Should evolution be taught in schools?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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)

Yes, there was a land bridge I believe between the Siberian region, and what makes up America today. Either way, the glacial maximum only effected a small region of the earth, in the northern region. (Sorry, I should have included the northern parts of the American continent in that. <sheepish look>)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, there was a land bridge I believe between the Siberian region, and what makes up America today. Either way, the glacial maximum only effected a small region of the earth, in the northern region. (Sorry, I should have included the northern parts of the American continent in that. <sheepish look>)

I was actually just agreeing with you - I didn't even think that you were leaving America out. For one thing - when most people think of the ice age - they think of Europe. The land/ice bridge did connect Russia with Alaska - this enabled the Indians to come over (or at least that's the common theory).

It is cool to go into museums and see how the land once looked. It makes you realise how insignificant we are and that in the future everything that we build and do won't even matter.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
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?

Well, one thing in your post I'd like to correct you on, and that is that I'm using the Bible as evidence. I was simply using that to demonstrate my reasons for arguing over the matters of dating. I'm also advocating a faster evolution, primarily because this recent idea that some scientists have been developing better agrees with the Bible than the current model, and I think it's quite possibly correct, considering the fact that evolution still has a long way to go in accuracy or precision.

I don't disagree that humans and apes have a common ancestor, and I don't agree with it either. I'm not taking the traditional interpretation of biblical passages, and I think evolution is possible.

The children were growing up ignorant of this important, but somewhat complicated theory.

Well, it is a question as to whether or not children should be taught evolution at an early age with an assertion of truth. At that young age, children aren't usually ready for the question of how to decide whether something is true or not, that's something that they're more ready to think about as a teenager. The theory has a way to go and our understanding of evolution will probably change a great deal in the future. Once something is taught to a child at an earlier age, it is much harder for them to ignore later on.

Oh, by the way, someone earlier posted that homeschooling was simply an excuse to ignore evolution (or something to that effect). That's actually extremely untrue. Homeschooling has many extremely useful purposes; I've written a report on it. And indoctrination isn't one of them. You can follow a child's learning level instead of forcing them to keep to the speed of the class, you can have a better relationship with your kids, etc. There are many reasons, but the suggested one in this thread is definitely not one.

I think the theory of evolution should probably be presented to these young people, when they're at an age where they can see that it is still simply theory. A good deal of it could be over their heads anyway, and there are other more useful things to teach them at that age like writing, math, and language to name a few.


Forge Halfling, I really hate to argue with you when several other people are already jumping all over your posts.

But I frankly think your ideas about the flood, like a meteor hitting, the connection to the ice age, and the whole Earth not being covered . . . I frankly think those ideas are a little weird and very shaky. Neither the Bible nor science supports them, but what I'd suggest if you're truly interested in this subject, like many other people are, including myself, you look closely at what science has to say and then read the books on geology and the scientific explanations for what happened. Then you'll be in a far better position to create a model. I'm not in the position to create a model for what might have happened, so I'm not attempting to. BeardofPants and Cirdan, in previous posts of theirs, have underlined this statement.


Meanwhile, to all those others who are saying faster evolution is impossible, the flood is impossible, the continents breaking up earlier is impossible, let me say this: Science, as you know, is still learning. Some theories are taught and accepted, but then they give way to further understanding at a later date. It has happened before and it can happen again. Current scientific knowledge goes against the possibility of these things happening, but unless you accept science as infallible (Which I seem to understand most of you don't), you cannot say with certainty that you won't learn something new and find that these things might have happened.

Until that time comes, you can certainly continue with believing the current scientific theories, methods and information on these subjects. But because it is possible that you are wrong, it cannot be certainly said that these things didn't happen.

Thus, the Bible doesn't have to mold to science whenever science disagrees with it, and we shouldn't twist its passages and read between lines to indicate that science is right when the Bible plainly disagrees. I think it is our (Speaking of Christians) duty to explore the possibilities and gain a firm grounding in these subjects.

Basically I'm saying that because science can be wrong, Christianity doesn't have to be wrong in those areas that are contradictory. I'm a proponent of further seeking, exploring and discovering.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I was actually just agreeing with you - I didn't even think that you were leaving America out. For one thing - when most people think of the ice age - they think of Europe. The land/ice bridge did connect Russia with Alaska - this enabled the Indians to come over (or at least that's the common theory).

It is cool to go into museums and see how the land once looked. It makes you realise how insignificant we are and that in the future everything that we build and do won't even matter.

Well, I didn't forget it per se, but in my minds eye I was only thinking of Russia, Europe, and Siberia. I WAS thinking about the land bridge, but forgot to include that parts of the American continent were also effected later on during the glacial maximum, as it spread out from the European continent. Can't be expected to remember everything all the time, even if I try to be an obnoxious know-it-all.

I love museums. Te Papa Museum (in Wellington - the same museum that's gonna have the $2m LOTR exhibit) has a newish interactive section where you can watch videos of how Pangea and Gondwanaland looked, and you can enter this house, and experience what the Napier earthquake felt like (it's on these suspension things that bounce up and down.)

[Lizra]

A two million Lord of The Rings exhibit!! OH my!! That sounds so wonderful!

[Methuselah]

Earlier I gave a sequence of numbers and asked if you could tell whether it was chance or design. The point I was making is that intelligent design can look like chance if you don’t know what the design is. The answer to my sequence is that the numbers were taken from the number pi (the distance around a circle of diameter 1) – omitting ten digits. Pi is an irrational number. It is impossible to tell the difference between the sequence of numbers in pi and a sequence generated by chance unless one knows the "design." I think most people agree that intelligent design can appear as chance to someone who does not know the design. But if creation represents God’s communication to us, then we should be able to comprehend at least part of what He is saying. Hence, we should be able to say something, but not nearly everything, concerning what that intelligent design represents.

If creation is God’s Word, then it should communicate truth to us. In my opinion, creation is there to help us understand who God is. When Jesus says, "I am the light of the world," he identifies himself as having attributes similar to that of light. Many analogies can be made. I would like to make one from the theory of relativity. Jesus said, "Before Abraham, I am." If one thinks in terms of relativity, this takes on new meaning. In relativity, the more something travels near the speed of light, the slower time proceeds. In the limit, if something travels at the speed of light, time does not progress at all. Consequently, for light, the past, present, and future are all present. The idea that past, present and future are all present to God gives Jesus’ statement new meaning.

Water is an excellent example of the meaning of the incarnation, or the union of flesh and Spirit. The hydrogen atom must surrender its sole electron to oxygen in order to combine. It reaps the benefit of sharing in practically all of the electrons of the oxygen atom. Hydrogen and oxygen together are very volatile. It is like the flesh resisting the spirit and the spirit condemning the flesh as evil. However, in their union they are like a new creation with a new nature. The flesh submits to the spirit, and the spirit gives grace to the flesh. In the relationship between flesh and spirit, flesh and spirit exist together and behave according to their own natures. But in the union of flesh and spirit, flesh and spirit produces a separate, new creation with a completely different nature. There is no longer God condemning people and people resisting God as in the time of Moses. There is God loving people, people loving God, and people loving one another.

In the creation of animals and other life forms, I think we each share in our own nature portions of the nature of all other animals (and perhaps plants, too). Observing their natures and their lives can teach us something about ourselves. Incompleteness and imperfection is as much a part of our nature as their natures. It was God’s pleasure to manifest His Son as perfection residing in imperfection. God could have designed the world to be more comfortable for us, but this would not help us to understand and experience who He is.

Novels like Tolkien’s "Lord of the Rings" and Hugo’s "Les Miserables" reveal real truths about humility and forgiveness that represent something greater than a chance combination of molecules following abstract laws. In my opinion, there is an inseparable union of spirit and flesh in the nature of Christ, there is an inseparable union of thought and physical activity in the human body, and there is an inseparable union of God’s nature and matter manifest in His creation. If this unin is inseparable, then we can always explain spiritual actions with physical actions. That, in brief, is what design means to me.

I am interested in your opinions. Do notions of truth, humility, and love have intrinsic meaning or do we just attribute meaning to fictitious concepts? If they have intrinsic meaning, do we learn about them because God has imprinted them into nature (ours or the world’s) in the form of design, or because some chance combination of molecules produces comprehension of these ideas?

[Methuselah]

My own views on faster evolution - or rather the question I am trying to understand - is: What is the right mechanism for specie change? How can one really go one character at a time from a Dick and Jane reader (I am showing my age) to a Tolkien trilogy and require that each version make more sense than the last. It seems to me that the transition steps must be faster and more distinctive. I think Lief does make a good point about questioning why similar fossils are observed in multiple geographical regions without the observation of many intermediate fossils. Formation of fossils can be a rare event, but the occurrence from one location to another should be somewhat independent unless there were a lot of globally climactic events. I won’t rule out the latter. Mixing rates in the atmosphere and oceans are rapid (tens of years), so maybe one can have a large number of globally climactic environments that alternate between producing conditions appropriate for fossilization (or faster evolution for that matter) and conditions for producing steady state conditions. This is not meant to deny that in some cases there are stronger evidences for intermediate stages than in other cases. Anyway, I think a faster mechanism is needed to go from one stage to another - unless you can satisfy me that intermediate stages can be reached one mutation (or character) at a time while requiring each step to be better than the last. One thing I am wondering is whether viruses could be agents for faster change. It is known that viruses carry genetic material and do reproduce in the cells of living organisms. It is also known that at least in some rare instances, viruses can carry a double-stranded form of DNA. Does anyone regard this as a possible mechanism for specie evolution? The second question I would wonder about is whether anyone has given much thought to the fact that environmental change can cause phenotypical changes in species that could account for some changes in the geological fossil record. For example, it is known that a Drosophilia fly can grow an extra pair of wings if ether is present in the environment when the fly is born. Any views on that subject? Please note, I am not at all trying to be argumentative here or to prove a point, I’d just like to know people’s opinions.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I am interested in your opinions. Do notions of truth, humility, and love have intrinsic meaning or do we just attribute meaning to fictitious concepts? If they have intrinsic meaning, do we learn about them because God has imprinted them into nature (ours or the world’s) in the form of design, or because some chance combination of molecules produces comprehension of these ideas?

Using science for an analogy doesn't make the subject of the analogy science itself. If Pi isn't known to the observer then it could mean the observer has insufficine information. To what scientific prinicple do you compare this?

The water analogy is lost in the fact that one has nothing to do wqith the other except they reside together in your sentences.

If Jesus is literally light then he would be detectable if not visible. This also makes Mary's conception of him somewhat complicated.

Human activities ar impossible without the chemical reactions. You propose no tangible mechanism that there is some other mechanism at work. What there is are biological structures that are at a level of complexity above the base chemical reaction. There structures have functionality that accomodate the activities tthat allow the creative process of the writers you mention. These are far easier to measure and comprehend than a non-existant force of mystery.

Reducing the subjects to base analogy and ignoring the body of work regarding these subjects is a gross simplification of things that are very complex, but also whcih there is a great deal nore information about than intimated in your theory. It is common practice when trying to prove a concept wrong to prsent the previously held body of material for comparison and debunking. This material might be interesting to discuss in philosophy of religion but it needs much more backing for that.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I think Lief does make a good point about questioning why similar fossils are observed in multiple geographical regions without the observation of many intermediate fossils.

This is not uncommon or unexplained. If the change is not recorded in a formation is it did not occur in that region of deposition in the time of the deposition. It is the geographical separation. If the Mollusk supercedes the Brachiopod in the northern pacific, it will tak some time for it to spread to another location. It will take some time to build up a population large enough to spread as well.

Formation of fossils can be a rare event, but the occurrence from one location to another should be somewhat independent unless there were a lot of globally climactic events. I won’t rule out the latter. Mixing rates in the atmosphere and oceans are rapid (tens of years), so maybe one can have a large number of globally climactic environments that alternate between producing conditions appropriate for fossilization (or faster evolution for that matter) and conditions for producing steady state conditions.

The formation of fossils is not all that rare unless you are talking about large terrestrial animals and plants. Bivalves, corals, plankton, spores, and pollen are all examples of creatures that are easily found as fossils in many formations. The weather has a very small effect on these. If you are saying that weather causes increased evolution then I think you must mean increased extinction. There is a long way to go from there to say that it changes the rate at which one particular species may evolve. If the adaptations aren't there then the species may not survive the change. Some other species may then be poised to take the extict species place in the ecosystem, but it must already possess the requisite adaptation when the opportunity arises.

This is not meant to deny that in some cases there are stronger evidences for intermediate stages than in other cases. Anyway, I think a faster mechanism is needed to go from one stage to another - unless you can satisfy me that intermediate stages can be reached one mutation (or character) at a time while requiring each step to be better than the last. One thing I am wondering is whether viruses could be agents for faster change. It is known that viruses carry genetic material and do reproduce in the cells of living organisms. It is also known that at least in some rare instances, viruses can carry a double-stranded form of DNA. Does anyone regard this as a possible mechanism for specie evolution?

Again it is the species that has already made adaptations that survives, not the one rushing to adapt. Mammals existed long before the dinosaurs became extinct. They didn't thrive because the dinosaurs were better adapted to the majority of the earth's envronments. When the environment changed negatively for the dinosaurs it then favored the mammals. Virus changes to DNA could in some instance be beneficial but that would probably be rare since virus' tend to have a negative impact or be inert.

The second question I would wonder about is whether anyone has given much thought to the fact that environmental change can cause phenotypical changes in species that could account for some changes in the geological fossil record. For example, it is known that a Drosophilia fly can grow an extra pair of wings if ether is present in the environment when the fly is born. Any views on that subject? Please note, I am not at all trying to be argumentative here or to prove a point, I’d just like to know people’s opinions.

Again most species are either prepared for environmental change or not. Simpler creatures can adapt quickly. There are bateria that have a dozen or more polymorphs within a single species. The reason that mass extictions are interesting is that usually the large species and/or complex species are wiped out for the very reason that they cannot adapt as quickly as those with the shortest reproductive cycle. Other species simply adapt to climates that are at the extremes of life. The tube worms that feed in the chemical exhuast of the deep ocean volcanic vents are an example. They wouild never be effected as a species by climate change or asteroid impact within the ranges shown in the fossil record.

[Lief Erikson]

I have another question. BeardofPants, would you mind answering this one? You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this and other fields.

A slow evolution enhances the species, but I have trouble with the environment issue. If a swamp creature is slowly changing into a forest creature, then you have to assume that the environment is changing at an equal or even slower rate than the creature is in order for the genetic changes to be selected. However, if the environment changes too suddenly, then the creature, which is unable to adapt, will have a lot of trouble in the new surroundings. How could evolution keep up with environment? Is environment observed to change at such a slow rate?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have another question. BeardofPants, would you mind answering this one? You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this and other fields.

A slow evolution enhances the species, but I have trouble with the environment issue. If a swamp creature is slowly changing into a forest creature, then you have to assume that the environment is changing at an equal or even slower rate than the creature is in order for the genetic changes to be selected. However, if the environment changes too suddenly, then the creature, which is unable to adapt, will have a lot of trouble in the new surroundings. How could evolution keep up with environment? Is environment observed to change at such a slow rate?

Evolution doesn't necessarily keep up with environment - that is made clear by deforestation or man introducing non native plants and animals into an ecosystem. Look at the fear of the Northern Snakehead I mentioned before in a previous post. Maryland was extremely afraid that it was going to wipe out native fish if it was unable to be killed. The worst part with that fish - was that it's able to crawl across land and can move from pond to pond. Also look at the affect that cats have had on the Hawaiian islands. There are any number of examples where evolution has not kept up with environmental changes.

If the environment is a gradual change (which is generally the case, except when acted upon by some outside force) - then evolution can keep up. On the other hand the environment has a remarkable way of rebounding from catastrophic events - as has been observed and studied at Mount St Helens.

[Lief Erikson]

There is evidence of the deserts in Africa and Asia, such as the Sahara Desert, that they changed probably between the last six thousand to nine thousand years. How does this compute with the slow nature change theory?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
There is evidence of the deserts in Africa and Asia, such as the Sahara Desert, that they changed probably between the last six thousand to nine thousand years. How does this compute with the slow nature change theory?

I think it depends on your definition of what is slow climatic and environmental changes.

I found this on National Geogrpahic's website trying to find out about why the Sahara might have dried up....

Desert-Adapted Crocs Found in Africa
Adam Britton, a zoologist and crocodilian expert at Australia's Wildlife Management International, concurs. "The Sahara desert is definitely a surprising location to find a crocodile," he said. "The fact they can survive at all is testament to their remarkable ability to adapt to relatively hostile conditions."

The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands. Today the Sahara is hot and arid, the land sandy, rainfall minimal, and vegetation sparse.

"The extension of range almost certainly reflects climatic changes," said Ross. "We know that even in Roman times, the Sahara was much wetter and greener than it is now. As these places slowly dried up, remnant populations became isolated from the other crocodiles on the continent. How these populations adapted to the changing conditions is most interesting."....

Although the crocodiles living in these extreme conditions are much smaller than is typical for the Nile crocodile species, scientists are currently classifying them as Nile crocodiles, the most widespread species in Africa. Nile crocodiles normally reach about 16 feet (5 meters) long; the dry-land crocodiles are about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long.

"The dwarfism exhibited by this population is typical of crocodilians in resource-poor areas—there simply isn't much food available for most of the year so they eat little, grow slowly, and reach small adult sizes," said Britton.....

DNA analysis might help determine whether the Mauritania crocodiles are stunted—from not getting enough to eat—or are smaller as a result of genetic adaptation. ....

Nile crocodiles on the island of Madagascar, for example, are still similar genetically to those from mainland Africa, he noted, adding: "I would be surprised if the Saharan population was sufficiently different." ...

Extinction is always a threat to small, isolated populations, but the desert crocodiles may be luckier than most. They are revered by local people, who protect them from occasional poachers.

"There's a complete lack of fear of the crocodiles among the local people," said Shine. "They even swim and wade with them. There are no stories of attacks, even in times of duress."

[jerseydevil]

I did find this off of Columbia University's website. It seems as if science is still trying to figure out the quick climatic change and basically this is a recent discovery or theory.

Lamont Scientists: African Climate Changes Quickly
Africa becomes significantly colder and wetter every 1,500 years, and stays that way for centuries, according to the new research by Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia’s earth sciences research institute in Palisades, N.Y.....

DeMenocal found that larger-scale, longer-term climate change, such as the one that turned northern Africa from a landscape dotted with crocodile-filled lakes 9,000 years ago into the vast Sahara today, took not thousands of years but less than a century.

The prevailing theory is that such long-term changes, which are governed by 20,000-year cycles in Earth’s orbit that affect the amount of solar radiation received by the planet, should occur slowly and progressively.

Instead, the new discoveries add mounting evidence that Earth’s climate system reaches certain thresholds, then switches gears relatively quickly from one distinct operating mode to another, spawning dramatic climate changes that occur precipitously, he said.

“The transitions are sharp,” deMenocal said in an interview. “Climate changes that we thought should take thousands of years to happen, occur within a generation or two.”

The new discoveries by deMenocal and Bond are the latest important clues indicating that Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years—after the last ice age ended and human civilization began to flourish—was not nearly as stable or resistant to change as previously believed.

Abrupt changes occurred even in relatively warm, ice-free conditions such as today’s.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think it depends on your definition of what is slow climatic and environmental changes.

Didn't that article you found point more towards what creatures did in response to the change, rather than the reason for the change itself?

Well, I think that the observed changes in environment are too fast for evolution by slow rate to cope with. That's my opinion and the evidence, as you also helped to point out, indicates fast environmental changes, so I'm interested to see what some of you have to say in answer to this question.

Oh, by the way, that was a good idea to look at the National Geographic website! They're a great source of interesting information; we have several of their videos at our house.

About those crocs again . . . it says in the selection you have given that they have adapted to the environmental change. It agrees with the dates that I suggested, about it recently (Within a few thousand years) having been a jungle. I might be wrong, but couldn't this be another example of faster evolution? The species alterred itself to adapt from jungle to desert in a relatively quick space of time. Isn't this the same sort of thing that evolution does?

And I don't think, Cirdan, that even if you'd classify a fly as a simple creature, the crocodile falls under the same category.

That was an interesting selection indeed, jerseydevil. In these ideas I have quoted, I might be all wrong, but I'm interested in hearing what the current theory has to say in response to these subjects. And please, don't just refer me to a book. I'd rather hear your own opinions, as most of you seem already to have researched these things.

[Lief Erikson]

The new discoveries by deMenocal and Bond are the latest important clues indicating that Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years—after the last ice age ended and human civilization began to flourish—was not nearly as stable or resistant to change as previously believed.

Abrupt changes occurred even in relatively warm, ice-free conditions such as today’s.

That's really fascinating stuff . . . thanks for the links, jerseydevil!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That was an interesting selection indeed, jerseydevil. In these ideas I have quoted, I might be all wrong, but I'm interested in hearing what the current theory has to say in response to these subjects. And please, don't just refer me to a book. I'd rather hear your own opinions, as most of you seem already to have researched these things.

Thanks. I have to realy on the experts though and scienctific findings in these regards. I'm not as knowledgable with geology as BoP and Cirdan are. I know very little about the environmental history of the African continent - other than what I have gathered from seeing history shows on Alexandria and ancient Egypt in general. I know at the time of Alexandria - Egypt was believed to be very furtile lush environment. I have no idea what might have or does cause the climatic changes in Egypt.

Also - in terms of the crocodiles - they may have evolved before 8,000 years ago. The other post I did states that the climatic change is believed to occur every 1500 years - but exactly how long has it been going on it doesn't say. Also this theory is new and I don't know if additional information has come out on it since 1998. Was there a period of slow climatic change at some point that would have allowed the crocodiles to evolve and be able to live in the desert? This is possible.

By the way - El Nino and La Nina are a recurring climatic change. It has drastic affects on the environment (don't think they're generally long lasting though).

[Earniel]

article:The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
About those crocs again . . . it says in the selection you have given that they have adapted to the environmental change. It agrees with the dates that I suggested, about it recently (Within a few thousand years) having been a jungle. I might be wrong, but couldn't this be another example of faster evolution? The species alterred itself to adapt from jungle to desert in a relatively quick space of time. Isn't this the same sort of thing that evolution does?

Lush savannah definately isn't jungle IMO. The change from savannah-life to desert-life would be less dramatic than from jungle to desert.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Lush savannah definately isn't jungle IMO. The change from savannah-life to desert-life would be less dramatic than from jungle to desert.

Very true - it wasn't as if the Sahara was at one time the same as the Amazon Jungle and just changed overnight into desert.

[Lief Erikson]

Of course not- I'm not suggesting that evolution does take place overnight. As I said before, if you drop a waterfrog out in a desert, it'll die.

Right, I was wrong in saying jungle. But that doesn't answer my question about the environment. Evolution in its current form is believed to change slowly over enormous periods of time. Environmental shifts are observed, I think, to be much quicker.

Adam Britton, a zoologist and crocodilian expert at Australia's Wildlife Management International, concurs. "The Sahara desert is definitely a surprising location to find a crocodile," he said. "The fact they can survive at all is testament to their remarkable ability to adapt to relatively hostile conditions."

My misspeaking one word doesn't diminish my point.