Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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.

Which life are you speaking of? OI have not seen any fossil data to support any arguements either way regarding whether any oasis (anti-oasis?) of desert life existed. I haven't seen any data regarding what species were lost and repopulated.

[b]

E. Lioubimtseva

The Holocene global warming effected everywhere in the Sahara-Gobi desert belt in significant increase of precipitation (and P/PET ratio). Despite some temporal variability of the start and pick of the optimum climatic conditions in the Holocene (the Holocene Climatic Optimum - HCO), a significant increase of humidity generally occurred between 9-9.5 ka and 6.5-5.5 ka, varying according to regional geographical conditions. The HCO increase of humidity caused by reactivating of monsoons led to almost total disappearance of the desert landscapes both in tropical and temperate zones. In the Sahara climatic optimum of 8.5 - 6.5 ka resulted in almost 50 times increase of precipitation (by 200-300 mm) compare to the present (Petit-Maire, 1989). The Saharo-Sahelian boundary shifted at those times up to 23-23° N, that meant by 500 km to the north compared to its present-day osition and by 1000 km compared to the LGM situation (Petit-Ma ire, 1989; Petit-Maire et al., 1995).

23 degrees north leaves quite a bit more Saharan desert than a "patch".

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, unfortunately my paste button isn't working at this particular second , so I can't respond to particular posts.

However, on evolution. I, along with Gwaimir, believe Micro evolution is a fact. There are evidences for it, such as the Burmingham Moth. The Burmingham Moth used to be white, and it was in England. Polution filled the atmosphere and the moths showed up against the blackness because of their white colors. Micro evolution took place, and they changed black, to avoid getting exterminated by predators.

The Drosophila fly was taken to different surroundings and allowed to reproduce, and its offspring had two sets of wings in one environment, while in the other they had one set of wings.

There are other, larger, examples.

Now, Macro evolution I have a few problems with. I don't have too much trouble with its happening, but I see little point in it, and little possibility that it could happen. Evidence has shown that the environment changes extremely rapidly. I think you'll find I gave evidence for this on one of the previous pages most recent to this one. I'll find the place, soon.

In any case, it is within a few thousand years that major changes happen, not over the millions of years necessary for Macro evolution to have serious affects. Large scale migration seems the only alternative to a Micro evolutionary view (Though as Micro evolution is as near proved as it can be, I see little reason to discard it), but there is little reason to believe that the environment's fast changes are only recent, and that it hasn't always been that way. Thus, Micro evolution seems to be the more logical view.

Also, there is the lack of transitional species. If all the species were evolving at a Macro evolution speed rate, then I think the lack of transitional species would be illogical. The fits and bursts theory is the only way to get around that, but that's basically Micro evolution, not Macro. And it needs to be Micro to keep up with the environment.

However, if Micro evolution is accepted as the primary replacement for Macro evolution (Whether you accept Macro evolution on a less important scale or not is irrelevant), then the lack of transitional species makes sense.

It is true that there are some transitional species that are known of, like for the horse. The horse has a large amount of transitional species, though it is a rare example of creatures lacking the transitional species.

The reason they are called transitional species is that there are species which have many, many specimens found of them, in different countries, even. There are hundreds or thousands of constructed skeletons of creatures from thousands of years ago. These are counted as species that aren't transitional, while it seems logical to call 'transitional' those species that there are very, very few of, and which fill in the gaps between one major species and its next evolutionary step that has large amounts of specimens.

[jerseydevil]

Since this is a about whether evolution should be taught in school - I will answer that again.

Yes it should. Evolution is based on science - unlike creationsim which is based on a story in a book no one knows who wrote. Intelligent design is just creationists trying to fit a science into their estasblished beliefs that a god exists and created the universe. Again - it's not based on science - it's based on belief.

Belief is not science and therefore should not be taught in schools. There is scientific evidence to support evolution - whether you agree with it or not.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Finrod's wild side
1) but any real science book will tell you that 2) fossil records indicate that evolution did in fact take place.
3) Sorry... I didn't realize. I'll leave then. This will be my last post here.


[/B]

1) "Real" meaning acting on the presupposition that there is no God?
2) Aha. The fossil records INDICATES, not proves.
3) No reason for you to leave it. Just try to be a little more polite, maybe.

[Lief Erikson]

Ruinel, if you're here, I wouldn't mind your posting that thing on the fossil method here, now .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) "Real" meaning acting on the presupposition that there is no God?

No - science books (real science books) leave out the concept of god all together as they should. God is NOT science. God is a belief that is not provable - therefore god should not be put into the equation of science. Science books make not presupposition one way or the other to the existence of god.

2) Aha. The fossil records INDICATES, not proves.

Sorry there is more evidence to support evolution than creationism. There is actually nothing to support creationism other than a bible story.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]However, on evolution. I, along with Gwaimir, believe Micro evolution is a fact. There are evidences for it, such as the Burmingham Moth. The Burmingham Moth used to be white, and it was in England. Polution filled the atmosphere and the moths showed up against the blackness because of their white colors. Micro evolution took place, and they changed black, to avoid getting exterminated by predators. [B]

Now don't forget a HUGELY IMPORTANT fact here - the black moth ALREADY EXISTED! It did NOT mutate into being! It was just less prevalent, because of the environment; then, when the environment changed, it naturally became more prevalent. This is natural selection, and does NOT prove evolution.

There's lots of problems with this study, tho, including things like the faked pictures, and also that the moths are nocturnal, and naturally are in the treetops, not on trunks of trees, IIRC.

[Lief Erikson]

The black moth was the white moth; it changed because it was endangered. The black moth didn't already exist, they were white moths. It isn't one species getting replaced by a less prevalent species.

RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

Erm, yikes.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm curious. If I'm wrong in an aspect of my beliefs or outlook, I'd like to be corrected, but I don't think Genesis contradicts evolution.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
....(1) Evolution is based on science - unlike creationsim which is based on a story in a book no one knows who wrote. (2)Intelligent design is just creationists trying to fit a science into their estasblished beliefs that a god exists and created the universe. Again - it's not based on science - it's based on belief.

(3) Belief is not science and therefore should not be taught in schools. (4) There is scientific evidence to support evolution - whether you agree with it or not.

(1) - yes, it is BASED on science, but there are certain parts which are only guesses, like where stuff originally came from. And creation by intelligent design is also based on science, and it has certain parts that are only guesses. Evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind things - can you deny that?

(2) - I disagree. The theory of evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind the process. The theory of creation by intelligent design is based on the BELIEF that there IS an intelligent being behind the process, and this being is behind the observable, measureable events and things that are out there.

(3) - then don't teach evolution either. Or, what is really the best solution and the one with the most scientific integrity - teach the 2 most supported theories, both of which are based on an unproveable BELIEF but have testable tenets developed by intelligent scientists - the theory of creation by intelligent design (by far the best ) and the theory of evolution.

(4) There is scientific evidence to support creation by intelligent design - whether you agree with it or not.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The theory of evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind the process. The theory of creation by intelligent design is based on the BELIEF that there IS an intelligent being behind the process, and this being is behind the observable, measureable events and things that are out there.

I disagree with the first sentence of this. The theory of evolution says nothing about whether God created living organisms. All it does is offer a scientific explanation for their existing. It doesn't say that evolution might not have been designed intelligently.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

I DON'T "strongly disbelieve evolution" My one and only beef is with the people that so strongly disbelieve creation by intelligent design and say it is not "scientific" ONLY because it is based on a belief that an intelligent being was behind things!

My personal opinion is that creation by intelligent design fits the observable facts better, but I have NO problem with people that believe that evolution fits the facts better. My problem is when evolution people say that a scientist can't be scientific and believe that creation by intelligent design is a better model.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Darwin expected to, didn't he? Now the theory has been updated, because they HAVEN"T been found, but I'm reacting to Ruinel's post that said the fossil record PROVED evolution.

The key thing about science is that its theories get updated. Glad you mentioned that. I can't/am not going to speak for what Darwin's expectations were. Either way, the field of biological anthropology has come a long way since the Darwins and Larmarcks.

Rian:
Do you agree with her statement?

That fossil evolution is FACT? No. But I believe that it is a very good scientifically proven THEORY.

Rian:
That may be, but there sure are lots of fossils, and of those that DO exist, there are not the originally-expected-amounts of transitional forms, wouldn't you agree?

Due to way fossils are formed, I would expect there to be a less than the optimal representation of the fossil record. Sure, there are lots of fossils, but in terms of the time frame we're looking at, there simply aren't enough fossils to go around. Plus, there is the increasing problem of deterioration. You have to remember that making a fossil is HARD. Certain things have to occur before you have a successful fossil. THEN, once you have the fossil, there are a whole lot of other taphonomical factors that need to be considered: cultural/biological infiltration, natural disasters, various geological intrusions, etc. I believe I can count on all my fingers and toes the amount of complete hominids dating from before the genus H. sapiens.

Regarding transitional forms: that just not the way it works. We, as anthroplogists, are having a hard enough time piecing together the existences of the varying hominids, without actually having to worry about transitional fossils. Besides which, as I mentioned in the religion thread, Evolution is geared towards change, thus transitionals (individuals - see down below) are erroneous. I can't really get into this in more detail, otherwise, I think I'll have finished a dissertation by the time I've finished trying to explain! But I will add this: there are too many factors acting on organisms for there to be any ONE transitional. It would be more accurate to consider transitional phases, than it would be to consider transitional fossils.

rian:
Well, that seems pretty unfair to me - aren't you working backwards? "All" specimens could be considered transitional (BTW, is that the right term?) because that is what the theory of evolution says?

I don't believe so. See above, RE: phases, rather than individual fossils. The key component of evolution is selecting for the best fit. Evidence is available from varying geological surveys that at the very least, there were great environmental changes occuring. This would suggest that organisms would have had to have ensured their survival through constant adaptation, and therefore, constant change would have been necessary. I don't think I am being erroneous in saying that Evolution is about change, and therefore all organims could be considered as transitionals. But the fact of the matter is that I don't believe in transitionals - I believe in phases.

Rian
....to look impartially at the data and decide whether or not it fits the theory?

When was I not doing that? The fossil evidence suggests phases of transitional periods, rather than transitional individuals. (I don't like that word, btw.)

Rian:
Wouldn't you say that the fossil record agrees very well with the creation by intelligent design model of living beings appearing fully formed?

Not particularly. Mitochondrial DNA evidence now suggests that we interbred with Neanderthals. If it were just the fossil record, then perhaps. But there are other factors to consider now. Like genetics, and cultural evidence such as tool specialisation, grave burials.

Rian:
Weren't the th. of ev. people originally trying v. hard to find transitional forms?

Perhaps there were some - you have to remember the time it occured in though. People were still claiming that there were strange monstrocities in the Americas, and the wealthy were interested in funding these expeditions. Lamarck certainly encompassed individal change (well prior to Darwinianism) - he theorised that changes in the environment could impinge upon an organism within it's own lifetime - he thought that giraffes got long necks because they couldn't reach the leaves basically, and so they adapted in their own lifetime. However, this is well before Darwin published Origin of Species.

Rian:
I think that currently they're not being looked for because they've been looked for for so long and not found.

See above, on transitional phases.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I DON'T "strongly disbelieve evolution" My one and only beef is with the people that so strongly disbelieve creation by intelligent design and say it is not "scientific" ONLY because it is based on a belief that an intelligent being was behind things!

My personal opinion is that creation by intelligent design fits the observable facts better, but I have NO problem with people that believe that evolution fits the facts better. My problem is when evolution people say that a scientist can't be scientific and believe that creation by intelligent design is a better model.

I don't think the Bible has anything against evolution. As a matter of a fact, in Genesis Chapter 3 we see God punish one of his own creatures by changing it into something else. The serpent.

Though I tend to view that as a whole species transformation, that the serpent represented the dinosaur. Because he said "you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust." For that to be a punishment, it must imply that it didn't crawl on its belly and eat dust in the past, which implied it was in a more upright position. In fact, the dinosaur perfectly fits that.

I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did. And what it does show beyond a doubt is that God doesn't mind changing his creatures from one sort of creature to another.

As is plainly proved by humans, as well. Aren't we born again? Changed into a totally new life . Different from evolution, of course, but once again, I see science as paralleling the Christian experience.

Now, as far as evolution disproving intelligent design, I greatly agree with you. Evolution doesn't say whether or not a creator is pulling the strings of the universe and pushing everything into place in his perfect plan.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did.

Hmmm. Reptiles are cold blooded. Last time I checked, Dinosaurs weren't considered to be cold blooded. I could be wrong though - not my field. However, I can tell you that the aves (birds) are more closely related to dinosaurs, than reptiles are.

[Lief Erikson]

Sheeana, would you mind responding to my first post today on this thread? The one that discusses Micro and Macro evolution and the environment. These discoveries also take into account the lack of transitional species.

And look, there SHOULD be transitional species, if we have so much on particular species, from various continents. They cannot possibly have evolved in a steady rate.

Meanwhile, the recent discoveries on Micro evolution and swift environmental changes support each other strongly, and make it seem as though Macro evolution over a large scale, though possible, isn't very necessary.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Hmmm. Reptiles are cold blooded. Last time I checked, Dinosaurs weren't considered to be cold blooded. I could be wrong though - not my field. However, I can tell you that the aves (birds) are more closely related to dinosaurs, than reptiles are.

So it might seem. I haven't studied that either. It would be fascinating to study though, one day .

Meanwhile, my point was primarily to RÃ*an, that God plainly is willing to change his creatures.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't think the Bible has anything against evolution. As a matter of a fact, in Genesis Chapter 3 we see God punish one of his own creatures by changing it into something else. The serpent.

Though I tend to view that as a whole species transformation, that the serpent represented the dinosaur. Because he said "you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust." For that to be a punishment, it must imply that it didn't crawl on its belly and eat dust in the past, which implied it was in a more upright position. In fact, the dinosaur perfectly fits that.

I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did. And what it does show beyond a doubt is that God doesn't mind changing his creatures from one sort of creature to another.

As is plainly proved by humans, as well. Aren't we born again? Changed into a totally new life . Different from evolution, of course, but once again, I see science as paralleling the Christian experience.

Now, as far as evolution disproving intelligent design, I greatly agree with you. Evolution doesn't say whether or not a creator is pulling the strings of the universe and pushing everything into place in his perfect plan.

The dinosaur thing is quite interesting, Lief. But I've always taken the simplistic view, and thought that the serpent had legs before. I mean, since this was before Death, there wouldn't have been any dead serpents around, and therefore of course there wouldn't be any skeletons of ancient legged snakes.

Though I personally don't like what's towards the end. Sounds a bit like Deism to me.

So then, do you believe that man, made in the image of God, was originally a single-celled organism?

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry if I came across as sounding like Deism at the end . That was a mistake.

We have another thing we must remember. That "death" really only started when man sinned, and separated himself from God. Mankind is dead without Jesus. It could be a spiritual death that was being spoken of. (Shrugs) Anyway, it isn't too serious an objection.

Besides, you really have to believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days for it to be possible for pain and death to have not existed till man ate the fruit. None of the species before humanity could have existed if there was no death and no pain. And the 7 days is something that I object to being taken as literal days, simply because they aren't very Scripturally logical.

It seems as though in this respect (pain and death), the simplest meaning is different. The creatures weren't separated from God, but the separation they chose for themselves was painful and caused them to spiritually die. This is a Biblical fact. Whether this death was being talked about, or physical death, is a matter of opinion.