Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains?

One word: Pangaea.

As well, it stands to reason that if animals have a common genetic beginning that those animals faced with the same climate and environment would, by process of natural selection evolve similarly after they were separated from their common ancestral home.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
One word: Pangaea.

As well, it stands to reason that if animals have a common genetic beginning that those animals faced with the same climate and environment would, by process of natural selection evolve similarly after they were separated from their common ancestral home.

Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains?

Divergent evolution. Oh wait... Are you talking about fossil distribution? In that case: see below.

LE
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.

No, I am not denying it; I'm just plain not understanding where you're coming from. If something is under-represented in the fossil record, I would attribute it to either being luck of the draw in terms of surviving the fossil record, or that it was an unsuccessful adaptation. Are you referring to the specimens that are hard to classifying taxonomically?

LE
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.

How so? I believe Ruinel brought up basic fossilization techniques. Some species are made up of compounds that are simply easier to fossilize. There are some regions in the world in which fossilization occurs more successfully than others. Fossilization needs specific requirements before it can occur. Time is also a factor. The older the specimen, the less likely it is to survive in the fossil record. Then there's geography/geology. There are many factors as to why fossils are more prevalent in some regions of the world, than others. Africa's desert environs are a good example of this.

LE
Fast evolution is accepted.

This is not represented in the fossil record. Modern Radiometric dating methods have given reasonably reliable dates for hominids. We're looking at a period of four million years. Have you got any evidence to assert that hominid evolution happened quicker?

LE
Swift environmental changes are accepted.

Really? So why don't the laws of Superposition support this? Or deep sea cores? Surely your swift environmentalism would be reflected in those areas of study? The geological record simply does not support this. There is evidence of cyclic environmentalism, as well as catastrophism (hence punctuated equilibrium), but it's surely not as swift as you would have it.

LE
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.

For the sake of clarification, let's take hominids (my field of study, so I can understand a bit better.) WHAT would you consider to be the intermediates of the genus Homo or Australopithecus? Perhaps if I better understood your reasoning behind 'transitions' and 'intermediates' I could agree/disagree with you. Because as far as I can see, the fossil record details specimens that you would call 'intermediates', so I'm not sure if I'm reading this right.

Also, if a species doesn't survive for very long, then it's small wonder than it's under-represented in the fossil record.

If you're not comfortable detailing hominid intermediates, then I am also comfortable with primates.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
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.

One thing more to note. I try never to enter into an argument unless I have more than straws to hold onto. I learned on Entmoot the hard way not to grasp at straws .

Another thing to note. I'm not trying to disprove the theory of evolution.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?

EVEN if I accepted for a moment your supposition on rapid environmentalism - which I don't - there's still the nature of the changes. An organism will not change to adapt to an environmental change if it doesn't have to. And such is the nature of the geological record is that there simply ain't enough catastrophism to support your theory. It is true that evolution relies on the environment impacting upon the genotype, but it is also true that you shouldn't fix something if it ain't broke. ()

[Lief Erikson]

None of this explains the answer to the problem, to me, in a satisfying way. Look at the horse. It has a just about complete set of intermediate species between its one major form that it shows up in in the past and the next such major form. What sense does there being any intermediate species make if the creature's substance isn't of a sort that can become fossilized?

Also, the horse evolved, but it still had bones, and it didn't change in any major substantial way during that period that made it less capable of being fossilized. I just see no evidence to support that argument.

Time I don't think is a factor. Because there are breakages in intermediate species between species we know about. I'm not making assertions about the earliest species, that we know nothing about.

Meanwhile, about geography. Fine, I'll accept for the sake of argument that environment changes slowly (Though it doesn't) and that certain areas of the world would be more capable of having fossilization take place in them than others (Which they very well might). This in no way solves or answers anything. Though it is interesting to learn; thanks for posting it .

The breakages in intermediate species aren't simply in places where no fossilization can take place. Fossils are spread all over the place, and certain species are very dominant all over America at certain times. However, between them and their predecessors, few intermediate species are found. This isn't anything wrong or astounding about fossilization, I think the techniques for fossilization that Ruinel posted are largely correct.

I have heard you give some good reasons for why fossils aren't formed sometimes, and I tend to believe you're right. What I don't understand is how that explains the large gaps in numbers of fossilized creatures.

Originally posted by Sheeana
This is not represented in the fossil record. Modern Radiometric dating methods have given reasonably reliable dates for hominids. We're looking at a period of four million years. Have you got any evidence to assert that hominid evolution happened quicker?

It is attested to by scientists, who have done experiments.

Originally posted by Sheeana
Really? So why don't the laws of Superposition support this? Or deep sea cores? Surely your swift environmentalism would be reflected in those areas of study? The geological record simply does not support this. There is evidence of cyclic environmentalism, as well as catastrophism (hence punctuated equilibrium), but it's surely not as swift as you would have it.

Perhaps not all science is in agreement; that's not my problem. It's not "as I would have it", it's as modern scientific discoveries are proving it.

Originally posted by Sheeana
For the sake of clarification, let's take hominids (my field of study, so I can understand a bit better.) WHAT would you consider to be the intermediates of the genus Homo or Australopithecus? Perhaps if I better understood your reasoning behind 'transitions' and 'intermediates' I could agree/disagree with you. Because as far as I can see, the fossil record details specimens that you would call 'intermediates', so I'm not sure if I'm reading this right.

Also, if a species doesn't survive for very long, then it's small wonder than it's under-represented in the fossil record.

If you're not comfortable detailing hominid intermediates, then I am also comfortable with primates.

Hominids aren't my area of study, and neither are primates, as yet. I'm learning about evolution and Biology, but I still have much to learn. I'm quoting scientific discoveries. Scientists say that fast evolution takes place and that fast environmental changes take place. I gave a great deal of evidence for the environmental changes earlier. The fast evolution I gave less evidence on, because I only gave examples of two different species of insects. The new discoveries about environment DO contradict previous thought about slow changing environment. That's a fact. That swift environment contradicts slow evolution also is a step I wouldn't be too hesitant to take. That fast evolution has been shown also to take place helps to fill that gap, to fix that problem. That the lack of intermediate species is also solved by this is simply an added bonus- it's not necessary to my theory.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
EVEN if I accepted for a moment your supposition on rapid environmentalism - which I don't - there's still the nature of the changes. An organism will not change to adapt to an environmental change if it doesn't have to. And such is the nature of the geological record is that there simply ain't enough catastrophism to support your theory. It is true that evolution relies on the environment impacting upon the genotype, but it is also true that you shouldn't fix something if it ain't broke. ()

You plainly haven't looked closely at the evidence I cited. There were enormously large and extremely huge environmental changes, spanning the entire Sahara-Gobi desert stretches. There likewise have been huge climate changes in Africa, over almost the entire continent, well within the last 200,000 years. In the Sahara-Gobi desert stretches there were changes from lush tropical jungles to harsh desert climate. And then to grassland, and then to desert again, and then to such harsh desert for 2,000 years that there is almost an absolute zero amount of evidence of any sort of form of life during that period. Then they shift again, and again . . . just look at it. You plainly just skimmed it, and that was a major mistake.

There were elephants, giraffes and hippos found. Do you think they could have existed in harsh desert terrains for thousands of years?

[Lizra]

I imagine that many species move to a more suitible climate, constantly adapting, (at various rates, whatever the different circumstances involved allow) changing and evolving over time while doing it.

In my opinion, the reasons for the "not perfect enough" (in your eyes) fossil record (as of this time! ) have been stated repeatedly, and plainly. Just some from my laywoman's veiw....It *could * be certain fossils were never made, due to various chemical processes or environmental factors, the fossils are there but undiscovered as of yet, (That one is screaming at me! ) the tale of the 'slow' ascent of life on earth is too varied and complicated (constant climate changes, land upheavals and submersions, species constantly migrating, the evidence gets eaten or possibly destroyed in some other manner...fires, floods constant start ups, set backs, dead ends) and therefore naturally has some "holes" to us looking back without a map.

So exactly how do you think the world came about?

I edited that last bit about how fantastically complicated the theory of evolution is "in action", to make more sense. (I hope! )

[Rían]

Lief - I have some time this morning, so I'm going to get to another aspect of your question to me. I'll make it brief, tho, because it is slightly OT.

You asked why I was so against evolution (forget exact wording) and I said I wasn't against it, I was just against those that said that creation by intelligent design couldn't be scientifically evaluated, while evolution could. To me, both are theories, and both have some testable tenets and some educated guesses that are NOT testable. And both are based on untestable beliefs - evolution, that there is no intelligent direction behind things, only chance; and CBID, that there IS intelligent direction behind things.

As I thought about it more, I DO have other objections to th. of evolution, which I had stated previously in this thread. These didn't immediately come to mind, tho, because of the wording of your question and how I interpreted what you were asking. So to be complete, I'll state my other objections. These are not scientifically testable, like many other logical things that people believe (such as the belief that a man named Tolkien lived and wrote LoTR, as discussed in the Good and Evil thread), but I believe them to be logical.

And I"ll put them in the next post, because I just got praised for not having really long posts, and I like it when people say nice things about me! (don't we all like it!)

[Rían]

I have 2 main objections to the th. of ev. in the logical area (i.e., not scientifically testable in the lab, but the result of logical thinking and logical inferences) - first, that it has absolutely no explanation for the common sense of morality that is in people, and second, that the results of the premise upon which it is based are so devastating to people.

A Common Sense of Morality
(trying desperately to keep this short....) Now actually this part IS scientifically testable - one could pull in a statistically significant percentage of people and ask them if certain things are "right" or "wrong", and you could count the results. I think that everyone one here would admit, if they were honest, that at the very least some things are considered right and some wrong; and additionally, that people's sense of what is right and wrong is amazingly similar.

Now as C. S. Lewis points out, some of the details may differ (IOW, one culture may think it's ok to have multiple wives and others may think only 1 wife is right), but all cultures agree that there is some set of people with whom sexual relationships would be wrong. And some cultures may think that it's ok to lie to some people, while others think all lying is wrong, but all cultures agree that deceit/lying at some point is wrong.

Now when I say "all cultures", of course every person that has ever lived has not been interviewed; but I think - again, if you're willing to honestly evaluate things w/o a bias - you will have to admit that it is very, very observable all over the world. In fact, those few people that do NOT think these things are wrong are considered "abnormal" - that alone should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Anyway, to come to a screaming halt because this is getting long, the th. of ev. absolutely cannot explain this common morality - chance, by definition, is amoral, altho the RESULTS of a chance happening may be considered to be good or bad by an INHERENTLY MORAL BEING - i.e., humans who were created by a moral God and have a sense of morality instilled in them. So the whole argument of "well, things like not murdering or lying or sleeping with every man/woman came about because it was good for the species" are not valid because "good" has no meaning. And if you try to be sneaky and substitute "beneficial to survival" or some such phrase, then it still doesn't work, because that's just one step removed - you're saying that it's GOOD for a species to survive.

[Rían]

And my second objection:

The results of the underlying premise of evolution

Now Lief, I disagree with you and JD, I believe it was, when you say that the theory of evolution says nothing about God. Of course, it is not explicitly stated as premise number 35 that "God does not exist". However, it does say that chance is the driving force behind the evolutionary changes, doesn't it? IOW, random beneficial mutations, etc. Of course, there is theistic evolution, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the basic th. of evolution that is taught in schools. And if you say that chance drives the events, then that by logical inference means that God does NOT.

And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. And believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

[Rían]

ps - and that is why the whole "self-esteem" movement came about, BTW - people are told that they are worthy because of the things that they can DO, and in areas where there are winners and losers, well, GET RID OF THOSE AREAS! Give EVERYONE a trophy, because EVERYONE is a winner!

The truth, however, is that everyone is VALUABLE - NOT because of what they have done, but because of WHO has created them. And if you lose at a game, so what? Cheer the person who won, and you are still just as valuable as they are! Work hard to do well, but your achievements DO NOT make your value! You are valuable in spite of what you can do/not do. It is good and right to strive to achieve good things, but it doesn't set your value.

[Rían]

And finally, for Lief, re the salt pillar and the serpent changing -

I think the difference btwn single celled organism evolving and the making of man out of dust is that the former is simply rife with mistakes and death (remember, a mutation by definition is rare, and a beneficial mutation the rarest of rare birds, so all those UN-beneficial mutations would cause death and disfigurement and disease, etc); while the latter is one simple, beautiful, elegant, incredible creative act, done right the first time (man was declared "very good"), and is more consistent with the character and "style" of God, IMO.

I think the serpent thing was a v. unique and one-time occurence, and not a model for evolution. The pillar of salt thing was just a funny thought I had that I put into the post I made to remind me to address your question more fully.

[Lizra]

Well I'll say this...Rian and I are at total odds here! At this point, I will type the famous "agree to disagree" statement. Two brick walls!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?

There are no exact duplications. If you are referring to earliest fossil records when the continents had not yet or had barely drifted, then that is due to migration of the same species. Not that they had evolved separately in different places.

It is commonly accepted that Neanderthal Man evolved separately from Cro-Magnon Man on different continents. Since primates began to evolve and spread they carried with them a common gene. However, Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man were quite different species.

As far as your comment about fossils being found all over the place, you are incorrect about that. Reread my post explaining why not every animal that dies in every place and in every situation will leave a fossil record. That information is NOT my opinion. It is a scientific fact.

Eek! too much to read.... I'll do it later. maybe.

[Sheeana]

Leif, last night I did some research on the climatology of Africa, specifically the Sahara. What I found does not support your supposition at all. When I have more time, I will post some of my findings, however, a brief summation of global geography follows:

Precambrian:

• Archean 4600.* Crusts and Oceans
  Early Proterozoic 2500. Carbonate sediments form
  Riphean
  ~Early 1600
  ~Middle 1300
  ~Late 900. Violent upheavals and metamorphism
  Vendian 650. Warm with shallow seas

Paleozoic:

• Cambrian 590. Extensive volcanic activity and marine sedimentation
  Ordovician 505. Continental drift and sedimentation
  Silurian 438. Varying sea levels. New mountain ranges form
  Devonian 408. Continents collide, raising mountain ranges; seas deeper and narrower
  Carboniferous 360. New land rises from the sea; extensive swamps; coal formation.
  Permian
  ~Early 286.
  ~Late 258. Mountain formation; glaciation in the southern hemisphere

Mesozoic:

• Triassic 248. Extensive desertification, turning to hot and wet conditons
  Jurassic 213. Mountain erosion; limestone forms. Atlantic Ocean opens
  Cretaceous 144. Extensive swamps; limestone and alluvial desposition. Continents move apart

Cenozoic:

Tertiary Period

• Paleocene 65. Extensive land subsidence; widespread volcanic activity
  Eocene 54.9. Mountain formation and glaciation
  Oligocene 38. Sea levels fall; new mountains form
  Miocene 24.6. Sea levels continue to
  fall; mountains erode
  Pliocene 5.1. Continents near their present positions

Quartenary Period

• Pleistocene 2. Glaciation and melt affect sea levels
  Holocene 0.01. Glaciers recede; our world emerges

*All dates given in millions of years.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well I'll say this...Rian and I are at total odds here! At this point, I will type the famous "agree to disagree" statement. Two brick walls!

oh, well! Amazing how 2 such brillant people can disagree like this! Do we have pretty vines climbing up our walls?

[samwiselvr2008]

Oh boy, as Rian knows (a little, I PMed her a while back) I have been having problems with my science teacher on this very subject. I am a Christian, so of course when my science teacher stood up and told us that evolution was treu, I began to fill a little uneasy. First, let me tell you some facts about my science teacher, all of them I do not disagree with:
1. He has very strong appinions
2. He believes in evolution
3. He believes that science can be rong, and everything in science is a theory

To continue...
I first talked, and asked, and argued. I lost the argument, but I did not give up. I went home and thought about what Mr.Tucker (the teacher) said. Second, I researched more (that is when Rian found out about it. Finallly, I thought, "should evolution be taught in schools?" And this is what I have decided so far. Evolution should be taught in public schools
but only if they also teach about creationisom and all of the other main beliefs also, it should all be said as "some people believe" or "it is possable" and stuff like that it should not be said as the treuth. So, that's that, I would post more, but my sister is nagging me about getting online, so I have to go, be back later to reply and add to this post. Tell me what ya think!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
oh, well! Amazing how 2 such brillant people can disagree like this! Do we have pretty vines climbing up our walls?

Well, we already debated it once, I think we're both too busy to go around repeating ourselves! This would be a good one for the mudpits. Bliss Ninny versus Toxic Granny.

[The Ben]

No Way! That will just mean more homework.