Should evolution be taught in schools?

[jerseydevil]

Well the moths were never used to show "evolution" it was used to show natural selection - which is a PIECE of evolution. I had seen the pictures of the moths on trees - that doesn't mean anything. The example that we were given was the height of the industrial age. Whereas before the industrial age - the white moths would survive and the black mosts would be eaten my predators - during the industrial age this was reversed. During the Industrial age - buildings, trees, everything was covered in a thick black dust. This was especially true in London. White moths now showed up against the black soot and were now eaten by predators and the black moths now blended in with their surroundings.

Rian's argument about moths or anything else so far does not disprove or even put a wrench in the theory of evolution.

[Rían]

I'm too tired tonite to go any further, but disproving evolution was NOT my point, JD.

I'll see you guys tomorrow

[Rían]

Hobbit - I'm heading off to bed now, so I'll post some links/refs tomorrow.

I was trying to remember what year I saw the moth pictures. It was definitely in high school, but back in my time, HS was 10th thru 12th. You will prob. see the pics this coming year.

JD, did you see the moth pics in a school textbook? If so, what year, if you remember?

g'nite!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
JD, did you see the moth pics in a school textbook? If so, what year, if you remember?

For me it would have been in 4th or the beginning of 5th grade because I remember learning about the moths in St Peters in Pt Pleasant. It was probably 4th grade though.

[Rían]

4th grade, huh? Well, schools are different all over the country, aren't they?!

I really can't remember exactly when I heard the moth example, but I remember those pictures vividly. I also remember the embryo drawings vividly - showing how similar embryos for different animals were. Do you remember those?

Anyone else remember the moth and/or embryo pictures?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But first - the Peppered moths!

Rian, I have no problem with the point that there are integrity problems with the peppered/birmingham moths - but where is the proof of your statement? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the moths subsisted partially on the lichen that grows on the bark. But yes - there are integrity problems with the example - science textbooks hardly ever, if at all, mention that there was a transitory/inter-mediate moth as well, that was between the black and the grey.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not sure of this, but aren't the moths nocturnal?

[Ruinel]

JD is right. The moths were used as an example to show natural selection. Nat'l Selection is a part of the process for the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is 'change over time'.

My two cents: theory of evolution should be taught in schools. But theory of creation as taught through the christian bible should not, unless you bring the creation stories of ALL religions into the classroom. Our country (USA) has laws that govern a separation of church and state. Unless direct evidence can be provided to prove that the christian god created the universe, this world and all the life within it, it should be eliminated from the science classroom of all . However, it can not be proven. That is the trouble with religions, they are based on faith in the stories. I would be just as upset if any religion's creation story was being taught in a science classroom (that I pay taxes for) as an alternative to the evidence at hand.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Ruinel
JD is right. The moths were used as an example to show natural selection.

Yes, it certainly is used to demonstrate adaptation in action, NOT evolution in action.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well the moths were never used to show "evolution" it was used to show natural selection - which is a PIECE of evolution. ...

Yes, I agree, and if you reread my post you'll see that I objected to people saying it proved evolution, when all it did was demonstrate natural selection. And NS is a PIECE of evolution, as you stated, but also a piece of creationism - in creationism, it is the mechanism of variation WITHIN species.

What I object to is when NS is used to "prove" macro-evolution. At the MOST, NS could be used as a jumping-off point for a logical INFERENCE of macro evolution - it is NOT proof, by any means, since macro-evolution has never been observed.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B]JD is right. The moths were used as an example to show natural selection. Nat'l Selection is a part of the process for the Theory of Evolution.

Again, I agree with JD and you. What I objected to was the incorrect statement that the moths proved evolution. But I still say NS only shows MICRO evolution; not MACRO evolution. Do you agree?

Evolution is 'change over time'.

Creationists have no problem with change, either. Where we differ is the TYPE of change that we think takes place. Evolutionists say that in addition to micro-evolution changes, that MACRO evolution changes (fish to philosopher) can also take place. Creationists agree with micro, but disagree with macro. You need to define what you mean by "change", or I'll just say does the theory of evolution say that eventually I'll evolve into a Corvette? That's a change, too!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Yes, it certainly is used to demonstrate adaptation in action, NOT evolution in action.

I heartily agree with you But many people with less scientific expose will make the "evolution in action" error.

[Rían]

whoops, just re-read your quote, Sheeana - by "adaptation", do you mean natural selection of the individuals with characteristics most favorable to survival in their current environment?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again, I agree with JD and you. What I objected to was the incorrect statement that the moths proved evolution. But I still say NS only shows MICRO evolution; not MACRO evolution. Do you agree?

I've never heard it being used as PROOF of evolution - only as a piece of evolution. Can you show anywhere where it has been used in this fashion?

Creationists have no problem with change, either. Where we differ is the TYPE of change that we think takes place. Evolutionists say that in addition to micro-evolution changes, that MACRO evolution changes (fish to philosopher) can also take place. Creationists agree with micro, but disagree with macro. You need to define what you mean by "change", or I'll just say does the theory of evolution say that eventually I'll evolve into a Corvette? That's a change, too!

You pick out the most impossible things to make your points.

All animals, fish and every living creature have a basic framework - unlike a human and a car. You can easily see how we could have evolved from a fish to a walking human if you actually look at it. You can also see how a one cell organism turns into a multi-ceill organism too. We all grow from two distinct cells - an egg and a sperm and grow into a human. During the embryonic stage we are indisinguishable from a fish, chicken, dog or any other animal. This is a result of the DNA that all animals share.

I really don't see why you have such a hard time accepting evolution other than the fact it would throw your beliefs into disarray.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Rian, I have no problem with the point that there are integrity problems with the peppered/birmingham moths - but where is the proof of your statement? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the moths subsisted partially on the lichen that grows on the bark. But yes - there are integrity problems with the example - science textbooks hardly ever, if at all, mention that there was a transitory/inter-mediate moth as well, that was between the black and the grey.

The problem I have with the moth experiment (besides its being improperly used to "prove" evolution, which we've cleared up) is that it is still being used in current textbooks, despite both serious flaws in the experiment and serious integrity issues with the photographs. To me, this is a HUGE indicator that evolutionists are so invested in their theory that they have stooped to deception. And that is certainly a major problem.

A brief description of flaws/problems with the experiment:

1. expected moth color ratios in places other than Birmingham and Dorset were NOT observed in heavily polluted Manchester (where one would expect to see mainly darks) and rural Wales and East Anglia (where one would expect to see mainly lights). So there must be other factors involved. Also, after anti-pollution laws passed, the number of darks decreased around London, as expected, but INCREASED in the south. Again, NOT what would be predicted, so the natural selection was not as major a factor as advertised.
   
2. Also, the role of lichens were exaggerated - when pollution went down, the reversal occurred in places, but WITHOUT the predicted return of lichens. Since the hiding places need to recover BEFORE the hider, the role of lichens was also overstated.
   
3. The above 2 problems with the experiment pointed to a deeper problem - Kettlewell's experiment, and most other experiments performed in the 60's and 70's, didn't even use the natural resting places of peppered moths! This is a HUGE problem with the experiment, and enough, IMO, to have it declared invalid. Kettlewell only released moths at night ONE TIME (June 18, 1955), then gave it up because of the associated problems. But peppered moths are night-flyers!! They normally find resting places on trees before dawn, and NOT on tree trunks. Kettlewell wrote "I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees." But he assumed that he could ignore that point. MAJOR wrong methodology for a scientific experiment.
   
4. Before the 80's most investigators thought the same way as Kettlewell and even conducted their experiments with DEAD moths glued or pinned to tree trunks. Kettlewell thought this was a bad idea, to give him credit. Since the 80's, evidence shows that the natural resting place of the moth is beneath small, horizontal branches high up in the tree. Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola noted that "night-active moths, released in an illumination bright enough for the human eye, may well choose their resting sites as soon as possible and most probably atypically." (emphasis mine) And another person who had 25 years of field work found only ONE peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk - he concluded that they knew primarily "where the moths do not spend the day."

(to be continued - this post was getting pretty long)

[Rían]

Here's the refs:

1. J. A. Bishop, "An experimental study of the cline of industrial melanism in Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) between urban Liverpool and rual North Wales," Journal of Animal Ecology 41 (1972), pp. 209-243;
   
   R. C. Steward, "Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth, Biston betularia (L.)," Ecological Entomology 2 (1977), pp. 231-243
   
2. D. R. Lees, E. R. Creed, and L. G. Duckett, "Atmospheric pollution and industrial melanism," Heredity 30 (1073), pp. 227-232
   
3. Kettlewell's one attempt to release moths at dawn is described in : Bernard Kettlewell, The Evolution of Melanism, p. 129;
   
   Kettlewell's quote is in : H. B. D. Kettlewell, "Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera,", Heridity 9 (1955), ppg. 323-342.
   
4. Research including dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks includes : C. A. Clark and P. M. Sheppard, "A local survey of the distribution of industrial melanic forms in the moth Biston betularia and estimates of the selective values of these in an industrial environment", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 165 (1966), pp. 424-429
   
   Kettlewell's misgivings about using dead moths is in the above-mentioned The Evolution of Melanism, p. 150
   
   For evidence on the actual resting place of moths, see : K. Mikkola, "On the selective forces acting in the industrial melanism of Biston and Oligia moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae and Noctuidae)," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 (1984), pp. 409-421
   
   On the staged photographs - a 1975 photo using torpid live moths is in J. A. Bishop and Laurence M. Cook, "Moths, Melanism and Clean Air", Scientific American 232 (1975), pp. 90-99.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Creationists have no problem with change, either. Where we differ is the TYPE of change that we think takes place. Evolutionists say that in addition to micro-evolution changes, that MACRO evolution changes (fish to philosopher) can also take place. Creationists agree with micro, but disagree with macro.

But I have a problem with being told that a supernatural, omnipotent being 'poofed' the world and all it's creatures into being all at once. Where is the evidence of this sudden creation? There is none.

You need to define what you mean by "change", or I'll just say does the theory of evolution say that eventually I'll evolve into a Corvette? That's a change, too!

Don't be ridiculous. You will not evolve into anything. Be real. The time involved is over generations and generations and generations. Some changes occur over a few generations, some take millions of years. And you will not 'evolve' into a corvette... though... if you evolved into a 1963 split window coupe, could you do so in my driveway?

[MasterMothra]

i think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, since its the best theory we have to offer at this time. i tend to favor this theory more than the others at this point in time, but i do admit there are a lot of holes to be filled.

remember that theories tend to evolve or die in time. take the big bang for instance. at first no one gave that theory a chance, but over time, with the help of hubbel, einstein and hawkings, it has grown into the most plausable explanation for the creation of the universe. even during its evolution, a lot of changes were made to the foundation of the theory. einstein admitted that he was wrong when he stated the universe must be static. hubbel pointed out that the universe was ever expanding and must therefore be dynamic and so on.

my vote is yes.

[Rían]

And here's a partial list of textbooks with varying degrees of inaccuracies (there are more) :

1. Miller and Levine, Biology, 2000 edition - includes faked photos of peppered moths on tree trunks, and calls Kettlewell's work "a classic demonstration of natual selection in action." (It should have been called UN-natural, for the above-mentioned reasons - moths are NOT naturally on tree-trunks during the day!)
   
2. Guttman, Biology, 1999 edition - has the photos, and calls the peppered moth "a classic contemporary case of natural selection."
   
3. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, 1998 edition - repeats the inaccurate statement about lichens being the main factor.
   
4. Starr and Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 1998 - talks about lichens making a comeback after pollution controls, and THEN moths reverting back to lighter colors. This was NOT the case in many situations!

And the real kicker: A Canadian textbook writer who KNEW the pictures were staged used them anyway. His justification? "You have to look at the audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner?" High school students "are still very concrete in the way they learn. The advantage of this example of natural selection is that it is extremely visual. ..... We want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically." (Bob Ritter) - this quotation is from Carla Yu, "Moth-eaten Darwinism: A disproven textbook case of natural selection refuses to die," Alberta Report Newsmagazine Vol. 26, No. 15 (April 5, 1999), pp. 38-39.

Well, visual, yes; but containing some major problems that should cause it to be discarded.

I don't have any problem with natural selection! But I do have problems with situations like this where scientific integrity has been sacrificed. At the VERY least, keep the experiment but discuss the major problems with it, like the fact that the moths are NIGHT-FLYERS! and DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS!, and caption the pictures something like "A picture of a moth placed on a tree trunk to show how it blends in/stands out. However, moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

I think that if any experiment by creationists was found to be this flawed, it would have made front-page news immediately and have been immediately thrown out. Wouldn't you guys agree? Why not the same standard?

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've never heard it being used as PROOF of evolution - only as a piece of evolution. Can you show anywhere where it has been used in this fashion?

Really? because I have, in casual conversation. But on this thread, here's one - Lief. Lief later specified micro evolution, and I think in his case it was just a bit of carelessness, but the problem is that people HEAR things like that and then assume "evolution" means the ENTIRE theory, INCLUDING macro-evolution.

You pick out the most impossible things to make your points.

But JD, that's exactly WHY I picked that example. My point was that saying "evolution is change" is not enough! It's silly to think I would change into a car; I agree! So you need to define what type of change you're talking about. I also think it's silly to think a fish could change into a human, but you and I differ on this point But you MUST define terms if you're going to be able to talk about anything, wouldn't you agree?

During the embryonic stage we are indisinguishable from a fish, chicken, dog or any other animal.

I strongly disagree, and I have pictures showing major differences between embryos at 5 different stages, including fertilized egg; early cleavage; end of cleavage; gastrulation; and what Haeckel incorrectly called the "first" stage. But could we defer this until we finish with the moth? I'd like to hit the embryo thing next.

I really don't see why you have such a hard time accepting evolution other than the fact it would throw your beliefs into disarray.

oh JD, JD - why don't you believe that I'm speaking with integrity when I say that in my opinion, creationism fits the data better than evolution? Would you please do me that courtesy? I would MUCH rather be called "stupid" by you than be called "dishonest" or "deceitful" It has nothing to do with my beliefs! I truthfully believe the scientific data fits creationism better! You've probably come across some creationists before that are dishonest; but this is ME! I have almost 3000 posts here, and you've seen many of them! When have I been deceitful? PLEASE judge people on their individual merits!

I tell you again, JD, I honestly think creationism is the best fit for the data. Will you do me the courtesy of believing me? I don't mind if you disagree, but I DO mind the implications of dishonesty (IOW, that I only am supporting creationism because of my Christian beliefs).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
At the VERY least, keep the experiment but discuss the major problems with it, like the fact that the moths are NIGHT-FLYERS! and DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS!, and caption the pictures something like "A picture of a moth placed on a tree trunk to show how it blends in/stands out. However, moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

Actually - I have seen MANY moths on tree trunks and I have seen many flying during the day. Just last Thursday at Great Adventure there were 5 of them flying around together while my cousins and I waited in line for a ride.

Some kinds of moths are nocturnal - but not ALL moths.