Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

JD - did I say all moths were night-flyers? No, only the moth in the Kettlewell experiment!

Why are you doing this to me?

Did you see my post above yours?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
JD - did I say all moths were night-flyers? No, only the moth in the Kettlewell experiment!

Why are you doing this to me?

What am i doing? All I'm doing is disagreeing with you.

Did you see my post above yours?

No - because we cross posted. But thanks for telling me you posted again.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What am i doing? All I'm doing is disagreeing with you.

You honestly thought that I meant that ALL moths NEVER rest on tree trunks, and ALL moths all nocturnal? That's what I meant by "what are you doing".



I SHOULD have said, for my sample caption, "....However, THESE moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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.

Those are points on a thread - not in text books made by scientists.

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?

Not ridiculous terms. The thing is that animals all have things in common - all man is is an animal. We are nothing more.

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 disagree - because I've seen them too.

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'm not saying your decietful - I just don't see how you can say that the evidence points to creationism better than evolution. You just keep saying that you can't see how man could have evolved slowly through billions of years from one celled organisms - but are yet perfectly happy to accept that we just came out of no where. You haven't presented any evidence yet that supports creationism other then things that try to DISPROVE evolution. You said you were going to present the evidence when you came back - but you haven't. It's time you laid your hand on the table.

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).

Again - you haven't submitted any real prove for creationism - only things that you say makes you question evolution. In a past post you said you believe in creationism because it fits more in with Gods design. If that isn't bringing religion and belief into your argument - please tell me what it is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You honestly thought that I meant that ALL moths NEVER rest on tree trunks, and ALL moths all nocturnal? That's what I meant by "what are you doing".

You kept saying that moths are nocturnal and don't rest on trees. What was I supposed to think you meant?

I SHOULD have said, for my sample caption, "....However, THESE moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

Well if you're going to pick apart various text books for not laying out ALL the information and making numerous footnotes so everything is perfectly understood - I think it would have been best if you did the same thing you expect others to do.

[MasterMothra]

i have a problem seeing how creationism offers any scientific evidence to support its position. i wouldnt even go as far as to call creationism a theory; its a religious belief at best. creationism isnt even in the same league as evolution when it come to the legitimacy of the two. one is determined by faith alone, whereas the other is based solely on scientific study.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You kept saying that moths are nocturnal and don't rest on trees. What was I supposed to think you meant?

The context was CLEARLY the peppered moth in the Kettlewell experiment. I thought that was extremely clear. I guess it wasn't clear for you. Did anyone else think that I was saying that ALL moths are nocturnal and NO moths rest on tree trunks?

Here's some samples from my posts -

by Rian
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."

Now JD, when I say "the experiment", isn't it clear that I mean the Kettlewell experiment? And the Kettlewell experiment was with peppered moths! It's the only one I've been talking about in this topic!

by Rian
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.

How can "But peppered moths are night-flyers" be any clearer???

Over and over again, I refer to Kettlewell and peppered moths. How could you think I am saying all moths are nocturnal and none rest on tree trunks during the day? Does anyone else think I meant that?

by JD
Well if you're going to pick apart various text books for not laying out ALL the information and making numerous footnotes so everything is perfectly understood - I think it would have been best if you did the same thing you expect others to do.

No, JD, my objection was with: not disclosing major problems in a scientific experiment that is cited in many, many textbooks. It's an INTEGRITY issue, not a simple slip-up, that I'm objecting to.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
i have a problem seeing how creationism offers any scientific evidence to support its position. i wouldnt even go as far as to call creationism a theory; its a religious belief at best. creationism isnt even in the same league as evolution when it come to the legitimacy of the two. one is determined by faith alone, whereas the other is based solely on scientific study.

I agree... and since I vote... I say... no creationism in my local schools.

[Rían]

ps - hi MM! Nice to see you again! Sorry I can't talk about your posts now, I have a zillion pending questions to answer first, and sadly, charges of ignoring posts if I don't get to them right away.

[Rían]

Ruinel, if you've followed the moth discussion, do YOU think that I was saying all moths are noctural and don't spend the day on tree trunks? I thought I was very clear, but maybe I'm not as clear as I think....

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Those are points on a thread - not in text books made by scientists.

My point was that it's a common misconception that the Kettlewell experiment "proves" evolution. You asked for an example - I gave it - and now you're ignoring it? Unfair, JD.

Not ridiculous terms. The thing is that animals all have things in common - all man is is an animal.

But why ridiculous (if you're gonna push me)? Evolution says life came from non-life, doesn't it? So why not the other way, too? My point is that you need to define terms like "change" - do you agree with this?

I disagree - because I've seen them too.

OK, we'll discuss it later, then, if that's ok with you. I suggest we finish with the PEPPERED MOTH first.

I'm not saying your decietful - I just don't see how you can say that the evidence points to creationism better than evolution. You just keep saying that you can't see how man could have evolved slowly through billions of years from one celled organisms - but are yet perfectly happy to accept that we just came out of no where. You haven't presented any evidence yet that supports creationism other then things that try to DISPROVE evolution.

As I said before - BOTH evolutionism and creationism have a starting point of SOMETHING coming out of "no where"! Where did the primoral soup come from? I'll grant you a primoral soup coming out of nowhere, if you'll grant me a God coming out of nowhere. There is NO difference - we ARE here, so somewhere, at some time, something obviously came from somewhere.

You said you were going to present the evidence when you came back - but you haven't. It's time you laid your hand on the table.

Maybe you missed it, or just misunderstood it - you and I certainly seem to have communication problems, unfortunately! I said after thinking about it, I thought it was better to start a new thread, after all, about evidence for creationism, but FIRST I was going to finish up with the topic of THIS THREAD, which was about teaching evolution in schools.

Don't tell me what to do, JD ("It's time you laid your hand on the table" indeed! ) - you have no authority over me. Or go ahead and tell me what to do, but it's just a waste of your (virtual) breath, because I'll ignore it, unless I think it's the right thing to do. You are being extremely unfair, IMO - look at all the people asking me questions, and how I answer them carefully, thoughtfully and at great length - and if I don't answer them, I sometimes get complaints of "you're ignoring me" or "you don't have an answer". If I start the evidence thread, will you then accuse me of ignoring your posts on this thread? Where will it stop, JD? You are being really antagonistic towards me, IMO, and the others on this thread are not. They understand that discussions of this sort take time, and that also the person with a minority opinion will require more time, because he/she will get more questions from more people. Don't you see how many pending questions I have? How many do YOU have? I treat people with respect, but I won't take flak from people, either. And YOU are being very unfair to me, IMO.

Again - you haven't submitted any real prove for creationism - only things that you say makes you question evolution. In a past post you said you believe in creationism because it fits more in with Gods design. If that isn't bringing religion and belief into your argument - please tell me what it is.

OK, here it is for you again -

by Rian
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).

Is that clear? I believe creationism is the best fit - independently of my Christian beliefs! I also believe that creationism fits in with my Christian beliefs, but that's a COMPLETELY different topic.

JD - Will you believe me, or not? I don't care if you answer anything else in this post, but please answer me this: do you believe me or not (that I believe creationism is the best fit to the scientific data, independently of my Christian beliefs.) Yes or no? Will you believe me, or do you choose to call me a liar?

[Rían]

I have to go make dinner now, so I need to log off for awhile.

I saw several good points and questions, esp. from JD and Hobbit, a few pages back, but I don't know how I'll be able to get to them now. I'll try to touch on a few if we can finish up with the Peppered Moth (you know, the one that's nocturnal and doesn't rest on tree trunks during the day ) I'm really trying my best, but I'm so outnumbered that it's impossible to answer all questions/comments directed towards me. Thanks to everyone that has worked to keep this thread polite and logical and scientific. And special thanks to Cass, for being encouraging and understanding and patient with me.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Ruinel, if you've followed the moth discussion, do YOU think that I was saying all moths are noctural and don't spend the day on tree trunks? I thought I was very clear, but maybe I'm not as clear as I think....

Sorry... I was not following your moth discussion. I only said I agreed with the moths as examples of natural selection.

[HOBBIT]

Ah I see what the moth thing is now.

if you arent trying to disprove evolution, what are you trying to do? Natural selection does happen and it is only part of evolution. It seems like you are trying to prove creation by trying to disprove evolution. If not, what then?

I'm not telling you, but I am strongly suggesting that you get to posting your proof of creation. you should start that new topic.
We have yet to see your proof. It has been like what 3 or 4 weeks since you said you would start posting it? I know you have a life, but so do we.

Take your time but don't take too much time.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
My point was that it's a common misconception that the Kettlewell experiment "proves" evolution. You asked for an example - I gave it - and now you're ignoring it? Unfair, JD.

I'm not ignoring them. But where has it ever been stated that the experiment PROVES evolution. NO where have have I ever seen them state that. The situation demonstrates natural selection - which DOES occur and is a PART of evolution.

But why ridiculous (if you're gonna push me)? Evolution says life came from non-life, doesn't it? So why not the other way, too? My point is that you need to define terms like "change" - do you agree with this?

Actually - evolution itself doesn't say anything about where life came from in the very beginning. Evolution only addresses how life evolved from single cell to multi-cell to animals and ultimately man. it is possible that some chemical reaction occurred that brought on single celled organisms. All we are is chemical compounds - everything in our body is found in rocks, air and water.

As I said before - BOTH evolutionism and creationism have a starting point of SOMETHING coming out of "no where"! Where did the primoral soup come from? I'll grant you a primoral soup coming out of nowhere, if you'll grant me a God coming out of nowhere. There is NO difference - we ARE here, so somewhere, at some time, something obviously came from somewhere.

Evolution itself doesn't say life started out of no where. God is supposed to be "always has been - always will" - so why not the universe in some form? Why does there have to be a god?

Maybe you missed it, or just misunderstood it - you and I certainly seem to have communication problems, unfortunately! I said after thinking about it, I thought it was better to start a new thread, after all, about evidence for creationism, but FIRST I was going to finish up with the topic of THIS THREAD, which was about teaching evolution in schools.

I saw that - but you seemed to not be addressing the issue of whether evolution should be taught in school or not. There is no question that it should BE taught

Don't tell me what to do, JD ("It's time you laid your hand on the table" indeed! ) - you have no authority over me. Or go ahead and tell me what to do, but it's just a waste of your (virtual) breath, because I'll ignore it, unless I think it's the right thing to do. You are being extremely unfair, IMO - look at all the people asking me questions, and how I answer them carefully, thoughtfully and at great length - and if I don't answer them, I sometimes get complaints of "you're ignoring me" or "you don't have an answer". If I start the evidence thread, will you then accuse me of ignoring your posts on this thread? Where will it stop, JD? You are being really antagonistic towards me, IMO, and the others on this thread are not. They understand that discussions of this sort take time, and that also the person with a minority opinion will require more time, because he/she will get more questions from more people. Don't you see how many pending questions I have? How many do YOU have? I treat people with respect, but I won't take flak from people, either. And YOU are being very unfair to me, IMO.

I'm not being unfair - but you kept on saying you have proof. So far you have stated before in past posts that you don't feel evolution makes sense - because it isn't eligent and "godlike" -= not your exact words - but currently I don't have time to go back to get the post. (see post below where I quote your statement)

OK, here it is for you again -
Is that clear? I believe creationism is the best fit - independently of my Christian beliefs! I also believe that creationism fits in with my Christian beliefs, but that's a COMPLETELY different topic.

That is not what you said earlier in your support of creationism. You brought god into your argument.

JD - Will you believe me, or not? I don't care if you answer anything else in this post, but please answer me this: do you believe me or not (that I believe creationism is the best fit to the scientific data, independently of my Christian beliefs.) Yes or no? Will you believe me, or do you choose to call me a liar?

I beleive you may think that it is independent - but I don't think that is really the case. I think you need to believe in creationism because of your religious beliefs. Sorry - but from some of your past posts - it has made this clear.

[jerseydevil]

Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....

Page 61

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence.....

You mention god a lot in there in support of creationism. You question why god would create through evolution also, which I find very unscientific.

[MasterMothra]

ps - hi MM! Nice to see you again! Sorry I can't talk about your posts now, I have a zillion pending questions to answer first, and sadly, charges of ignoring posts if I don't get to them right away.

take your time rian, theres no hurry.

you dont have to answer all the posts. answer the ones you want and forget the others, thats what i do, especially with all this talk about moths, hehehe. i figured ole windgem and wayscarer would be around to help you.

i think there should be another topic dealing with creationism and the other theories about our origins

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't understand what you mean by the "Is every non-conformity in the fossil record...." sentence. And I don't understand how you put the Flood and creation at the same time. Could you explain?

Non-conformities are gaps in rock stratigraphy (eroded levels - hence gaps in the fossil record).

Creationism claims the mass extinctions are part of the flood event. The expression of the pefect designer destroying his creations, I suppose.

[GrayMouser]

Rian - nice to see you back, hope you enjoyed your trip to the Grand Canyon witnessing the millions of years of slow gradual carving of the rocks ( or do you still believe that all that was done in a few weeks/months?)

Peppered moths...
OK, first of all there's a difference between 'faked' and 'staged' when it comes to wildlife photography. Almost all pictures you see of insects are staged, because it is very difficult to get pictures of such small fast-moving creatures in natural habitats.

A picture of a wasp laying eggs on a caterpillar might be obtained by a photographer hanging around the bush waiting for the right opportunity; more likely is they'll put a caterpillar on a bush that it normally inhabits, and turn a wasp loose near it.

The pictures are not 'faked' in that they show the actual natural behavior, but they are staged.

The illustrations of the peppered moth are the same (I remember them very clearly from my biology classes); they were staged to give a clear example.

The objection to the staging comes with regard to the natural resting places of the moths; however the leading authority on the subject (Majerus) shows that the favorite resting place is at a trunk/branch joint, followed by the trunk- the very place you suggest that they don't rest. Info available at

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

scroll down till you hit the peppered moth section

BTW Rian if you have actually looked up and read e.g.

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;

more power to you;

if however you are quoting from a secondary source, such as a Creationist author, you should indicate that that is where your references come from.




[

[Cirdan]

Kettlewells' experiements are of historical interest. His marking and releasing of moth species and recapturing (using light traps) and counting them was positively brilliant. Some of these techniques are still used today (marking or tagging). In my college biology book his work is presented in the historical evolution section as opposed to the modern evolutional theory section. His work was significant but the theory of evolution in no way depends on it for proof. What then it the point of denigrating his work? It was 1845 after all and he did show natural selection quite scientifically.