Should evolution be taught in schools?

[MasterMothra]

what universal law states that variations always stay within the species? what forces in nature prevent a variation or mutation from producing a different species all together, given a significant amount of time?

there are none that i am currently aware of.

[Lizra]

Gradually, the lines begin to blur, it's all about time and numbers...not rigid limitations! Small increments of change, repeated exponentially. (sort of like a rumour) A moth produces a moth that's a "little" different. That one lucks out and finds an environmental niche to it's liking and is able to reproduce well. This situation easily repeats itself, a vast number of times, with each small change, the number of possibilities (from the original moth) widens on all fronts, branching out, ultimately creating a vast amount of variations from the original moth....to the point that the lines (between species) are indeed, becoming very blurred, the "X to the 2000th power" offspring seeming very *unmoth-like*. So, given enough time, the numbers are there to allow you to end up with something different. An actual "mutation" (which does happen from time to time) MIGHT cause a sharper turn in the process, leading to who knows what exciting variations. Given all the possiblities of environmental niches and situations (which seems infinite to me), the numbers tell me that most anything is possible. I follow this type of scenario easily, Magic invisible man in the sky....no.

[Sheeana]

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
what universal law states that variations always stay within the species? what forces in nature prevent a variation or mutation from producing a different species all together, given a significant amount of time?

there are none that i am currently aware of.

Just the law of universal observation. With all of the breeding we've done and seen, there's never been an observation of macro evolution. You can say "well, given enough time it might happen", but I can say with just as much justification, "well, there might be a God that is behind creation". Macro evolution is the unproven premise behind evolutionism, and an intelligent God creating a complex and intricate and interrelated creation is the unproven premise behind creationism. All we can do is look into the evidence that supports one or the other. Personally, I think the latter makes a lot more sense. Complexity comes from intelligence.

I could also say "well, given enough time, moths will change into Corvettes", and I think you guys would (justifiably) ridicule that idea. But after all, as JD (IIRC) said before, everything's just a collection of chemicals anyway. What stops me from saying that? You can SAY "given enough time", but there is no justification for it, IMO, since we've never seen any indication of any type of change happening, except variation within species, which makes perfect sense. Even with things like fruit flies where you can get many generations quickly, fruit flies produce fruit flies, ALWAYS. Do you agree?

IOW, creationism and evolution both place bounds on the type of change they expect to see. Creationism expects to see variation within species (and we see it!); evolutionism expects to see change up the ladder (species, genus, family, etc.), and we don't see it. But neither do we "see" a creator in a laboratory, of course. As I said above, neither main premise may be scientifically proven. But we can look at supporting evidence.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Gradually, the lines begin to blur, it's all about time and numbers...not rigid limitations! .... Magic invisible man in the sky....no.

But it's never been observed, Lizra and Sheeana. To be generous, the best I can honestly call it is "logical inference". But I'm being generous there, because frankly given what we HAVE observed, it seem very ILLOGICAL. We observe BOUNDS on changes, and mutations are rare, and typically neutral or HARMFUL. The number of beneficial mutations that evolutionists require for their theory to happen in real life simply staggers the mind, especially considering that there's never even been a benefical mutation ever observed.

Magic changes from moth to Corvette, or fish to man .... no.

[Cirdan]

Rian, have you ever observed an atom, an x-ray, the wind? These thinngs can only be observed indirectly by the effect they have. Observation is an unrealistic standard of proof.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But it's never been observed, Lizra and Sheeana. To be generous, the best I can honestly call it is "logical inference". But I'm being generous there, because frankly given what we HAVE observed, it seem very ILLOGICAL. We observe BOUNDS on changes, and mutations are rare, and typically neutral or HARMFUL. The number of beneficial mutations that evolutionists require for their theory to happen in real life simply staggers the mind, especially considering that there's never even been a benefical mutation ever observed.

Magic changes from moth to Corvette, or fish to man .... no.

That is so true Cirdan!


Rian.....You can't observe what takes lots of time. Plain and simple. Are you so egocentric (as a human) that if it doesn't happen in your lifespan, (or a couple of human lifespans) you can't believe it's true? Besides, evolution IS happening....all the time, all around us. It just goes on so slowly we can't "see" it. The same way mountains are made!

I feel rather ridiculous stating the obvious here. I honestly think you are just being stubborn, selectively blind...by choice, because this logical, very widely accepted scientific theory does not match what you have chosen to believe for many, many years. (Of course, believe what you wish...it's your life.) Given what we (I) have observed the theory of evolution DOES seem logical! (unless of course, you have religious "blinders" on) We only "observe" a tiny squirt of time in this world we are living in. Our little 80 year jaunt here on earth is a meaningless *piff* in the history of life on this planet. You will never "observe" evolution taking place. As I stated before, the main ingredient in the theory of evolution is time. But it is logical, and documented in many instances (please reread this thread for examples) and also in our genetic code. I am not going to stick MY head in the sand just because *change* makes me uncomfortable! Seek the truth!


What I find hard to fathom is the choice to believe in an all powerful, magic, invisible man in the sky..... who comes from ?????, and whips the whole world up with his *magic powers* in six days! Really!

Believe what you wish, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Couldn't have said it better, myself.

Thanks for the compliment! I felt sort of silly explaining the obvious!

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't understand this, cass - I must be missing something? Are you saying that once, for example, a 'z' is incorrect, it's thrown out? Then certainly after a very short time, there would be no letters left at all... Could you please re-word or something?

Plus that example does NOT take into account that there are differing frequencies of letters. By the mechanism of chance, all letters would be chosen approx. the same amount of time, so there would be NO WAY you could produce a language sample of any length at all. There's a good reason, after all, why we all choose roughly the same sequence of initial letters in the game of "Hangman".

Say the first word was "The". If the monkey typed 'h', it would be deleted (but it can be reused). If the monkey then typed 'i' it would be deleted but reused. If the monkey then typed in 't', then it would be kept. At most the monkey would have to type in 26 letters, which wouldn't take that long. So it's inevitable that in the long run the monkey will type out one of Shakespeare's plays, because (somehow) there's an error-correcting mechanism involved. Like evolution. Harmful mutations kill the animal. Good ones let the animal breed sucessfully.

[afro-elf]

Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance?

That IS evolution. It can be observed. Evolution is a fact.

Or are you going to say that antibiotic resistance is a myth?

[MasterMothra]

the hardest thing to do is to let go of you belief in the christian god. but once you do it, it will be like a load of bricks off your back. enabling you to concentrate on the things that matter in life, like your family and children. and for once in your life you can finally put the importance of your family, not "god", as your top priority in life.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Complexity comes from intelligence.

I don't buy that at all. What intelligence? The IMM (invisible magic man) that nobody has ever "observed"? That's like saying complexity comes from nothing, for there is certainly no proof of a God! Now, it is very logical to see, and understand that complexity can come from.....many variables, all doing different things, within a vast amount of time. That is a natural thing! Stretch your imagination! Don't confine yourself to the warbily old words in one of the many *Black Books* of the ages past!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Rian, have you ever observed an atom, an x-ray, the wind? These thinngs can only be observed indirectly by the effect they have. Observation is an unrealistic standard of proof.

They are in the present, Cirdan, and CAN be observed, either directly or indirectly (by effects on other things)

I would say that the wind and an x-ray are similar. One can measure the wavelength of an x-ray, or the speed of the wind. Our current description of the makeup of an atom is theoretical, however, and has been changed as we've improved observation techniques.

How do these 3 things compare to macro evolution? I don't see a correlation.

[Rían]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance?

That IS evolution. It can be observed. Evolution is a fact.

Or are you going to say that antibiotic resistance is a myth?

I have indeed heard of antibiotic resistance, AE That's one reason why one of the worst places to be when you're sick is a hospital! I don't think it's a myth at all. But it's not macro evolution, either. It's natural selection operating on pre-existing genetic variation.

There is no gain of information, which is essential to macro evolution, and the virus is still .... a virus.

Do you agree?

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
the hardest thing to do is to let go of you belief in the christian god. but once you do it, it will be like a load of bricks off your back. enabling you to concentrate on the things that matter in life, like your family and children. and for once in your life you can finally put the importance of your family, not "god", as your top priority in life.

I disagree, MM, and say that if it WAS like a load of bricks off your back, then you probably had some wrong teaching of what Christianity is, because I find it the most incredibly freeing thing I've ever experienced. It gives me incredible joy and freedom, and enables me to love my family and friends much better than before I was a Christian. I'm sorry it wasn't that way for you - PM me if you want to discuss it, or we can discuss it on the Offshoot thread when we're done here, if you would like to.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
How do these 3 things compare to macro evolution? I don't see a correlation.

They all must be understood by using indirect observation of related phenomena. When they happen is not important if the related phenomena show no anomalous behavior.

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Say the first word was "The". If the monkey typed 'h', it would be deleted (but it can be reused). If the monkey then typed 'i' it would be deleted but reused. If the monkey then typed in 't', then it would be kept. At most the monkey would have to type in 26 letters, which wouldn't take that long. So it's inevitable that in the long run the monkey will type out one of Shakespeare's plays, because (somehow) there's an error-correcting mechanism involved. Like evolution. Harmful mutations kill the animal. Good ones let the animal breed sucessfully.

But that seems to rather kill the point of the original analogy, IMO, which was chance operating over time. In this new analogy, there must be an intelligent being involved to have the play available, compare the play with what was just input, and correct the huge amount of errors. And the monkey would, I imagine, not methodically cycle through the alphabet, and might type in many more than 26 letters before hitting the right one. Plus, there was an intelligent being involved in producing the play to begin with. One of the essences of evolution is that it is NON-DIRECTED; there is NO GOAL; wouldn't you agree?

[Cirdan]

Resources for proofs of Macroevolution

[Rían]

Cirdan - I just took a quick look at the site, but saw several big problems - one of them on the pharyngeal pouches.

From your website -

"Example 2: vertebrate pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches

There are numerous other examples in which an organism's evolutionary history is represented temporarily in its development. ..."

I thought this idea was thrown out a long time ago...and what do ears have to do with gills? Vertebrate pharyngeal pouches turn into .... EAR parts, along with other things, NOTHING of which involves gill functions. The folds are .... folds!

[Rían]

(whoops, posted in wrong place )