Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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 guess I missed that you didn't see the connection between the age of the earth and continental drift. You see if one accelerate the spreading of the mid-ocean ridges it also changes all the ages of the oceanic plates, the age of rock formations broken when the plates separated, and all associated volcanism. One would have to, by default change all the dates of all the formations to accomodate this change. Then one is back to arguing for a young earth. You can see where I made the connections you didn't; I had assumed you had.

As to the rest I'll wait for you to respond to my last two posts regarding your difficulties with speciation as related to populations in variable environments.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by 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.

Here's a quote from the article you posted a link to:

One of the aims of the Fezzan project is to determine how the physical environment and human populations have responded to dramatic changes in climate[Italics added]. Many such changes have taken place in the Sahara over the late Quaternary, generally consisting of oscillations between humid and arid phases.

I don't think that describing the historical environmental changes and the dates for them was the purpose of that article, it seemed more concerned with other aspects of the changes, such as the how and why. Anyway, the article doesn't disagree with anything I said, and the presumption that it could have been 'at most a grassland' is purely speculation from you. Besides, I don't know which specific one of the time periods you're talking about when you say that. Is it the 9,000-6,000 years ago period, or the 125,000-120,000 years ago period?

If you're disagreeing with the facts that I related, please state which ones, and later on today I'll try and get back to you with quotes from the article I was using.

Originally posted by Cirdan
I guess I missed that you didn't see the connection between the age of the earth and continental drift. You see if one accelerate the spreading of the mid-ocean ridges it also changes all the ages of the oceanic plates, the age of rock formations broken when the plates separated, and all associated volcanism. One would have to, by default change all the dates of all the formations to accomodate this change. Then one is back to arguing for a young earth. You can see where I made the connections you didn't; I had assumed you had.

Aha, so that explains the difficulties between my theory and the dating they have on fossils, dating them back to millions of years ago.

Anyway, these are just my own viewpoints. I'm still not going to fall into the trap of arguing with you on this. During nearly all of your recent posts, you've been trying to slam my own point of view and draw me into the trap of arguing with you over it. It's my own opinion and I'm not using that to influence my evidence, and the evidence I'm giving and the thing I'm talking about is the current scientific model.

You accused me of changing the subject earlier whenever things got rough? You're doing it yourself, trying to bash my own opinions, invalidate my evidence and make my own opinions look stupid while ignoring the contradiction in science. I'm going to not discuss my own opinions with you any further.

I appreciate the ideas posted by Dunadan earlier on. At least he was willing to discuss possible solutions for the dilemma.

[Cirdan]

and fauna from the equatorial regions had migrated north into the Sahara (Lezine, 1989; Lioubimsteva, 1995; Ritchie and Haynes, 1995).

LE: Have you read the supporting articles regarding this research about the origin of the local species during the Late Pleistocene? It sounds as if the answer you seek is there.

[Lief Erikson]

Could you post links to the addresses of those articles?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Could you post links to the addresses of those articles?

Did you look at related links on that site?

Link

[Rían]

Well, since my proposal:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

Was met by the following:

by CirdanIt's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it.

and

by Jerseydevil
The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.

then I guess I will now say my FINAL goodbye to this thread. I suppose I was just very naive to think that perhaps if presented with logical ideas as to why the th. of creation by intelligent design was a reasonable theory (I'm not even saying the RIGHT theory, just a reasonable one) that th. of ev. people would agree to think about it. But since it is thrown out before I can even present details, I'll just exit now. I suppose that different logic just reaches different people, I don't know. I'm really sorry to think that people are so committed to their theory that they are not more open-minded to considering others (again, how much more reasonable a premise can you get? There are intelligently designed things all around us!!) Anyway, enough of that. It's been very nice posting with such intelligent and considerate people (and I sincerely mean that!! I'm just sad that people won't consider intelligent design ), and I'll enjoy seeing you all on the other threads.

My final summary, if anyone's interested: (I'll use ToE for th. of ev., ToCBID for th. of creation by intelligent design, since we all love typing shortcuts! )

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

The problem, at least with the fossil record, is that IMO it contains scads of fully formed animals and a very small amount, and those debatable, number of intermediate types. (Now please don't quote and argue this - I'm just trying to show WHY this thread gets so long!) 2nd law of thermo. - same thing - STRONGLY supports ToCBID, but there is a footnote to it, discussing the formation of crystals, that may be interpreted to support ToE (but I believe incorrectly, because net entropy is STILL increased, but you can refer back to the first few pages). Same with DNA - why shouldn't an intelligent designer use DNA to store info? No reason for ToE people to claim similarity between man and chimps and say ToCBID people can't use DNA!! I hope you see my UNDERLYING idea here - PLEASE don't look at data as solely belonging to one side or the other.

Anyway, this has been very intellectually stimulating, and probably has set records for civility on a topic like this. I hope we all learned some things, and again, hope to see you all on other threads soon! There's a great new discussion project that just opened up on the Sil forum....

Best regards -- RÃ*an

[Methuselah]

I appreciate the information that Cirdan and Jersey have posted. It's nice to have some real sources. The posts show a considerable complexity in the way living things actually survive. The article showing the genetic linkage of crocodiles that look and behave very differently shows that living things may be able to adapt to environmental changes much more easily than we sometimes imagine. Obviously, ability to adapt is something that would have to be "selected" in an environmental model. It seems possible that species can have greater ability to adapt to environment than we sometimes imagine. Each chromosome has many genes, out of which many of the genes are not active. It may not require a big change for certain genes to be activated and other genes to be deactivated. The African crocodile may be an example where environmental stimuli trigger the activation and deactivation of some genes, resulting in different phenotypes and behavior patterns suitable to their environments.

I think it is known, and I hope that this isn't something you ask me to back up with proof, that generally genetic information in a population group is usually lost rather than gained. With regard to the genetic diversity issue -- why are certain fossils widespread geographically while the continuum appear often lost -- it may be that certain global environmental conditions permit "faster" evolution. Such would seem necessary to fit with the fossil record if what I hear of the fossil record is true.

The results discussed show that evolution is complex, and that all living things are complex (even a fly!). It is too early to rule out changes to the evolutionary model, any more than can we rule out that their could be an underlining design in the creation (whether via evolution or not). It seems possible that new species could develop via gaining genes or via losing genes or via activating or deactivating certain genes. Mutation may not be the only way that a specie evolves. I still think that the model that proceeds from a "Dick and Jane" early reader to a Tolkien trilogy one character at a time is too slow to account for all of the major changes. I look for some mechanisms where more significant changes can occur, such as perhaps a viral theory. If the chemical constituency of the air altered at all, we should also be open to the possibility of phenotype changes due to environmental influences alone. Environment + genes produce the resulting phenotype.

I also think we should keep open to the possibility of radiocarbon levels increasing at a more rapid rate in prehistory, which could also explain the long stretch of "dry" conditions and sparsity of data. There are many things in the archaeological record that could be explained better by increasing radiocarbon levels. For example, archaeology works as a principle on the fact that change in behavior occurs from generation to generation. However, cave art dated from 20,000 BC to 5000 BC shows little stylistic change. Human settlements in Jericho appear to be nomadic over a period of about 5000 years before villages were begun, with the nomadic settlements continuously occurring in the same exact location. Anyway, I think the bottom line is that we have to keep an open mind about things. It is exciting to live at a time when there is so much research being undertaken that we can access. I don't think evidence from the current time frame can rule out the possibility of long stretches of environmental conditions in the past that might have been more conducive to a protected evolutionary development of early life. Dispersion was probably a very early development that relates to practically all living things.

Here is the link to the article that Lief has referenced.

http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/person...ange_on_ca.htm

[Rían]

ps - Earniel, thanks for being open-minded, and I'll PM you tomorrow with some info for you to think about. I could use some virtual Belgian chocolate now - was on a very long field trip today - we saw a play with about 800 or so kids ages 5 to 9 or so in the audience - my ears are still ringing from the noise!!

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with you, Cirdan, that massive scale migration is really the only way (By the current model) to explain the inconsitency.

The primary difficulty, then, is between the evidence that is being uncovered and has been uncovered that shows these massive and swift environment changes, and the current scientific theory that all creatures have been evolving slowly along with an extremely slow changing environment. The conflict is between the theory of a slow changing environment and the evidence of a fast changing one. We cannot accept both views, unless we assume some large change having happened to effect only the last two or three hundred thousand years. If any of you are determined to accept both views, then evidence must be found to demonstrate a cause of such a change.

Personally, I think that finding such evidence is unnecessary. We all know that science can make errors, and that more will be discovered over time. Science, in the years to come, will probably resolve these conflicting theories, and I'll be interested to see what their solution is when they do.

[Cirdan]

There wasn't any indications in the data that indicated any "mass migrations". You would need to evaluate the data before making that assumption. There was one statement regarding a Faunal migration. It seemed to indicate a regional move which is very common. There is no conflict or inconsistency.

I think the last link I posted documented pretty well that while there were changes in climate the most arid parts of the desert were not greatly changed. Also it is not shown that there were great changes in the flora and fauna in these areas. The region became wetter but the vegatation changes are well within expectations of gradualism. The climate changes are no more extreme than glaciation. The effects of these changes, if anything, show a large extinction pattern as opposed to rapid adaptation. More extinctions and large reductions in populations point to dispersion and incremental adaptation. The fact that the croc example is associated with large reductions in population associated with behavioral adaptations like cave dwelling actually prove that they are not adapting biologically on any kind of rapid rate. The people with the data dont' see any anomalies. Any suggestion that they aren't looking for them is illogical. Who would want to be the one to find the exception? Never under-estimate the desire for recognition by researchers.

Science may make mistakes but it is very late in the game for evolution to be disproved. After 150 years of research and new discoveries, one would think that someone would have found something. It is not 1850 and the time of imprecise science passed away under the torrrent of analytical tools available today, the large and ever increasing body of physical evidence., and the huge numbers of people involved in research.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm not trying to disprove evolution. But I thought that it had been demonstrated rather thoroughly that massive, quick environmental changes do take place, and the environment of one location changes too swiftly for slow changing creature to keep up with, unless they migrate to another similar area and keep evolving while they're there. The only assumption that I'm making in this is, as I said before, that these changes haven't been confined to the last two or three hundred thousand years.

I suppose, to emphasize my point, I'll have to pull out several quotes from the different areas that links have been posted to.

From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, Africa experienced colder and more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase moister than the present began, and this lasted until about 115,000 years ago, with greater rainforest extent and the deserts almost completely covered with vegetation. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate and then a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by aridity around 11,000 14C years ago. A resumption of warm, moist conditions led up to the Holocene 'optimum' of greater rainforest extent and vegetation covering the Sahara. Conditions then became somewhat more arid and similar to the present. Relatively brief arid phases (e.g. 8,200 14C y.a.) appear to punctuate the generally moister early and mid Holocene conditions.

By measuring relative levels of dust, they could identify when dry spells occurred and how intense they were.
The study documented that African dust levels and offshore ocean temperatures rose and fell synchronously and very rapidly.
DeMenocal’s research is supported by the NSF.

Together, the findings point to rapid climate changes in both the high latitudes and the subtropics, indicating a persistent, naturally occurring cycle of abrupt climate change that may affect the entire planet.

[Lief Erikson]

A severe arid phase (correlated in many places around the world) seems to have affected North Africa around 7,500 14C y.a. (Alley et al. 1997, Gasse & van Campo 1994), perhaps lasting for a century or two. There was a reduction in Nile flooding, in NW Sudan lake levels, and at sites in the western Sahara, the Sahel and sub-equatorial Africa

Analyzing ocean sediments from the coast of Senegal, deMenocal and colleagues found that Africa experienced surprisingly harsh and abrupt climate changes, even after the last ice age ended, a period in the past 10,000 years that until recently scientists had thought was stable and benign.

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.

Climate is strongly connected to environment. Rainfall patterns effect the environment greatly, causing it to flourish or to dry up and die, with forms deserts. These times of lacking rainfall cause arid periods.

All of the links thus far given have been in support of swift and widespread environmental changes. You are transforming the words of the scientists and changing their discoveries from the surface meaning. You're shrinking everything that they've found to force it to fit. Inconsitency is there.

If you aren't advocating mass migrations, I don't know how you're going to explain the inconsitency.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I also think we should keep open to the possibility of radiocarbon levels increasing at a more rapid rate in prehistory, which could also explain the long stretch of "dry" conditions and sparsity of data. There are many things in the archaeological record that could be explained better by increasing radiocarbon levels. For example, archaeology works as a principle on the fact that change in behavior occurs from generation to generation. However, cave art dated from 20,000 BC to 5000 BC shows little stylistic change. Human settlements in Jericho appear to be nomadic over a period of about 5000 years before villages were begun, with the nomadic settlements continuously occurring in the same exact location. Anyway, I think the bottom line is that we have to keep an open mind about things. It is exciting to live at a time when there is so much research being undertaken that we can access. I don't think evidence from the current time frame can rule out the possibility of long stretches of environmental conditions in the past that might have been more conducive to a protected evolutionary development of early life. Dispersion was probably a very early development that relates to practically all living things.

Here is the link to the article that Lief has referenced.

http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/person...ange_on_ca.htm

I may need some clarification. The article linked deals with the biomass storage of carbon in relation to estimates of arid and arid regions as sinks and wells for carbon storage. All the estimates are based solely on the fossil record indicting the application of information about known species as it relates to paleoenvironments. There is no information about variations or adaptations occuring in existing species nor is the data indicating "overnight" changes. The article does indicate that areas grow or shink when the climate varies. This does not conflict with any aspect of evolution.

If this is in relation to radiocarbon then it must be noted that the changes in available carbon and carbon14 change proportionally. The reduction of increase in total available carbon doesn't indicate a change in the ratio of carbon to carbon 14.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If you aren't advocating mass migrations, I don't know how you're going to explain the inconsitency.

I was pointing out that dramatic change would instigate mass extinctions and the establishment of new species over time by migration. The change of non-arid lands to arid would mean the demise of many creatures. I have no problem with the idea of other species migrating from other environments. What is clear from the data is that all these types of areas existed concurrently and that migration from one to another is not difficult. Even the most extreme "humid" period was characterized as having desert areas "almost" covered with vegatation. You characterized the migrations as coming from impossible distances or that there was no place for them to migrate from, which is not supported by the data.

[Philia]

Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah....

Oh wait, and BLAH!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

Sorry, no hit and run....

Well, since my proposal:
Was met by the following:

I showed openness to the idea of discussing it. There is no point jumping to the ID in school discussion since it doesn't pass muster yet in the real world. You keep calling it a theory, and in the general use of the word it's okay, but in science it requires so dactual basis to call something a theory.

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

ToCBID not based in facts, unless you have some unpublished material.

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

This doesn't equate the two.
[quote]
(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)
/quote]
It's not even scientific and neither is theism. Agnosticism is neutral to ideas, but your are right theists and atheists are predisposed to bias, which is not meant to imply that either is automatically bias.

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

It is still just a premise in the strict scientific sense.
[b][quote]
And a final note....

However, data can fall into many categories. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID.
[b][quote]
The term "intermediate" is used quite a bit here in a way of saying not unique or viable. This seems to be an extension of the "missing link" arguement. I guess as more human "intermediates" are found the idea has become more generalized. I have posted examples of species going through incremental changes. I'm not sure why this general concept is not understood.

The problem, at least with the fossil record, is... (Now please don't quote and argue this...

So I should just leave it out there..

Maybe you'll come back and discuss ID, perhaps. I was only hoping to avaoid the rancore about whether it should be taught in schools to allow a more focused discussion.

See you around the Moot, Rian.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Philia
Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah....

Oh wait, and BLAH!

ROFLMAO!

[BeardofPants]

LOL! I guess we must all seem like cantankerous old gits...

[Coney]

BLAH!!!!!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I was pointing out that dramatic change would instigate mass extinctions and the establishment of new species over time by migration. The change of non-arid lands to arid would mean the demise of many creatures. I have no problem with the idea of other species migrating from other environments.

I agree with you thus far. I'd like to point out that I'm not saying anything against the migration theory. Indeed, that is the only reasonable way I can see that one can explain it.

Originally posted by Cirdan
What is clear from the data is that all these types of areas existed concurrently and that migration from one to another is not difficult. Even the most extreme "humid" period was characterized as having desert areas "almost" covered with vegatation. You characterized the migrations as coming from impossible distances or that there was no place for them to migrate from, which is not supported by the data.

This isn't really clear . . . Are you going by the oasis theory that Dunadan suggested? Suggesting that these creatures could exist in patches of territory? The changes were widespread, swift and intense. I don't recall hearing anything in any of the sources I've seen on this thread that describe the existence of such patches. These patches also would have to be big to support many species of life.

I'm not going to argue that the creatures couldn't have migrated in or out of their surroundings. If you want to go that way, I'm not going to contradict you. But I still see the theory of slow environment in tandem with slow evolution to be in contradiction with current evidence. No opinions I have observed up to this point show reasonable explanations for the contradiction.