Should evolution be taught in schools?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(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?

Yes I can deny that - because evolution just doesn't put the question of god into the equation whatsoever. No where does evolution rely on there being NO god. And the guesses that you mention are based on scientific study. As I have said before on this thread and others of it's ilk - a good scientist needs to leave their beliefs at the door. God has no place in science unless it can proved that there is a god.

(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.

NO evolution is just trying to figure out how things became what they are today - it has nothing to with whether is or is not a god. If that is what you think the study of evolution requires no belief in god - then you are grossly misinformed. I was taught evolution all throughout Catholic school.

(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.

Why - evolution evolves and chnages as the science changes. It's a huge jigsaw puzzle and the pieces are coming together. Intelligent design is just the creationists trying to to get creation into the classroom. They trying to shoehorn pseudo-evolution and add in god. God if not science and not provable or disaprovable and therefore has no place in science.

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

Where? Because some of the evolutionary puzzle is missing and it's easier to just explain it away as "well that's because god did it that way?" That's not science and it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[Lief Erikson]

There's another thing that ties right into that, Gwaimir. Ah . . . I'll send you it over email. This thread shouldn't turn into Christian discoveries discussion .

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

yes. evolution should be taught in school, but so also the controversy about it should be taught in school and the religious way of explaining how it happened

in my opinion...evolution did happend...g-d didnt just create humans and all the other animals

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn
yes. evolution should be taught in school, but so also the controversy about it should be taught in school and the religious way of explaining how it happened

in my opinion...evolution did happend...g-d didnt just create humans and all the other animals

Why the religious way of explaining it? that has nothing to do with science. God is NOT science.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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.

What evidence? Your mystery island evidence doesn't count.

LE
Thus, Micro evolution seems to be the more logical view.

How so?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that you cannot seperate the two. Both are reliant on changes within the alleles, however, one exhibits small changes (which are usually combined within the species), and one exhibits big changes (which either diverge or converge between species). Your idea that the two are somehow separate is erroneous.

LE
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.

You're a really nice person to debate with, but your lack of knowledge and justification is beginning to bug me. Punctuated equilibrium is not basically micro. It merely details that changes will occur more rapidly at certain times than others. It generally specifies macro changes NOT micro. Btw: if an organism is "keeping up with the environment" then the changes would more likely be macro rather than micro. You only have to look at specimens of australopithecines to see this: they had all their brachiating abilities in conjunction with a new bipedal locomotion ability. This is attributed to the change from a grassy woodland environment to a more open savannah. This environmental change produced MACRO changes to the organism, not micro changes. I think some defintitions are in order there:

Micro: within the species. (small changes at the genetic level)
Macro: At, or above the species. Your example of the birmingham moth would actually be considered an example of macroevolution, not microevolution, btw.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

This means that any mutations that cause significant changes in the phenotype, ie bipedalism, as opposed to quadrapedialism, also serve to significantly change/diverge the organism from its predecessors, and therefore the changes are occuring above the species, thefore macro.

LE
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.

As I said earlier in my posts to Rian, anthropologists don't tend to label phases as transitionals. This is because the whole 'chain' is considered to be a period of transition. We look for phases of change, granted, but not specifically for transitionals. Evolution occurs gradually, which is backed up by both the fossil, geological, and archeological records. Since the change is gradual, and since it occurs over long periods of time - you only have to look at the detailed change of hominid dentition to see this (Early australopithecines had larger more robust teeth which branched off into two different sub-sets: this is often used as evidence of a changing diet, and this evidence coveres a few million years.) - transitionals is a bit erroneous. Your idea of transitional is silly: the other problem I have with this is that it assumes the evolution is linear, which we know is incorrect.

LE
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.

Actually, if we're talking hominids, then those skeletons aren't transitionals (god I hate that word) because they're sapiens - same as us.

What examples are you thinking of here? I'd like to see less postulation, and more evidence to back your claims. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Lizra]

I agree, until there is some scientific proof of an "intelligent designer", keep it out of the schools. Just saying evolution is too complicated or random to happen naturally, is not a good enough reason to say intelligent designer exists. There are many churches available for teachings about God. Schools should stick to the known facts. That doesn't mean it can't be said we don't really know what created the Big Bang, but once the primordial soup started up, fossil records, dna mapping, and other scientific data works well for me. Keep religion out of school! Everyone has different beliefs, you shouldn't have it in school!

The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are not on equal footing (IMO). Rereading all the posts in this threads will prove that! (Remember, I love you Rian! )

[Sheeana]

LE
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.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. The fossil record supports the idea that organisms change over time. Because of the time frame that we're looking at, I think that it is a silly idea to look for transitionals, because a) evolution isn't linear and b) the nature of evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME, and therefore, all change is transitional, and therefore there is no one particular phase that would stand out as transitional.

LE
Meanwhile, the recent discoveries on Micro evolution and swift environmental changes support each other strongly....

Which are where? Cite your evidence please.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
....Meanwhile, my point was primarily to RÃ*an, that God plainly is willing to change his creatures.

And I've thought about your question since I posted my answer, and I do, in fact, have some other problems with evolution, which I"ll post about tomorrow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
.....The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are not on equal footing (IMO). Rereading all the posts in this threads will prove that! (Remember, I love you Rian! )

Mwa!! XOXOXO

And I disagree with you!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I've thought about your question since I posted my answer, and I do, in fact, have some other problems with evolution, which I"ll post about tomorrow.

People had a problem with the world being round or the earth revolving around the sun too - and you see how right religion was about those things. It wasn't until they had no choice but to accept that science was right and religion was wrong - even though religion condemned many good men to death for teaching such heresy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I agree, until there is some scientific proof of an "intelligent designer", keep it out of the schools. Just saying evolution is too complicated or random to happen naturally, is not a good enough reason to say intelligent designer exists. There are many churches available for teachings about God. Schools should stick to the known facts. That doesn't mean it can't be said we don't really know what created the Big Bang, but once the primordial soup started up, fossil records, dna mapping, and other scientific data works well for me. Keep religion out of school! Everyone has different beliefs, you shouldn't have it in school!

I agree - schools should teach that we don't fully understadn evolution or what caused the big bang. The thing is they do - even Discovery Magazine has "could" and "indicates" all over their articles. Science is all about searching for the truth. If something doesn't fit right - then it has be figured out why it doesn't - does the theory have to be completely reworked - do all the pieces need ot be relooked at? People don't look at religion in scientific terms - it is pure belief.

[Lief Erikson]

This I posted earlier in this thread, when discussing the environmental research.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Yes, there are (Quoting from the World Book) a few species which have the intermediates found for them. Not many at all though, and I'm certainly not warring with the existence of intermediates. But because I think a faster evolution happened, it makes sense that there aren't a whole lot of those found.

All that you basically said is that there are a few intermediate species. What does that prove? What I'm saying is that there are several different species found in many different locations. Why should these species appear in multiple locations while hundreds of intermediate species of all sorts of creatures go entirely unobserved. I think that we should be seeing less of the same creatures and more of many different species.



Now back to the environment question. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, the Sahara/Gobi desert chains were all lush without any evidence at all of any desert life. Between 120,000 years ago and 9,000 years ago, this area became extremely arid, turning into a desert type region. Between 20,000 years and 18,000 years ago, this area became so hot, dry and impossible to live in that there is extremely little evidence of any creatures living in these regions. That period was the most difficult during that stretch for the desert inhabitants.

Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the climate changed again, and forest and grasslands spread all over the region, with only a few patches of desert left. The country then received 50 times as much precipitation as it had during the arid years before.

Then everything became desert again. I get these dates from the World Book Encyclopedia and an Internet article written by E. Lioubimsteva called "IMPACTS OF CLIMATIC CHANGE ON CARBON STORAGE VARIATIONS IN AFRICAN AND ASIAN DESERTS." You can reach it through a search at google.com.

[Ruinel]

I was originally NOT going to post in this thread. But oh, well.

First of all Iron Parrot has already said pretty much all there needs to be said (as I read back to the beginning).

Second, I get the impression from anti-Evolution posts here that they think teachers should just tell students that things just appeared from nowhere, as if by magic, despite the fact that evidence points to the contrary. Or just tell them to go talk to their parents about it.

Many false and misleading statements have been posted here and in the 'Offshoot...' thread about fossil records. Truly, only under certain circumstances can a fossil form from the dead remains of an animal. Only the parts of an animal that contain minerals (like calcium) can actually be fossilized. This leaves out animals without some hard mineralized part(s). That's quite a lot of the earlier animals. Since most dead animals are eaten or parts carried off by scavengers, the vast majority of animals will not be fossilized. If the animal rots too much, no fossil either. If the animal is not covered in sediment quick enough... no fossil. See? The conditions under which an animal can actually be fossilized is not as common as you might think. And even when the animal is fossilized, it may be crushed or broken or heated under the pressure of the earth.

All of these fossils are buried in layers. The top most would be considered the youngest. The bottom layers being the older fossils. Even microbial fossils have been found in rocks that are 2 billion years old. Through this layering and dating of rock, there is apparent a sequence of events... shelled organisms appear around 540 million years ago; simple fish 490 million years ago; amphibians 350 mil yrs ago; reptiles 310 mil; mammals 200 mil; primates (not human) appear 60 mil; early apes 25 mil; Australopithecine (human ancestors) 4 mil; and modern humans appear about 150 000 yrs ago to present.

From the fossil records we do have, we know that a variety of animals lived on this earth, many of which are similar to the ones that now exist in our time. We can use these records to compare animals from differing time periods, their similarities and slight structure changes and adaptations over time.

Evolution also explains hereditary variations in species. The study of genetics and molecular biology explain hereditary variations that are essential to the natural selection argument. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected in a lab and described with great precision. Go science!

Just look at humans for example. We all came out of Africa. We are all basically a living example of evolution. The first human population lived in Africa and over thousands of years migrated out moving north to Europe or East. We also know that modern living humans are not related to Neanderthal Man. We are however, related to Cro-Magnon Man. How do we know? Frozen bodies in Europe and Asia. We can genetically match those samples with current human samples.

There is more... I just feel like this is long enough. Feel free to expand on what I have written or add more evidence.

[Lief Erikson]

And here is the conclusion of my post on the fast changing environment. There are other evidences too, like in Africa. I can get you that also, after you read this, if you want more.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Now to continue my question posing. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, you have a lush climate. This supports creatures that live in a beautiful and fertile land, and there is no evidence at this time of any desert life. This information is based upon pollen. The first question that this (if you accept the current methods and information) raises is: Where did the desert animals come from that filled the Gobi and Sahara desert regions? And where did all of the other animals that filled this enormous space of land (18,000,000 km., all the territory from the Atlantic Ocean and Sahara Desert to Northern China) go to? Did they all migrate or die? And the desert creatures, there was no evidence of desert life at all to our knowledge in these areas, even in minority. Yet they came from no where to spread out over enormous tracts of land, replacing the former inhabitants.

You have to assume the migration of enormous numbers of creatures if you're going to get anywhere. Let's say you do this. What then? You have these creatures migrating into already populated areas by other creatures, thus causing enormous conflict over the resources available. Predators would be encountering other predators and needing food just as the others did.

But enough of raising those issues, let's get back to the dates. Between 18,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago, there is almost no life recorded due to the enormously hostile environment in these regions. Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, everything became lush again. You had grasslands and forests (Information taken from the World Book) in these regions. The desert creatures largely vanished. Migration, or death? Anyway, out of the blue in this period of time, we have Hippos, Giraffes, Elephants and many other species. These forementioned creatures cannot possibly have managed to live through the thousands of arid years and survived the extremely hostile period. They need, as I'm sure you know, water and foliage in large amounts in order to survive. The nature of the body structures of the creatures makes it impossible for them simply to have "adapted" over millions of years of the same events happening in structured pattern. They had to have migrated in; there's no other explanation by the current evolutionary standard.

Also in the Arabian peninsula you see no arid landscape at all between the last 9,000 and 6,000 years.

Then the desert took over again, and its creatures. This actually also helps to go against Natural Selection, which says that all the creatures best adapted to an environment are the ones that will survive. The desert creatures would be at a severe disadvantage during this period of 3,000 years, and would be easy prey to the new creatures which are so much better adapted to the climate.

If these sorts of drastic changes (Not influenced at all by man at that time) were happening over those periods of time, we cannot simply assume that it is only during the past million years or so that these things are happening. There isn't any reason why the time we're looking at now should be any different than that which has been since life on Earth first evolved. This implies that these enormous shifts we see today could easily have been happening during these older periods of time as well.

The main explanation that I can see is migration, but there is a difficulty with the migration theory. And that is that slow evolution theory assumes that creatures slowly evolve to their environment. The migration theory basically shoots that, for they no longer need to evolve that much (Although they still can, to some extent), they can simply migrate, and they have to migrate. Species built for plentiful food resources cannot survive in arid desert climates, however much you argue "adaptation due to experience."

And BeardofPants, jerseydevil, whoever out there has some knowledge of evolution and this kind of thing, I don't want to be holding a private conversation with Cirdan. I'd rather hear of your opinions on this as well.

[Ruinel]

Damn LE! That's a long winded post. *rubs eyes*

[Sheeana]

Long winded, and erroneous. *sigh* Hey Ruinel, wanna join me at the wall here? *bangs head*

Leif, we've covered this before. Cirdan (spelled it right this time, dammit), myself, A-E, and JD debunked you. Must we cover this again?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Let me explain where I'm coming from. The fossil record supports the idea that organisms change over time. Because of the time frame that we're looking at, I think that it is a silly idea to look for transitionals, because a) evolution isn't linear and b) the nature of evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME, and therefore, all change is transitional, and therefore there is no one particular phase that would stand out as transitional.

I know, I don't expect there to be large numbers of one particular species that is a transitional species. However, I wanted to point out that those changes there are are sharp. For example, we have Velociraptor skeletons and Velociraptor skeletons, collected in different places. Deinonycas (Agh! Been too long since I studied dinosaurs- I've forgotten how to spell its name! ) and others are very, very similar and are found on different continents. The question is raised as to how come there are so many of many species that have been found, over a such a large terrain, while hundreds of other intermediate species aren't also there in bulk. This problem is particularly accute when you take into account what Ruinel just posted, about the unlikeliness of something's becoming a fossil at all.

Fast environmental changes are another major problem with Macro evolution.

The fact that Micro evolution is becoming broadly accepted solves the Macro evolution problem, if you accept it, and the missing intermediate species in one blow. The intermediate species were there and did exist at one time. There simply weren't many of them, because they were changing as the environment stabilized into a different form. After the environment had thus stabilized, major species were able to develop, and exist until the environment changed dramatically again.

Thus the existence of small amounts of intermediate species is explained, along with the fact that major species are able to be found in different places.

At least, that somewhat solves it. There are some discrepancies still, such as the fact that extremely similar species were found on different continents, which is totally illogical if you think that the break-up of the continents happened a long time ago.

Fast environment and Micro evolution are accepted, scientifically. It's simply another step in logic to say that that's the reason we lack these intermediate species. This doesn't say Macro evolution doesn't exist, it simply says that it's had no major affect, because all the major changes happened quickly through Micro evolution.

Originally posted by Sheeana
Which are where? Cite your evidence please.

I have now produced some of my evidence, in the above two posts. Other evidence jerseydevil brought up later on in the discussion, and I'll call on that too, if you dispute what I've brought up. Thanks for being polite, I do appreciate it .

[Melko Belcha]

Evolution should be taught in schools, but schools and religion should remain seperate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
1) Sorry if I came across as sounding like Deism at the end . That was a mistake.

2) 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. 4) None of the species before humanity could have existed if there was no death and no pain. 3) 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.

1) I don't mind. I just don't believe in Deism.
2) Seems to me that it makes more sense as physical death. Remember, that after the fall, people lived for a very LONG time, and there life started to (generally) decrease then. It seems to me rather logical (or at least not far-fetched) that the long life spans came after immortality.
3) If I remember correctly, the Hebrew word used means a twenty-four hour period...not sure though...
4) Why?

Shutting up now.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Long winded, and erroneous. *sigh* Hey Ruinel, wanna join me at the wall here? *bangs head*

Leif, we've covered this before. Cirdan (spelled it right this time, dammit), myself, A-E, and JD debunked you. Must we cover this again?

I beg your pardon? No one debunked me that I remember. Are you referring to the migration argument, or Dunadan's patchwork argument?

Micro evolution is accepted and proved, as much as Macro evolution is, and in my opinion, more. Scientists are at least able to test Micro evolution because it's meant to take place in a short period of time. And they have tested it, and their findings were in my Biology book.

As for the environment, that's scientific too. Cirdan ended up saying migration must be it, but that's simply because he refused to accept what scientists are saying about Micro evolution.



Sheeana, I don't remember you being in that thread, anyway. Or are you really BeardofPants? She was occasionally in that argument, I remember.