe that the cold winter in a selected part of North America means that Global Warming is not true? When in fact it's a predicted consequence of Climate Change). Gay marriage a matter of human rights, just like mixed-race marriages were 40 years ago. Or are you a racist as well? You can't pick and choose: if it's ok for you to deny gays their right to marry because of your religious beliefs, it was ok 40 years ago for Christians to oppose miscegenation, loudly and proudly based on their interpretation of the Bible.

As for abortion: you claim there's no difference between a foetus and a child? You need remedial Biology 101 my friend. The only reason you oppose abortion is because of your religious beliefs, not because you care about the foetus. You only care about appearing "righteous" to your friends, both real and imagined.

Re:If you don't like it.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417389)

He is probably a Russian, no I mean a Nazi. No.. RT.com made be me so confused.

Re:If you don't like it.... (0)

lucm (889690) | about 5 months ago | (#46417395)

you are a theocrat and a totalitarian.
[...] There's also no such thing as Darwinism. There's science, and science has shown that Evolution is an observed fact

Thank you for posting this darwinist version of Shahadah, and for doing so in a manner that truly illustrates how actual theocrats and totalitarians behave.

Take a chill pill then read my post again. This time you may notice that I did not say that I was for/against any of the pillars of the two religions I mentioned; as it happens I share most of the beliefs of Liberals. However I'm respectful enough not to try to shove them down the throat of other people. That's the difference between "promoting democracy" and "promoting democracy as long as the other person agrees with my values" (i.e. being a big phony).

Re: If you don't like it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417397)

Don't get your panties in a knot. Newton was a Creationist and wrote more books about Jesus than he did physics. He turned out fine.

Re:If you don't like it.... (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46416893)

Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7 and that The Earth is flat. And feed them on nothing but kitkats.

Would you say that was OK, too?

Last time I checked we have child protection to take children away from clueless parents.

Re:If you don't like it.... (2)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 5 months ago | (#46417061)

Wow. Where does this illiberality end I wonder?

Re:If you don't like it.... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417129)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:If you don't like it.... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46417333)

Another thing I don't get, what does age have to do with the ability to make sensible decisions? It's also noteworthy that people in Angola mature 9 years faster than in Bahrain.

Re:If you don't like it.... (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417391)

You think a six-year-old has the same decision making ability as an 20-year-old?

Is it a coincidence that most street gangs indoctrinate new members around the age of 13?

The "age of consent" thing is a bit arbitrary but it doeshave a basis in reality. Young children are far easier to indoctrinate/persuade than adults.

Re:If you don't like it.... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46417337)

Better hurry up with the indoctrination then, before they reach that age.

Re:If you don't like it.... (0)

will_die (586523) | about 5 months ago | (#46417401)

Since you think that jews and christian use to think the earth was flat these kids have already proven they know more then you.
That Christians and Jews throught the earth was flat was an 19th century invention by a couple of atheists that got it place in teaching material and it spread from there. You can easily see that this is false but looking at art work 1000 years old which shows the earth as a round orb.

Re:If you don't like it.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416931)

You cannot be free if you don't have the knowledge to take informed decissions

An adult person may have the freedom to decide whether to learn or not ... but when we talk about kids, the society should warrant they have the opportunity to learn above the wishes of their tutors

Re:If you don't like it.... (0)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 months ago | (#46417081)

this is not about the child's freedom, but the parent's.

Re:If you don't like it.... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417169)

This is the reason that education is *mandatory* in civilized countries - to take some part of the decision-making process away from uninformed parents.

Re:If you don't like it.... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46417343)

... and puts it into the hands of politicians voted into office by uninformed parents.

Re:If you don't like it.... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417407)

People can (and do!) protest the anti-evolution movements in schools. Often successfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:If you don't like it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417177)

Children education is about the children, NOT the parents, E-V-E-R. If I need to explain this I fear for the future of humankind...

Re: If you don't like it.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417025)

Sending your child to a religious school is brainwashing. Dare I say it should be counted as child abuse.

I have no problem with religion, but children should be required to be free of religion until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves which (if any) religion that wish to join.

Re: If you don't like it.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417159)

Really? I take the opposite view. Parents should do "parenting" and teach their children their beliefs. (Obviously within the confines of the legal system, etc.) Would you have it so parents shouldn't say anything to their kids that may skew their viewpoint on an open topic? Timmy can make his own choices when he's old enough, not a big deal.

Re: If you don't like it.... (0)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46417161)

They should be required to be free of religion? At what age do they suddenly become capable of deciding for themselves, and who are you to decide that they're not capable of deciding at a certain age? Also, how do you expect to enforce this requirement without infringing about free speech and religious rights?

Re: If you don't like it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417433)

Various ages are in use in various countries. Some Christian churches think that a 12 year old is old enough as long as he or she has a religious story to tell in front of the congregation. They baptize mostly adults anyway. 16 year old can join a religion with the parents consent in my country and an 18 can do it without a consent.

Isn't this illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416801)

I'm pretty sure schools should get into some deep shit if it was found out they were tampering with the state exams.
The whole point of having a standardized state exam is so we can know that all the kids have the same knowledge base more or less.

Re:Isn't this illegal (1)

quintesse (654840) | about 5 months ago | (#46417315)

Exactly, I know in The Netherlands you're in big trouble as a school if you even *open* the packaged exams before they are going to be distributed to the pupils.

Meanwhile (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416809)

Meanwhile, they can't build madrassas [bnp.org.uk] fast enough.

We won't be wrapping ourselves around any axles over whats being taught there, will we? Homophobia, anyone?

I don't blame them. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416823)

Science has long proved that Jews have evolved from cockroaches.

Whats the point? (-1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46416827)

This sort of practice is common around the world. People with religious/political vested interests trying to manipulate common knowledge at the school level. Don't they know wikipedia exists? how long can you give the school kids your "make believe"?

________________________________
"Give me a better theory and I shall burn this one myself "
--- Charles Darwin

Re:Whats the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416891)

They just will tell them that "the liberals" or whatever boogieman they choose to pick, edits it to do the devil's work (gods... I wish I was kidding, or making this up, but I've heard baptist preachers say it, when I was trying to be nice to a girl I was seeing, and went with her to services, and let me tell you, it was almost funny how much misinformation they spew out.... almost...)

Also, they will just limit when/where they can visit online, and might even just block wiki(s) soon enough.

Re:Whats the point? (5, Informative)

edjs (1043612) | about 5 months ago | (#46416937)

Don't they know wikipedia exists?

Maybe not - quoting said wikipedia:

The school primarily serves the Charedi Jewish community of Stamford Hill. The Charedi community do not have access to television, the internet or other media, and members of the community aim to lead modest lives governed by the codes of Torah observance.

Re:Whats the point? (5, Interesting)

xelah (176252) | about 5 months ago | (#46417405)

Indeed not. I've only had a little rather indirect contact with those sorts of communities in London, but as I understand it they also tend to shun proper education - university level especially because that's where a lot of people leave their communities - have low income levels and be dependent on state benefits in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Personally, I have no problem funding appropriately limited benefits for people who are unlucky, disabled, not educated properly by their parents and so on....but when a whole community is dependent on forced charity in a self-perpetuating cultural cycle but the problem is considered untouchable because 'religion' then I think it needs to be dealt with a little better. Requiring a proper education would be a good start (and being prepared to help children who want to go to university against their parents' wishes could be a good second thing).

Re:Whats the point? (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417213)

Don't they know wikipedia exists?

Do you know that conservapedia exists?

http://www.conservapedia.com/ [conservapedia.com]

Which one is correct? Teach the controversy!

Re:Whats the point? (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 5 months ago | (#46417363)

Is that still around? I remember reading a few articles there a couple years ago. Hilarious and depressing at the same time.

Re:Whats the point? (0)

xelah (176252) | about 5 months ago | (#46417355)

People don't usually believe stuff like that from a careful consideration of the facts available, though. People believe it because it's socially expected that they believe it, because it's a group marker, because they're raised to consider 'belief', and these beliefs in particular, a moral good. And so parents strive to create an environment for their child in which the social expectations and moral requirements are ones they approve of. Many religious cultures essentially require this, and personally I think it's likely that this is the biggest means of transmission of religions and a big requirement for the success of a religion.

Of course, some people - like Darwin himself - will abandon their beliefs when presented with inescapable evidence that they're wrong. But not everyone is prepared to pay the social cost, and not everyone is really all that motivated by understanding the world better (rather than, say, by social status).

Re:Whats the point? (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46417415)

Very good observation .. you hit ze nail on ze head. +1 from me

so...... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416835)

Wait, so the school decides what questions they want on their exam, and people are complaining?
All the students are sitting exactly the same are they not?

"The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice, saying it has come to an agreement with the school to protect the future integrity of the exams."

"The Department of Education meanwhile has asked for assurances that the children will be taught the full curriculum."

If they're still being taught the stuff, what's the problem. No exam that I've ever done has every single sentence that a teacher has ever said on the exam paper in question form.

Re:so...... (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about 5 months ago | (#46416929)

Most schools I've gone to have not had everything from the curriculum on the exam. One of the first questions when a new topic is introduced is this: "will this be on the midterm/review/exam?", and if the answer is "no" the students promptly doze of. Not having it on the exam (guaranteed) is the same as not having it in the curriculum at all.

Re:so...... (2, Informative)

Cederic (9623) | about 5 months ago | (#46417421)

These are not school exams, these are external exams that the school administers.

All the students are sitting exactly the same are they not?

No. Subjugated girls being kept in ignorance by religious fuckwits are sitting an exam with fewer questions than well educated students at other schools.

Otherwise it's the same exam, but the girls at that particular school will fail to get the top marks, because they automatically score 0 for the questions that were removed from their papers.

FYI (1, Troll)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 5 months ago | (#46416849)

It's a girl's school, there's no extra sexism angle as might be implied by the summary.

Re:FYI (0)

LainTouko (926420) | about 5 months ago | (#46416959)

There might be some extra sexism, we don't have enough information to tell. The question being whether the people who have made this decision would have made the same decision if they were teaching boys. We can only guess at this.

Re:FYI (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417005)

Isn't the fact that it's a girls school sexism in itself?
Just imagine a company that says they only allow one sex.
Actually, I wonder if men could sue playboy for unequal hiring practices.

Re:FYI (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417379)

It's a girl's school, there's no extra sexism angle as might be implied by the summary.

The sexist angle came from the poster, Alain Williams, who try to imply that girls are especially disadvantaged. All good feminazi will give a sexist spin to any story. Remember trend and general consensus are now generated from google search result and twiter regurgitation. Every bit count for the man hating propaganda machine.

Act of God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416869)

I dont udnerstand, why are these people so against evolution? Dna mutation happens becouse theres error in replicating them or some radiation particle hit it... Who is there to say that random particle is not act of God, that its right there, at right that time, to hit that gene and cause mutation into it...

Funny how overboard some religous people go... God gave us brain so we would use it to study this marvelous universe he created for us..

Re:Act of God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416905)

Don't you know anything? We only got a brain from eating an apple. God didn't want us to have one, but forgot to get rid of the tree before looking away. Either that or he wanted us to sin, and that would not make sense with all the good feelings we are suppose to have towards God.

Re:Act of God? (3, Interesting)

Cenan (1892902) | about 5 months ago | (#46416957)

At the core of evolution is survival of the fittest. The theory of evolution also implies that "man", as in created by God in his own image, is nothing special, only a series of fortunate mutations, migrations and accidents. The Christian Bible basically starts out with a huge lie.

What is really perplexing is the fact that the Catholic Pope has conceded that man is descended from the apes, and there really isn't anywhere else in the first world where this "creationism vs evolution" is even a thing (to my knowledge at least).

Re:Act of God? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417341)

What is really perplexing is the fact that the Catholic Pope has conceded that man is descended from the apes, and there really isn't anywhere else in the first world where this "creationism vs evolution" is even a thing (to my knowledge at least).

Not really. Catholics see the bible as a work inspired by God, not the literal word of God. As such, every story is interpreted rhetorically, not literally. It's supposed to teach us something about God, not a series of literal facts.

As you can imagine, this is a way way better approach than interpreting in a literal way an ancient book full of contradictions, obvious historical errors, false data and magic everywhere. I mean, science and reason can't fight the Catholic approach to God and the Bible, but it's not even a true effort to take down the literalists approach. It's not surprising at all that those are the people behind all these attacks to science and education.

Re:Act of God? (0)

IkeTo (27776) | about 5 months ago | (#46416983)

They are against evolution, and in general science, because science is all at odds with one of the most important fundamental "virtue" of Christian: faith. They want you to have faith in the Bible. But science is fundamentally against faith. Instead, science is built upon the lack of faith. Science says, don't blindly believe in *anything*. Science says, question the truth of *anything*, especially when what you see seems to go against it. And the progress of science is all from people disbelieving in common believe because of sound ground. All these, when applied to religion, reveals the truth of religion: something purely created by human beings to comfort their own ignorance.

Re:Act of God? (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 5 months ago | (#46417179)

They are against evolution, and in general science, because science is all at odds with one of the most important fundamental "virtue" of Christian: faith.

This post isn't about Christianity, as can be inferred from the title.

Re:Act of God? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46417165)

Because to the fundamentalist, it's an all-or-nothing thing. If you accept evolution, you have to throw out the story in Genesis - but if you do that, how can you be sure the rest happened? How can you be sure the story is right about the flood, or the slavery of the hebrews in egypt, or the exodus event, or the settlement of Israel, or all the prophets that followed? If you accept that one part of the holy text is a lie, then you open the whole thing up to doubt.

Re:Act of God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417231)

Because survival of the fittest does not imply evolution. The result of survival of the fittest in a system is chaotic and unpredictable.

How does evolution work like this? (-1, Troll)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46416873)

I'm not denying evolution, but while we are at the topic, let me ask a related question.

Let's assume that we have an ant, say a RockMonster ant. Then we have another specie, BigAss RockMonster ant, which we have found being evolved from the RockMonster ant. So far so good. The question: what makes evolution split the species into these two clearly distinctive species, instead of, say a hundred different species which are something between RockMonster ant and BigAss RockMonster ant?

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46416911)

Because DNA is a digital storage medium and genes change in steps.

There's no in-between states when you start modifying DNA just as there's nothing in between 1 and 0 in binary numbers.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (2)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 5 months ago | (#46416917)

The question: what makes evolution split the species into these two clearly distinctive species, instead of, say a hundred different species which are something between RockMonster ant and BigAss RockMonster ant?

Who says it doesn't split the ant into 100 different species? The term species is a human invention to help us classify the different forms of life on the planet. It doesn't define the forms of life on the planet, but instead is defined by the forms of life on the planet. This is a subtle but necessary distinction.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about 5 months ago | (#46417137)

The differentiation between species is still being defined, but within a species there are many variations and sub-species. It's only when those differences become significant enough do biologists consider it a separate species. Even then, yes, there may be hundreds of descendant species from a single ancestor species, and the more time that passes, the more diversify from their progenitors.
Of course, nature is a total bitch, and a lot of species go extinct for various reasons, including competition from their related species. Of the many species alive now, some have no closely related species that we know of, and others have tons of them.

Now if you're upset about not knowing about the intermediate ones, you're worried over nothing. The fossil record has shown a clear progression of those in many different animals, so it's not like it's some big mystery as the creationists claim, rather it's their ignorance of evolutionary and paleontological studies. In fast replication species, we have a lot more experience with this, and samples of the intermediate forms are stored. Mostly this is bacterial for the simple reason that those suckers multiply faster than Bugs Bunny locked in a room full of viagra with Jessica Rabbit. There are of course other studies with non microbial life, but those have far fewer generations to work with and so aren't as advanced.

Evolution has been observed, tracked, and even experimented with. It's existence is not in doubt among biologists, though they are constantly refining and testing it.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 5 months ago | (#46417299)

...Not sure who you're replying too....

Re:How does evolution work like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416927)

Not sure if your asking a serious question, but, even my poor knowledge seems to be able to answer this. There is actually lots of variation and I believe calling something a species is more like saying it's significantly different. So for instance there may be hundreds of different sub-categories of a species. Like if a monkey is a species there are hundreds of different sub-species. It's just an organizational thing in other words.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417427)

Nah, it's a classic strawman question used by creationists.

This one is a variant of "irreducible complexity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does evolution work like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416943)

You are working with a tenuous hypothetical. Evolution wouldn't preclude those species so they could exist. They don't simply because they don't. It could be a environmental factor, genetic, or anything really. Staying alive is hard. Staying alive as a species even harder. That is why traits that promote reproduction, survival, or flexibility of a species are so dominate.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416951)

Inbreeding will at some point make potential offspring from the other group (if any ever happen to spawn) infertile. See mules.

This may take a very long time and it differs per starting condition. For example, Tigers and Lions can still mate with eachother to produce viable offspring. However, this never happens in nature due to geological differences. See seas.

So yea, if a jewish community who denied evolution would only breed within the jewish community they may eventually split off from the rest of humanity. See Irony.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (4, Interesting)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#46417115)

"So yea, if a jewish community who denied evolution would only breed within the jewish community they may eventually split off from the rest of humanity" - the orthodox jewish community are already suffering the consequences of breeding within a small community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does evolution work like this? (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#46417439)

the orthodox jewish community are already suffering the consequences of breeding within a small community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Didn't know that. +1 Informative.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416989)

Hi, mod here.

I marked you as troll because this question is a goddamn textbook troll. You seem to be asking a trivial question in good faith in a tangentially related topic. You will get a trail of well intentioned but naif people trying to explain you something that is trivially understood on a wikipedia page. You will likely feign confusion, and derail the discussion which is/should be about a religious school denying evolution teaching.

This is no different from posting in a story about Ballmer: "I just don't understand why is Linux different from Windows?"

Thus the Troll mod, hoping that not many slashdotter will fall for it.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46417001)

Nothing at all.

First, let's just cover the fact that it wouldn't quite work this way in the real world. You don't tend to have species A living at the same time as species B which evolved from it. What you usually get is the common ancestor, species A, which is by now extinct, and it's two descendant species, B and C. You occasionally get people scoffing that we couldn't have evolved from chimps; well, we didn't.

So, why do we only have LittleAss ants and BigAss ants, and no NiceAss ants? Well, in this simplistic example, it's probably because they've evolved to occupy two different ecological niches, and are no longer competing with each other. Any species too "close" to another would find itself competing, which hinders both species in the fight for survival - until one of them wins.

A real-world is the Neanderthals. We out-competed them, in our shared ecological niche, with our higher intelligence and smokin' bods. The chimps, meanwhile, were settled in the forests where we weren't, and thus didn't have to compete with us.

In actual fact, you sometimes do get lots of closely related, or even inter-breeding, species spread out geographically. There's an oft-cited examples involving geckos, I believe, where you have a species living, say, at the Southern point of a mountain range which then evolves as it spreads North, around both the Eastern and Western sides of the mountain range. What you end up with is two trails of closely related species, which may interbreed with their neighbours, but at the Northern end of the mountain range the two species which find themselves meeting up are so divergent that they can't interbreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | about 5 months ago | (#46417013)

You need to learn more, because it does indeed split the species(es) into hundreds (or more) of different "species" over time - however, we do not generally refer to such as species because they are very tiny changes, many of which will breed back out of the population. However, some mutations tends to accumulate because they provide an advantage (or possibly disadvantage, but there is a second mutation that provides a bigger advantage and so both are perpetuated - this is possible to see in some species today, eg: the peacock - its tail provides a disadvantage, but apparently the female peacocks dig those fancy tails so the ones with the best tails get the chicks to breed with - its an example of a runaway mutation).

If enough within the population receive the mutation and it becomes dominant, this is a step along the path to becoming a new species. Depending on the size of the mutation it may or may not get classified by brainy people as a new species or not, it may take many generations of the change becoming more profound or multiple mutations before it becomes recognized as being a new species.

For this to happen there often also has to be some element of isolation of the group so that the mutation doesn't spread to other populations, or other populations do not interbreed with the new variant and wipe out the new feature.

Anyway, you may then end up with two separate distinct species, or more. Most mutations though do not provide any advantage, so they simply die out. So unless you want to go down the road of classifying every change of DNA as a mutation - which would lead to every single human being classed as a separate species, since all our DNAs are unique - then usually it takes some noticeable difference.

The isolation aspect also comes in with hybrid vigour, which can happen both naturally and artificially.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (2)

Sique (173459) | about 5 months ago | (#46417017)

It actually does in some way. Each population has a wide range of variations, thus at first, you have a continuum of different ants of which some are more like the RockMonster ant and others more like the BigAss RockMonster ant. But for some reason the population gets separated into two different groups without any contact anymore (a new creek separating them after some flooding, some ants settling more and more far away and specializing in a different ecological niche etc.pp.). One population stays in the former habitat which doesn't change very much, so here the RockMonster ant in general stays at it was. The other population has a slightly changed environment, where the BigAss RockMonster ant has some clear advantage, so members of this population will look after some time more and more like the BigAss RockMonster ants.

After some time, we describe both populations as different species.

Some experiments of speciations were already performed. For instance, there was a long running experiment with E.coli (the wellknown bacterium from our indestines). As bacteria don't mate, there are other methods to difference between species, and one specificum of E.coli compared with similar bacteria is that E.coli doesn't metabolize Citric acid. But experimentators were putting some E.coli bacteria in an artificial environment which was rich with Citric acid. After many generations (about 40,000) they found that this strain of E.coli indeed had started to metabolize Citric acid. So from a classification point of view, this strain is no longer E.coli, but a new species of bacteria.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417031)

There are a number of different evolutionary forces that can drive speciation. You would need to provide more information about the environment of the two species of ant you're describing. Do they inhabit two separate geographic ranges? If so, then one of the types of allopatric speciation is most likely to be the driving force behind it. If they both inhabit the same geographic range then sympatric speciation is most likely what has happened. The events that lead to these two general types of speciation are different. You can read about the details of each here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:How does evolution work like this? (2)

Phillip2 (203612) | about 5 months ago | (#46417049)

There are lots of whats that speciation could occur -- one obvious one is that the population gets split into two which then evolves away from each other. If you had 100 different high related species then they would likely compete with each other or interbred. The end result of either is that you end up with fewer populations -- one wipes out the other, or the two interbred till they become one.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46417187)

Isolation. Geographic, mate choice, breeding season. Lots of factors can cause two nearly-identical populations to stop interbreeding, and divergence follows from there. That's simplified, of course. Species is something of an artificial concept - there are things like ring species that show just how hard it can be to classify.

Re:How does evolution work like this? (1)

MoreThanThen (2956881) | about 5 months ago | (#46417295)

Open your mind and keep looking, the ants are there man, keep looking, apply scientific methods.
The other option is to find all the answers in a book/oral tradition dictated by god to men thousands of years ago, over the years the orations/writings/books have been mutated/translated many times and spawned many different species of religions all fighting for survival.

Cult (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 5 months ago | (#46416913)

That's not mainstream Judaism. That's a Haredi [wikipedia.org] institution. They're not just anti-evolution. They're anti-TV, anti-Internet, anti-movies, anti-newspaper reading, anti birth control, anti public library usage, anti knowing the language of the country they're in, anti wearing colors, anti female equality... The sect is set up to give kids no option other than to stay in the Haredi community and overdose on religion for their entire lives.

It's a lot like Shia Islam, down to the beards. There's even a Haredi group in Canada that wants to move to Iran because Canada won't let them abuse their kids. [forward.com]

Re:Cult (1)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 5 months ago | (#46416981)

The funny part is that eventually these kids will find out about evolution. Well, maybe not them, but maybe their kids or their kid's kids will, and they'll find out the hard way when society leaves them and their ignorant ways behind completely unemployable, then homeless and eventually unable to find and breeding partner and hence extinguished from the face of the earth. So fear not, evolution wins either way :)

Re:Cult (1)

abies (607076) | about 5 months ago | (#46417041)

You will be suprised. Highly educated women from 'normal' societies, with careers, life plans, knowledge about birth control etc will have a lot less children than these poor girls kept in the dark. Evolution is about penalizing speciments which produce less offspring. Keeping women uneducated, 'happy' to bear 10 children is the tactic to win evolution game.

So, in 3 generation, it might turn out that 'society' which you are talking about will be 5% of population, rest being dumb-things-down-forbid-birth-control-abuse-women cults/religions.

Re:Cult (1)

Sique (173459) | about 5 months ago | (#46417473)

Actually, each generation has another chance at their own Enlightment. Just because you are born into a uneducated society, it doesn't mean you are forced to stay there. Uneducated people are not less brainy than educated ones, they have differently developed skills. But each child born into an uneducated society still has the theoretical chance to get the education - even if closed societies are trying to make those chances as small as possible.

So it's not an evolution game of us vs. them, it's a game of where the children of each society will go to. Think of the U.S. of the 19th and early 20th century. People from all over the world were coming there to start a new life. They came from very different educational backgrounds, born into societies of very different levels of openess. Three to five generations later, their offspring has a typical american education, typical american behaviour and typical american goals and dreams.

Religion has thought of that (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46417079)

In most religions its a womans "duty" to have as many kids as possible regardless of the effects upon her health. "Go forth and multiply" was one of the biggest pieces of social propaganda ever divised.

Re:Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417057)

It's sounding more and more as if the best thing for us, as a species, to do with respect to child rearing is simply place them all into a common pool and raise them communally.

If no one knew which kid was theirs and we all got a say in their indoctrination / education, I think everyone would be better off. Including the new human beings. As a bonus side effect, it would neatly sidestep the issue of genetic engineering deepening the socio-economic stratification, a future which has already arrived [dailymail.co.uk] ...

I smell some good sci-fi based on that shit right there.

Re:Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417095)

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Re:Cult (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46417113)

Its been tried - it doesn't work very well. eg in orphanages and certain 60s cults. Children want their own parents, they don't want to share some unrelated strangers with 50 other kids. Human nature tends to get in the way of most of these types of hippy social experiments working.

Re:Cult (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46417189)

So basically, the Jewish Amish.

Re:Cult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417403)

The sect is set up to give kids no option other than to stay in the Haredi community and overdose on religion for their entire lives.

Which is no big deal because these peoples are inbreed and we don't want them to pollute the global gene pool.

Seriously, these retarded cultures existed 6000 years ago and they will probably still exist 10000 years from now. In the meanwhile, our western culture is dying because of multiculturalism dilution and women that don't know there place and stop having babies. When you know there is no future for you kind, you are truly free to do anything; go with a bang!

I have no clue what's going on here (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 5 months ago | (#46416921)

...beyond the fact that someone wants to deny evolution.

What answers are being changed, on what test?

Why bother to give the test at all if you don't like the material on it? Is it a government-required test? For what purpose? Is the government really OK with these arbitrary changes by the school?

The summary is pretty horrible, in terms of journalism, and the original article not much better.

Re:I have no clue what's going on here (1)

AGMW (594303) | about 5 months ago | (#46417035)

Why bother? I _guess_ because we have a set of rules about what kids have to be taught and part of that involves examination. So it's OK for the kids to take an exam and potentially do badly (if there are questions set on topics they've wilfully been mislead on!), but it's not OK to just not teach the subject.

If there was some way to weed out 'bad teachers' you could hope that the Biology teachers at such a school would continually be identified by Ofsted (UK schools watchdog) and warned, offered re-training, etc, then sacked, but sadly that's unlikely because the teacher union(s) would probably get all upset and call a national strike - even if Ofsted had such powers, and I don't think they do because if they did the teacher union(s) would probably get all upset and call a national strike!

Re:I have no clue what's going on here (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46417199)

Yes, it's a government-required standardised test. Administered by the exam board OCR. I'm guessing OCRs agreement is something along the lines of OCR turning a blind eye and the school not starting legal action that could run for years and embarrass everyone involved.

Oh Brother! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416941)

Religious sponsored ignorance...

and that's where I stopped reading...

Jewish school removed that... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416995)

To have place to teach the Rules of Acquisition to its pupils

WTF people? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46416997)

The entire POINT of reproduction is to make little copies of our selves. If you are trying to remake other people's children in your own image, you are working against the core principle of life on this planet. Meiosis copies our genes, education copies our memes. These people are keeping their religious dogma within their religious community where it belongs. The US constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, whatever the equivalent is in the UK, are designed TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN DO THIS. They are constructed so that people can educate their children without interference from ideas outside the group, INCLUDING YOU. Practically, this is a good thing, because it's the only thing stopping the crazies in Texas and Kansas and North Carolina from forcing their religious dogma on all of us. Morally, well, the I'm-right-and-you're-wrong stance doesn't have a moral foundation. If you have a problem with the meme, fight the meme. Don't go violating people's innate rights (the right to reproduce) that's interfering with your defense of another innate right (the right to the best education possible, for your definition of 'best').

Captcha: amorist

Re:WTF people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417215)

The entire POINT of reproduction is to make little copies of our selves.

Sounds like a creepy goal.

5 months late (2)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about 5 months ago | (#46417029)

They were caught in October.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/n... [secularism.org.uk]

Re:5 months late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417285)

From that link:

Girls attending Yesodey Hatorah are strongly discouraged from going to university. According to Rabbi Pinter: "Our experience, is that the better educated girls turn out to be the most successful mothers. For us, that's the most important role a woman plays."

Wow, are that lot much better than the Taliban when it comes to attitudes to girls ?

Religion and evolution (4, Interesting)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 5 months ago | (#46417075)


I find it amusing that through the decades and centuries some fundamentalists, religious groups etc simply do everything they can no to not change.

Resisting change in new and interesting ways. They come up with new counter arguments, new legislation proposals, new interpretations of the same old texts.

That very same behaviour is evolutionary in nature. We need no other explanation to demonstrate that evolution as a fact is quite well grounded in fact.Sure there are gaps in our ability to explain everything but every time we have stepped forward and discovered something, solved what was thought to be impossible etc the arguments against evolution then evolved with the discovery. Much like the "Irreducibly complex" malarkey.

So some sect/faction/aspect/cult of Judaism or some other belief want X removed or have removed it from their school. Good. Evolution at work, they are one step closer to removing themselves from the gene pool. While some religious groups may have 11 - 15 kids per family religion overall is in decline.

We can argue these points on slashdot, religious people can counter argue and millions will read and judge for themselves -all very evolved.

I'm fine with this (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | about 5 months ago | (#46417093)

As long as all their examination pupils forfeit the marks from those questions, and if the school's reputation suffers as it slips down the league table, and if the government withdraws all public funding from the school for failing to follow the national curriculum. So if a question was worth 30 out of 200 points then their students automatically lose 30 points, or 15%. Under no other circumstances should they be permitted to take an alternative exam, or pupils be graded for their remaining questions.

And seriously what the fuck up with the UK and this stupid policy? They could learn a thing or two from the French on this - education should be secular. There should be no religious dress, no segregation by sexes, no exemptions from subjects on religious grounds, no indoctrination into religion and no pandering to the sensibilities of religion in any way shape or form. In the long term this will mean far less religious whackaloons which can only be a good thing.

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46417241)

I don't think this school really cares about the league table. People who want to send their children there do not do so because of the tables.

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 5 months ago | (#46417469)

There should... no segregation by sexes,

We do segregation by the sexes just fine in non religous schools, thankyouverymuch. Really: England has many single sex schools.

Other than that yeah. I hate the pandering where some people get special rights because they profess to believe that they need them.

Sigh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417135)

Hitler should have finished the job.

Evolutionary questions not allowed in Dutch exams (1)

Arduenn (2908841) | about 5 months ago | (#46417221)

In England this may be incidental, but in the Netherlands, it is institutional. Questions about evolution are up to this day not allowed in Dutch highschool exams, as ruled by law.

Re:Evolutionary questions not allowed in Dutch exa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417287)

Can you elaborate please ?

Re:Evolutionary questions not allowed in Dutch exa (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46417475)

Not entirely true w/r Dutch exams.

http://www.examenblad.nl/exame... [examenblad.nl] , page 13-14 for those who can read Dutch.

We did have a period in time where it was indeed entirely removed from exams and even in the above 2014 biology syllabus it uses weasel words to describe what a student needs to know about evolution for exams.

Disgraceful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417245)

This is shocking and I am outraged. I cannot believe, in this day and age, that anyone would be so ignorant as to force Slashdot Beta on an unsuspecting user.

Why is this exciting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46417451)

Don't understand all the excitement about this "event". I am surprised that a Jewish school would teach evolution anyway. As a matter of fact, I was taught that evolution was a theory, not a law. So, if it's not a law, why teach it as fact? Perhaps make reference to the theory, but don't get excited when institutions don't put a lot of credibility in long expouced non proven theories.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>