Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
How does this suppose that he is following larmarck's hypothesis here? Granted, it is perhaps true that quite a few people believed Larmarck initially, but I sincerely doubt that Darwin thought that changes came about in a lifetime of an organism after his voyage of the Beagle.

The basic premise of evolution is to have the best possible fitness. Evolution IS environment. Phenotype = Genotype + Environment. I don't really see how this quote is following Larmarck. That quote is not stating that organisms evolved in their lifetimes.

Again, the CONTEXT is that Darwin initially believed (he LATER changed his mind) that NEW TRAITS arose thru use/disuse. And that's ALL it was talking about - how new traits get here. And so it's VERY understandable that Darwin thought the new traits problem was less difficult than it is.

Eärniel - I did a search on Google and every one I came up with (I searched Darwin and pangenes) said Darwin believed in pangenes. Most say he later changed his mind, too. But when he was developing O. of Sp., it seems pretty clear that he thought new traits came from use/disuse. Let me know if you find more on this (or anyone else, too). Frankly, I think that if your biology book doesn't mention this, it's being "dishonest through omission".

[HOBBIT]

you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind about anything in his theory and that because he did several times this makes the whole thoery invalid - just the impression i got form some of your posts...... that is what science is all about.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Darwin did pose a hypothetical - that's the way all theories get their start - as observation, questioning and hypotheticals. All those things there - we KNOW happen. We know that based on conditions - over time - an organism will develop defenses or attributes.

This is NOT macro-evolution, just variation w/in a kind and natural selection.

Look at the different facial bone structures and pigments in skin around the world. That is evidence of evolution based on changing conditions and useful changes - which ARE passed on. Or are you going to tell me that if black people didn't go outside - they'd turn white? The darker pigments protect the people of Africa against the sun. As man moved away fgrom Africa - we didn't need the dark pigment anymore.

This is all based on genes that were ALREADY PRESENT. And if we lose the dark pigment, that is LOSS of information, not GAIN, which evolutionism requires. Would you agree, Sheeana and Cirdan? I think the 2 of you have the most credentials here, IIRC.

The eye is no different - it's just more complex. I'm not saying that white EVOLVED from blacks or that blacks are "less human" - just that our characteristics changed based on changing conditions of where we lived.

Based on EXISTING genetic possibilities, NOT beneficial mutations.

This is the key part the book leaves out in order to make it's point... [quote which RÃ*an also quoted]

You're saying just because Darwin said "as is certain the case" that it makes it true, w/o ANY scientific experimentation? Why JD, you've changed! Remember, JD, at this point he's just posing a hypothesis.

Remember that Darwin was at the very beginning of the evolutionary theory. This was over ONE HUNDRED years ago. Science has continued to study this and we have a much better understanding of things.

But still no proof of macro evolution. It remains, as Sheeana said (IIRC - PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, Sheeana! I have no idea what page it's on!) - it remains a LOGICAL INFERENCE.

[Sheeana]

I see. So what exactly is your point in stating this when he later recanted? He was also influenced by a great variety of other academics, not least including his grandfather (Erasmus). Here's a good link on his influences, which includes his mistaken idea on pangenesis:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/prec...smainconc.html

And here are the proponents of what is now known as Darwinism:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/prec...cursintro.html

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind..... that is what science is all about.

(My goodness - how many am I answering at once? Well, this is the last one because my daughter wants the computer! )

MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits!

Good for him for learning more and changing his mind! He really seems quite a careful scientist, from what I can tell. (this is said sincerely, btw!)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
I see. So what exactly is your point in stating this when he later recanted?

MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits.

[Rían]

Oh, here it is : macroevolution a logical inference

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Same thing here, Cirdan - what is so implausible about scientists identifying problem areas? I would REALLY worry if the scientists thought everything was peachy-keen, wouldn't you?

Yes, if that was the original point. It is dishonest to quote someone's posit of doubt without quoting his response to it. It distorts the original intent. The big, big lies about the dating of the fossil record, the transitional species, etc are not supported anywhere by any of the authors misquoted in support of them.

[Sheeana]

Before I answer some of your queries, Rian, I just want to further mention some aspects of the eye, which I think are important. Firstly, Darwin himself said that familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor.

Secondly, as Frank Zindel (biologist) mentions, "...unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors." My point in quoting him is that I want to make it clear that the human eye is not the perfect pinnacle of random chance - it is imperfect. Therefore, it would seem more likely that the eye was subject to a series of not necessarily progressive developments.

Finally, we must remember that attributes such as eyes don't survive the fossil record. Therefore, it is very difficult to follow the development of the eye. For this, we have to turn to comparative means, such as examining other species in the fossil record. That the eye problem has not been solved, at least to some extent, is simply not true.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You're saying just ecause Darwin said "as is certain the case" that it makes it true, w/o ANY scientific experimentation? Why JD, you've changed! Remember, JD, at this point he's just posing a hypothesis.

No I haven't changed - and here you go misquoting. Where did I say because he said it - it made it true? I said that all theories START out with asking questions and developing a hypothesis. The book you used though gives the impression that Darwin didn't believe the eye could have evolved - or that it would be very difficult. Whereas in the part that was left out - Darwin gives several reasons for why it IS POSSIBLE and that it would take further study.

I also said that Darwin was over 100 years ago and A LOT of study has been done since then. Of crouse he didn't know everything - anymore than Ben Franklin knew that we'd have the internet when he flew his kite with the key and "discovered" electricity or that you could use electricity to provide light.

[Rían]

So what are the opinions of the evolutionists on my first post, as far as evidence FOR the creationist theory? (I'll drop the punctuated equilibrium for now)

[Rían]

ps -

Cirdan, I did a search of your posts with "hexacorals" and "hexacoral", and only found the one you posted today, where you referred to posts about hexacorals Can you direct me to your post(s)?

Eärniel - please be sure you read the posts on pangenes, since what you read in your biology book seemed to imply an integrity problem with what Morris/Parker were saying, and now it seems clear that they were correct.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I say "If I was born in Belgium, as is the case and if I have lived in Belgium all my life, as is the case also I would most likely have Belgian nationality."

I state the [EDIT:conditions] for me having to have Belgian nationality. I also point out that they are met. Do I use 'if'? Yes. Do I doubt that I was born and live in Belgium? No. Do I have any difficulties with the fact whether or not I live in Belgium? No. Because I said: 'as is the case'. Do I have Belgian nationality? I do. I don't see why Darwin's quote doesn't work the same way.

More's to follow, but it's feeding time.

[EDIT]: used the wrong word

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, Darwin said that they were more successful and got selected, but he also was quoted as saying that new traits came about "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment." IOW, he believed Lamarck's idea.

But that's not the point. Darwin may have based his theory on Lamarck's and may have kept some elements of it. But to attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin is definately mixing up facts. Especially since it opens up the road to false conclusions that since Lamarck's theory had errors, Darwin's naturally has to have them too. You can't discredit Darwin just because at some point in his life he believed in another theory. In the end he had his own theory and THAT's on which we should judge Darwin.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Let's try to look into this some more, because I think that your biology book is RIGHT saying that the idea was Lamarck's, but I think they are omitting ON PURPOSE that Darwin thought the idea was correct. And that is a serious omission, IMO.

Wow, wow, wow, not so fast on dissing my biologybook! It may have been 5 years since I had to learn from it but it deserves some respect. Since I can't be bothered to type the entire book out and translate it, you can't see for yourself wether it wrongfully omitted things or purposefully misinterpreted them.

Also I don't see- I really don't- why that is a serious omission. The things that have to be put in the book are the different theories, NOT what their writers may have believed at times. I sincerely doubt that at the time that Darwin had worked out his own theory, he still believed 100% in Lamarck. In any case it's not ON PURPOSE omitted (thinking about some evolutionist conspiracy, RÃ*an? ) it's just not deemed important.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
People, you don't need to worry about admitting I'm right every once in awhile (of course, only if you think I am). That will NOT turn you into a creationist! Don't worry!

I'm not afraid of admitting my wrong, RÃ*an. And let me assure you that I don't immediatly regard your posts as unscientific and therefore wrong (as you posted earlier). It's just that I sometimes tend to disagree with what you write, that's all.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Eärniel - I did a search on Google and every one I came up with (I searched Darwin and pangenes) said Darwin believed in pangenes. Most say he later changed his mind, too. But when he was developing O. of Sp., it seems pretty clear that he thought new traits came from use/disuse. Let me know if you find more on this (or anyone else, too). Frankly, I think that if your biology book doesn't mention this, it's being "dishonest through omission".

And again we're being hard on my poor biology book. Pangenes are not mentioned by name in my old book though it mentions shortly how Darwin thought the specific traits were passed on even without possessing much knowlegde of genectics. But if pangenes are NOT part the final version of Darwin's theory but only a 'between-theory', it indeed has no use dragging them into the book. In my eyes it's rightly omitted then. Don't forget it was a biology book for highschool students. It is meant to give a detailed introduction, not a extensive study for biology students.

I really don't see the problem with somebody's credibility if he changes his mind once or twice..... It's the final theory that matters, not the entire lists of work-ideas.

[Sheeana]

One thing I'd like to further discuss: high school biology and university level biology are on two different levels. My high school teachers were never shy about admitting that they weren't experts in the field, and that what they were teaching was grossly simplified. In fact, on my first day of class at uni, my biological anthropology lecturer said, "Now, let's unlearn all that stuff that you picked up in high school..." There's also the time-frame - 2-3 weeks in high school, and 12 weeks at uni. Let's be a realistic about the so-called omissions from Earniel's biology book.

[HOBBIT]

what do you mean by 2-3 weeks at high school... next year i'm going into honors biology and it is a full year course... 180 days of school, much more than 3 school weeks. Maybe I'm missing what you mean by that...

[Cirdan]

...prolly the amount of time covering evolution specifically as opposed to biology generally.

[HOBBIT]

thats what i thought. I wonder how much they will cover it next school year. 2-3 weeks seems like a lot. I figured maybe a few days on evolution. I'll let you all know in september! (or whenver we get to evolution, how long we spend on it).

[Sheeana]

Yep, I should have probably made that more clear. I meant the amount of time we spent in biology class covering the Human Evolution segment, versus the amount of time we spent covering it as a stage one (entry level) paper at uni.

Edit: I hope you enjoy the class, Tristan. I had a huge amount of fun in biology.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind about anything in his theory and that because he did several times this makes the whole thoery invalid - just the impression i got form some of your posts...... that is what science is all about.

No, that's certainly not what I mean! Did you see my answer to you on this?

ps - good luck on your last few days of school, IIRC today and tomorrow!

and a "good luck" to cass, too - IIRC she has major tests today and tomorrow, too, including 2 in maths.

Which brings up a question for you Brit-speak people - we Yanks say "math", you guys say "maths" (I suppose we take the first 4 letters, and you take the first 4 plus the final "s"). I would say "Math is one of my favorite subjects" (it was!). Would you guys say "Maths IS one of my favorite subjects", or "Maths ARE one of ..."? Just wondering if it's considered singular or plural (pardon my Yankee ignorance )