Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

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

Me too! I had great teachers in the math/science courses in high school. My older sister is a science teacher in middle school, and she's a good one, if I do say so myself

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Don't worry, with the way you post you've got a Gatling gun waiting in reply

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
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

But Eärniel, your Belgium info are FACTS (unless you're pulling the wool over our eyes ). Or at least, they're easy to check out. But at the point Darwin was at when he wrote that, it was NOT proven that, for instance, the traits were inheritable.

Isn't that a big difference? It was a THEORY, altho it was his opinion it would be proven to be true.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
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.

Morris/Parker DIDN'T attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin, they just said he believed it at one point in his life. So it is NOT mixing up facts.

And I'm NOT concluding that since Lamarck's theory had errors, therefore Darwin's had to have errors. I'm NOT discrediting Darwin for this.

I'll repeat it again - "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]

Originally posted by Eärniel
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.

I'm sorry, I overreacted because of feeling really attacked, esp. in the area of integrity. And THAT'S a very serious and terrible charge, IMO.

I don't think any of you guys were saying that I, personally, was deceptive, but many of you are accusing creationists, wholesale, of quote-mining. And I believe creationism to be the best model. And I would NOT believe this if I saw continued evidence of dishonesty in the field. So I was feeling pretty attacked and just overreacted. Sorry, Eärniel, and sorry, Eärniel's biology book .

BTW, I think many of you guys are over-reacting with the quote-mining charge. I think any evolutionist who is honest will admit that there are some problem areas with the theory, just like Darwin did. And they will try to come up with answers for those problem areas, just like Darwin tried. And some might work, and some might not. But it is NOT quote-mining for creationists to quote an evolutionist talking about a problem area, IMO. Nor is it quote-mining for an evolutionist to quote a creationist talking about a problem area, IMO. But it IS dishonest to take a quote out of context, to take out bits w/o putting in ellipses or some other indicator (and Morris/Parker DID use ellipses and brackets, BTW - I hope you noticed that), or to try to use the quote to deceive.

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.

I think it is an important thing to put in, because it definitely shows Darwin's thoughts on how new traits came about when he first posed the theory. And thinking they came by use/disuse VASTLY underestimates the problem, IMO. And if he knew that new traits DIDN'T come about by use/disuse, I think his O. of Sp. would probably have been very different.

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.

Sorry again, Eärniel I know you're not afraid of admitting you're wrong - from everything I've seen of you, I think you have a lot of integrity, scientific and otherwise.

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.

Again, it's not a credibility issue, but I think I've already explained enough on this subject (let me know if I need to more, tho )

[Rían]

Originally posted by 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.

And I would not see those eyes as "plausible sequences", but as a variety of wonderfully designed eyes suited to differing environments and needs. I would agree that every TYPE (not stage) is "clearly useful to its posessor". I just disagree that they are steps in a sequence of increasing complexity. IOW, I can see how they are ordered in terms of increasing complexity, but I see NO compelling reason to say that the order IMPLIES that one level will evolve (in the sense of natural selection operating on random mutations) into another level. In fact, I would say that a conceptual eye-thing that is neither one nor another type of eye would NOT be selected for, since I don't think it would work.

Do you see what I mean? A list of increasing complexity does NOT in itself imply macro evolution (which is what it would involve, IMO). Would you agree?

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.

I saw this idea a little while ago, I'll have to look into it some more. To me, tho, the eye sure seems to work in an amazing fashion, and it makes sense to think that areas that we don't understand are just because of lack of knowledge (which many evolutionists say about things that THEY don't yet understand, either). But the main points are that (1) the human eye is very intricate and complex, with interrelated parts, as Darwin observed, and (2) the human eye .... WORKS GREAT!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
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.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, so could you fill me in, if you know off the top of your head (or can quickly find it) - you say we have to examine "other species in the fossil record" - now this implies to me that we have at least SOME fossil info on eyes. How much is there, if you have that figure? I'm curious.

And the whole eye issue raises the interesting topic of homology and convergence/divergence, which to me raises some real problems for evolutionists, IMO.

[Rían]

Still no comments on my initial "evidence for creationism" post about the fossil record ....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think it is an important thing to put in, because it definitely shows Darwin's thoughts on how new traits came about when he first posed the theory. And thinking they came by use/disuse VASTLY underestimates the problem, IMO. And if he knew that new traits DIDN'T come about by use/disuse, I think his O. of Sp. would probably have been very different.

It's not a high school biology class's requirement to teach the history of the theory. They may touch on it - but the purpose of the class is to learn the LATEST theory and facts. If Darwin said something that was found to be in correct 100 year ago - it has little bearing on what we know today. If they purely taught Darwin and didn't extend into the latest theories and didn't mention how he was wrong - that would give students a misunderstanding of what we know today.

Again - a lot of what I have a problem with that quote is the fact that it is used to show that Darwin didn't know everything and was questioning evolution. First oif all he was not questioning evolution - he was using that as an introduction to his hypothesis and as an example to demonstrate how it is conceivable for the complex eye to have evolved from a simpler eye. Second - of course he had questions and didn't understand everything - it was ONE HUNDRED years ago. The very beginning of the theory. Genetics weren't understood. So much of what we know today wasn't understood. The PCs we take for granted today are ONLY 20 years old. A lot has changed in the last 20 years let alone since the late 1800's (flight was believed to be an impossibility then).

[Rían]

I guess we just have different opinions on whether or not it should be included, JD

And here's your laugh for the day - I remember when .... *drum roll* .... the FIRST HARD DRIVES FOR PC's CAME OUT!! They were .... *drum roll* .... 10 MEG!

We thought we'd NEVER fill up 10 meg!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Still no comments on my initial "evidence for creationism" post about the fossil record ....

look again... And where is the evidence that there is a problem resolving evolution to the fossil record? Those quotes were not informational.

Here's a quote:

from Invertebrate Fossils (Moore, Lalicker, Fischer)

The fossil record shows indisputable proof of change and gradual development of life through time.

and

In summation, nearly a dozen lines of evidence, each measurably independent of all others, convergently support the theory of evolution. None conflicts.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But Eärniel, your Belgium info are FACTS (unless you're pulling the wool over our eyes ). Or at least, they're easy to check out. But at the point Darwin was at when he wrote that, it was NOT proven that, for instance, the traits were inheritable.

Isn't that a big difference? It was a THEORY, altho it was his opinion it would be proven to be true.

As Sheeana pointed out, the gradations of the eye were quite well-known in Darwin's time ( though certainly not as well known as now);
as for the inheritably of traits, the first section of the "Origins" is devoted to exactly that: showing how domestic breeds were developed simply by taking chance variations and breeding them in the desired direction.

The principle of breeding new varieties by selecting inheritable traits is as old as agriculture. In Darwin's time the commercialization of agriculture had turned this into a very intensively studied field.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, no answer from GrayMouser yet, but I'll start.



(I'll be using mostly the Morris/Parker book, What is Creation Science, for reference, because I think it's well-written for laypeople with scientific backgrounds, like many of us here. I don't know of any Mooters that have PhDs in any of the sciences.)

Fossil Evidence for Creationism
I think there's several areas that can be covered first - according to the creationist model, you should find variation among type, not changes from type to type. Also, extinction is evident, just as it is today. Also, the same types of classification should work for complete-enough fossil remains as well as today's specimens. Also, constructs should be tied to use, not evolutionary development.

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

.

That is because that was the first period when hard body parts developed.

Since soft body tissues fossilize only in very special conditions, there's not going to be a lot of fossils from before that.

(I don't know about you, but the leftover Christmas cranberry sauce in my fridge is pretty-well decomposed by March at the latest.)

However many more fossils from the preCambrian have been discovered in the last few years, and show that the development from simple one-celled organisms to larger and more complex types was well on the way before the Cambrian Explosion.


[quote]Oh, right. The PRE-Ediacaran record consists basically of single celled organisms or aggregates thereof, i.e. algae-like and bacteria-like. We do find very similar rock lithologies below Ediacaran fossil-bearing rocks, indicative of similar environments, but, with one or two possible exceptions, there are no obviously metazoan fossils. In South Australia, the first Ediacaran fossils occur in eroded channels, suggesting a period of erosion and lower sea level prior to the deposition of fossil-bearing sediments. However, it is becoming clear that the Ediacara fauna can be divided into separate assemblages, with the most diverse and disparate (variation in bodyplan) occurring at the highest (youngest) levels. So while the Ediacaran fauna tends to emerge into the taphonomic spotlight with very little fanfare, the earliest appearances have relatively low disparity.

>I have heard
>suggested several times that the Cambrian explosion might be an artifact
>of fossil preservation, and I was wondering how much data we have to test
>that hypothesis.

Well one explosion is. There are two aspects to Early Cambrian evolution which although separate are often confused as one and the same. One is the rapid diversification of life during the earliest Cambrian, and the other is the rapid appearance of organisms in the fossil record. Neither event was instantaneous.

The rapid diversification of life in the earliest Cambrian was almost certainly derived from a pre-existing stem stock of organisms, representatives of which appear in the Ediacaran fauna. [quote].

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec97.html

One of the problems with these type of discussions is that they tend to degenerate into duelling websites.

[GrayMouser]

Rian, what do you mean by the term "age/zone"?

Since you are relying a lot on Morris, I assume you are arguing a Young Earth Creationist model.

In which case, among the fossils found alongside the trilobites, nautiloids etc should be modern fish, itchyosaurs, whales, and the odd pre-Deluge shipwreck.

[Cirdan]

...and trilobites, annelids, and other "complex" organisms are dated into the Pre-Cambrian. The Cambrian "explosian" refers more to the diversity within types (and the abundance of fossils, conveniently above the general non-conformity). Pelecypods and bryozoans didn't get going until the Ordovician. Why the long wait?

Are we debating the age of the earth? I thought that had been run around pretty good earlier but I'll give it a second run, if anyone wants.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But Eärniel, your Belgium info are FACTS (unless you're pulling the wool over our eyes ). Or at least, they're easy to check out. But at the point Darwin was at when he wrote that, it was NOT proven that, for instance, the traits were inheritable.

Heehee.

I think that some of the points that Darwin wrote were either provable in his time or acceptable educated assumptions. I'm really no expert on this matter. But my guess is that he would never have written about the inheritable traits if he hadn't had some ground to accept that they were inheritable.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Morris/Parker DIDN'T attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin, they just said he believed it at one point in his life. So it is NOT mixing up facts.

I'm not saying he/they/whatever does. I haven't read the book so I won't judge. My reaction was aimed at this quote:

So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees.

It sounded to me that it said that the stretching theory was Darwin's. But it isn't. This is what I meant with mixing up facts. If I misinterpreted it, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'll repeat it again - "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."

I hear you, I just don't seem to grasp the significance of it. We all know nobody gets a theory right the first time. This is only of significance to someone who want to know in dept, in detail how Darwin's thinkingprocess went to finally come to his theory. Right? Or am I finally becoming dense? There are dosens of little things like this that will have had effect on what and how Darwin was thinking when he was trying to form his theory. But to list them all goes way beyond the things highschoolstudents should learn. It takes the focus off the main issue: Darwin's theory. If they all have to know the side- facts they won't be able to see the wood through the trees anymore. Or was it the other way around? Oh drat, I AM becoming dense!

Oh, BTW my biology book says 'No hard feelings'. I think it was actually pretty proud of himself for being mistaken for a higher education book instead of a highschoolbook. Also, I'm sorry if I gave you the feeling of being attacked. Really didn't mean to.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Oh, BTW my biology book says 'No hard feelings'. I think it was actually pretty proud of himself for being mistaken for a higher education book instead of a highschoolbook.

Tell your biology book "thanks", and that if I ever get to Belgium perhaps it can have an enjoyable visit with my physics books and that I expect my copy of Origin of Species to arrive tomorrow (along with War of the Jewels! Yay! Hmm, which shall I read first? WoTJ!!!!)

[cassiopeia]

Wow, I leave for a few days and you guys post five pages. Yes, I had two maths exams. I would say 'maths is my favorite subject', since we're talking about one subject. (Actually, after the exams I've just had, I would NOT be saying maths is my favorite subject for a while.)

Rian: I didn't see your response to the 'Earth moving' thing. I posted something (I can't remember if it was on this thread, or the religion thread) and I thought nobody responded to it.

It seems I've come too late to respond to your first argument. I'm looking for to arguments about the flood and the second law of thermodynamics.

And I don't think Darwin's opinion on the eye is relevent. This was about 150 years ago, and we have learnt so much since then. Yes, he published the theory first, but it doesn't mean his views are relevent today. It's like asking Leonardo da Vinci about helicopters. Even though he thought up some designs, I doubt he would know very much about the helicopters of today.

[Rían]

Congrats on finishing maths!

I responded to the Earth moving thing, and I"ll try to find it later tonight - right now I'm madly trying to get people out the door to various places .... eep, there goes the pasta boiling over!!!

[Rían]

Here it is, cass - unmoving/stable earth