Should evolution be taught in schools?

[GrayMouser]

GrayMouser - (drat! I keep spelling it "grey" - is that an American vs. British thing?)

Well, the AmE version is gray, Americans being somewhat more sensible about spelling our ridiculous language.

After fifteen years of teaching "American" I have adapted to using AmE spelling; though I note that, in my clashes on politics with JD I (quite unconsciously) reverted back to BrE

However, since my name comes from my favorite fantasy hero (small, fast, smart, slightly kinky) created by (American) Fritz Leiber, the Gray sp. is correct

IMO, saying macro is just "more" micro is like saying: "I can observe my hair changing from brown to gray (micro evolution), and look, I can even use hair coloring stuff to change it to magenta! (micro evolution with scientific intervention)- so therefore I think given lots of time, my hair will change into arms (macro evolution)." Iimproper extrapolation, because arms represent a gain in information, not just a change of already-present features or a mutation keeping things on the same level (ie, hair is still hair).

You're confusing change with evolution. Neither this example (sadly occurring in me too) nor the typing has anything to do with it , anymore than a tree shedding it's leaves does.

As has been pointed out, over and over, evolution is the accumulation of change over generations.

[GrayMouser]

GrayMouser - (drat! I keep spelling it "grey" - is that an American vs. British thing?)

Well, the AmE version is gray, Americans being somewhat more sensible about spelling our ridiculous language.

After fifteen years of teaching "American" I have adapted to using AmE spelling; though I note that, in my clashes on politics with JD I (quite unconsciously) reverted back to BrE

However, since my name comes from my favorite fantasy hero (small, fast, smart, slightly kinky) created by (American) Fritz Leiber, the Gray sp. is correct

IMO, saying macro is just "more" micro is like saying: "I can observe my hair changing from brown to gray (micro evolution), and look, I can even use hair coloring stuff to change it to magenta! (micro evolution with scientific intervention)- so therefore I think given lots of time, my hair will change into arms (macro evolution)." Iimproper extrapolation, because arms represent a gain in information, not just a change of already-present features or a mutation keeping things on the same level (ie, hair is still hair).

You're confusing change with evolution. Neither this example (sadly occurring in me too) nor the typing has anything to do with it , anymore than a tree shedding it's leaves does.

As has been pointed out, over and over, evolution is the accumulation of change over generations.

Question: what is the difference between 'micro' and 'macro'?

To an evolutionist, 'macro' is simply the accumulation of 'micro'

To a creationist, what stops the accumulation? what mechanism in the organism says this far and no farther?

A change in body size of plus 0.1% per generation doesn't take too many generations to turn a mouse into an elephant.

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]And here's comments on the rest of Cirdan's post...

But in that example, Cirdan, there is an intelligent designer behind the process!! Acc'd to evolutionism, there ISN'T intelligence behind the process, just chance and time. So why is that example any good in this situation? The intermediates, by def., had to be more SUCCESSFUL to be selected.

Major changes, such as air breathing versus water, would be diferently successful, wereas better air breathing would be competatively successful and thus replace prototypical air-breathers rapidly through micro evolutionary steps instead of macro. The use of the ID designer is not the point. It is the scarcity of fossils or prototypical types that is the point. Have you ever been fossil hunting? I was the only person in a month of field camp to find a trilobite.

But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on.

How long do you think the odds are? My biology book puts it at less that 10,000 to 1. A single cockroach lays a million eggs a year times number of female cockroaches times 100,000,000 years. That's a pretty large number. More complex species would have more complex DNA given rise to greater change of mutation.

I'm not sure how you would expect the observation and I don't know that it has not been indirectly observed. I think it would be hard to observe it as it happens if that's what you mean.

And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes. It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

The idea of PE is derived from the fossil record which shows periods of greater and lesser stasis. It is a well decumented idea with a good deal of evidence.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....
<snip>

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.

Rian said in the quote snipped above...

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.

There's two different points here.

1) She doesn't believe the evidence on its own merits.

2) She doesn't think that God would use Evolution, based on her understanding of the Creator's psychology.

Point 1 doesn't (logically) have anything to do with religious belief; it's entirely consistent for an atheist to adopt this attitude.

Point 2 doesn't (logically) have anything to do with science or evidence; who knows what the Creator was thinking?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

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...() And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway?

Why would god create a process mechanism and not use it? Do you propose that god supercedes his own physical laws? Then we are not even close to the realm of science. Resorting to magical explainations is pure metaphysics and has no place in science. What is a more intelligent design; one that adapts and grows in response to any possible environment, or one that requires making huge numbers of creations manually of which most fail?

Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense....

WHy would he bother to explain creation at all if it is not comprehesible to the listener? The biblical creation stories make no sense. Why does god need to rest? If he can create everything is just seven days, why not all at once? How long is a day when the earth hasn't been created; 24 hours still?

IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

Have you seen these footprints? One oval depression in a rock here and there. They don't even look like footprints. Find some human remains in the same age rock wich dinosaur remains and we will all be convinced. I've seen fossil human footprints in volcanic ash but at least there were human remains at that level to correlate the prints. And they occured serially, not just one here or there.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The problem I see with macro ev. vs. micro ev. is HUGE - it's beneficial mutations causing increase of information - the so-called "fish to philosophers" thing. IOW, grossly (in the scientific sense of the word) improper extrapolation. Change has boundaries - when I first started typing, it was about 10 wpm; now I type at about 90 wpm (fast little sucker, ain't I?). Does that mean in another 20 years I'll type at 200 wpm, and in another 20 years I'll type at 400 wpm? No. I think there are boundaries to change.

There are boudaries to your abilities in typing (muscular response, kinetic transfer, the qwerty keyboard). You analogy is not fact. Anaolgies are alternate ways of exprewssing ideas not ideas in and of themselves. This analogy fails as there is no identified limit to change in the original idea being demonstrated. A better analogy would be dictionaries. What limit is there to the number of words that can be added or deleted over time? None. What limit is there to the length of a word? none (think organic chemistry nomenclature).

This "'fish to philosophers' thing" is one one these so called "common sense" arguements that has no real basis in fact but is meant to sound appealling to the layman.

[Rían]

(hey Cirdan and GrayMouser, you messy fellows Could you please go back and edit your posts? My quotes and your responses are all jumbled together! And tho I imagine they're having a nice time ("pass the cream and sugar, would you, luv?" "Right, and here's a biscuit, too!"), it's hard to read the posts, so could you please segregate them?)

[Rían]

(...and btw, for those who are complaining that I didn't start with the evidence (looks in the direction of .... oh, nevermind!), I DID start, so there Here's where I started: first evidence post. So there! )

[Rían]

Originally posted by 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?

As I said several times , my point with the moth thing is that it shows a problem with scientific integrity on the part of evolutionists (not all evolutionists, but I think with the field in general, since it is still in current textbooks). This is such a MAJOR textbook example (at least in my time, and since current textbooks were cited, I think it's still a big example), and there are some MAJOR flaws in the technique (the biggest being that the PEPPERED MOTHS are nocturnal!! and the vast majority of predation tests were performed during the DAY!!! and altho in Birmingham the coloration percentages tracked with pollution, in many areas, the colorations were EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE to what was predicted!! so much for the hypothesis being a good predictor!), that I think it's a lack of scientific integrity to continue to use the experiment as a textbook example. And I think it shows that evolutionist scientists are unscientificially vested in the theory, to the point of not being willing to throw out a flawed experiment because it's such a nice visual way to get across an idea they believe is true. And that's a serious scientific integrity problem, don't you think?

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.

See previous post - I DID start, and we discussed it, then I went on vacation.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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

I said it should be taught, but that some major errors in experiments and data being used as supporting evidence should be cleared up, in the name of scientific integrity.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....[quote from Rian]
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.

But why do you ignore where I said, in that very quote, that I didn't think the EVIDENCE supported evolution? Perhaps I should have been a little clearer and said SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (altho I have often said it, I didn't say it in that quote; I thought it was obvious I was talking about scientific evidence).

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
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

Yeah, you're right, MM - there's no way I can answer them all, which is v. frustrating to me! But I suppose I need to be more realistic.

[Rían]

Originally posted by 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.

But it's not "natural" selection if the species being experimented on is nocturnal, and torpid during the day, and were released during the day when they are NOT normally flying, and choose unnatural resting places because of this, and are then eaten in unnatural circumstances. Would you agree?

Please don't think I'm trying to knock the guy down - I'm not. There is NOTHING personal about it, and I read about the marking, etc. and thought many of the things he did were careful and intelligent. However, as detailed in my post a few posts above this one, there were some big flaws in technique (NOT in the person! There is nothing personal here!) that IMO, should either cause the experiment to be removed from textbooks, or put into the historical section (like in your book) BUT WITH DESCRIPTIONS of the areas in which the experiment was flawed, because it is really misrepresenting the results otherwise, which is NOT scientific.

Would you agree?

[Rían]

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

ok, thanks

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

No, actually the expression of man's free-will choice to sin, and its terrible and tragic consequences , which in no way impugn the character of God. (see our long discussion on another thread of free will, which MM was in, BTW)

[Rían]

Originally posted by 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?)

Thanks, GM Nice to be back. Yes, the Grand Cyn was incredible! I haven't seen it for about 10 years. It's truly an awesome sight. The colors are spectacular, and change as the day goes along. Have you been able to visit there? I also saw some trilobite fossils and thought of you people! I think it probably took longer than a few weeks or months to form, but also I think it was at least partly there to begin with and was just enlarged via catastrophism (I doubt if God created the world entirely flat and featureless, IOW - too boring!). But this is just meant to share friendly thoughts and not to be scientific, so please don't quote me on that, people - please do me the courtesy of asking for a formal statement if you want to quote me on this subject

Peppered moths...

You know, GM, I read the entire section on Peppered Moths from the link you provided. I thought much of it was well-written, but I was really saddened by the unscientific tone of it - I was REALLY shocked when they used words like "frantic" and "muttering" of Wells, and when they actually used "freaked out", shock turned to disgust. Did you read the whole thing? What did you think of the use of those words in a supposedly scientific review? Why do people feel they need to use those words? I wish they wouldn't, and that they would confine themselves to scientific analysis in a scientific article.

It is clearly an evolutionist site; should I ignore it, like some do with creationist sites? No, I think I'll look at the data and ignore the use of insulting words. And I think the data is that their experts disagree with Well's experts. They basically cited only 3 authors - Majerus, Grant and Cook - and said their authors were better. I think that other authors disagree.

Also I found the sample size of n=47 to be pretty insignificant - do you?

I think that they did, however, properly point out that Wells' use of the subtitle "Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks" was incorrect, since some moths have been observed on tree trunks. I think it would be better to say something like "Peppered Moths don't typically rest on tree trunks", or prob. something even stronger, like "hardly ever", just to be exact. However, as a subtitle for a section, it might be fine, because he does, in the text, qualify that statement. And certainly as a generalization, the subtitle is true.

I don't recall their addressing the daytime torpid issue, tho, and they seemed to revert to the "well, natural selection happens, so there's no harm in using the example" rationalization. Well, IMO, if it happens (which I think it does), then go out there and do a proper experiment in honor of the many things Kettlewell did right, but don't continue using a flawed one.

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

I'll consider your request, GM, if you remove the phrase "such as a Creationist author" because that implies to me that you think that Creationist authors either (1) make up their quotes, or (2) can't get the references right. I don't think you meant it that way (I certainly HOPE you didn't mean it that way) but to me, it's an important thing to clear up.

BTW, I wondered where you got your name from - I'm glad you explained. I don't remember GrayMouser, but I liked Mighty Mouse when I was growing up - do you remember him?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But it's not "natural" selection if the species being experimented on is nocturnal, and torpid during the day, and were released during the day when they are NOT normally flying, and choose unnatural resting places because of this, and are then eaten in unnatural circumstances. Would you agree?

Only if moths in "natural circumstances" are never eaten during the day. The moths were collected at night using light traps. Both types of moths were marked, released and collected.

Please don't think I'm trying to knock the guy down - I'm not. There is NOTHING personal about it, and I read about the marking, etc. and thought many of the things he did were careful and intelligent. However, as detailed in my post a few posts above this one, there were some big flaws in technique (NOT in the person! There is nothing personal here!) that IMO, should either cause the experiment to be removed from textbooks, or put into the historical section (like in your book) BUT WITH DESCRIPTIONS of the areas in which the experiment was flawed, because it is really misrepresenting the results otherwise, which is NOT scientific.

Would you agree?

No. Even if the experiment only shows selective predation as a natural selection vector then it is a useful experiment. Simple examples like these are helpful as teaching tools, regardless of the long term scientific value. Again this passage has no bearing on the discussion. It is just a straw man arguement that proves nothing. There is certainly no evidence that any deception was practiced. The best you can muster is minor flaws of a 150 year old experiment. The level of deception in the creationist quote mining examples is much more blatant and is the root of the creationist case and not some ancillary criticism of research technique. Would that the creationists had some research to critique. I'm ready to move on to actual facts as opposed to mudslinging.

[Ruinel]

I'm reading these posts... and I'm just so disappointed. Perhaps, even today, people need to believe that all this just popped out of thin air and was created by an omnipotent supernatural being. All the evidence points away from that, but hey... who am I to squash someones religious beliefs anyway. I've seen people post that there's no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution... how sad. You know, just because you say there's no evidence, doesn't make it so. But hey... who am I to argue with someone about their irrational beliefs (about the evidence or lack of).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Only if moths in "natural circumstances" are never eaten during the day. The moths were collected at night using light traps. Both types of moths were marked, released and collected.

I guess you and I are at a standstill, then, Cirdan, at least on this point - to me it is so obvious that the moths were put in UN-natural circumstances. Why not hobble zebra out in the open and see how many get eaten by lions, instead of leaving them in their natural setting, where it's harder to count them? It seems like the same thing to me (altho not quite so extreme).

...There is certainly no evidence that any deception was practiced.

not by Kettlewell, I agree. My objection is the inclusion of the experient in current textbooks w/o pointing out the major flaws, like noctural-ness (if that's a word ), that could very conceiveably affect the results.

I'm ready to move on to actual facts as opposed to mudslinging.

How is pointing out flaws in an experiment "mudslinging"? Do you agree with me that the link that GrayMouser posted, where they referred to Wells as "muttering", "frantic" and "freaked out", is an example of mud-slinging?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I've seen people post that there's no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution... how sad.

I certainly hope you don't think that I posted that, Ruinel, because I didn't.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
My objection is the inclusion of the experient in current textbooks w/o pointing out the major flaws, like noctural-ness (if that's a word ), that could very conceiveably affect the results.

That only complicates the communication of a simple idea. All general courses use short cuts and simplified examples to communicate the basic principles. You know intro to Physics doesn't require the differential calculus that advanced physics does. Students are introduced to physics using basic equations. And unless you have experimental proof that the predation of the moths varies dependent on release method then the old "sure-fire I can tell " method just doesn't fly.

How is pointing out flaws in an experiment "mudslinging"? Do you agree with me that the link that GrayMouser posted, where they referred to Wells as "muttering", "frantic" and "freaked out", is an example of mud-slinging?

It seeks to discredit an individual as a way of impuning the science itself while producing no positive information of value. As to GM's link, I don't recall reading anything like that. What I saw was very reasonble and dispassionate. If you want to repost the one you are pointing out I would be glad to read it.