Should evolution be taught in schools?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals. But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.

First of all, Neandertals are NOT the precursor to Sapiens. They were a side branch that developed in Europe when Sapiens were still in the African/Middle East region. The precursor to Neanders is most likely Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and possibly antecessor in Spain. Erectus is our direct precendent.

And that is why you are wrong about there being no slightly evolving chain. There are many slight differrences between heidelbergensis and the neandertal. So much so, that it is now generally a given that they were two separate species, as opposed to what they previously thought - that heidelbergensis was Neander.

I'm not even gonna get into the timeframe here, but needless to say, a long period of time stretched between Heidelbergensis and Neander (who were developing before sapiens expanded out) and the expansion of Sapiens. On top of all this, there is a convergence between Erectus, Sapiens, and Heidelbergensis, of several thousands of years. Your faster evolution theory is simply not possible.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm personally a little surprised that you consider our current dating methods to be just as accurate as the fact that the world is round, but it's your choice how strong you think these methods are.

I didn't even mention dating methods there. (See my post below regarding precision vs accuracy) Here, I was talking about the fossil record, and stratigraphic layers. Just by using geomagnetic reversals tells us that the earth is very very old.

[BeardofPants]

LF:
Here you'll probably start laughing....

No, I'm not laughing at all. I'm am just completely overwhelmed I guess, by your lack of knowledge on this subject. Let's break this down.


Leif:
"However, two of the primary reasons that I am advocating it is because the possibility has lately been coming to scientific thought, as more knowledge is procured, and secondly, because the Bible also tends to advocate that more than a longer evolution."

The possibility that a younger earth, or a faster rate of evolution in the sense that you are talking about has NOT come into the scientific community. As I said earlier, if there is going to be a rethink on dating, it will most likely be because the dates are OLDER than previously thought. Also, as I also mentioned earlier, the rate of evolutionary change is NOT constant, and it is NOT linear. So, in a certain sense you are right - there are *some* aspects of evolution that can be considered "fast", but not in the sense that you are implying.


Leif:
"But I tend to believe that Adam was the first man, and the faster evolution certainly implies that this could easily happen."

If Adam was the first man, then where would we place him in the record? Ramapithecus? Creationists think that he was an orangutan!

Faster evolution implies nothing of the sort. Adam would have to have been a brachiating, barrel chested, vegetarian.


Leif:
"How long the animals had been around before him, I'm not sure, but in the Bible it says that sin and death were brought to the world when Adam succumbed to temptation, and this would imply that none of the animals had died yet."

From Ramapithecus, right up through all the australopithecines, there is evidence that their diets were primarily of the floral variety. So, we're looking from 6 million years ago, right up until approximately 500,000 years ago. That is a long time frame for 'Adam' to have been a vegetarian, brachiating, barrel chested wonder. We can analyse their diets using strontium-radium methods, which compare the ratios of fauna versus flora in early hominid diet. The rate of strontium in a mammal that eats grass for instance, is vastly different from that of a carnivore, which eats the mammal who eats the grass, and gets the strontium indirectly. We can also look at the morphology of australopithecines, ie their mandible, teeth, and zygomatic processesp; this tells us, due to the extreme robusticity, that they were eating hard grains, and fruit, NOT meat.


Leif:
"Here you'll probably start laughing, but that is one of the reasons why I am attempting to cast doubt on the dating method for a millions of years evolution."

And I'll say it again, while the margin of error for dating methods can not be relied on for precision (note, precision, NOT accuracy. The accuracy of dating methods is not in doubt), geomagnetic reversals in the stratification of the geological and fossil record BOTH indicate a very very old earth. Your possibility of a faster evolution is improbable.

LF:
But it really isn't my place to cast doubt on this for you. In years to come, we'll see where evolution goes, and if this other version might be adopted.

As new evidence arises, new theories will have to be formulated accordingly. Like I said earlier, evolutionary theory has come from being linear, to now knowing that there was a lot more co-existence and dead end links than previously thought.

LF:
Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea.

I think I covered this already, when detailing the longevity of the australopithecine subspecies.

LF:
Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt.

Not all species have a strong ability to adapt. Well over 90% of mutations are neutral. Adaptation, speciating, adaptive radiation, these are all mechanisms that determine a species adaption to its niche, and NONE of them are as instant as you are making them out to be.

LF:
That statement is what I was trying to pound .

But he is right. The problems of dating lie with the precision mechanisms. No one is doubting the accuracy of dating, it is the precision of radiometric dating that casts the doubt on the dates.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing.

"The earth is changing."

Can you justify this statement please.

LF:
If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age.

Perhaps you have heard of the field of taphonomy? It was my specialisation in anthropology. The basic gist is that geologists and anthropologists, and paleontologists all take into account that the fossil record will be 'invaded' by outside influences, whether they be cultural or natural.

LF:
I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.

Actually, LF, I think we'd like to see you cite some evidence to justify your statements as well. Something that your father heard on the radio about a mystery island is hardly good evidence to support your arguments.

Regarding continental drift, again, we can look towards the study of stratigraphy.

LF:
I'd have little to respond to it all with.

Rather telling, ain't it?

LF:
But current scientific theories are still merely current scientific theories. They have a lot of knowledge in them, usually, and science is a very great thing that has done a lot for humanity. It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.

There is no uniform mud layer to indicate a global flood. Evidence is not just gonna pop up out of mid air... it simply is not there!

LF:
The difficulty is, Cirdan, that in your arguments, you're assuming the accuracy of current scientific theories and dating methods, and you're saying that there isn't any chance that they're wrong.

See my arguments above for precision vs accuracy. The accuracy of radiometric dating is not in doubt, it is the precision that needs to be adjusted for.

LF:
In numerous previous examples and in history, science has been shown to make mistakes, therefore I think your assumption as to the accuracy of current scientific theories is invalid. Mine is unusable, because the evidence to support it is all only evidence to me, not to the world.

Of course science has been known to be make mistakes! It is going on the best possible fit with the evidence that we currently have. If we get new evidence, the theory gets adjusted accordingly. The thing about science is that it IS a changing paradigm!!!!!!!

Again: accuracy good, precision not so good. Please, be careful on your terminology. Your ignorance is showing.

LF:
There is some evidence out to support a quick evolution; I've mentioned some of these evidences here, and you can read others by looking at what material is available.

You have not cited much in a way of evidence. As I said earlier, adaptation is not as instant as you're trying to make it out to be.

LF:
I simply tend to believe in the faster evolution, partly because it supports the Bible, and partly because it explains some of the inconsistencies we see in the old model.

Can you cite the inconsisties please?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.

What does this even mean?

You might say that the Earth doesn't change that much, and when it does it's at an extremely slow rate because of the slowness of the continental divide, but the assumption that the continental divide was always as slow as it is now is erroneous.

Your lack of knowledge is overwhelming. How can you discuss a subject about which you know so little? Please stop trying to channel your father and pick up a proper book on the subject. The continental divide is a geographic delineation showing where rivers flow to different seas. Are you trying to discuss mid-ocean ridges? That is a very different thing.

Simply because we observe, from our limited reference frame, that this is how fast it is moving now, doesn't imply that it has always been moving at that rate.

Actually is does, within certain boundaries. Clays can only deposit separately from sands if the stream flow is a certain rate. I can take a clay sample from and ancient rock and repeat the test in a flume. All processes have physical requirements that must be met.

And your earlier statement, by the way, that the continents would melt and life would cease to exist is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.

ReallY? And you know this how? Tell me what the melting point parameters for basalt are? Do you know? On wdo you base your claim?

It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.

It would be impossible since the entire earth has been surveyed. If such a significant event had occurred there would be evidence.

As for your opinions about the bible's relevance to the history of the earth, I am truely sorry for you that you will choose to ignore what you believe god created. If you want to be able to engage in these discussions you should at least allow yourself to obtain a proper understanding of the prevailing science before you support unproven theories because you have the impression that your religion would suffer otherwise.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The possibility that a younger earth, or a faster rate of evolution in the sense that you are talking about has NOT come into the scientific community.

Are you at the head of the scientific community? Different scientists look at different things. These two ideas, I know have not been accepted by the scientific community, and are probably not even being seriously looked at yet. But this doesn't say scientists aren't looking at them, and at the evidence for them.

For what must be the tenth time, I'm not arguing for a younger Earth, either.

The things you stated about Adam are based upon the slow evolution, if it's faster, these don't hold.

I have a question for you, BeardofPants. Theoretically, if the break-up of the continents came shortly after the flood, would this effect the universal mud layer you say everything should have? I asked you questions before about the universal mud layer, and they weren't answered.

In any case, I'm not going to get wrapped up in an argument for an early break-up of the continents, a flood, and a faster evolution. All I wanted to do is point out that since science has error in it and there are things out there and probably even general laws that aren't yet observed, it can't be used as a basis for going against these other ideas.

I ask again the same question that I asked in an earlier post, and which went unanswered. Why should what is written in the Bible be forced to conform to every scientific theory that is currently held? Since science changes as we learn new things and discard old ideas, it is ridiculous that Christianity, which holds to a firm and unyielding truth, to have to evolve with science.

[Forge315-Halfling]

Well I’m not gonna read all the posts to this point, but as a Creationist I’ll take the point of view against Evolution as science.

So to make my entry into this topic here’s one reason against evolution, (which should be easy to combat)

1 - Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.

Simple you say? Well it had to start somewhere.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
Well I’m not gonna read all the posts to this point, but as a Creationist I’ll take the point of view against Evolution as science.

So to make my entry into this topic here’s one reason against evolution, (which should be easy to combat)

1 - Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.

Simple you say? Well it had to start somewhere.

Not all mutations are deadly and not all prevent reproduction.

Next...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have a question for you, BeardofPants. Theoretically, if the break-up of the continents came shortly after the flood, would this effect the universal mud layer you say everything should have? I asked you questions before about the universal mud layer, and they weren't answered.

I would suggest that you read up on the Laws of Superposition sometime if you want a better understanding.

Forge315-Halfling:
Natural Selection disproves Evolution, because it chooses against mutations so no change will stay; E.G. an ape can’t turn into man even over time because no mutation can be passed on.

I can tell you haven't read the thread.

Well over 90% of mutations are neutral. And what Cirdan said: not all a deadly, and not all prevent reproduction. Obviously.

Natural selection is about selecting for the best possible fitness. If a mutation helps an organism fit into its niche better, it will be selected for.

Men do not come from apes. We share a common ancestor.

Next. (Will it be the second law of thermodynamics? )

[Earniel]

I agree. That would kill the frog . But an envirnoment doesn't always go from lush to bleak in a matter of seconds, and the time lapse can be enough for species to adapt to the changes. Sometimes this adaptation, as in my island example, can cause a large change in the species.

Still the mystery island pops up. I'm sorry, Lief but without reasonable data on this island I simply don't buy it. Such speedy adaptation seems (to me) highly unlikely. It takes more than one generation for a species to emerge from another, certainly with more advanced organisms. So without more data I can't consider this island a good argument for faster evolution.

And there's something I'd liked explained to me: that we do see the same species found in different places more than once. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a somewhat odd coincidence that we find the same species several times in different parts of the world, but don't find many of the intermediate species at all.

Moving out on a limb here because this is less common ground for me. I think this is because we can't see evolution happen. We know it happens or happened, we often know what was first and what came after. But of the actual change we have no data. We can perhaps pinpoint the period in which it would take place and the differences between what came first and what came afterwards. But we do not know just WHAT happened, and there are often too much interfering factors to even try. Somehow I doubt that there is something like the missing link. If you find a fossil with treats of species A and the later species B, you're not going to name it species C just so you could have a intermediate species. Chances are it gets cataloged under either A or B. Also not every animal pleases paleontologists with a fossil. Fossilasation takes places under special circonstances and is more rare that common. So gaps are to be expected.

That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.

If you're a decent archeologist you'll know the body is new and added later. Also one specimen doesn't make or topple a theory. Science is about repeating evidence. You find on one spot a species A in the same layer as species B and you find the same occurence in several other spots only then you can be sure to assume that species A and B shared the same era. Contamination of a archeological site is not entirely uncommon. If you find a piece of plastic in the layer of the roman empire you know, your layers are desturbed. Archeologists DO take this into account because if they don't their whole dig could be ruined.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I ask again the same question that I asked in an earlier post, and which went unanswered. Why should what is written in the Bible be forced to conform to every scientific theory that is currently held? Since science changes as we learn new things and discard old ideas, it is ridiculous that Christianity, which holds to a firm and unyielding truth, to have to evolve with science.

I don't think that we (evolutionists) are asking that the Bible conform to every scientific theory. YOU are using the Bible as evidence against evolution, so you should use science to back up these claims, as we are. I ask (and forgive me if you have already answered this): how do you explain that we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with apes?

[Forge315-Halfling]

Not all mutations are deadly and not all prevent reproduction.

I’m not saying reproduction would be stopped by mutation, nor that mutations don’t get passed on. But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species.

If a mutation helps an organism fit into its niche better, it will be selected for.

If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.

how do you explain that we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with apes?

There are similarities or near exactness because we were made by the same Creator.

About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all. However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.

(edit - changed creator to Creator)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.

Pffft. That's all I have to say to that.

You're also forgetting to take sexual selection into consideration.

FH:
About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all.

Oh? This is the first that I've heard, that the flood wasn't a world wide phenomenon.

FH:
However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.

Ice age? World wide? My ass. The ice age I assume you are talking about was the one that occured during the time of the Neandertal. It was centred mainly on the European continent.

There have been several glacial maximums, btw.

How does a massive flooding lead to a glacial maximum exactly? Glacial maximums are caused by the Earths position to the sun, not some heavy rain.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
I’m not saying reproduction would be stopped by mutation, nor that mutations don’t get passed on. But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species.

So the new species isn't enough proof?

If there’s a superior mutated gene and an inferior normal gene then the normal gene is selected.

What is this conclusion based on?

There are similarities or near exactness because we were made by the same Creator.

Really? When?

About the flood being world wide, I don’t think water covered the whole earth nor that every-living thing outside of Ark died, but that all human beings outside of the Ark died and most animals if not all. However it’s okay to use the word world wide with the flood because the flood caused the ice age and that was world wide.

You would be better making up a story about the ice age causing the flood. More ice = less water. So your interpretation of the flood is based on what? How were the human killed and not the animals? How would it kill all humans when it is clear that therewere humans everywhere? Why weren't there different races on the ark? How did they reproduce from such a small gene pool?

[Lizra]

I see some very good reasons in this thread, why evolution should be taught in school. I'm seeing quite a few posts by people making big cases against it when they do not fully understand it! It is not simply "man came from apes" . I was shocked when I home schooled, and realized many of the parents were not teaching evolution. The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory. It was enough to send us back to public school, despite some of the positive aspects of home schooling. (HS is mighty lonely if you don't have other home school families to get together with. )

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
I see some very good reasons in this thread, why evolution should be taught in school. I'm seeing quite a few posts by people making big cases against it when they do not fully understand it! It is not simply "man came from apes" . I was shocked when I home schooled, and realized many of the parents were not teaching evolution. The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory. It was enough to send us back to public school, despite some of the positive aspects of home schooling. (HS is mighty lonely if you don't have other home school families to get together with. )

I think it is the complexity that makes it easy to confuse people. There has been intimations that science is out to get religion when it is plain to see that the reverse is the case. Can you imagine if scientists protested the teaching of creation in church?

Home schooling is difficult because you lose the socialization without numbers. I found what you did as well; that hs was just a way to supress thought that wasn't from the bible.

[jerseydevil]

This is one way evolution works...

Say there was a lot of competition for food in the early oceans with most fish swimming in the middle depths - but nothing really occupying the lower depths. Some fish start to swim down to the ocean floor and pick up the scraps. After some time they really don't need their fins anymore - and the fish that are born with flat fins that would have been considered deformities and would have died in the upper depths, survive better on the floor of the ocean. Through successive generations these deformaties become more pronounced because having flat fins on the ocean floor allow them to walk which is better for life down there - but now they can no longer swim.

This new flat finned fish eventually migrates to the shore and starts to move up through the low surf. Some of them walk out of the water - but they can't survive - because they still have gills. Some of these fish can develop a deformity that allows them to breath for a short time on land - through successive generations this "deformatity" gets passed on to it's offspring and becomes a standard part of the fish. These new fish evetually are able to crawl out of the water and live. You can see this fish today called a lung fish.

There is another fish that was very scary this summer in Maryland called the Northern Snakehead - ABCNews - They're Here... Two Unusual Fish Invade U.S. Waters. (I had several Lion Fish - they're a really cool fish, I especially like the Fu Man Chu Lion Fish.)

[Forge315-Halfling]

BeardofPants: Pffft. That's all I have to say to that.
You're also forgetting to take sexual selection into consideration.

Cirdan: So the new species isn't enough proof?

quote, "But there does need to be evidence of this evolution creating a ‘new’ species."

What is this conclusion based on?

Natural Selection; if you don’t know what it is, go and read about it.

Cirdan: Really? When?

If your asking me to prove Creation and the existence of God I can’t; what I’m doing is presenting that you can’t prove evolution either.

BeardofPants: Oh? This is the first that I've heard, that the flood wasn't a world wide phenomenon.

Cirdan: How were the human killed and not the animals? How would it kill all humans when it is clear that therewere humans everywhere? Why weren't there different races on the ark?

I only stated the probability of that, since we have no way of directly knowing whether it covered every mountain top. The only life forms I believe that lived through the flood was water faring ones; but I am open to the idea that little parts of Earth were not covered.

BeardofPants: How does a massive flooding lead to a glacial maximum exactly?

It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.

Cirdan: So your interpretation of the flood is based on what?

See just above, and you could also see the Bible. (I’ll give a reference in it later if you want.)

Cirdan: Why weren't there different races on the ark? How did they reproduce from such a small gene pool?

Assuming the Earth is about ten thousand years old the gene pool would have been a lot purer then, so marrying in your close family would not be unhealthy. Natural Selection results in refinement of specific traits, so as beings bread and spread out across the Earth specific traits like light colored skin or dark skin become more apparent.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.

Wow! This is much more challenging when you just start making stuff up. Well, let me try. Do you have a shred of evidence this happened?

I like a nice dark rye, but a nice crusty white bred is good too.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Forge315-Halfling
Natural Selection; if you don’t know what it is, go and read about it.

Oh, we're familiar with it. I have a whole degree based on it, if it helps. It seems that YOU are not familiar with how natural selection works.

Would you care to explain it to us? Yeah, I thought not.

FH:
I only stated the probability of that, since we have no way of directly knowing whether it covered every mountain top. The only life forms I believe that lived through the flood was water faring ones; but I am open to the idea that little parts of Earth were not covered.

Now, I could be mistaken here, since theology is not my specialty, but isn't it mentioned that the flood covered everything?

HF:
It doesn’t I was referring to the event of the flood and everything that happened then. The world was covered by an ice/water shield back then, the flood happened because God had an object strike the Earth sending us off balance and shattering this cover.

The WORLD?? COVERED??? My god this is ignorant. I said earlier that the glacial maximum of the Neander time period ONLY occured in the European continent!!! And an 'Ice Age' does NOT cover things with an ice shield!!! It is just a colder period in time. Due to the frigidity of the atmosphere, the water levels are lower, and land bridges are formed due to ice and exposed land.

HF:
Assuming the Earth is about ten thousand years old the gene pool would have been a lot purer then, so marrying in your close family would not be unhealthy. Natural Selection results in refinement of specific traits, so as beings bread and spread out across the Earth specific traits like light colored skin or dark skin become more apparent.

Okay, smaller gene pools do not equal purity. They actually equal weakness. Have you perhaps not heard of founders effect?

Refinement? Hmm... Natural selection acts on an organism, and the organism responds by adapting. Natural selection is the process by which the organism adapts. The refinement comes into play with SEXUAL selection.

Light coloured skin was a result of hominids moving up into the colder regions of the north (Europe), and adapting so that their skin could take in more vitamin E. There is evidence that their earlier counterparts were dying of rickets (esp. the old and the very young), cos their darker skin wasn't used to the smaller degree of vitamin E. Those who didn't produce children ridden with rickets would have made more desirable mates. Sexual selection.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The WORLD?? COVERED??? My god this is ignorant. I said earlier that the glacial maximum of the Neander time period ONLY occured in the European continent!!! And an 'Ice Age' does NOT cover things with an ice shield!!! It is just a colder period in time. Due to the frigidity of the atmosphere, the water levels are lower, and land bridges are formed due to ice and exposed land.

The glaciar stopped halfway through NJ. There is a clear difference between Northern NJ and Southern NJ. Also - as BoP said - NJ's shore was a lot further east because of the lower ocean levels. NEW JERSEY GEOLOGY & FOSSILS (simplified site)