Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Ruinel]

And now you will find the Creationists back paddling to cover their tracks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
How about the kids that don't go to church? Could we invite a preacher in for them? Was if what you say happens, and they only hear about evolution? Then they only hear one part.

It's up to the chirdren's parents to take them to the church of THEIR choice if they want to learn about a god. You say bring in a preacher - that's rather one sided. Would you be happy with a Hindu or Muslim coming in to teach you their beliefs? It's not a schools responsibility to teach BELIEFS - it's a schools responsibility to teach SCIENCE.

Because of this, I would like to repeate, "teach all or nothing" and saying what I am, I think that if an evolutionist is aloud to teach evolution (my science teacher is an evolutionist, but even if not an evolutionist, I still say...) that you should also teach the other major religions. But I still need to explain how/why evolution is a religion, so this might be pountless untill then.

Why? Religion is a belief - it has nothing to do with science. Can you tell me how creationism has any basis in science? It's the first chapter of a book that YOU BELIEVE is by god - there is no proof of it.

[corrected typos]

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
If you wouldn't mind, how would you define macro and micro evolution?

Rian, I already posted definitions of micro- and macroevolution earlier on in the thread. Here, pulled for your convenience.

Originally posted by Sheeana
Micro: within the species. (small changes at the genetic level)
Macro: At, or above the species.

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

Rian:
Also, my understanding for "selected for" or natural selection is that a certain configuration becomes more prevalent because of environmental and other issues; however, the characteristics that are being SELECTED BETWEEN are ALREADY PRESENT in the gene pool; is that roughly right?

Sort of. Sometimes, changes in the environment, or a change in niche can 'force' certain individuals to mutate at the genetic level, and that mutation may be considered to be beneficial to the gene-pool. OR, as you said, that attribute may have already been lying dormant in the gene-pool, and has suddenly become advantageous. Putting it VERY simplistically.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And now you will find the Creationists back paddling to cover their tracks.

I never said there weren't any intermediate species. On the contrary, I have been trying to give a logical explanation, based upon observed evidence, for why there are so few.

Originally posted by Sheeana
Just thought I should pull this up: what you should know about Peppered and Birmingham moths is that there was also an intermediary species as well, ie there were THREE types, not two.

I found the evidence you gave very interesting. I have one question, as well. Were these intermediate species between the moth that eventually evolved and became prominent, and did they disappear after they'd completed their evolution into the more thoroughly adapted species? Were they transitional, in other words, between the white moth and the black? Were there still any intermediates around after the evolutionary adaptive process was complete?

[Sheeana]

No, they weren't intermediates in your sense of the word. They existed prior to the industrialisation, as well as the peppered, and black. As far as I know insularia still exist, but I haven't checked.

[HOBBIT]

rian - ok it was someone else then - too many ppl and too many posts to keep everything straight. can you summarize how creation th. is rational? btw you believe in the judea/christian version, right? how is that version better than the hundreds of others from other cultures and religions that have to do with god(s)(dess)(desses) creating everything and everyone.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
No, they weren't intermediates in your sense of the word. They existed prior to the industrialisation, as well as the peppered, and black. As far as I know insularia still exist, but I haven't checked.

Then that leads me to another question. What have these insularia to do with my examples?

[HOBBIT]

Sorry for saying generally that you seemed to not agree with evolution being taught -

but the thing i was refering to - you did say it

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.

That is what that whole several sentences in that para was concerning. I was replying to basically what you said - i did not have the quote in front of me at the time. Just disregard the first sentence then - i just edited the rian part out anyway. I did not realize that you were for evolution in school but otherwised seemed against it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Thanks. Reading this article just backs up what I said in my longer exposition on this though - that the aridity is relatively new, and that it occured mid-Holocene, and that the sub-tropical jungles belonged to an earlier epoch, not the Holocene.

Yes, the jungles were in the Pleistocene Ice Age, and there were forests and grasslands there, during that period. These disappeared around 4000 B.C., when the Sahara region became a desert and began to expand.

The environment turned arid very quickly, in my opinion. Too quickly for the millions of years version of macro evolution. Evolution says that the animals change with their environment, and because of other things.

However, that is merely one instance. The World Book backs up that change, but the posted report backed up the other changes I said happened.

Are you saying that the article speaks against any part of what I posted, Sheeana? Any of the different changes in climate, which I brought up?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sorry for saying generally that you seemed to not agree with evolution being taught -

but the thing i was refering to - you did say it



That is what that whole several sentences in that para was concerning. I was replying to basically what you said - i did not have the quote in front of me at the time. Just disregard the first sentence then - i just edited the rian part out anyway. I did not realize that you were for evolution in school but otherwised seemed against it.

What she was saying was not against evolution being taught in schools, but against atheism being taught in schools.

[Cirdan]

LE, regarding your response to my previous post, I believe that SheenaBoP addressed it, but for clarification I think it is important to recognize that in the specific examples you cited it was selection for a particular trait, as opposed to new traits arising. Complex organisms carry many dormant or reccessive traits that were previously successful that come forward under times of stress.

The exception is the bacteria and other such simple organisms which has also been addressed. The quick reproductive cycle and the single celled nature of the organisms allows a quicker rate of change in the organism. A single celled organism has just one set of DNA. If it is altered then the organism's next division leads to a new type of organism (assuming viability). This does not translate well to complex multicellular organisms. It is, however, evolution; whether it is "fast" is not relevant. Fast is a relative term, Accelerated evolution would be a better description of what I think you are trying to describe. Punctuated Equllibrium has addressed the concept that change can come in varying rates and frequencies, depending on many factors, mostly environmental stresses.

I don't think I've ever disputed that climates can change rapidly. It is more likely that species that have evolved to adapt to such variable climates thrive over the long term in areas effected in this way. I don't believe you have provided us with specific species in the Sahara that you believe evolved at some unexpected rate. In privious posts you had stated that you didn't believe that migration (and I would add recessive trait selection) could account for species that appeared to exist in only one extreme of the climate range. I guess I would need specific examples of species that fit this description before I could discuss the "fast" aspect of the evolution/adaptation/selection of them.

[HOBBIT]

hmm it didnt seem like she was saying that - ill wait for rian's response. ive never seen atheism being taught in school. none of my teachers have ever said how great atheism is and how its better than religion. if anything, ive had a few nutcase religious teachers (not that they were nutcases BECAUSE of this, but they simply were).


and whats with the whole 'sheena' thingy bop.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Then that leads me to another question. What have these insularia to do with my examples?

My point is two-fold - that the peppered moth example is a bad example of "fast evolution" (because you have instances of all three prior to the industrialisation, plus it is an instance of macroevolution, not microevolution) and that the issue is more complex that led to believe.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The environment turned arid very quickly, in my opinion. Too quickly for the millions of years version of macro evolution. Evolution says that the animals change with their environment, and because of other things.

The article stated that there had been environmental changes - that I do not dispute. However, it does not state that all changes were catastrophic, nor that changes occured rapidly - as rapidly as you imply anyway. Take a look at how long the Pleistocene lasted. That doesn't indicate rapid environmentalism.

Evolution DOES NOT state that animals change with their environment. It states that organisms select for the best possible fitness - this may mean that in the case of the Sahara that adaptability to environmental fluctuations might be the best possible adaptation.

[Sheeana]

The process of Fossilization:

The word fossil actually comes from the Latin word fossilis, which means "dug up." Most fossils are excavated from sedimentary rock layers, which is rock that has formed from sediment, like sand, mud, and small pieces of rocks. Over long periods of time, these small pieces of debris are compressed (squeezed) as they are buried under more and more layers of sediment that piles up on top of it. Eventually, they are compressed into sedimentary rock. The layers that are farther down in the Earth are older than the top layers (Law of Superposition).

Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones and teeth) were formed as follows:

• Some animals were quickly buried after their death (by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc.).
  Over time, more and more sediment covered the remains.
• The parts of the animals that didn't rot (usually the harder parts likes bones and teeth) were encased in the newly-formed sediment.
• In the right circumstances (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering), parts of the animal turned into fossils over time.
• After a long time, the chemicals in the buried animals' bodies underwent a series of changes. As the bone slowly decayed, water infused with minerals seeped into the bone and replaced the chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals. The process of fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original minerals in the object with other minerals (and/or permineralization, the filling up of spaces in fossils with minerals, and/or recrystallization in which a mineral crystal changes its form).
• This process results in a heavy, rock-like copy of the original object - a fossil. The fossil has the same shape as the original object, but is chemically more like a rock! Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains, although it is saturated with silica (rock).

There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:

• unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
• permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
• replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
  carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
  recrystalization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
• authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).

Most animals did not fossilize; they simply decayed and were lost from the fossil record.

See also the study of Taphonomy.

[samwiselvr2008]

Oh boy! So much to reply to- I need to get some sleep, it's 11:22 pm where I am, and I have to get up at 4:30, my daddys picking me up and I'm gonna visit him there. I'll try to get online somehow there.

Sorry about my spelling mistakes, I'm trying, really really hard, my mom is pointing out spelling mistakes that I make in school work, but schools over for the summer, oh well, I'll try to improve (Thanks Rian, I fill special now because of what you said about that, and whoever else commented on it, my brain isn't working very well tonight, so I can't remember who.)

Anyhow, what I have been trying to say (but I geuss I can't really say what I think that good) is that the teachers is always saying that it is against the law to teach religions in public schools in my state, however, me and many other people that I know believe that evolution is a religion (I STILL need to explain that, don't I?) okay, so this is why (I can't really explain it to good) evolution is a belief, it is backed up by scientists more then other religions, but it is still a belief, because if my science teacher explained it to me correctly, then it all starts with a beleif of some sort of ball flying through space that explodes, and well I don't have time to continue with this. So when me and others are taught evolution in school, we sometimes think of it as a realigion.

Okay, my sis. is breathing over my shoulder now, I'll try to reply to this later.

P.S. whoever said that I was only supporting christianity, please go back and read the next part to my post where I say "all major religions" or something like that.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
....however, me and many other people that I know believe that evolution is a religion (I STILL need to explain that, don't I?) okay, so this is why (I can't really explain it to good) evolution is a belief, it is backed up by scientists more then other religions, but it is still a belief, because if my science teacher explained it to me correctly, then it all starts with a beleif ....

Okay Sam, thanks for attempting to explain in the short time you obviously have, why exactly you believe that the theory of Evolution is a religion. However, I'd like to point out a couple of things, if you don't mind. Firstly, the term science comes from the Latin root scientia, from scient-, sciens which means, "having knowledge." Secondly, science is about building paradigms. What this means is that the field is constantly reinventing ways in which to approach problems. Part of that criteria is to come up with a hypothesis, in which a range of experiments are used to test it to be true or false. If at the end, the results support your hypothesis, then it becomes a theory. This means that the original hypothesis has been tested with empirical data, and has been found to be the best possible answer to the problem. Because science is about shifting paradigms, it is always necessary to revisit and revamp theories with any new information that surfaces. This is what a good scientist does. Nowhere is there any mention of faith (in a supernatural being) - which is a pretty important requirement for religion. However, I do see why you think that a certain level of belief is needed for the theory of Evolution. Microevolution is observable in a lab - you can see single-cell evolution in a relatively short period of time. Macroevolution is more difficult. It relies on conclusions drawn from the fossil record, and that in itself can be problematic, due to the scarcity of the record. All that needs to be said here is that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps - the logical inferrence. But, and this is important, there is a difference between a belief, and a logical inferrence.

Finally, to believe in something does not necessarily make a religion; and in science you do not make leaps of faith - you investigate problems until you arrive at a logical conclusion, supported with empirical data. On a final note: another key difference is the opposing views - Religion is subjective, Science is supposed to be objective.

[cassiopeia]

Is the General Theory of Relativity a religion too? Or Quantum Mechanics? All hail Einstein and Pauli!

Okay, religion means:
1. Institution to express belief in a divine power.
2. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Note the key words, "divine" and "supernatural". We (evolutionists) don't believe in these things were needed to explain us being here. We believe that the scientific evidence shows that animals evolved over many, many years from 'primordial slime'; this has nothing to do with divine or supernatural powers.

It's interesting that there aren't such heated debates about, say, Quantum Mechanics; the ideas are much, much weirder.

EDIT: Oops, Sheeana, you beat me!

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
EDIT: Oops, Sheeana, you beat me!

Yeah, but yours puts it in a nutshell. Mine is just waffle.

There aren't as many debates about Quantum Mechanics just yet, cos there isn't a laymans version out yet. Just wait. It'll come, and then every joe blogs will be just as well informed about QM, as he is on the second law of thermodynamics.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
What she was saying was not against evolution being taught in schools, but against atheism being taught in schools.

Well, kinda, but not really....

*is now too tired after an incredibly long day out in the hot sun (field day at school - oh joy - NOT!) to figure out WHAT she was saying .... will figure it out after the in-laws leave tomorrow*

PS - thanks for the defs, Sheeana.

And I like that you mention the "logical inference" idea in your post to SamW - it's the "evolution is scientifically proven" line that pushes my button - when people point out (correctly) that there are some logical inferences involved, that removes the trouble spot for me.