Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Lief Erikson]

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

Look, Sheeana, if you aren't interested in reading my long posts, don't bother. Ruinel already hates to do it; she made that plain in the Offshoot thread. So don't respond if you're not interested in responding. And remember that this largely is not me talking. The only part that is me talking and not science is the part where I'm using it as a logical explanation for the missing intermediate species. What's wrong with that, I'm not sure.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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.

*sigh* Micro- and Macroevolution are the same things, just on a different scale.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

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

THAT is why I think your postulations are erroneous. Anything that exhibits significant change within the organism regardless of how quick the change occured, is considered to be macro.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
....So then, do you believe that man, made in the image of God, was originally a single-celled organism?

Good point, Gwai!

NOTE TO SELF - comment on Lot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt ... does that mean my fate is to be a pile of crystalline matter? If so, can I choose the substance? How about sugar?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
*sigh* Micro- and Macroevolution are the same things, just on a different scale.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

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

THAT is why I think your postulations are erroneous. Anything that exhibits significant change within the organism regardless of how quick the change occured, is considered to be macro.

Yes, I know you call Micro and Macro evolution just different speed rates. The speed though is the important thing, to me. Slow evolution is what I'm arguing against, and fast evolution is what I believe is correct. That things can evolve quickly is established (Even if not among Creationists), that environment changes fast is established.

So what's your problem with my theory? Where is my logic flawed? What do you believe happened to the creatures during the time slots I gave? Did they die in mass scale, did they migrate, or did they evolve?

Very well, we're talking entirely within the realm of Macro evolution. The name doesn't matter to me so much as the concept. And I'm saying the concept of slow evolution is flawed by the known speed of the environment, and the reason for us believing it exists is shrunk by our knowledge that evolution can happen fast.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Good point, Gwai!

NOTE TO SELF - comment on Lot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt ... does that mean my fate is to be a pile of crystalline matter? If so, can I choose the substance? How about sugar?

In response, I have a question. How is being made out of dust more fitting for God's creatures than being made from a single celled organism?

Especially when the definition of "dust" is organic material.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hm, good question. I suppose it's because it wasn't ALIVE until God "breathed life" into it, at which point it was Man, made in His image.

[Lief Erikson]

So something's not being alive makes it more worthy to be made into God's creature? Besides, if it was organic material man was made from, who's to say whether or not it already was alive?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know, I don't expect there to be large numbers of one particular species that is a transitional species.

Ardipithecus
|
Anamensis
|
Afarensis....................|
|................................?Boisei
Africanus....................|
|................................?Aethiopicus
Habilis........................|
|................................?Robustus
??Rudolphensis
|
??Ergaster
|
Erectus......................|
|................................Heidelbergensis
Sapiens......................|
..................................Neanderthalensis

Which would be the transitionals?

Editted: to move Heidelbergensis.

[Lief Erikson]

The transitional species I speak of are the ones that fit between species that have a large number of fossil specimens.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Hm, good question. I suppose it's because it wasn't ALIVE until God "breathed life" into it, at which point it was Man, made in His image.

In other words, we were the first. We were basically created without any phases of being different species going on first.

Besides, I don't find dust any better than a one celled organism, even so . God breathed life into any creature that is alive now. I suppose the primary problem with it that people have is that it was a scientific method, not a supernatural occurence. However, if God's power is directing things, then whether he uses a natural means or an unnatural means to accomplish his end in the physical universe, I don't see that it is very bad for people to have been created by evolution. We were created by God either way.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The transitional species I speak of are the ones that fit between species that have a large number of fossil specimens.

That doesn't work either, because a large number of the genus Australopithecus simply don't have a large number of fossil specimens. Why? Because they don't survive well. Are you saying that all the early hominids are transitional simply because they don't have ample representation in the fossil record? Specifically, which ones would you consider to be transitional?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
In other words, we were the first. We were basically created without any phases of being different species going on first.

Besides, I don't find dust any better than a one celled organism, even so . God breathed life into any creature that is alive now. I suppose the primary problem with it that people have is that it was a scientific method, not a supernatural occurence. However, if God's power is directing things, then whether he uses a natural means or an unnatural means to accomplish his end in the physical universe, I don't see that it is very bad for people to have been created by evolution. We were created by God either way.

I agree with you, overall. I mean, I don't see why people seem to think it invalidates the Will of God in something, if they can explain it. God has to do it SOMEway. Why can he not do it in a way working within the natural laws, which He created? But I suppose I draw the line at Creation and Evolution.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson


Look, Sheeana, if you aren't interested in reading my long posts, don't bother. Ruinel already hates to do it; she made that plain in the Offshoot thread.

It was just long... that's all. You posted really long posts in the other thread too. It just gets to the point where you skim and don't really read it thoroughly. I'm sure you had something important to say, but it's late for me and therefore lost on me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I agree with you, overall. I mean, I don't see why people seem to think it invalidates the Will of God in something, if they can explain it. God has to do it SOMEway. Why can he not do it in a way working within the natural laws, which He created? But I suppose I draw the line at Creation and Evolution.

(Shrugs) Fine. It just leads to some tough disagreement with Atheists that I don't think is necessary. That's all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
It was just long... that's all. You posted really long posts in the other thread too. It just gets to the point where you skim and don't really read it thoroughly. I'm sure you had something important to say, but it's late for me and therefore lost on me.

Yes. You see, when I post, I like to explore many of the different aspects of a problem that are visible to me, rather than just doing one. If there are many supporting evidences, I like to bring them all up, and if I draw a conclusion, I like to show the place from which I've drawn it. That's why my posts are long. I just really like to explore different issues in depth, rather than giving simple statements and hoping everyone believes or accepts them.

[Lizra]

My favorite saying LE..."Less is more" Instead of boring people to death with hard to follow minutiae, hone "Your" thoughts down to some crystal clear ideas that flow and make sense! A more powerful style of communication (IMO)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
That doesn't work either, because a large number of the genus Australopithecus simply don't have a large number of fossil specimens. Why? Because they don't survive well. Are you saying that all the early hominids are transitional simply because they don't have ample representation in the fossil record? Specifically, which ones would you consider to be transitional?

Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains? Why have we found so many of certain species, particularly considering the large amounts of time we're dealing with (Millions of years) and the number of species we have to accept existing. I haven't seen you strike at my evidence or opinion in any affective way.

All you have done is deny that there are any transitional species. What I label a transitional species is one that has very little record of its existence. In other words, one that has very little supporting evidence that it remained on this earth for a long period of time. The ones that have few fossil remains (If evolution was happening slowly) are the ones that are most logical to point to.

Also note that many of the species that have been found in large numbers aren't simply the most successful species of the time. Different little creatures that were easy prey still have large amounts of fossils found to them.

You have not explained why we have found so many fossils of certain species and so few of others, if they were all constantly changing at a very gradual rate. It's illogical that we'd be able to find hundreds of fossils of some creatures, and then have no record at all of other species that filled the earth for large periods of time.

Meanwhile, I have given accepted (In other words, created by distinguished scientists using the scientific method) scientific evidences in support my opinion. Fast evolution is accepted. Swift environmental changes are accepted. This being a good reason for the lack of intermediate species between major species that have huge amounts of fossils for them is what I'm advocating. Will you please find some substantial flaw in this theory, if you object to it?

It just seems like the next step in logic, to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
My favorite saying LE..."Less is more" Instead of boring people to death with hard to follow minutiae, hone "Your" thoughts down to some crystal clear ideas that flow and make sense! A more powerful style of communication (IMO)

I'll go to the bare essentials for you .

Swift environmental changes are accepted. Fast evolution is accepted. I'm simply going to the next step, saying that fast evolution because of fast environment is probably what causes the lack in our having many intermediate species.

[Lizra]

Fossil remains are dicovered at random, as nature permits. Much is under water! Holes and gaps exist because this evidence was not preserved and documented for the future masses to understand. It's too bad scientific evidence for the theory of evolution doesn't flow as fully and smoothly as you would like, but don't resort to grabbing at straws to disprove it. (IMO) Where's the proof of the intelligent designer? Where is he? Where is the heaven. How'd he do it? I think the creation theory has many more holes than the theory of evolution. Thanks for the short reply!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
Fossil remains are dicovered at random, as nature permits. Much is under water! Holes and gaps exist because this evidence was not preserved and documented for the future masses to understand. It's too bad scientific evidence for the theory of evolution doesn't flow as fully and smoothly as you would like, but don't resort to grabbing at straws to disprove it. (IMO)

I don't think I'm grabbing at straws. I just told you the basics of the problem; I went into more depth on the problem I see with the lack of intermediate species earlier. You see why I have to give long posts?
My not-very-long response
There are large numbers of certain species that have been found. Hundreds of fossils, and these weren't all the most advanced species either. Some less successful species still were fossilized in abundance. However, there are large gaps in which few specimens are found. Not none, but few- very, very few or none, in some instances. These seem to me like transitional phases in which the species changed according to its environment. There wouldn't be any problem with few intermediate species if there were few major species to match. There simply isn't an even strain of creatures. Fast evolution requires no such thing, and it fits beautifully with the scientifically accepted knowledge we have today.

Originally posted by Lizra
Where's the proof of the intelligent designer? Where is he? Where is the heaven. How'd he do it? I think the creation theory has many more holes than the theory of evolution. Thanks for the short reply!

Are those holes? It rather astounds me how much we can discover about our universe just from here on Earth. God (In my experience)repeatedly doesn't give us what we can take ourselves. If there were no mysteries, it wouldn't be any fun anyway, would it? Are you blaming God for not giving us a full knowledge of the universe from the start?