Should evolution be taught in schools?

[BeardofPants]

I'm reposting this, because you asked for the information, and duly ignored it.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This will have to be short and sweet, as I have had a rough day, and I'm feeling very much the worst for it.

Evolution is not about enhancing the species, but about selecting for the best possible fitness. The environment (and hence, natural selection) is a big part of this process. Going into basic genetics, do you remember the terms phenotype and genotype? Well, the genotype is the coding part of DNA, and the phenotype is the observable phenomena (expression of a trait) of what the genotype coded for (basically.) So you could say that, the Environment + Genotype = phenotype. Thus, it is not really about the process of evolution keeping up, per se, but more that they go in tandem with one another. The environment is a powerful 'force', if you will, and goes hand in hand with natural selection. Also, environmental changes are very seldom sudden. They tend to be cyclic, and gradual. One of the key theories postulated for early bipedalism is one of semi-arborealism; the reason? - a gradual change in environment from densely wooded forrests, to sparsely wooded forrests, to open savannahs. As the trees thinned out (due to rising temperatures (and drier climates)), hominids were forced to travel greater distances between trees due to areas of open land, and hence, greater exposure to predators. Nobody is quite sure how exactly this lead to bipedalism, as at that stage, quadrupedalism would probably have been faster, but there may have been some reason that they needed to free up their hands... carrying food, or young? Anyway, what I'm trying to say, in a rather rambling fashion, is that although these early primates showed traits that lead us to believe that they were bipedal (slight funneling of the rib cage, longer femurs, a change in the line of balance angles, a "platform" in the metatarpal/tarpal region, etc), there were still arboreal adaptions (long arms, divergent big toe, etc.) So, from one environment to another (wooded forrests to open savannah) there is evidence that while new traits were being picked up, some of the old ones were being retained. Gradualism is the key word here.

I'll also mention that I subscribe to the theory of punctuated equlibrium, which basically means that evolution occurs in fits and starts; periods of activity, followed by periods of stasis.

[Earniel]

By RÃ*an: But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

Assuming that you talk here over the evolutiontheory and the creation-by-intelligent-designtheory: (if I misinterpreted, sorry, just hit me ) I do think the CBID-theory requires some faith because the very basic idea of it is that another party (the creator) is involved. The involvement of that third party can not be proven nor (I think) disproven. It might be reasonable but because of the difficulty with proof it is shaky ground (from a scientific point of view).

A reason why intelligent design is not mentioned in science class may be because it has no place in evolution. Now I'm not saying that evolution clarely states 'no creator' , it just doesn't deal with that question. Evolution deals with the question of WHAT happens not that of WHO's doing it. Intelligent design is characterised by the WHO-question.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm reposting this, because you asked for the information, and duly ignored it.

Yes, I did ignore what you said, even though I read it. That's because I prefered not to simply post a "Ha ha ha" post showing that you were wrong. You say evolution occured at a gradual rate, and you say that it moves at tandem with the changing environment.

I thought that the enormous, swift changes we've observed over the last million years should have fairly well robbed you of this misconception. You read my post, didn't you? Shifts are sudden, as is in that quote jerseydevil brought up, the person said it can happen over a mere two generations, turning lush vegetation into desert.

Evolution trying to keep up with it would be like switching the channels of your television one after another after another instantaneously and trying to gain a good understanding of every single conversation or television show in that split second. Unless you say that all of these environmental fast changes are confined to our last million years, you cannot argue evolution by environment. And I'd also like to hear a good reason why the environment should be changing dramatically and incredibly swiftly just for us, but then throughout the rest of time has been stable.

For evolution to move in tandem with the environment, it would have to be amazingly fast, like within one or two generations. If you're going to argue that it did keep up, you'd have to accept the fast evolution theory. And that's something I thought none of you were willing to do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Assuming that you talk here over the evolutiontheory and the creation-by-intelligent-designtheory: (if I misinterpreted, sorry, just hit me ) I do think the CBID-theory requires some faith because the very basic idea of it is that another party (the creator) is involved. The involvement of that third party can not be proven nor (I think) disproven. It might be reasonable but because of the difficulty with proof it is shaky ground (from a scientific point of view).

A reason why intelligent design is not mentioned in science class may be because it has no place in evolution. Now I'm not saying that evolution clarely states 'no creator' , it just doesn't deal with that question. Evolution deals with the question of WHAT happens not that of WHO's doing it. Intelligent design is characterised by the WHO-question.

I agree. And I think that the classical creation story should only be taught if strong evidence comes up to support it, except perhaps in a religions course.

Intelligent design is different from the classical creation story though, for it says that God commands and creates everything according to his own purpose and desire. It is impossible for people to prove or disprove, but it is possible for a single person to prove or disprove, and that is by seeking God and asking him to reveal himself to them.

[Cirdan]

And you think the idea that creatures evolve back and forth into different creatures to match the environment isn't funny? How do the same creatures appear in different places? Deserts don't appear and dissapear overnight. Creatures follow the margins of the territories they are acclimated to. You have no fossil proof of your silly assertion.

Edit: We could test it by putting some elephants in the desert for 40 years a see if the turn into camels.

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil or someone, do you know where I could find information on migrations that are irregular and as a response to changing environment?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Shifts are sudden, as is in that quote jerseydevil brought up, the person said it can happen over a mere two generations, turning lush vegetation into desert.

Wait - that article said that it's a possibilty. It didn't say anything about it being absolute. The verdict is still out and it takes more than 4 years to establish scientific facts. The article by Columbia only came out in 1998.

To base the fact that in one small part of the world may have had quick environmental changes to support a hypothesis that the world environment as a whole makes quick changes is VERY BAD science. Just because the Sahara may go through "quick" changes doesn't mean that the environment as a whole does or that it's the norm.

If a scientist only looked at the dust bowl in the midwest, ignoring the causes, they could determine that the environment quickly changes and come to numerous erroneous conclusions. Whereas in truth - the dust bowl was mainly created by man from over use of the land.

The Dust Bowl
Poor agricultural practices and years of sustained drought caused the Dust Bowl. Plains grasslands had been deeply plowed and planted to wheat. During the years when there was adequate rainfall, the land produced bountiful crops. But as the droughts of the early 1930s deepened, the farmers kept plowing and planting and nothing would grow. The ground cover that held the soil in place was gone. The Plains winds whipped across the fields raising billowing clouds of dust to the skys. The skys could darken for days, and even the most well sealed homes could have a thick layer of dust on furniture. In some places the dust would drift like snow, covering farmsteads.

You can not base your hypothesis of the environment and evolution on one small section of the world.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
And you think the idea that creatures evolve back and forth into different creatures to match the environment isn't funny?

If a species is successful, it can spread to other areas as well.

How do the same creatures appear in different places?

If a species is successful, it can move. I realize that this theory makes the intermediate species even more likely to have been found, but that's only if you go by the current chronology of history and events. I think that these creatures should all be squeezed into a smaller space of time, so the absence of these intermediate species doesn't worry me. I think that the millions of years model for evolution is way off, but I can't give you evidence to back my opinion. All I can do is show you that current evidence contradicts the millions of years model of evolution.

That is because of the lack of intermediate species. If the species have all whipped by so fast (By your model of time, but going by fast evolution), then the lack of intermediate species should be very distressing. As a matter of a fact, we would be expected to find almost on two fossils the same. That is why, for my theory of fast evolution to work, you need to shrink the time alapsed too.

That's a big adjustement and way outside of existing theories, and I don't think any of you are willing to make these adjustements to explain things. It fits the evidence, though.

Now let's look at the model you are all going by. Evolution says that the environment has been changing extremely slowly and the creatures have been changing with it. Current information shows that the environment has been changing enormously swiftly and the creatures (unless you accept the oasis idea) have been changing-with-it/moving-away-from-it. If you accept that they changed with it, then you accept fast evolution, unless you agree with the idea that Dunadan brought up. If you accept that they are migrating in enormous numbers, then you deal a severe blow to the evolution with environment theory. Going with the oasis idea also gets rid of Natural Selection very effectively.

So I pass the floor to you as to how you explain these contradictions. But please don't be annoyed with me if I attempt to poke holes in your ideas now and then.

Desserts don't appear and dissapear overnight. Creatures follow the margins of the territories they are acclimated to.

Desserts definitely appear and disappear overnight. But as a matter of a fact, deserts do too. The evidence, as I stated, shows that those enormous stretches of territory were transformed swiftly and simultaneously. You've made some assertions against the available evidence, let's see you back them up.

You have no fossil proof of your silly assertion.

Should I be expected to have fossil proof? If you accept the alterred time frame, the current fossil evidence agrees with my theory. I have pointed out one inconsistency, it is possible that there could be others (As most of you agree, errors can happen in science). I haven't researched the fossil dating though, so all I can do here too is venture my opinion.

But I don't want you all arguing against my own opinion just now, I'd rather discuss with you how this contradiction can be explained by the current model of evolution.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
To base the fact that in one small part of the world may have had quick environmental changes to support a hypothesis that the world environment as a whole makes quick changes is VERY BAD science. Just because the Sahara may go through "quick" changes doesn't mean that the environment as a whole does or that it's the norm.

I think you should look at a map. The area of territory that we're looking at here is larger than North America. The Gobi-Sahara desert chains aren't simply a small part of the world, they cover 18,000,000 km., from the Atlantic Ocean to Northern China! We have evidence of several enormous changes over this entire region simply within the last 125,000 years.

I'm not basing my entire statement on what that one scientist said, I'm using that as a small piece of supporting evidence. You've been very well equipped thus far with Internet sites and other information, indeed, in general you've been far more on top of it then me. It shouldn't be such a great hardship to just look in a map.

If you really want more evidence, I'll start looking for further information about other parts of the world's environmental changes, but I think that several of such magnitude covering such a vast space should prove a sufficient example.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If a species is successful, it can spread to other areas as well.

So they only spread after they adapt? This is not supported

Should I be expected to have fossil proof?

Actually you should have laboratory proof. This change you claim occurs within a few generations should be very easy to force. I would think you would have found some evidence during human history of someone having observed this fantastic transmutation.

As far as my facts, you can go to the library and pick up any book on the subject if you don't like the one I reccommended. The problem with theories that have evidence is that it requires a lot of reading on your part, not writing on my part. As far as poking holes, a whole lot of people a whole lot smarter than you have worked on this theory and you might have just a bit of respect for that. When you've been published, or even graduated from college then maybe, just maybe, you smart ass attitude might not be so totally misplaced.

basics

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think you should look at a map. The area of territory that we're looking at here is larger than North America. The Gobi-Sahara desert chains aren't simply a small part of the world, they cover 18,000,000 km., from the Atlantic Ocean to Northern China! We have evidence of several enormous changes over this entire region simply within the last 125,000 years.

I'm not basing my entire statement on what that one scientist said, I'm using that as a small piece of supporting evidence. You've been very well equipped thus far with Internet sites and other information, indeed, in general you've been far more on top of it then me. It shouldn't be such a great hardship to just look in a map.

If you really want more evidence, I'll start looking for further information about other parts of the world's environmental changes, but I think that several of such magnitude covering such a vast space should prove a sufficient example.

I have never heard of anything state that the whole area was furtile lush vegetation. Or that the whole Shara keeps going back and forth. I have always heard that sections of it contained vegetation.

And the Sahara only extends through northern Africa - not all the way to China. The article also didn't mention anything about the Gobi being fertile or going through rapid changes. It also does not specify whether it is only sections of the desert that go through changes or if it is the desert in mass. The Sahara is 3.5 million sqaure miles - 9.1 million square kilometers.

Can you please supply something that says that the desert as a whole - from the Atlantic to the Red Sea goes through rapid changes every 1500 years.

By the way - I always have my Hammond World Atlas Executive Edition right by my computer - so you don't have to tell me to look at a map.

[edit] the article does mention Africa going through extreme changes - but doesn't go much further. And as I said - it's currently needs more investigation. Lamont Scientists: African Climate Changes Quickly

I'm not a scientist and I can only go off of what the experts say - that means what I watch on TLC, Discovery Channel, read in Discover Magazine, etc.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Desserts definitely appear and disappear overnight. But as a matter of a fact, deserts do too. The evidence, as I stated, shows that those enormous stretches of territory were transformed swiftly and simultaneously. You've made some assertions against the available evidence, let's see you back them up.

Your own post shows periods of 100,000 years with the shortest not less that 10,000 yesrs. That is far from overnight and shows no preclusion to migration. Certainly some adaptation occurs but you show no evidence for large scale species change. You are too used to trying to use weaknesses as proof. This does not make evidence, it only begs other questions which you have not answered. You haven't backed up your claims.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Actually you should have laboratory proof. This change you claim occurs within a few generations should be very easy to force. I would think you would have found some evidence during human history of someone having observed this fantastic transmutation.

As far as my facts, you can go to the library and pick up any book on the subject if you don't like the one I reccommended. The problem with theories that have evidence is that it requires a lot of reading on your part, not writing on my part. As far as poking holes, a whole lot of people a whole lot smarter than you have worked on this theory and you might have just a bit of respect for that. When you've been published, or even graduated from college then maybe, just maybe, you smart ass attitude might not be so totally misplaced.

Cirdan, you have completely ignored the bulk of my post. I gave my opinions because they were asked for, but I'm not trying to prove them to anyone here and now. As you know, I'm not a scientist. And I'm not trying to force my own opinions upon anyone. I simply want to discuss the inconsistency that I have observed.

[Cirdan]

From the croc article

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.

Wolfgang Böhme, a well-known herpetologist at the Koenig Museum in Bonn, is conducting DNA analysis in hopes of answering this question and to determine whether the adaptations made to live in the desert are strong enough to warrant calling them a new species.

Most experts consider it unlikely.

"There are many instances of crocodilian populations—including Nile crocodiles—which are isolated from each other, yet are not sufficiently dissimilar to count as new species, or even new subspecies," said Britton.

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."

There is no evidence that the croces did anything unusual other than use adaptive behavior and exhibit recessive traits seen in all crocs.

How does "fast evolution" explain the Madagascar crocs being the same as Nile crocs on the mainland?

[Lief Erikson]

I have never heard of anything state that the whole area was furtile lush vegetation. Or that the whole Shara keeps going back and forth. I have always heard that sections of it contained vegetation.

And the Sahara only extends through northern Africa - not all the way to China. The article also didn't mention anything about the Gobi being fertile or going through rapid changes. It also does not specify whether it is only sections of the desert that go through changes or if it is the desert in mass. The Sahara is 3.5 million sqaure miles - 9.1 million square kilometers.

Can you please supply something that says that the desert as a whole - from the Atlantic to the Red Sea goes through rapid changes every 1500 years.

I got my information from the World Book, which is an encyclopedia, and a scientific paper. I described the location of the scientific paper in an earlier post, where I showed my references.

Did you read the post I sent earlier? There was one primary one which really addressed the problem quite well- I can quote it all up here, if you want me to. That's where I describe everything in depth. You've been kind of in and out so perhaps you didn't see it, but I'd be willing to bring it back if you don't want to look for it.

I never said that it changed every 1500 years, not at all.

My primary post on this subject addresses all of these things that you've asked and brought up here in more depth. Shall I bring it up for you?

[Lief Erikson]

How does "fast evolution" explain the Madagascar crocs being the same as Nile crocs on the mainland?

It doesn't. Many of the same creatures are found in all sorts of different areas of the world, including dinosaurs, and it all makes sense if you assume a speeded up evolution and a more recent break up of the continents.

But please, I stress again, I am NOT trying to prove these theories of mine to any of you. I simply want to discuss the inconsistency I have observed.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Your own post shows periods of 100,000 years with the shortest not less that 10,000 yesrs. That is far from overnight and shows no preclusion to migration. Certainly some adaptation occurs but you show no evidence for large scale species change. You are too used to trying to use weaknesses as proof. This does not make evidence, it only begs other questions which you have not answered. You haven't backed up your claims.

All that this post says is that you are shooting at what a scientist says and ignoring what I say. I said that I am not interested in discussing my own views, since I cannot prove them to any of you. I can bring up a little evidence, but hardly sufficient. I'm not a "smart ass." Therefore stop saying that I am making assertions and trying to argue a case, because I'm not!

If you don't stop misinterpreting my posts, ignoring almost the entirety of what they say and misconstruing them, I'm going to stop responding to you at all.

[Cirdan]

The arcticles only refernece changes in rainfall. They state explicitly there are periods of dessication there is no mention of the idea that during the wet periods the Saudi peninsula is some lush forest area. At best it may become a grassland. Hardly inhospitable to desert life and conducive to migration of more species.
Saudi Rainfall

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Many of the same creatures are found in all sorts of different areas of the world, including dinosaurs, and it all makes sense if you assume a speeded up evolution and a more recent break up of the continents.

Or you don't assume that continents were moving at greatly differential rates and don't assume the speeded up evolution the the model works fine. It also explains the ancient crocs in the fossil record. Have you worked out the expansion rate of the mid-ocean ridges and the corresponding rise in volcanic activity at the subduction zones. Have you researched the geologic record for the huge increade in volcanic activity associated with the rapid increase in plate movements? Have you esitmated the increased heat convections required to move the plates at the much higher rate? Have you calculated what the increased heat would do to the plates themselves?

For the sake of the discussion please state what theories you will accept. If you say you will not argue the age of the earth and then assume it as younger in a later post then the discussion has no common ground.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Yes, I did ignore what you said, even though I read it. That's because I prefered not to simply post a "Ha ha ha" post showing that you were wrong. You say evolution occured at a gradual rate, and you say that it moves at tandem with the changing environment.

You have completely misinterpreted what I said.

Did you not notice the bit about gradualism?

And what exactly do you think natural selection is?

natural selection
n.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

[Lief Erikson]

Yes I know what Natural Selection is, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. And assuming that creatures built for grasslands and forests survived in deserts for thousands of years is going against Natural Selection.

Yes I noticed the bit about gradualism. And I repeat, these are multiple changes over large expanses of territory over a relatively short period of time. Thousands of years isn't short, but it is short by evolutionary standards.



Meanwhile, Cirdan, you are still attacking viewpoints that I personally hold and which I am not trying to impose upon anyone else. I'm not using them as a basis for anything either, I'm trying to discuss the current model.

Originally posted by Cirdan
For the sake of the discussion please state what theories you will accept. If you say you will not argue the age of the earth and then assume it as younger in a later post then the discussion has no common ground.

For the thirtieth time, I am NOT arguing a younger Earth! A more recent movement of the continents is different, for I do think that it did happen more recently. I am not ever assuming that it happened more recently, although if I occasionally point to evidences that point to it, then I don't mind your contradicting them or offering alternative points of view.

I'm not making any assumptions or attempting to impose my own views upon others. Your turning my analysis of the current model and the contradictions into an argument for something that I'm not even trying to uphold right now! Forget faster evolution or faster break-up of the continents if you want, I'm not discussing it. I'm not assuming it. I'm discussing the current model, without any assumptions outside of the current model. If I point later on to evidences for accepting another model (I'm repeating myself to make sure what I'm trying to say gets across), then you're welcome to shoot them down or give alternative points of view.