How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Actually Rian - the moth theory is not bogus. White moths on dark trees will show up much more readily to it's predators - than moths that fit in with it's surroundings. I can't believe you so hardly dismiss this - yet at the same time say that some miraculous unseen being created us out of nothing.

And yes - I used the rollyeyes and I don't really give a damn.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

the Galapagos finches (the beaks were pre-existing in the population, and the only thing that happened was that they became more prevalent - they didn't come about by beneficial mutation by any means. And after the drought, the beak types went back! The effects were NOT cumulative.)

what in the world are you talking about here?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What big bang? The classic big bang theory is falling out of favor again. The current favorite is one based on membrane collision in a 5 dimensional space holding (at least) 2 4 dimensional entities - i.e. our universe and at least one other. It explains the distribution of matter and certain questions about inflation in a more comprehensive manner.

Actually according to a show on the science channel or whatever - which talked about parallel universes - that isn't entirely true. I believe they said that it's the membrane theory which explains what caused the big bang. Two parallel universes collided with one another.

BTW - as I've said numerous times before - I see no evidence of creationism - other than people just claiming that god can do anything, therefore it happened that way. Are there pieces missing in the fossil record - of course they are. But it's a lot more scientific and logical that we evolved and changed over billions of years than we were just plopped down on the face of the earth by some super-mystical unseen creature.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well said JD
we seem to be in agreeance on a couple of threads here and there!!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Actually Rian - the moth theory is not bogus. White moths on dark trees will show up much more readily to it's predators - than moths that fit in with it's surroundings. I can't believe you so hardly dismiss this - yet at the same time say that some miraculous unseen being created us out of nothing.

First of all, the ONLY thing that happened in that experiment is a change in proportion of two varities of a pre-existing species of moth. Big deal!

White moths on dark trees will show up much more readily to it's predators - than moths that fit in with it's surroundings.

Well, sure! If that's an important underpinning of the ToE, then ... ok, but big deal! I think any young child could tell you that. But what I was objecting to was errors in the experiment, not the conclusion.

What I said was that Kettlewell's experiment was "a vastly flawed experiment". Let me explain why. (I wasn't saying that it wasn't easier for birds to eat light moths on dark trees. As I said, that's pretty obvious!)

The biggest flaw in the experiment, IMO, is that Kettlewell did NOT use the natural resting place, nor the natural activity time, of peppered moths! These moths are night-fliers, and normally find resting places high up on trees (NOT the trunks) before dawn. The moths he released in the daytime remained exposed, and were easy targets - but this was NOT what they do naturally! In fact, one naturalist, in 25 years of field work, found only ONE peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk, and concluded that they knew "where moths do NOT spend the day."

The experiment was a flawed experiment. I"m not even saying that natural selection doesn't occur, but IMO, I don't think a deeply flawed experiment should be used to support something. Do you?

And his conclusions, altho consistent with the (flawed) experiment, were not even consistent throughout England. In some places, they ran exactly opposite to expectations! In rural Wales, the frequency of dark moths was higher than would be predicted by Kettlewell's experiment. In East Anglia, where there was little pollution and lights seemed better camouflaged, darks reached a frequency of 80%. In south Wales, darks seemed better camouflaged, yet they were only 20% of the population. And after passage of an anti-pollution legislation, the proportion of darks north of London decreased as expected, but unexplainably increased in the south. And in the north, the increase in lights happened WITHOUT an increase in the lichen!

And all this evidence counter to Kettlewell's experiment shouldn't be a surprise, since the experiment was flawed, because Kettlewell did NOT use the natural resting place nor the natural activity time of peppered moths.

And yes - I used the rollyeyes and I don't really give a damn.

Yes, I am well aware of your attitude. It's probably good that you explained it so clearly, though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - as I've said numerous times before - I see no evidence of creationism - other than people just claiming that god can do anything, therefore it happened that way. ... But it's a lot more scientific and logical that we evolved and changed over billions of years than we were just plopped down on the face of the earth by some super-mystical unseen creature.

This is a typical objection that I see over and over from evolutionists. You set up a straw man and of course it's easy to knock down!

I could point you to my multi-post write-up on evidence supporting creationism, but based on my scientific observations of your usual attitude in this thread, I doubt if you would give it any serious consideration. That's certainly your choice. I'll just say that it involves things like looking for mechanisms and data that support its hypotheses, just like evolution. And things to look for include items that could NOT have developed slowly and in small steps, given their design (IOW, they require a design and creation), and mechanisms that tend to KEEP living things basically as they are. Of course evolution looks for the opposite - things that COULD have developed slowly and in small steps, and mechanisms that could ALLOW living things to radically change beyond what we've ever observed.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

yes, but the poin of evolutionary theories is there is no radical change, it happens gradually over many millions of years

[Rían]

Chrys, evolution posits a cumulative change that is radical. How long something takes does not magically take away difficulties If there are obstacles to something happening at all, it doesn't matter if the claim is that it happens quickly or it happens slowly. As I said before, all we EVER scientifically observe is minor changes, perfectly consistent with what creationism posits.

It's unfortunate for the theory of evolution that it states a great deal of time is required, but that does NOT give it a free pass and a "scientifically proven as fact" sticker It's unproven, and it remains unproven, because it's unproveable. The best evolutionists can come up with is that we can observe small characteristic shifts in populations that already have that characteristic (IOW, NOT from beneficial mutation), and given enough time, this MIGHT lead to fish-archetypes changing to giraffes.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Chrys, evolution posits a cumulative change that is radical. How long something takes does not magically take away difficulties If there are obstacles to something happening at all, it doesn't matter if the claim is that it happens quickly or it happens slowly. As I said before, all we EVER scientifically observe is minor changes, perfectly consistent with what creationism posits.

It's unfortunate for the theory of evolution that it states a great deal of time is required, but that does NOT give it a free pass and a "scientifically proven as fact" sticker It's unproven, and it remains unproven, because it's unproveable. The best evolutionists can come up with is that we can observe small characteristic shifts in populations that already have that characteristic (IOW, NOT from beneficial mutation), and given enough time, this MIGHT lead to fish-archetypes changing to giraffes.

So the theory of evolution is not proven. Well, there are many theories in the world that aren’t proven but that doesn’t mean there aren’t indications that they’re correct, indications that you can find everywhere

There are many examples in mathematics. Perfect numbers for instance. No one has ever seen an uneven perfect number and people have tried to prove that odd perfect numbers don't exist. They've all been unsuccessful. However everything suggests there are only even perfect numbers but it's still only a theory, a theory that I believe most mathematician accept as a fact. (There are other, better mathematical examples that require more advanced knowledge. Ask me and I'll see if I can find them ).

There are examples in medicine too. With some drugs, you can't prove that they have any metabolic effect that would help a person in anyway, yet the drugs still work. The doctors don't know how or why the drugs work but they still know it has to do with the metabolism. It's sort of like the theory of evolution, you can't see evolution directly but you can see its effects and the traces it has left in organisms.

Evolution isn't entirely unproven though. It's true that evolution regarding more 'complex' organisms such as humans can't be seen 'in action' since you would have to observe the organisms for a very long time. That is because complex organisms reproduce too slowly. That is not the case with microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses and I'm sure they've been mentioned earlier in this thread. They exchange genetic material way way faster than us, thus they evolve faster too. This can be seen in a microscope. Entirely new species of bacteria and viruses can evolve in basically no time at all. Often there have been 'crossovers' between two different kinds of bacteria/viruses that have spawned a new species. This new species can evolve further by exchanging genes with another newly evolved species with completely different genes - and then this evolutionary chain reaction can go on. It took only a few decades for HIV, a whole new kind of retrovirus, to evolve and spread to humans.

One can say that you can't compare bacteria and viruses with humans but I'd say you can. We share a lot of biochemical simularities with these little fellows, we function in much the same way so of course we are subjects to evolution too.

Evolution works slowly but it can sometime take big leaps forward. It takes time for the genetic material to change to the better if it's only subject to mutations. However, as is the case with bacteria and viruses, there can be 'crossovers', giving the organism a new set of genes to play around with. There are plants that have somehow managed to bread with each other and get an offspring that have been even more successful at surviving and spreading than its ancestors, that it has started to supplant them. A few more crossovers and the botanists in the future would have to consider the plants not only a new race, but a new species.

Finally I'd like to mention the typing monkey analogy. That is, a monkey randomly poking a typewriter could, if enough time was given, for instance write a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This would take an awful lot of time - unless the monkey when he hit a correct key were actually told it was correct and the monkey could remember that. Suddenly it would take very little time compared to before. Check this site out.

The thing is that proteins seem to 'remember' when they're folding in a beneficial way. So the theory goes - during the evolution, partly correct intermediates of proteines have been retained in organisms and have been able to evolve further. Sometimes, the intermediates have 'forgotten' how they're supposed to fold but they still 'remember' more than they 'forget'.
So if you look at the biochemical properties of the things we’re all made of – proteins and other molecules – they fit very well in the theory of evolution.

Wow, this ended up being a lenghty post. Hope someone takes the time to read it . Btw, notice how in this thread, RÃ*an uses the "" smiley where others would have used the "" smiley. Now that's the way people should post! Kudos to RÃ*an

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, great post Jonathan! You articulated a lot of points very well.

RÃ*an does deserve kudos! Even though she did start the thread, it's still hard being the only proponent of intelligent design and creationism in here.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

excellent post, jonathan, very, erm, what's the word i'm looking for? idiom, sir? no patsy, wrong thread! informative? yes, patsy, very informative

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The biggest flaw in the experiment, IMO, is that Kettlewell did NOT use the natural resting place, nor the natural activity time, of peppered moths! These moths are night-fliers, and normally find resting places high up on trees (NOT the trunks) before dawn. The moths he released in the daytime remained exposed, and were easy targets - but this was NOT what they do naturally! In fact, one naturalist, in 25 years of field work, found only ONE peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk, and concluded that they knew "where moths do NOT spend the day."

How is that flawed? Why not listen to yourself - don't you think that through EIOLUTION the moths developed to where they had coloration that enabled them to live in certain places. Sort of like the coloration of penguins IR mentioned.

As for the peppered moth experiment it came about as a study of how pollution affected the lives of organizations. Around pollution causing industries which left a black soot on trees, white moths who were normally safe from preditors - all of a sudden found themselves exposed. The darker moths however survived under those conditions because they remained well hidden.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Chrys, evolution posits a cumulative change that is radical. How long something takes does not magically take away difficulties If there are obstacles to something happening at all, it doesn't matter if the claim is that it happens quickly or it happens slowly. As I said before, all we EVER scientifically observe is minor changes, perfectly consistent with what creationism posits.

Actually - the amount of time something takes DOES reduce the difficulties. Because the change is gradual and over time. The creationsist theory is basically fairy tale with things just popping out of nothing. I'm sorry - seeing the world around em - I see gradual changes everyday. Amazingly - I've never seen anything pop-out of nothing in front of me though.

It's unfortunate for the theory of evolution that it states a great deal of time is required, but that does NOT give it a free pass and a "scientifically proven as fact" sticker It's unproven, and it remains unproven, because it's unproveable. The best evolutionists can come up with is that we can observe small characteristic shifts in populations that already have that characteristic (IOW, NOT from beneficial mutation), and given enough time, this MIGHT lead to fish-archetypes changing to giraffes.

NO - there is evidence of various species changing over time to other organizism - such as the recent discoveries of dinosaurs with partial feathers. As for having a "scientifically proven as fact" theories are not proven fact, but it is based on SCIENTIFIC study. I'm sorry - I've read many of your posts - like I said in that "two much religion" thread or whatever it was called - this thread goes around and around in circles and ios just the same things that were discussed in the evolution thread. YOu want to believe that some mystical creature just popped us on earth - and just blindly accept that. Sorry - the bible is not science, there is no scientific evidence to back up your claim other than that there are certain parts of evolution which haven't been explained. You can't back up creationism or any theory - by just say the opposing theory has some flaws. You have to have a theory which stands on it's own merits and sorry - creationism doesn't.

[Jonathan]

I think a problem with discussing evolution vs. creationism is ignorance from both sides. Sometimes evolutionists have poor knowledge of how evolution really works and at the same time they might not be that educated about the bible. The same thing sometimes goes for people supporting creationism. Understanding is the key to a good discussion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How is that flawed? Why not listen to yourself - don't you think that through EIOLUTION the moths developed to where they had coloration that enabled them to live in certain places. Sort of like the coloration of penguins IR mentioned.

There are various ways too look at this. What came first, the hen or the egg? Did evolution enable the moth to change colours, or was the darker colour something that pre-existed and that evolution brought fourth?
As far as I know the genes for the darker colour have existed for a very long time. The genes are recessive, which is why most moths are white. However some moths still turn black if they're unlucky to get 'bad' genes. In areas where it's actually beneficial to be dark, the black moths don't die as easily as they would otherwise and can therefore spread their 'bad' genes and give birth to even more dark moths. This is just natural adaption - a step towards further evolution but still far from it. The moths population has the dark genes, it's just not always they're expressed.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sorry - the bible is not science, there is no scientific evidence to back up your claim other than that there are certain parts of evolution which haven't been explained.

Hey wait, don't ruin the discussion! . I'm very interested in hearing about what evidence the creationists have

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think a problem with discussing evolution vs. creationism is ignorance from both sides. Sometimes evolutionists have poor knowledge of how evolution really works and at the same time they might not be that educated about the bible. The same thing sometimes goes for people supporting creationism. Understanding is the key to a good discussion.

Well I grew up in Catholic school - we studied the bible - but we also studied evolution.

I haven't heard anything that Rian has said that will make me say "oh yeah - creationism is possible or probable - or even believable"

There are various ways too look at this. What came first, the hen or the egg? Did evolution enable the moth to change colours, or was the darker colour something that pre-existed and that evolution brought fourth?
As far as I know the genes for the darker colour have existed for a very long time. The genes are recessive, which is why most moths are white. However some moths still turn black if they're unlucky to get 'bad' genes. In areas where it's actually beneficial to be dark, the black moths don't die as easily as they would otherwise and can therefore spread their 'bad' genes and give birth to even more dark moths. This is just natural adaption - a step towards further evolution but still far from it. The moths population has the dark genes, it's just not always they're expressed.

Hence - survival of the fittest. Which is part of the theory of evolution.

Hey wait, don't ruin the discussion! . I'm very interested in hearing about what evidence the creationists have

I'm not ruining the discussion - just stating an observation from about 2 and half years of evolution versus creationism threads on entmoot. The one time Rian tried to back up her opinion with "well god wouldn't use evolution because it's not eligant enough" (paraphrasing here). If that's the type of thing that will be used in an argument to back up some unscientific theory - then sorry - it's a bunch of bull. Also - she routinely says that evolution is an atheist belief - when it's not. it's a scientific belief - it has nothing to do with religion one way or the other. Creationism however REQUIRES a belief in god though - which again is not science.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So the theory of evolution is not proven. Well, there are many theories in the world that aren’t proven but that doesn’t mean there aren’t indications that they’re correct, indications that you can find everywhere

There are many examples in mathematics. Perfect numbers for instance. No one has ever seen an uneven perfect number and people have tried to prove that odd perfect numbers don't exist. They've all been unsuccessful. However everything suggests there are only even perfect numbers but it's still only a theory, a theory that I believe most mathematician accept as a fact. (There are other, better mathematical examples that require more advanced knowledge. Ask me and I'll see if I can find them ).

There are examples in medicine too. With some drugs, you can't prove that they have any metabolic effect that would help a person in anyway, yet the drugs still work. The doctors don't know how or why the drugs work but they still know it has to do with the metabolism. It's sort of like the theory of evolution, you can't see evolution directly but you can see its effects and the traces it has left in organisms.

Evolution isn't entirely unproven though. It's true that evolution regarding more 'complex' organisms such as humans can't be seen 'in action' since you would have to observe the organisms for a very long time. That is because complex organisms reproduce too slowly. That is not the case with microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses and I'm sure they've been mentioned earlier in this thread. They exchange genetic material way way faster than us, thus they evolve faster too. This can be seen in a microscope. Entirely new species of bacteria and viruses can evolve in basically no time at all. Often there have been 'crossovers' between two different kinds of bacteria/viruses that have spawned a new species. This new species can evolve further by exchanging genes with another newly evolved species with completely different genes - and then this evolutionary chain reaction can go on. It took only a few decades for HIV, a whole new kind of retrovirus, to evolve and spread to humans.

One can say that you can't compare bacteria and viruses with humans but I'd say you can. We share a lot of biochemical simularities with these little fellows, we function in much the same way so of course we are subjects to evolution too.

Evolution works slowly but it can sometime take big leaps forward. It takes time for the genetic material to change to the better if it's only subject to mutations. However, as is the case with bacteria and viruses, there can be 'crossovers', giving the organism a new set of genes to play around with. There are plants that have somehow managed to bread with each other and get an offspring that have been even more successful at surviving and spreading than its ancestors, that it has started to supplant them. A few more crossovers and the botanists in the future would have to consider the plants not only a new race, but a new species.

Finally I'd like to mention the typing monkey analogy. That is, a monkey randomly poking a typewriter could, if enough time was given, for instance write a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This would take an awful lot of time - unless the monkey when he hit a correct key were actually told it was correct and the monkey could remember that. Suddenly it would take very little time compared to before. Check this site out.

The thing is that proteins seem to 'remember' when they're folding in a beneficial way. So the theory goes - during the evolution, partly correct intermediates of proteines have been retained in organisms and have been able to evolve further. Sometimes, the intermediates have 'forgotten' how they're supposed to fold but they still 'remember' more than they 'forget'.
So if you look at the biochemical properties of the things we’re all made of – proteins and other molecules – they fit very well in the theory of evolution.

Wow, this ended up being a lenghty post. Hope someone takes the time to read it . Btw, notice how in this thread, RÃ*an uses the "" smiley where others would have used the "" smiley. Now that's the way people should post! Kudos to RÃ*an

That post is so rambleing that I can't tell if this guy's on the right or wrong side!

And if he is on the wrong side how will he explain parasites which are disined for a spific thing?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by me9996

That post is so rambleing that I can't tell if this guy's on the right or wrong side!

And if he is on the wrong side how will he explain parasites which are disined for a spific thing?

Which side is right and which is wrong according to you?

From a scientific point of view, there is nothing strange at all about the evolution of parasites or organisms living in symbiosis either.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Which side is right and which is wrong according to you?

From a scientific point of view, there is nothing strange at all about the evolution of parasites or organisms living in symbiosis either.

it's the red queen effect,
as is the same with giraffes and acacia trees
when i can find the appropriate book, i will make a
proper post on the nature of the Red Queen

[jerseydevil]

You know here -

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Which side is right and which is wrong according to you?

the ideal smilie to use would have been ""

[jellyfishannah]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The creationsist theory is basically fairy tale with things just popping out of nothing. I'm sorry - seeing the world around em - I see gradual changes everyday. Amazingly - I've never seen anything pop-out of nothing in front of me though.

lol. Ahem ahem. Fairy tale with things popping out of nothing? Is that any better than things gradually becoming out of nothing?

I know we've discussed this before.