Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And BeardofPants, jerseydevil, whoever out there has some knowledge of evolution and this kind of thing, I don't want to be holding a private conversation with Cirdan. I'd rather hear of your opinions on this as well.
I don't have any special knowledge of evolution, but I may be able to comment within the framework of the examples you cite.

If it is possible for entire regions to change their climate and vegetation in such ways, it would seem to me likely that the fauna (which have legs, fins and wings, unlike plants - except ents of course) would follow to the areas which suited their form and function. "Follow" may even be a contentious word; from evolutionary first principles, they would die out in all areas except those which suited them. Also, there is no biological reason why a relatively small vestigial population of (say) elephants couldn't expand to fill a new, vacant niche in a relatively short period of time (hundreds rather than thousands of years).

Are you saying that there were NO (say) elephant-friendly environments during these periods? If so, I think the onus is on you to come up with some better evidence than a suggestion to search on Google.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Dunadan
So, either God exists or the world is just a chance combination of molecules. This is what I find depressing about Christianity: the idea that love derives from God, not from us. I also find it to be arrogant to relegate my most profound experiences to some bloke in a robe poking about in my subconscious.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was unintentional. I personally don't find it depressing to think that I am able to experience these things because God has put some of his nature in me. And I can think of many people who might feel it depressing to think of some of these experiences as being derived simply from lower forms of life through natural selection. Nor does it have to be an either/or. What I was wondering is whether people believe that these things have intrinsic meaning or whether they only result as a chance combination of molecules and natural selection. If a person does choose that it is intrinsic, then there is also the question of whether our ability to perceive these things does imply intelligent design or not. Also, do you have to call God a "bloke in a robe?" I guess it is an indication of where you have formed your image of God, or of the Christian image of God, but it really doesn't harmonize with my image of God at all.

Doesn't this externalise love, taking it beyond the individual? In turn, doesn't this process reduce the individual's responsibility in the matter of morality, thereby permitting the rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history? [/QUOTE]

I really don't see this as externalizing love, not if God put a part of His nature in us (i.e. made man and woman in God's image). And, if a person can turn to God for help in the area of morality, I think it increases rather than decreases that person's responsibility. On the other hand, thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility. However, I am very open to hearing alternative views than these. Again -- very sorry if I offended you.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I'm sorry if I offended you. It was unintentional. I personally don't find it depressing to think that I am able to experience these things because God has put some of his nature in me. And I can think of many people who might feel it depressing to think of some of these experiences as being derived simply from lower forms of life through natural selection. Nor does it have to be an either/or. What I was wondering is whether people believe that these things have intrinsic meaning or whether they only result as a chance combination of molecules and natural selection. If a person does choose that it is intrinsic, then there is also the question of whether our ability to perceive these things does imply intelligent design or not. Also, do you have to call God a "bloke in a robe?" I guess it is an indication of where you have formed your image of God, or of the Christian image of God, but it really doesn't harmonize with my image of God at all.

IMO, this was extremely well-stated, so I'm quoting it. It relates back (WAAAY back, probably 10 pages or so) to my discussion on the presence of moral values in all peoples. Are these observable moral values just another chance development? How are they explanable via the th. of evol.? Do you think that they have an intrinsic meaning? Do you really think God is wearing a robe? :) (actually, you don't think He exists so I suppose that question is n/a).

by Dunadan
Doesn't this externalise love, taking it beyond the individual? In turn, doesn't this process reduce the individual's responsibility in the matter of morality, thereby permitting the rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history?

Methuselah's answer
I really don't see this as externalizing love, not if God put a part of His nature in us (i.e. made man and woman in God's image). And, if a person can turn to God for help in the area of morality, I think it increases rather than decreases that person's responsibility. On the other hand, thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility. However, I am very open to hearing alternative views than these. Again -- very sorry if I offended you.

Dunadan, please don't over-generalize ("rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history"). I would say "characterized" is WAY off-base. Would you please choose your words more carefully - I find it hard to believe that you REALLY mean "characterize", which I would interpret to mean "the vast majority act this way". Do you really mean that? Are you saying that "non-religious" people have not committed horrific crimes and acts of hypocrisy? What about the many brave and noble deeds of religious people?

Anyway, I absolutely agree with Methuselah - I think that "thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility." BTW, do you notice that the Christians here are very concerned about offending others? (I don't recall seeing th. of ev. people saying things like "I'm sorry if I offended you"). That's because we see you as created beings of great worth and wish to treat you with great dignity. (BTW, we can be greatly concerned about treating you with dignity and still discuss what we consider to be truthful with great vigor - the two are not incompatible. Treating others with love does not mean being spineless.)

AND I will say that OVERALL, EVERYONE here has been very courteous and considerate of others, which is why this has been a good discussion, and I hope people of both viewpoints have learned things. Please don't take my mentioning the "sorry if I offended you" concern as th. of ev. people NOT being concerned, I certainly do NOT mean that. I just find it interesting that the Christians are more visibly concerned.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, do you notice that the Christians here are very concerned about offending others? (I don't recall seeing th. of ev. people saying things like "I'm sorry if I offended you").

AND

Originally posted by Cirdan
If you feel offended by my opinions about the mixing of religious and scientific thought I am sorry, but I do come by them honestly.

From post #337

[Lief Erikson]

Dunadan, I was giving my source of information, and you don't seem to be arguing my dates or the accuracy of what I'm saying.

There are, I think, sufficient problems with your theory, Dunadan, and sufficient lack of evidence to discount it. You're basically saying that there are oases out there in which the creatures survive over the thousands of years until it's their time to thrive.

First of all, let's look at this from the environmental standpoint. There isn't any reason to believe that such oases existed, no evidence of any such patches of lush in the desert. Also, there is evidence during the period of 18,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago of an extra difficult time so tough that they don't even find much in the way of desert creatures surviving during that period. It seems unlikely that these patches you suggest could have endured such circumstances when other creatures didn't.

Second, let's look at it from the nature of the animals. You're assuming that many, many grassland and lush countryside creatures were lucky enough to get into these patches. So, we'll assume that by some lucky chance they got in. Now what? They have enormous difficulties over the available space (Which is very limited). These are large quantities of species cramped into tiny spaces and expected to live in quiet harmony for thousands of years until they can emerge to take over the world. These creatures aren't going to be living in harmony. There will be massive competition over available resources (Which are extremely limited), indeed enough that I think many of the species would have gone extinct.

Third, this is like assuming a Noah's ark without even the Bible to go on! And not only one, but two. You also have the desert creatures having to have survived in such "oases" of desert during the 125,000-120,000 year period. During that period there is no evidence at all of any desert life.

Fourth, we have to assume that the environmental shifts that we've observed in these places and others around the world aren't all the result of some extraordinary phenomena enclosed in the last million years. By extrapolation, it seems logical that what we're observing has happened thousands of times throughout the years since the beginning of life. That the creatures always tended to survive by oases throughout history seems a somewhat pathetic solution in the face of the enormous forces at work.

Fifth, for examples of the past, let's look at the present, shall we? Nowadays we see evidence of Natural Selection, something that your model completely ignores. We see little evidence in the current deserts and jungles of these little patches of desert in which desert creatures survive the powers of environmental change. On the contrary, there aren't really any oases in these areas, and there aren't any deserts in jungles.

Your theory also includes that the creatures might have lived on a grassland area that changed slowly, and that these creatures followed the grass. Samples taken show that throughout the entire stretch of deserts throughout the Sahara to the Gobi deserts show consistency, that everything was changing at the same time.

[Rían]

I logged back on to add a post to say again: --> I do NOT think that the th. of ev. are NOT concerned about others!! Please don't think that I mean that in any way, shape or form.

But I really don't understand (I mean this sincerely) how you can reconcile being the product of chance and time with having moral values and making moral judgements. As I said before - what exactly do you find offensive about the D.C. sniper? He got rid of some people that were consuming resources, didn't he? (Don't REACT to this, please THINK about it - can you explain it to me?) Is their value perhaps that they could have furthered the species' development? Or were they valuable additions to the gene pool? Or do they have an intrinsic value just by being people, which is what I believe.

[Rían]

I just saw your post, Cirdan - thank you very much for finding that for me! I am very glad to see it. I said I didn't RECALL seeing it, as I hope you noticed, and I also hope you noticed I emphasized SEVERAL times that th. of ev. people have INDEED shown courtesy and respect, as have most people on this thread, which I really appreciate. Again, thanks! What are your thoughts on how th. of ev. and the presence of moral values go together?

And BTW, where did you get what appears to be a post #? I've been thinking about PMing the adminds to ask them to add it, it would be so much easier than saying "my post of 2 posts ago", and you can't use the time because it shows up differently for people in different time zones.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Dunadan, please don't over-generalize ("rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history"). I would say "characterized" is WAY off-base. Would you please choose your words more carefully - I find it hard to believe that you REALLY mean "characterize", which I would interpret to mean "the vast majority act this way". Do you really mean that? Are you saying that "non-religious" people have not committed horrific crimes and acts of hypocrisy? What about the many brave and noble deeds of religious people?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I have nothing but admiration and utmost respect for those who truly believe and practice a Christian morality, and regret any offence caused.

(However, I stand by my words. Characterise means a distinguishing trait, not a universal one. There are innumerable examples of Christianity's moral fabric being discarded when it suits the individual's or society's material ends. From the personal, everyday level to the institutional and national, there are loads of cases of Christians not "loving thy neighbour", but rather, smiting thy neighbour. I for one would be delighted if the world were full of truly moral Christians, but sadly it is not.)

The point is, I don't see the either/or of God or determinism. It seems that you are arguing that either the world is meaningless and developed by chance, or there is God. This leaves no room for the individual experience, free will (other than that which God gave us, of course) or choice.

Meaning derives, fundamentally, from within. Whether that is biochemical or not is neither here nor there. I have much sympathy with the "God is Love" position; however, in practice I have found that it is seldom disentangled from the mythology, factionalism and dogma inherent in organised religions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But I really don't understand (I mean this sincerely) how you can reconcile being the product of chance and time with having moral values and making moral judgements. As I said before - what exactly do you find offensive about the D.C. sniper? He got rid of some people that were consuming resources, didn't he? (Don't REACT to this, please THINK about it - can you explain it to me?) Is their value perhaps that they could have furthered the species' development? Or were they valuable additions to the gene pool? Or do they have an intrinsic value just by being people, which is what I believe.

Because we've developed as thinking and reasoning creatures. We have developed as a society by determining what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society. You might look and see the similarity of how people reacted in the Maryland area with how animals react when a hunter is in the woods. The Washington DC suburbs reacted to the situation as a matter of survival.

We don't need a god to determine what is right or wrong - we have a conscious mind. There was a time when primitive man used to let babies die that were born deformed. I'm not sure this still goes on with some of the primitive societies around the world today. In today's modern society, we have the resources to generally care for these people. But if there was a nuclear war or something - you better believe that man would go back to survival of the fittest. Less resources would be expended on children born deformed than those that are born healthy. Under this scenario - it could possibly be established that humans would evolve into a creature that could survive higher levels of radiation. The children that obviously could be born healthy and live under these conditions would pass on their genes. The ones born with deformaties and die - would not get a chance to pass on their genes (or at the very least would be slowly eliminated from the gene pool).

[Rían]

Thanks for your concern about offending me, Dunadan. :) You did NOT offend me at all, but I appreciate your concern. I was really wondering if you truly meant that statement as you worded it, because it seemed to me to be an overgeneralization. You obviously did, as you just stated, so we'll just have to disagree on that one. (ps - and thanks again for your consolation on the venting thread re my awful day! That helped me feel better.)

Meaning derives, fundamentally, from within. Whether that is biochemical or not is neither here nor there.

But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

[Rían]

Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society.

Are you saying that society (i.e., a group of people) is good? What you you base that on?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

No - we as a society has determined what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Of course much of it is brought over from the Chirstian religion- but this and of it self does not mean there is a god.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are you saying that society (i.e., a group of people) is good? What you you base that on?
I'm basing my statement - "Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society" - on the fact that when people are afraid to leave their house, go to school, go out to dinner - that it is a detriment to society.

And yes - I think that society overall is good. Our survival as individuals is paramount - and then secondary is our survival as a species. We will attempt to save others from a burning building - but most people will not rush into a burning building if they really feel they will only die in the process. We weigh the chances of saving someone when our own lives are at stake or before putting ourselves in that same situation.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks for your concern about offending me, Dunadan. :) You did NOT offend me at all, but I appreciate your concern. I was really wondering if you truly meant that statement as you worded it, because it seemed to me to be an overgeneralization. You obviously did, as you just stated, so we'll just have to disagree on that one. (ps - and thanks again for your consolation on the venting thread re my awful day! That helped me feel better.)



But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

Only within the bonadries for which it is approved. If all the New Guina tribespeople decide as a group that cannibalism is okay, then it is within that group. I use this extreme example to show that group mentality exists prior to religion as shown in cave paintings and many other artifacts of tribal ritual. Our sense of right and wrong is innate but we all agree as a group to abide by certain principles, with individual exceptions, of course. These exceptions are known as criminals. No matter what the rules there is always people who make them people who follow them and people who don't. Even Christians have sects that don't agree on everything. Quakers believe it is wrong to kill fellow humans no matter what. Other sects allow for war and capital punishment. Which is more godly? It all depends with whom you mingle.

All these types of social development are the result of the extension of the adaptation by physical fitness to adaptation by thought and idea. The transfer of ideas within a culture is a basis for greater survival. Large brains gave us the ability to make tools but the ability to pass along the techniques for doing so are just as relevant. Moral ideas are part of the social tools we developed to allow groups to grow larger and more diversified with less disorder.

[Dunadan]

Thanks for the calming words, RÃ*an.
Originally posted by RÃ*an
But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?
Sure, by definition what you experience to be true is, subjectively, true. What's then important is the interaction of that truth with others, and with the outside world. One might usefully propose an evolutionary model to account for these processes, such as Cirdan does above. Certainly science is one such process.

Again, in the context of this thread, why deny exposure to this process? What is creation afraid of, if it's so "absolute"?

Oh, and I did say "practice of religion", not "practitioners of..." If only Muslims/Hindus in Gujarat, Catholics/Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews/Muslims in Palestine, Christians/Jews in the past 2000 years, etc etc would agree to disagree like us.. ;)

Anyway, cheers for now.

d.

[Lief Erikson]

There's no reason to deny exposure to the process, that I can see, except for those at a young age. This is primarily because at a young age, a child is more easily influenced. Things engrained at that time are difficult for them to change their minds about at a later date. Evolution is still, as Methuselah says, at a rather primitive stage. More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Again, in the context of this thread, why deny exposure to this process? What is creation afraid of, if it's so "absolute"?
I'm not saying deny exposure to this process (I assume you mean th. of ev.) (which is, after all, not proven, and is outside the realm of complete scientific proof), I'm saying don't be afraid to evaluate the scientific aspects of it, and any other reasonable theory, such as the theory of creation by intelligent design, honestly and carefully. Were you talking about people on this thread when you say "afraid", or was that just a general statement?

Oh, and I did say "practice of religion", not "practitioners of..." If only Muslims/Hindus in Gujarat, Catholics/Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews/Muslims in Palestine, Christians/Jews in the past 2000 years, etc etc would agree to disagree like us.. ;)
*sigh* It's so sad....

by Cirdan
I use this extreme example to show that group mentality exists prior to religion
Yes - prior to religion, but NOT prior to God! (by group mentality you seem to be saying what I call a moral code for a particular group).

by Dunadan
Sure, by definition what you experience to be true is, subjectively, true. What's then important is the interaction of that truth with others, and with the outside world.
Well, you seem to be just backing it up a step, but the problem remains. What is "important"? Is it whatever is good? How can "good" have context if we are created by chance? Isn't one "chance" just as good as another; or rather, both are amoral, aren't they? To go back to an early statistics example, pulling socks out of a drawer, is the sock you pull out "good"? If we evolved by chance, how can we be "good"? See, I think that without even realizing it, you have added morals to an amoral process. No matter how far you back up, eventually you will be falling back on a moral judgement.

And re society falling back on letting babies with birth defects die in event of a nuclear war, etc. and going back to survival of the fittest - would that be a sad thing, or something that you would regret? If so, why? Is it "better" to not let them die?

[Lief Erikson]

Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A human can't just look at a fly and say, "Oh that's just a fly. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

A fly might look at an ant and think to itself, "Oh that's just an ant. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

Meanwhile an Elephant might look at a human and say, "What is that to me? It's only a human. It's tiny and simple, and if it suddenly sprouts another leg, what does that show? It is irrelevant."



Cirdan, that was a very weak argument, and I'd like to hear you bring up even a scrap of evidence which shows the fly to be "simple."

[Rían]

I completely agree with you about the fly, Lief - and I would like to add that besides being EXTREMELY complex, the fly is also EXTREMELY annoying!

And, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A fly is relatively simple creature in terms of certain aspects. It's much simpler than a human, which has a much more advanced brain, more complex spinal system, digestive system, etc. It is much simpler than a bird or othe more complex animals. Just because it has thousands of lenses in it's eye - does not mean that the fly itself is an overly complex creature.

By the way - there is evolution in action everyday. Viruses are one of the most simple of "creatures". One of the reasons that developing medicine to combat viruses - including HIV - is so difficult is because they evolve and become immune to the medicine. Of course it would take much longer for a virus to evolve into some other life form - but through these little steps is how creatures evolve.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
There's no reason to deny exposure to the process, that I can see, except for those at a young age. This is primarily because at a young age, a child is more easily influenced. Things engrained at that time are difficult for them to change their minds about at a later date. Evolution is still, as Methuselah says, at a rather primitive stage. More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.

This logic would lead to the removal of all theorectical knowledge. Teaching the "current theory" is better than teaching nothing. Most students are able to understand evolution at the general level. The arguements against the theory and total lack of any credible theories to the contrary. Your position is anti-intellectual and purely political. The cries that religion is being attacked is a smokescreen for the attack by some religions on the concept of secular education. Creationism, far from springing from any valid research, is just another tool of religous zealots trying to reimpose religion by force as it did in the past. What you preach is ignorance, more poorly educated students, more time wasted sitting in high school not learning, and of course, more sales of creationist textbooks.



It's really a wonderful strategy. Evolution is too complex and there is no danger if you don't believe it is true. Creation is so simple a child can remember it. They are taught that to not believe means to burn for eternity in hell. It is passed on by adults to children before they have the capacity to reason. It has evolved into a self-perpetuating idea far more adapted than evolution, especially in an environment on fear and ignorance. But the enlightenment is graining, creeping ever-forward, growing in both the power of it's truth and the evidence to support it. It has weathered attacks for the first of it's century and continues to thrive. The dinosaurs are falling over each other trying to stamp the little mammal. They forget that the asteroid of knowledge is heading right for them. It's that nagging feeling that makes them attack the theory as though it were death itself. Their own doubts about what it means. It's not an attack by science but a conflict within their own minds. They aren't trying to convince non-believers; it's an effort to prevent the loss of any of the flock. The Theory of creation is a sacramental wafer to drive away the evil thoughts. I wonder if god really gave us large brains to memorize church dogma instead of learning about his creation by experiencing it's fantastic complexity as revealed in nature? I'm guessing those with the bible want everyone to use that book but turn their back on creation itself. I encourage those who aren't sure to educate themselves in order to make an intelligent choice. It is obvious that many people make there assessments about evolution based on an incomplete understanding of it.

Here's a bit on the "intermediates" for those still listening.

http://www.heveyman.com/images/HexCorals.jpg

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A human can't just look at a fly and say, "Oh that's just a fly. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

A fly might look at an ant and think to itself, "Oh that's just an ant. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

Meanwhile an Elephant might look at a human and say, "What is that to me? It's only a human. It's tiny and simple, and if it suddenly sprouts another leg, what does that show? It is irrelevant."



Cirdan, that was a very weak argument, and I'd like to hear you bring up even a scrap of evidence which shows the fly to be "simple."

Yes is was YOUR weak arguement regarding the fly GAINING WEIGHT, not whether it is a simple or complex creature. Complexity is relative like hot and cold.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I completely agree with you about the fly, Lief - and I would like to add that besides being EXTREMELY complex, the fly is also EXTREMELY annoying!

And, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

Just because your observing that does not mean that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Basically religious people are trying to CREATE a theory based on evolution and creationism in order to get creationism taught in school. Theories evolve - they don't just get created like the religious community is trying to do.

Also - anyone that doesn't realise that Evolution is a Theory is an idiot basically. Sorry - but the full name is THEORY of Evolution. If that doesn't give it away - I don't what will. But there is no other theory out there that really stands up to the scientific scrutiny right now. Is evolution perfect, do we understand evolution completely? NO. But science attempts to find the answers. If something comes up that throws a wrench into the Theory of Evolution - then they must account for it in some way. They need to find out why it doesn't fit. In religion and the arguement for Intelligent Design you can just argue "well God just did it that way" and go on. That is not science.

You can't prove intelligent design exists in nature by bringing up man made objects as proof. Does that mean that we are Gods? We have created new organisisms so I guess we are. Like I said before - the earth being an alien's failed 3rd grade science experiment is more believable to me than a supreme being. I have never discounted the possibilty that we weren't created by some outside entity - I just don't believe in a supreme all knowing being.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
A fly is relatively simple creature in terms of certain aspects. It's much simpler than a human, which has a much more advanced brain, more complex spinal system, digestive system, etc. It is much simpler than a bird or othe more complex animals. Just because it has thousands of lenses in it's eye - does not mean that the fly itself is an overly complex creature.

It depends how you define complex, I suppose. But the reason they study the fly is partly because it is a "simpler" creature in those respects, and it is easier for them to find out mechanisms in it that work in the larger and more complex creatures. However, as in this wing sprouting thing, it is ridiculous that you aren't willing to accept the mechanisms that are observed when you specifically go to this creature because there you have a better to observe them. The simplicity of the creature doesn't change the laws that rule it and other creatures. What (In my opinion) changes the laws that rule the fly and other creatures is more the fact that the observed data goes against current scientific theory.


Cirdan, you are completely wrong about religion, our purpose, and just about everything in your post. I won't even bother with refuting all of it point by point.

However, I will reexplain my logic and opinion, as you clearly didn't grip it. Children at an earlier age (Between birth and adolescence) are more ready to accept and learn new things, and believe them for truth. It is easy for them to accept things, and an important time of learning for them. Later on, like when they reach adolescence they begin to grapple with the questions of how we know the things we know, and what is truth?. Certain fact should be taught to children at this earlier age, not changing theories (For evolution, as you apparently are objecting to, is still at an early stage in development).

I'm saying that at this stage of learning, children shouldn't be forced to grapple with questions that they aren't ready to grapple with yet. They should be taught things that are certain fact or which aren't likely to change. Then, later on when they're ready to question and to learn about more difficult subjects, then they should be taught the things that are more theoretical and prone to change.

The trouble is, Cirdan, that you seem to have a dogmatic view of science which actually fits the description given by BeardofPants for religion. Look at #3, and try to keep an open mind in this debate.

[Lief Erikson]

Anyway, I'm going to drop out of this debate for a little while to do further research on the environment issue.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I won't even bother with refuting all of it point by point.


That seems to be your basic strategy here. Change the subject, ask lots of questions and then not listen to the answers. I went to the trouble to post a document showing gradualism in the fossil record. No comment?

There is no evidence of knowledge harming young children.:rolleyes:

[Earniel]

by Lief: More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.
I disgree. The evolution model may not be perfect but you can't wait to teach it to children until it's perfect. And the chance that it'll change profounfly is IMO not that large. You also can't teach evolution unless you make it clear that evolution is science and therefore still is a field of discovery. Otherwise you can't make them understand the essence of science. Children need IMO a grasp of evolutionscience at least in the beginning of high school. I also think it wouldn't be bad either if they were already confronted with the basics at the age of 10 -11.

by RÃ*anAnd, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.
Actually RÃ*an I had far more problems with getting the religious creationtheory out of my mind than the evolutiontheory. Because religion is giving at such a young age to children it gets deeply ingrained in their memory. When I was around 10 to 12 I found myself unable to even question the existence of god. I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists. I really struggled with that then.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I disgree. The evolution model may not be perfect but you can't wait to teach it to children until it's perfect. And the chance that it'll change profounfly is IMO not that large. You also can't teach evolution unless you make it clear that evolution is science and therefore still is a field of discovery. Otherwise you can't make them understand the essence of science. Children need IMO a grasp of evolutionscience at least in the beginning of high school. I also think it wouldn't be bad either if they were already confronted with the basics at the age of 10 -11.


Actually RÃ*an I had far more problems with getting the religious creationtheory out of my mind than the evolutiontheory. Because religion is giving at such a young age to children it gets deeply ingrained in their memory. When I was around 10 to 12 I found myself unable to even question the existence of god. I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists. I really struggled with that then.

I like your post, even though I disagree somewhat with the conclusion. I can well imagine that it would be hard to get the religious creation theory out of your head since it was drilled in from an early age. I also think that children should be exposed to evolution at an early age, and even more importantly, to the manner in which the scientific method works. The problem is that usually, at an early age especially, evolution and most scientific discoveries are not taught as theory. They are taught, somewhat dogmatically, as fact. Evolution theory is put on a par with the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. When children are young, I think that when it comes to teaching things dogmatically as fact, it should be the parents who exercise control. Hence, subjects which are controversial should be left out of a public school curriculum until children are more capable of exercising critical reasoning skills and weighing evidence. Parents who want their children to be exposed to evolutionary theory can certainly augment their children's education with documentaries and the like. There are certainly plenty of those available, and practically every child likes to watch documentaries about dinosaurs and prehistoric life. There are plenty of less controversial issues throughout history (that once were controversial), such as slavery and race issues, that can help children learn critical reading skills and the importance of weighing evidence. There have also been cases when scientists made incorrect conclusions. Looking at these can help children to look critically at scientific data and learn how to weigh evidence. But putting them into situations where they could experience conflict between what they are taught at home or church and what they are taught in school is really unnecessary for children of younger ages. Probably the earliest age evolution should be introduced into a public school curriculum is at age 13, and maybe even age 15. I make exception of controversial subjects of a strong moral issue. Racial tolerance issues, for example, should not be avoided due to the fact that someone may have a parent with strong racial prejudice.

[Cirdan]

Children at age thirteen are probably about the right age. I would hope that a lot more of the basic foundation sciences would be taught before evolution. Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, and of course math and the other basics up to an apropriate level should be covered first. I don't think that the theory makes as much sense without it. Historical readings in general science would be greatly deficient in not discussing the role of the theory in science and how it came about. Some have tried to appease the anti-evolutionsts by teaching "around" evolution but they invariably run into problems discussing heredity, morphology, and genetics without it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, I will reexplain my logic and opinion, as you clearly didn't grip it. Children at an earlier age (Between birth and adolescence) are more ready to accept and learn new things, and believe them for truth. It is easy for them to accept things, and an important time of learning for them. Later on, like when they reach adolescence they begin to grapple with the questions of how we know the things we know, and what is truth?. Certain fact should be taught to children at this earlier age, not changing theories (For evolution, as you apparently are objecting to, is still at an early stage in development).

I'm saying that at this stage of learning, children shouldn't be forced to grapple with questions that they aren't ready to grapple with yet. They should be taught things that are certain fact or which aren't likely to change. Then, later on when they're ready to question and to learn about more difficult subjects, then they should be taught the things that are more theoretical and prone to change.
I don't see religion saying that the Bible is only one truth out there. Are you going to stop teaching the bible - because it's not fact. It's based on beliefs. There is a BIG difference between fact and belief. They are also taught not to question it - which is even worse in my opinion.

And NO WAY should evolution be limited to 15 years or older. I say whenever students get into more "advanced" science - which for me was around 6th grade. Younger than that you still learn about dinosaurs and early humans - but not evolution.

Leif - I didn't read about the wing sprouting post - and I'm not commenting on that. I never referred to it. I was replying to the fact that people were claiming that the fly was a complex creature. I was responding to this -


Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well i don't see religion saying that the Bible is only one truth out there. Are you going to stop teaching the bible - because it's not fact. It's based on beliefs. There is a BIG difference between fact and belief.

And NO WAY should evolution be limited to 15 years or older. I say whenever students get into more "advanced" science - which for me was around 6th grade. Younger than that you still learn about dinosaurs and early humans - but not evolution.


I had the same reservations about that blanket statement. I should be a matter of ability not age, but that would get me on a whole education jag that is a much larger subject. It has a place in general science when then subject matter is at a level where questions can be handled at that level. The misconceptions about the theory often come from too general attempts to present it without the backround science level required.

Religion has social uses beyond creation so I think children do benefit from some exposure to it. People should consider how well the child will understand a strict reading of actual scripture before pushing too deep into it, though. I think it is worse to prevent a child from having access to all positive aspects of our culture. Early indoctrination of anything using a dogmatic approach while blocking out alternative ideas does more harm than good. Basic common sense about age appropriate matters is best.

[Rían]

AARGGHH! I come back from Grandma's and my posts are completely misunderstood!! Well, I'll get a cup of tea and try to clear things up.

OK, I'm going to start by quoting my post:

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

Now would you people PLEASE stop trying to accuse me of dragging in God and the Bible!! Where do you see either of those two terms mentioned?? Because I'm a Christian, I happen to believe that God exists and the Bible is true, but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! to do with this discussion! Absolutely nothing! Why should it? It is outside the realm of science! I'm asking you to please evaluate what I, personally, am saying, not what you have heard other creationists say. Please don't attribute motives to me that you have attributed to others.

My personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with how I scientifically evaluate something, and th. of ev. people's beliefs should ALSO have NOTHING to do with how they evaluate something scientifically. Wouldn't you agree? Please do me the courtesy of reading the above quote again and tell me how formulating a theory on the basis of creation by intelligent design is not a reasonable premise, as seems to be the opinion among th. of ev. people. Or, if you agree that it is a reasonable premise for a theory, then you can tell me that, too! :) (and again, as I said before, it will be the DETAILS of the theory that are testable - "in the area of physics, I expect to see the following: a, b, c..; in the area of biology, I expect to see the following: d, e, f....," etc.)

[Rían]

(ps - I'm not trying to "yell" by using bolds and caps, I'm trying to bring to your attention the important areas where I have been completely misunderstood. Again, please don't answer back the way you would to the creationists that you have come across in the past, I'm asking you to read and think about and answer MY post.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
That seems to be your basic strategy here. Change the subject, ask lots of questions and then not listen to the answers.
Oh, come now, Cirdan - "basic strategy"? - how can you say that? That's pretty unfair, don't you think?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, come now, Cirdan - "basic strategy"? - how can you say that? That's pretty unfair, don't you think?

Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.:rolleyes:

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.:rolleyes:

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

Edit: Oh, and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.;)

[Rían]

by Eärniel
I do not think you can truly believe in something if you cannot decide for yourself whether that something truly exists.

Oh, absolutely! I agree with you 100%!! And I'd love to talk things over with you some more in that area :)

But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Not when I get answers like " that didn't answer my question" to a post without a well thought out response. Changing the subject is very popular as well. Is we stay on one topic too long we might get down to facts.:rolleyes:

What I was objecting to was your use of the term "basic strategy". I think saying something closer to "well, you sure didn't answer my last post!" would have been a more accurate representation of Lief's posting.

About the ID I think the misinterpretation is due to the misuse of the "theory" label. It may be a hypothesis, but there are no observations to support it.

I've been avoiding giving some of the details because I can't even get th. of ev. people to admit it's a valid premise. The theory is COMPLETELY thrown out, before it is even considered, just because it doesn't have the word "evolution" in it! Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I've been avoiding giving some of the details because I can't even get th. of ev. people to admit it's a valid premise. The theory is COMPLETELY thrown out, before it is even considered, just because it doesn't have the word "evolution" in it! Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

It's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it. Blackheart and I had a long discussion about this so I familiar with some of the arguements. I have posted that evolution as a mechanism of god (ID) is open to me since it can't be disproved easily.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, absolutely! I agree with you 100%!! And I'd love to talk things over with you some more in that area :)

But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.

All intelligent design is is evolution based on their being a god - particularly a chiristian god. There is no scientific proof of there being a supreme being. Until there is - god or a supreme being should not be brought into the science room. The use of God can explain anything without having to look any further at the facts. Can't explain gravity - just say that god created it. Can't explain the sun - just say god created it. Anything man can't understand - or if the Intelligent Design "theory" runs into some problems - just say that God created it that way.

New Jersey is a very deverse state - with the Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Whose religion do we teach? Would you accept the Hindu belief of the cow being the intermediate between the two lives of a person being taught in school? There is no scientific fact in this - but who is to say it's wrong? What happens if they coin a theory to try to explain it - would you be willing to have it taught in a science course?

Maybe you want to look further at the truth - but most people that support Intelligent Design only do it because it gets God and creationism into the public schools.

[BeardofPants]

I'm reposting this, because you asked for the information, and duly ignored it.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This will have to be short and sweet, as I have had a rough day, and I'm feeling very much the worst for it.

Evolution is not about enhancing the species, but about selecting for the best possible fitness. The environment (and hence, natural selection) is a big part of this process. Going into basic genetics, do you remember the terms phenotype and genotype? Well, the genotype is the coding part of DNA, and the phenotype is the observable phenomena (expression of a trait) of what the genotype coded for (basically.) So you could say that, the Environment + Genotype = phenotype. Thus, it is not really about the process of evolution keeping up, per se, but more that they go in tandem with one another. The environment is a powerful 'force', if you will, and goes hand in hand with natural selection. Also, environmental changes are very seldom sudden. They tend to be cyclic, and gradual. One of the key theories postulated for early bipedalism is one of semi-arborealism; the reason? - a gradual change in environment from densely wooded forrests, to sparsely wooded forrests, to open savannahs. As the trees thinned out (due to rising temperatures (and drier climates)), hominids were forced to travel greater distances between trees due to areas of open land, and hence, greater exposure to predators. Nobody is quite sure how exactly this lead to bipedalism, as at that stage, quadrupedalism would probably have been faster, but there may have been some reason that they needed to free up their hands... carrying food, or young? Anyway, what I'm trying to say, in a rather rambling fashion, is that although these early primates showed traits that lead us to believe that they were bipedal (slight funneling of the rib cage, longer femurs, a change in the line of balance angles, a "platform" in the metatarpal/tarpal region, etc), there were still arboreal adaptions (long arms, divergent big toe, etc.) So, from one environment to another (wooded forrests to open savannah) there is evidence that while new traits were being picked up, some of the old ones were being retained. Gradualism is the key word here.

I'll also mention that I subscribe to the theory of punctuated equlibrium, which basically means that evolution occurs in fits and starts; periods of activity, followed by periods of stasis.

[Earniel]

By RÃ*an: But do you see that belief has nothing to do with either theory? That BOTH have a reasonable premise, and both should have their TESTABLE DETAILS developed and tested and adjusted, as necessary, by intelligent and open-minded scientists?

Assuming that you talk here over the evolutiontheory and the creation-by-intelligent-designtheory: (if I misinterpreted, sorry, just hit me :)) I do think the CBID-theory requires some faith because the very basic idea of it is that another party (the creator) is involved. The involvement of that third party can not be proven nor (I think) disproven. It might be reasonable but because of the difficulty with proof it is shaky ground (from a scientific point of view).

A reason why intelligent design is not mentioned in science class may be because it has no place in evolution. Now I'm not saying that evolution clarely states 'no creator' , it just doesn't deal with that question. Evolution deals with the question of WHAT happens not that of WHO's doing it. Intelligent design is characterised by the WHO-question.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm reposting this, because you asked for the information, and duly ignored it.

Yes, I did ignore what you said, even though I read it. That's because I prefered not to simply post a "Ha ha ha" post showing that you were wrong. You say evolution occured at a gradual rate, and you say that it moves at tandem with the changing environment.

I thought that the enormous, swift changes we've observed over the last million years should have fairly well robbed you of this misconception. You read my post, didn't you? Shifts are sudden, as is in that quote jerseydevil brought up, the person said it can happen over a mere two generations, turning lush vegetation into desert.

Evolution trying to keep up with it would be like switching the channels of your television one after another after another instantaneously and trying to gain a good understanding of every single conversation or television show in that split second. Unless you say that all of these environmental fast changes are confined to our last million years, you cannot argue evolution by environment. And I'd also like to hear a good reason why the environment should be changing dramatically and incredibly swiftly just for us, but then throughout the rest of time has been stable.

For evolution to move in tandem with the environment, it would have to be amazingly fast, like within one or two generations. If you're going to argue that it did keep up, you'd have to accept the fast evolution theory. And that's something I thought none of you were willing to do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Assuming that you talk here over the evolutiontheory and the creation-by-intelligent-designtheory: (if I misinterpreted, sorry, just hit me :)) I do think the CBID-theory requires some faith because the very basic idea of it is that another party (the creator) is involved. The involvement of that third party can not be proven nor (I think) disproven. It might be reasonable but because of the difficulty with proof it is shaky ground (from a scientific point of view).

A reason why intelligent design is not mentioned in science class may be because it has no place in evolution. Now I'm not saying that evolution clarely states 'no creator' , it just doesn't deal with that question. Evolution deals with the question of WHAT happens not that of WHO's doing it. Intelligent design is characterised by the WHO-question.

I agree. And I think that the classical creation story should only be taught if strong evidence comes up to support it, except perhaps in a religions course.

Intelligent design is different from the classical creation story though, for it says that God commands and creates everything according to his own purpose and desire. It is impossible for people to prove or disprove, but it is possible for a single person to prove or disprove, and that is by seeking God and asking him to reveal himself to them.

[Cirdan]

And you think the idea that creatures evolve back and forth into different creatures to match the environment isn't funny? How do the same creatures appear in different places? Deserts don't appear and dissapear overnight. Creatures follow the margins of the territories they are acclimated to. You have no fossil proof of your silly assertion.

Edit: We could test it by putting some elephants in the desert for 40 years a see if the turn into camels.:rolleyes:

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil or someone, do you know where I could find information on migrations that are irregular and as a response to changing environment?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Shifts are sudden, as is in that quote jerseydevil brought up, the person said it can happen over a mere two generations, turning lush vegetation into desert.

Wait - that article said that it's a possibilty. It didn't say anything about it being absolute. The verdict is still out and it takes more than 4 years to establish scientific facts. The article by Columbia only came out in 1998.

To base the fact that in one small part of the world may have had quick environmental changes to support a hypothesis that the world environment as a whole makes quick changes is VERY BAD science. Just because the Sahara may go through "quick" changes doesn't mean that the environment as a whole does or that it's the norm.

If a scientist only looked at the dust bowl in the midwest, ignoring the causes, they could determine that the environment quickly changes and come to numerous erroneous conclusions. Whereas in truth - the dust bowl was mainly created by man from over use of the land.


The Dust Bowl (http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html)
Poor agricultural practices and years of sustained drought caused the Dust Bowl. Plains grasslands had been deeply plowed and planted to wheat. During the years when there was adequate rainfall, the land produced bountiful crops. But as the droughts of the early 1930s deepened, the farmers kept plowing and planting and nothing would grow. The ground cover that held the soil in place was gone. The Plains winds whipped across the fields raising billowing clouds of dust to the skys. The skys could darken for days, and even the most well sealed homes could have a thick layer of dust on furniture. In some places the dust would drift like snow, covering farmsteads.


You can not base your hypothesis of the environment and evolution on one small section of the world.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
And you think the idea that creatures evolve back and forth into different creatures to match the environment isn't funny?

If a species is successful, it can spread to other areas as well.


How do the same creatures appear in different places?

If a species is successful, it can move. I realize that this theory makes the intermediate species even more likely to have been found, but that's only if you go by the current chronology of history and events. I think that these creatures should all be squeezed into a smaller space of time, so the absence of these intermediate species doesn't worry me. I think that the millions of years model for evolution is way off, but I can't give you evidence to back my opinion. All I can do is show you that current evidence contradicts the millions of years model of evolution.

That is because of the lack of intermediate species. If the species have all whipped by so fast (By your model of time, but going by fast evolution), then the lack of intermediate species should be very distressing. As a matter of a fact, we would be expected to find almost on two fossils the same. That is why, for my theory of fast evolution to work, you need to shrink the time alapsed too.

That's a big adjustement and way outside of existing theories, and I don't think any of you are willing to make these adjustements to explain things. It fits the evidence, though.

Now let's look at the model you are all going by. Evolution says that the environment has been changing extremely slowly and the creatures have been changing with it. Current information shows that the environment has been changing enormously swiftly and the creatures (unless you accept the oasis idea) have been changing-with-it/moving-away-from-it. If you accept that they changed with it, then you accept fast evolution, unless you agree with the idea that Dunadan brought up. If you accept that they are migrating in enormous numbers, then you deal a severe blow to the evolution with environment theory. Going with the oasis idea also gets rid of Natural Selection very effectively.

So I pass the floor to you as to how you explain these contradictions. But please don't be annoyed with me if I attempt to poke holes in your ideas now and then.


Desserts don't appear and dissapear overnight. Creatures follow the margins of the territories they are acclimated to.

Desserts definitely appear and disappear overnight. But as a matter of a fact, deserts do too. The evidence, as I stated, shows that those enormous stretches of territory were transformed swiftly and simultaneously. You've made some assertions against the available evidence, let's see you back them up.


You have no fossil proof of your silly assertion.

Should I be expected to have fossil proof? If you accept the alterred time frame, the current fossil evidence agrees with my theory. I have pointed out one inconsistency, it is possible that there could be others (As most of you agree, errors can happen in science). I haven't researched the fossil dating though, so all I can do here too is venture my opinion.

But I don't want you all arguing against my own opinion just now, I'd rather discuss with you how this contradiction can be explained by the current model of evolution.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
To base the fact that in one small part of the world may have had quick environmental changes to support a hypothesis that the world environment as a whole makes quick changes is VERY BAD science. Just because the Sahara may go through "quick" changes doesn't mean that the environment as a whole does or that it's the norm.

I think you should look at a map. The area of territory that we're looking at here is larger than North America. The Gobi-Sahara desert chains aren't simply a small part of the world, they cover 18,000,000 km., from the Atlantic Ocean to Northern China! We have evidence of several enormous changes over this entire region simply within the last 125,000 years.

I'm not basing my entire statement on what that one scientist said, I'm using that as a small piece of supporting evidence. You've been very well equipped thus far with Internet sites and other information, indeed, in general you've been far more on top of it then me. It shouldn't be such a great hardship to just look in a map.

If you really want more evidence, I'll start looking for further information about other parts of the world's environmental changes, but I think that several of such magnitude covering such a vast space should prove a sufficient example.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If a species is successful, it can spread to other areas as well.

So they only spread after they adapt? This is not supported



Should I be expected to have fossil proof?
Actually you should have laboratory proof. This change you claim occurs within a few generations should be very easy to force. I would think you would have found some evidence during human history of someone having observed this fantastic transmutation.

As far as my facts, you can go to the library and pick up any book on the subject if you don't like the one I reccommended. The problem with theories that have evidence is that it requires a lot of reading on your part, not writing on my part. As far as poking holes, a whole lot of people a whole lot smarter than you have worked on this theory and you might have just a bit of respect for that. When you've been published, or even graduated from college then maybe, just maybe, you smart ass attitude might not be so totally misplaced.

basics (http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evol.html#def)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think you should look at a map. The area of territory that we're looking at here is larger than North America. The Gobi-Sahara desert chains aren't simply a small part of the world, they cover 18,000,000 km., from the Atlantic Ocean to Northern China! We have evidence of several enormous changes over this entire region simply within the last 125,000 years.

I'm not basing my entire statement on what that one scientist said, I'm using that as a small piece of supporting evidence. You've been very well equipped thus far with Internet sites and other information, indeed, in general you've been far more on top of it then me. It shouldn't be such a great hardship to just look in a map.

If you really want more evidence, I'll start looking for further information about other parts of the world's environmental changes, but I think that several of such magnitude covering such a vast space should prove a sufficient example.
I have never heard of anything state that the whole area was furtile lush vegetation. Or that the whole Shara keeps going back and forth. I have always heard that sections of it contained vegetation.

And the Sahara only extends through northern Africa - not all the way to China. The article also didn't mention anything about the Gobi being fertile or going through rapid changes. It also does not specify whether it is only sections of the desert that go through changes or if it is the desert in mass. The Sahara is 3.5 million sqaure miles - 9.1 million square kilometers.

Can you please supply something that says that the desert as a whole - from the Atlantic to the Red Sea goes through rapid changes every 1500 years.

By the way - I always have my Hammond World Atlas Executive Edition right by my computer - so you don't have to tell me to look at a map.

[edit] the article does mention Africa going through extreme changes - but doesn't go much further. And as I said - it's currently needs more investigation. Lamont Scientists: African Climate Changes Quickly (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html)

I'm not a scientist and I can only go off of what the experts say - that means what I watch on TLC, Discovery Channel, read in Discover Magazine, etc.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Desserts definitely appear and disappear overnight. But as a matter of a fact, deserts do too. The evidence, as I stated, shows that those enormous stretches of territory were transformed swiftly and simultaneously. You've made some assertions against the available evidence, let's see you back them up.
Your own post shows periods of 100,000 years with the shortest not less that 10,000 yesrs. That is far from overnight and shows no preclusion to migration. Certainly some adaptation occurs but you show no evidence for large scale species change. You are too used to trying to use weaknesses as proof. This does not make evidence, it only begs other questions which you have not answered. You haven't backed up your claims.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Actually you should have laboratory proof. This change you claim occurs within a few generations should be very easy to force. I would think you would have found some evidence during human history of someone having observed this fantastic transmutation.

As far as my facts, you can go to the library and pick up any book on the subject if you don't like the one I reccommended. The problem with theories that have evidence is that it requires a lot of reading on your part, not writing on my part. As far as poking holes, a whole lot of people a whole lot smarter than you have worked on this theory and you might have just a bit of respect for that. When you've been published, or even graduated from college then maybe, just maybe, you smart ass attitude might not be so totally misplaced.

Cirdan, you have completely ignored the bulk of my post. I gave my opinions because they were asked for, but I'm not trying to prove them to anyone here and now. As you know, I'm not a scientist. And I'm not trying to force my own opinions upon anyone. I simply want to discuss the inconsistency that I have observed.

[Cirdan]

From the croc article
DNA analysis might help determine whether the Mauritania crocodiles are stunted—from not getting enough to eat—or are smaller as a result of genetic adaptation.

Wolfgang Böhme, a well-known herpetologist at the Koenig Museum in Bonn, is conducting DNA analysis in hopes of answering this question and to determine whether the adaptations made to live in the desert are strong enough to warrant calling them a new species.

Most experts consider it unlikely.

"There are many instances of crocodilian populations—including Nile crocodiles—which are isolated from each other, yet are not sufficiently dissimilar to count as new species, or even new subspecies," said Britton.

Nile crocodiles on the island of Madagascar, for example, are still similar genetically to those from mainland Africa, he noted, adding: "I would be surprised if the Saharan population was sufficiently different."

There is no evidence that the croces did anything unusual other than use adaptive behavior and exhibit recessive traits seen in all crocs.

How does "fast evolution" explain the Madagascar crocs being the same as Nile crocs on the mainland?

[Lief Erikson]

I have never heard of anything state that the whole area was furtile lush vegetation. Or that the whole Shara keeps going back and forth. I have always heard that sections of it contained vegetation.

And the Sahara only extends through northern Africa - not all the way to China. The article also didn't mention anything about the Gobi being fertile or going through rapid changes. It also does not specify whether it is only sections of the desert that go through changes or if it is the desert in mass. The Sahara is 3.5 million sqaure miles - 9.1 million square kilometers.

Can you please supply something that says that the desert as a whole - from the Atlantic to the Red Sea goes through rapid changes every 1500 years.

I got my information from the World Book, which is an encyclopedia, and a scientific paper. I described the location of the scientific paper in an earlier post, where I showed my references.

Did you read the post I sent earlier? There was one primary one which really addressed the problem quite well- I can quote it all up here, if you want me to. That's where I describe everything in depth. You've been kind of in and out so perhaps you didn't see it, but I'd be willing to bring it back if you don't want to look for it.

I never said that it changed every 1500 years, not at all.

My primary post on this subject addresses all of these things that you've asked and brought up here in more depth. Shall I bring it up for you?

[Lief Erikson]

How does "fast evolution" explain the Madagascar crocs being the same as Nile crocs on the mainland?

It doesn't. Many of the same creatures are found in all sorts of different areas of the world, including dinosaurs, and it all makes sense if you assume a speeded up evolution and a more recent break up of the continents.

But please, I stress again, I am NOT trying to prove these theories of mine to any of you. I simply want to discuss the inconsistency I have observed.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Your own post shows periods of 100,000 years with the shortest not less that 10,000 yesrs. That is far from overnight and shows no preclusion to migration. Certainly some adaptation occurs but you show no evidence for large scale species change. You are too used to trying to use weaknesses as proof. This does not make evidence, it only begs other questions which you have not answered. You haven't backed up your claims.

All that this post says is that you are shooting at what a scientist says and ignoring what I say. I said that I am not interested in discussing my own views, since I cannot prove them to any of you. I can bring up a little evidence, but hardly sufficient. I'm not a "smart ass." Therefore stop saying that I am making assertions and trying to argue a case, because I'm not!

If you don't stop misinterpreting my posts, ignoring almost the entirety of what they say and misconstruing them, I'm going to stop responding to you at all.

[Cirdan]

The arcticles only refernece changes in rainfall. They state explicitly there are periods of dessication there is no mention of the idea that during the wet periods the Saudi peninsula is some lush forest area. At best it may become a grassland. Hardly inhospitable to desert life and conducive to migration of more species.
Saudi Rainfall (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Fezzan/fezzan_palaeoclim.html)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Many of the same creatures are found in all sorts of different areas of the world, including dinosaurs, and it all makes sense if you assume a speeded up evolution and a more recent break up of the continents.


Or you don't assume that continents were moving at greatly differential rates and don't assume the speeded up evolution the the model works fine. It also explains the ancient crocs in the fossil record. Have you worked out the expansion rate of the mid-ocean ridges and the corresponding rise in volcanic activity at the subduction zones. Have you researched the geologic record for the huge increade in volcanic activity associated with the rapid increase in plate movements? Have you esitmated the increased heat convections required to move the plates at the much higher rate? Have you calculated what the increased heat would do to the plates themselves?

For the sake of the discussion please state what theories you will accept. If you say you will not argue the age of the earth and then assume it as younger in a later post then the discussion has no common ground.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Yes, I did ignore what you said, even though I read it. That's because I prefered not to simply post a "Ha ha ha" post showing that you were wrong. You say evolution occured at a gradual rate, and you say that it moves at tandem with the changing environment.

You have completely misinterpreted what I said.

Did you not notice the bit about gradualism? :rolleyes:

And what exactly do you think natural selection is?

natural selection
n.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

[Lief Erikson]

Yes I know what Natural Selection is, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. And assuming that creatures built for grasslands and forests survived in deserts for thousands of years is going against Natural Selection.

Yes I noticed the bit about gradualism. And I repeat, these are multiple changes over large expanses of territory over a relatively short period of time. Thousands of years isn't short, but it is short by evolutionary standards.



Meanwhile, Cirdan, you are still attacking viewpoints that I personally hold and which I am not trying to impose upon anyone else. I'm not using them as a basis for anything either, I'm trying to discuss the current model.

Originally posted by Cirdan
For the sake of the discussion please state what theories you will accept. If you say you will not argue the age of the earth and then assume it as younger in a later post then the discussion has no common ground.

For the thirtieth time, I am NOT arguing a younger Earth! A more recent movement of the continents is different, for I do think that it did happen more recently. I am not ever assuming that it happened more recently, although if I occasionally point to evidences that point to it, then I don't mind your contradicting them or offering alternative points of view.

I'm not making any assumptions or attempting to impose my own views upon others. Your turning my analysis of the current model and the contradictions into an argument for something that I'm not even trying to uphold right now! Forget faster evolution or faster break-up of the continents if you want, I'm not discussing it. I'm not assuming it. I'm discussing the current model, without any assumptions outside of the current model. If I point later on to evidences for accepting another model (I'm repeating myself to make sure what I'm trying to say gets across), then you're welcome to shoot them down or give alternative points of view.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
For the thirtieth time, I am NOT arguing a younger Earth! A more recent movement of the continents is different, for I do think that it did happen more recently. I am not ever assuming that it happened more recently, although if I occasionally point to evidences that point to it, then I don't mind your contradicting them or offering alternative points of view.

I guess I missed that you didn't see the connection between the age of the earth and continental drift. You see if one accelerate the spreading of the mid-ocean ridges it also changes all the ages of the oceanic plates, the age of rock formations broken when the plates separated, and all associated volcanism. One would have to, by default change all the dates of all the formations to accomodate this change. Then one is back to arguing for a young earth. You can see where I made the connections you didn't; I had assumed you had.

As to the rest I'll wait for you to respond to my last two posts regarding your difficulties with speciation as related to populations in variable environments.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The arcticles only refernece changes in rainfall. They state explicitly there are periods of dessication there is no mention of the idea that during the wet periods the Saudi peninsula is some lush forest area. At best it may become a grassland. Hardly inhospitable to desert life and conducive to migration of more species.


Here's a quote from the article you posted a link to:


One of the aims of the Fezzan project is to determine how the physical environment and human populations have responded to dramatic changes in climate[Italics added]. Many such changes have taken place in the Sahara over the late Quaternary, generally consisting of oscillations between humid and arid phases.

I don't think that describing the historical environmental changes and the dates for them was the purpose of that article, it seemed more concerned with other aspects of the changes, such as the how and why. Anyway, the article doesn't disagree with anything I said, and the presumption that it could have been 'at most a grassland' is purely speculation from you. Besides, I don't know which specific one of the time periods you're talking about when you say that. Is it the 9,000-6,000 years ago period, or the 125,000-120,000 years ago period?

If you're disagreeing with the facts that I related, please state which ones, and later on today I'll try and get back to you with quotes from the article I was using.

Originally posted by Cirdan
I guess I missed that you didn't see the connection between the age of the earth and continental drift. You see if one accelerate the spreading of the mid-ocean ridges it also changes all the ages of the oceanic plates, the age of rock formations broken when the plates separated, and all associated volcanism. One would have to, by default change all the dates of all the formations to accomodate this change. Then one is back to arguing for a young earth. You can see where I made the connections you didn't; I had assumed you had.

Aha, so that explains the difficulties between my theory and the dating they have on fossils, dating them back to millions of years ago.

Anyway, these are just my own viewpoints. I'm still not going to fall into the trap of arguing with you on this. During nearly all of your recent posts, you've been trying to slam my own point of view and draw me into the trap of arguing with you over it. It's my own opinion and I'm not using that to influence my evidence, and the evidence I'm giving and the thing I'm talking about is the current scientific model.

You accused me of changing the subject earlier whenever things got rough? You're doing it yourself, trying to bash my own opinions, invalidate my evidence and make my own opinions look stupid while ignoring the contradiction in science. I'm going to not discuss my own opinions with you any further.

I appreciate the ideas posted by Dunadan earlier on. At least he was willing to discuss possible solutions for the dilemma.

[Cirdan]

and fauna from the equatorial regions had migrated north into the Sahara (Lezine, 1989; Lioubimsteva, 1995; Ritchie and Haynes, 1995).
LE: Have you read the supporting articles regarding this research about the origin of the local species during the Late Pleistocene? It sounds as if the answer you seek is there.

[Lief Erikson]

Could you post links to the addresses of those articles?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Could you post links to the addresses of those articles?
Did you look at related links on that site?

Link (http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html)

[Rían]

Well, since my proposal:
Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

Was met by the following:
by CirdanIt's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it.
and
by Jerseydevil
The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.


then I guess I will now say my FINAL goodbye to this thread. I suppose I was just very naive to think that perhaps if presented with logical ideas as to why the th. of creation by intelligent design was a reasonable theory (I'm not even saying the RIGHT theory, just a reasonable one) that th. of ev. people would agree to think about it. But since it is thrown out before I can even present details, I'll just exit now. I suppose that different logic just reaches different people, I don't know. I'm really sorry to think that people are so committed to their theory that they are not more open-minded to considering others (again, how much more reasonable a premise can you get? There are intelligently designed things all around us!!) Anyway, enough of that. It's been very nice posting with such intelligent and considerate people (and I sincerely mean that!! I'm just sad that people won't consider intelligent design :( ), and I'll enjoy seeing you all on the other threads.

My final summary, if anyone's interested: (I'll use ToE for th. of ev., ToCBID for th. of creation by intelligent design, since we all love typing shortcuts! :) )

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

The problem, at least with the fossil record, is that IMO it contains scads of fully formed animals and a very small amount, and those debatable, number of intermediate types. (Now please don't quote and argue this - I'm just trying to show WHY this thread gets so long!) 2nd law of thermo. - same thing - STRONGLY supports ToCBID, but there is a footnote to it, discussing the formation of crystals, that may be interpreted to support ToE (but I believe incorrectly, because net entropy is STILL increased, but you can refer back to the first few pages). Same with DNA - why shouldn't an intelligent designer use DNA to store info? No reason for ToE people to claim similarity between man and chimps and say ToCBID people can't use DNA!! I hope you see my UNDERLYING idea here - PLEASE don't look at data as solely belonging to one side or the other.

Anyway, this has been very intellectually stimulating, and probably has set records for civility on a topic like this. I hope we all learned some things, and again, hope to see you all on other threads soon! There's a great new discussion project that just opened up on the Sil forum....

Best regards -- RÃ*an

[Methuselah]

I appreciate the information that Cirdan and Jersey have posted. It's nice to have some real sources. The posts show a considerable complexity in the way living things actually survive. The article showing the genetic linkage of crocodiles that look and behave very differently shows that living things may be able to adapt to environmental changes much more easily than we sometimes imagine. Obviously, ability to adapt is something that would have to be "selected" in an environmental model. It seems possible that species can have greater ability to adapt to environment than we sometimes imagine. Each chromosome has many genes, out of which many of the genes are not active. It may not require a big change for certain genes to be activated and other genes to be deactivated. The African crocodile may be an example where environmental stimuli trigger the activation and deactivation of some genes, resulting in different phenotypes and behavior patterns suitable to their environments.

I think it is known, and I hope that this isn't something you ask me to back up with proof, that generally genetic information in a population group is usually lost rather than gained. With regard to the genetic diversity issue -- why are certain fossils widespread geographically while the continuum appear often lost -- it may be that certain global environmental conditions permit "faster" evolution. Such would seem necessary to fit with the fossil record if what I hear of the fossil record is true.

The results discussed show that evolution is complex, and that all living things are complex (even a fly!). It is too early to rule out changes to the evolutionary model, any more than can we rule out that their could be an underlining design in the creation (whether via evolution or not). It seems possible that new species could develop via gaining genes or via losing genes or via activating or deactivating certain genes. Mutation may not be the only way that a specie evolves. I still think that the model that proceeds from a "Dick and Jane" early reader to a Tolkien trilogy one character at a time is too slow to account for all of the major changes. I look for some mechanisms where more significant changes can occur, such as perhaps a viral theory. If the chemical constituency of the air altered at all, we should also be open to the possibility of phenotype changes due to environmental influences alone. Environment + genes produce the resulting phenotype.

I also think we should keep open to the possibility of radiocarbon levels increasing at a more rapid rate in prehistory, which could also explain the long stretch of "dry" conditions and sparsity of data. There are many things in the archaeological record that could be explained better by increasing radiocarbon levels. For example, archaeology works as a principle on the fact that change in behavior occurs from generation to generation. However, cave art dated from 20,000 BC to 5000 BC shows little stylistic change. Human settlements in Jericho appear to be nomadic over a period of about 5000 years before villages were begun, with the nomadic settlements continuously occurring in the same exact location. Anyway, I think the bottom line is that we have to keep an open mind about things. It is exciting to live at a time when there is so much research being undertaken that we can access. I don't think evidence from the current time frame can rule out the possibility of long stretches of environmental conditions in the past that might have been more conducive to a protected evolutionary development of early life. Dispersion was probably a very early development that relates to practically all living things.

Here is the link to the article that Lief has referenced.

http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/personal_info/impacts_of_climatic_change_on_ca.htm

[Rían]

ps - Earniel, thanks for being open-minded, and I'll PM you tomorrow with some info for you to think about. I could use some virtual Belgian chocolate now - was on a very long field trip today - we saw a play with about 800 or so kids ages 5 to 9 or so in the audience - my ears are still ringing from the noise!! :eek:

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with you, Cirdan, that massive scale migration is really the only way (By the current model) to explain the inconsitency.

The primary difficulty, then, is between the evidence that is being uncovered and has been uncovered that shows these massive and swift environment changes, and the current scientific theory that all creatures have been evolving slowly along with an extremely slow changing environment. The conflict is between the theory of a slow changing environment and the evidence of a fast changing one. We cannot accept both views, unless we assume some large change having happened to effect only the last two or three hundred thousand years. If any of you are determined to accept both views, then evidence must be found to demonstrate a cause of such a change.

Personally, I think that finding such evidence is unnecessary. We all know that science can make errors, and that more will be discovered over time. Science, in the years to come, will probably resolve these conflicting theories, and I'll be interested to see what their solution is when they do.

[Cirdan]

There wasn't any indications in the data that indicated any "mass migrations". You would need to evaluate the data before making that assumption. There was one statement regarding a Faunal migration. It seemed to indicate a regional move which is very common. There is no conflict or inconsistency.

I think the last link I posted documented pretty well that while there were changes in climate the most arid parts of the desert were not greatly changed. Also it is not shown that there were great changes in the flora and fauna in these areas. The region became wetter but the vegatation changes are well within expectations of gradualism. The climate changes are no more extreme than glaciation. The effects of these changes, if anything, show a large extinction pattern as opposed to rapid adaptation. More extinctions and large reductions in populations point to dispersion and incremental adaptation. The fact that the croc example is associated with large reductions in population associated with behavioral adaptations like cave dwelling actually prove that they are not adapting biologically on any kind of rapid rate. The people with the data dont' see any anomalies. Any suggestion that they aren't looking for them is illogical. Who would want to be the one to find the exception? Never under-estimate the desire for recognition by researchers.

Science may make mistakes but it is very late in the game for evolution to be disproved. After 150 years of research and new discoveries, one would think that someone would have found something. It is not 1850 and the time of imprecise science passed away under the torrrent of analytical tools available today, the large and ever increasing body of physical evidence., and the huge numbers of people involved in research.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm not trying to disprove evolution. But I thought that it had been demonstrated rather thoroughly that massive, quick environmental changes do take place, and the environment of one location changes too swiftly for slow changing creature to keep up with, unless they migrate to another similar area and keep evolving while they're there. The only assumption that I'm making in this is, as I said before, that these changes haven't been confined to the last two or three hundred thousand years.

I suppose, to emphasize my point, I'll have to pull out several quotes from the different areas that links have been posted to.


From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, Africa experienced colder and more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase moister than the present began, and this lasted until about 115,000 years ago, with greater rainforest extent and the deserts almost completely covered with vegetation. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate and then a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by aridity around 11,000 14C years ago. A resumption of warm, moist conditions led up to the Holocene 'optimum' of greater rainforest extent and vegetation covering the Sahara. Conditions then became somewhat more arid and similar to the present. Relatively brief arid phases (e.g. 8,200 14C y.a.) appear to punctuate the generally moister early and mid Holocene conditions.



By measuring relative levels of dust, they could identify when dry spells occurred and how intense they were.
The study documented that African dust levels and offshore ocean temperatures rose and fell synchronously and very rapidly.
DeMenocal’s research is supported by the NSF.



Together, the findings point to rapid climate changes in both the high latitudes and the subtropics, indicating a persistent, naturally occurring cycle of abrupt climate change that may affect the entire planet.

[Lief Erikson]

A severe arid phase (correlated in many places around the world) seems to have affected North Africa around 7,500 14C y.a. (Alley et al. 1997, Gasse & van Campo 1994), perhaps lasting for a century or two. There was a reduction in Nile flooding, in NW Sudan lake levels, and at sites in the western Sahara, the Sahel and sub-equatorial Africa



Analyzing ocean sediments from the coast of Senegal, deMenocal and colleagues found that Africa experienced surprisingly harsh and abrupt climate changes, even after the last ice age ended, a period in the past 10,000 years that until recently scientists had thought was stable and benign.



The prevailing theory is that such long-term changes, which are governed by 20,000-year cycles in Earth’s orbit that affect the amount of solar radiation received by the planet, should occur slowly and progressively.
Instead, the new discoveries add mounting evidence that Earth’s climate system reaches certain thresholds, then switches gears relatively quickly from one distinct operating mode to another, spawning dramatic climate changes that occur precipitously, he said.
"The transitions are sharp," deMenocal said in an interview. "Climate changes that we thought should take thousands of years to happen, occur within a generation or two."
The new discoveries by deMenocal and Bond are the latest important clues indicating that Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years—after the last ice age ended and human civilization began to flourish—was not nearly as stable or resistant to change as previously believed.


Climate is strongly connected to environment. Rainfall patterns effect the environment greatly, causing it to flourish or to dry up and die, with forms deserts. These times of lacking rainfall cause arid periods.

All of the links thus far given have been in support of swift and widespread environmental changes. You are transforming the words of the scientists and changing their discoveries from the surface meaning. You're shrinking everything that they've found to force it to fit. Inconsitency is there.

If you aren't advocating mass migrations, I don't know how you're going to explain the inconsitency.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I also think we should keep open to the possibility of radiocarbon levels increasing at a more rapid rate in prehistory, which could also explain the long stretch of "dry" conditions and sparsity of data. There are many things in the archaeological record that could be explained better by increasing radiocarbon levels. For example, archaeology works as a principle on the fact that change in behavior occurs from generation to generation. However, cave art dated from 20,000 BC to 5000 BC shows little stylistic change. Human settlements in Jericho appear to be nomadic over a period of about 5000 years before villages were begun, with the nomadic settlements continuously occurring in the same exact location. Anyway, I think the bottom line is that we have to keep an open mind about things. It is exciting to live at a time when there is so much research being undertaken that we can access. I don't think evidence from the current time frame can rule out the possibility of long stretches of environmental conditions in the past that might have been more conducive to a protected evolutionary development of early life. Dispersion was probably a very early development that relates to practically all living things.

Here is the link to the article that Lief has referenced.

http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/personal_info/impacts_of_climatic_change_on_ca.htm

I may need some clarification. The article linked deals with the biomass storage of carbon in relation to estimates of arid and arid regions as sinks and wells for carbon storage. All the estimates are based solely on the fossil record indicting the application of information about known species as it relates to paleoenvironments. There is no information about variations or adaptations occuring in existing species nor is the data indicating "overnight" changes. The article does indicate that areas grow or shink when the climate varies. This does not conflict with any aspect of evolution.

If this is in relation to radiocarbon then it must be noted that the changes in available carbon and carbon14 change proportionally. The reduction of increase in total available carbon doesn't indicate a change in the ratio of carbon to carbon 14.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If you aren't advocating mass migrations, I don't know how you're going to explain the inconsitency.

I was pointing out that dramatic change would instigate mass extinctions and the establishment of new species over time by migration. The change of non-arid lands to arid would mean the demise of many creatures. I have no problem with the idea of other species migrating from other environments. What is clear from the data is that all these types of areas existed concurrently and that migration from one to another is not difficult. Even the most extreme "humid" period was characterized as having desert areas "almost" covered with vegatation. You characterized the migrations as coming from impossible distances or that there was no place for them to migrate from, which is not supported by the data.

[Philia]

Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah....

Oh wait, and BLAH! :D

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


Sorry, no hit and run....

Well, since my proposal:
Was met by the following:

I showed openness to the idea of discussing it. There is no point jumping to the ID in school discussion since it doesn't pass muster yet in the real world. You keep calling it a theory, and in the general use of the word it's okay, but in science it requires so dactual basis to call something a theory.

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

ToCBID not based in facts, unless you have some unpublished material.


(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

This doesn't equate the two.

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)
/quote]
It's not even scientific and neither is theism. Agnosticism is neutral to ideas, but your are right theists and atheists are predisposed to bias, which is not meant to imply that either is automatically bias.
[quote]
(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

It is still just a premise in the strict scientific sense.

And a final note....

However, data can fall into many categories. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID.
[b][quote]
The term "intermediate" is used quite a bit here in a way of saying not unique or viable. This seems to be an extension of the "missing link" arguement. I guess as more human "intermediates" are found the idea has become more generalized. I have posted examples of species going through incremental changes. I'm not sure why this general concept is not understood.
[b][quote]
The problem, at least with the fossil record, is... (Now please don't quote and argue this...

So I should just leave it out there..;)

Maybe you'll come back and discuss ID, perhaps. I was only hoping to avaoid the rancore about whether it should be taught in schools to allow a more focused discussion.

See you around the Moot, Rian.:)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Philia
Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ......Blah Blah Blah blah....

Oh wait, and BLAH! :D

ROFLMAO! :D

[BeardofPants]

LOL! I guess we must all seem like cantankerous old gits... :D

[Coney]

BLAH!!!!!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I was pointing out that dramatic change would instigate mass extinctions and the establishment of new species over time by migration. The change of non-arid lands to arid would mean the demise of many creatures. I have no problem with the idea of other species migrating from other environments.

I agree with you thus far. I'd like to point out that I'm not saying anything against the migration theory. Indeed, that is the only reasonable way I can see that one can explain it.

Originally posted by Cirdan
What is clear from the data is that all these types of areas existed concurrently and that migration from one to another is not difficult. Even the most extreme "humid" period was characterized as having desert areas "almost" covered with vegatation. You characterized the migrations as coming from impossible distances or that there was no place for them to migrate from, which is not supported by the data.

This isn't really clear . . . Are you going by the oasis theory that Dunadan suggested? Suggesting that these creatures could exist in patches of territory? The changes were widespread, swift and intense. I don't recall hearing anything in any of the sources I've seen on this thread that describe the existence of such patches. These patches also would have to be big to support many species of life.

I'm not going to argue that the creatures couldn't have migrated in or out of their surroundings. If you want to go that way, I'm not going to contradict you. But I still see the theory of slow environment in tandem with slow evolution to be in contradiction with current evidence. No opinions I have observed up to this point show reasonable explanations for the contradiction.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
This isn't really clear . . . Are you going by the oasis theory that Dunadan suggested? Suggesting that these creatures could exist in patches of territory? The changes were widespread, swift and intense. I don't recall hearing anything in any of the sources I've seen on this thread that describe the existence of such patches. These patches also would have to be big to support many species of life.

Which life are you speaking of? OI have not seen any fossil data to support any arguements either way regarding whether any oasis (anti-oasis?) of desert life existed. I haven't seen any data regarding what species were lost and repopulated.

[b]
E. Lioubimtseva

The Holocene global warming effected everywhere in the Sahara-Gobi desert belt in significant increase of precipitation (and P/PET ratio). Despite some temporal variability of the start and pick of the optimum climatic conditions in the Holocene (the Holocene Climatic Optimum - HCO), a significant increase of humidity generally occurred between 9-9.5 ka and 6.5-5.5 ka, varying according to regional geographical conditions. The HCO increase of humidity caused by reactivating of monsoons led to almost total disappearance of the desert landscapes both in tropical and temperate zones. In the Sahara climatic optimum of 8.5 - 6.5 ka resulted in almost 50 times increase of precipitation (by 200-300 mm) compare to the present (Petit-Maire, 1989). The Saharo-Sahelian boundary shifted at those times up to 23-23° N, that meant by 500 km to the north compared to its present-day osition and by 1000 km compared to the LGM situation (Petit-Ma ire, 1989; Petit-Maire et al., 1995).

23 degrees north leaves quite a bit more Saharan desert than a "patch".

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, unfortunately my paste button isn't working at this particular second :mad:, so I can't respond to particular posts.

However, on evolution. I, along with Gwaimir, believe Micro evolution is a fact. There are evidences for it, such as the Burmingham Moth. The Burmingham Moth used to be white, and it was in England. Polution filled the atmosphere and the moths showed up against the blackness because of their white colors. Micro evolution took place, and they changed black, to avoid getting exterminated by predators.

The Drosophila fly was taken to different surroundings and allowed to reproduce, and its offspring had two sets of wings in one environment, while in the other they had one set of wings.

There are other, larger, examples.

Now, Macro evolution I have a few problems with. I don't have too much trouble with its happening, but I see little point in it, and little possibility that it could happen. Evidence has shown that the environment changes extremely rapidly. I think you'll find I gave evidence for this on one of the previous pages most recent to this one. I'll find the place, soon.

In any case, it is within a few thousand years that major changes happen, not over the millions of years necessary for Macro evolution to have serious affects. Large scale migration seems the only alternative to a Micro evolutionary view (Though as Micro evolution is as near proved as it can be, I see little reason to discard it), but there is little reason to believe that the environment's fast changes are only recent, and that it hasn't always been that way. Thus, Micro evolution seems to be the more logical view.

Also, there is the lack of transitional species. If all the species were evolving at a Macro evolution speed rate, then I think the lack of transitional species would be illogical. The fits and bursts theory is the only way to get around that, but that's basically Micro evolution, not Macro. And it needs to be Micro to keep up with the environment.

However, if Micro evolution is accepted as the primary replacement for Macro evolution (Whether you accept Macro evolution on a less important scale or not is irrelevant), then the lack of transitional species makes sense.

It is true that there are some transitional species that are known of, like for the horse. The horse has a large amount of transitional species, though it is a rare example of creatures lacking the transitional species.

The reason they are called transitional species is that there are species which have many, many specimens found of them, in different countries, even. There are hundreds or thousands of constructed skeletons of creatures from thousands of years ago. These are counted as species that aren't transitional, while it seems logical to call 'transitional' those species that there are very, very few of, and which fill in the gaps between one major species and its next evolutionary step that has large amounts of specimens.

[jerseydevil]

Since this is a about whether evolution should be taught in school - I will answer that again.

Yes it should. Evolution is based on science - unlike creationsim which is based on a story in a book no one knows who wrote. Intelligent design is just creationists trying to fit a science into their estasblished beliefs that a god exists and created the universe. Again - it's not based on science - it's based on belief.

Belief is not science and therefore should not be taught in schools. There is scientific evidence to support evolution - whether you agree with it or not.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Finrod's wild side
1) but any real science book will tell you that 2) fossil records indicate that evolution did in fact take place.
3) Sorry... I didn't realize. I'll leave then. This will be my last post here.


[/B]

1) "Real" meaning acting on the presupposition that there is no God?
2) Aha. The fossil records INDICATES, not proves. ;)
3) No reason for you to leave it. Just try to be a little more polite, maybe. ;)

[Lief Erikson]

Ruinel, if you're here, I wouldn't mind your posting that thing on the fossil method here, now :).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) "Real" meaning acting on the presupposition that there is no God?

No - science books (real science books) leave out the concept of god all together as they should. God is NOT science. God is a belief that is not provable - therefore god should not be put into the equation of science. Science books make not presupposition one way or the other to the existence of god.

2) Aha. The fossil records INDICATES, not proves. ;)

Sorry there is more evidence to support evolution than creationism. There is actually nothing to support creationism other than a bible story.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]However, on evolution. I, along with Gwaimir, believe Micro evolution is a fact. There are evidences for it, such as the Burmingham Moth. The Burmingham Moth used to be white, and it was in England. Polution filled the atmosphere and the moths showed up against the blackness because of their white colors. Micro evolution took place, and they changed black, to avoid getting exterminated by predators. [B]
Now don't forget a HUGELY IMPORTANT fact here - the black moth ALREADY EXISTED! It did NOT mutate into being! It was just less prevalent, because of the environment; then, when the environment changed, it naturally became more prevalent. This is natural selection, and does NOT prove evolution.

There's lots of problems with this study, tho, including things like the faked pictures, and also that the moths are nocturnal, and naturally are in the treetops, not on trunks of trees, IIRC.

[Lief Erikson]

The black moth was the white moth; it changed because it was endangered. The black moth didn't already exist, they were white moths. It isn't one species getting replaced by a less prevalent species.

RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

Erm, yikes. :eek:

[Lief Erikson]

:)

I'm curious. If I'm wrong in an aspect of my beliefs or outlook, I'd like to be corrected, but I don't think Genesis contradicts evolution.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
....(1) Evolution is based on science - unlike creationsim which is based on a story in a book no one knows who wrote. (2)Intelligent design is just creationists trying to fit a science into their estasblished beliefs that a god exists and created the universe. Again - it's not based on science - it's based on belief.

(3) Belief is not science and therefore should not be taught in schools. (4) There is scientific evidence to support evolution - whether you agree with it or not.

(1) - yes, it is BASED on science, but there are certain parts which are only guesses, like where stuff originally came from. And creation by intelligent design is also based on science, and it has certain parts that are only guesses. Evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind things - can you deny that?

(2) - I disagree. The theory of evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind the process. The theory of creation by intelligent design is based on the BELIEF that there IS an intelligent being behind the process, and this being is behind the observable, measureable events and things that are out there.

(3) - then don't teach evolution either. Or, what is really the best solution and the one with the most scientific integrity - teach the 2 most supported theories, both of which are based on an unproveable BELIEF but have testable tenets developed by intelligent scientists - the theory of creation by intelligent design (by far the best :D) and the theory of evolution.

(4) There is scientific evidence to support creation by intelligent design - whether you agree with it or not.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The theory of evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind the process. The theory of creation by intelligent design is based on the BELIEF that there IS an intelligent being behind the process, and this being is behind the observable, measureable events and things that are out there.
I disagree with the first sentence of this. The theory of evolution says nothing about whether God created living organisms. All it does is offer a scientific explanation for their existing. It doesn't say that evolution might not have been designed intelligently.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, I have one question for you. Why do you so strongly disbelieve evolution, anyway? What part of our beliefs does it threaten?

I DON'T "strongly disbelieve evolution" :) My one and only beef is with the people that so strongly disbelieve creation by intelligent design and say it is not "scientific" ONLY because it is based on a belief that an intelligent being was behind things!

My personal opinion is that creation by intelligent design fits the observable facts better, but I have NO problem with people that believe that evolution fits the facts better. My problem is when evolution people say that a scientist can't be scientific and believe that creation by intelligent design is a better model.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Darwin expected to, didn't he? Now the theory has been updated, because they HAVEN"T been found, but I'm reacting to Ruinel's post that said the fossil record PROVED evolution.

The key thing about science is that its theories get updated. Glad you mentioned that. I can't/am not going to speak for what Darwin's expectations were. Either way, the field of biological anthropology has come a long way since the Darwins and Larmarcks.

Rian:
Do you agree with her statement?

That fossil evolution is FACT? No. But I believe that it is a very good scientifically proven THEORY.

Rian:
That may be, but there sure are lots of fossils, and of those that DO exist, there are not the originally-expected-amounts of transitional forms, wouldn't you agree?

Due to way fossils are formed, I would expect there to be a less than the optimal representation of the fossil record. Sure, there are lots of fossils, but in terms of the time frame we're looking at, there simply aren't enough fossils to go around. Plus, there is the increasing problem of deterioration. You have to remember that making a fossil is HARD. Certain things have to occur before you have a successful fossil. THEN, once you have the fossil, there are a whole lot of other taphonomical factors that need to be considered: cultural/biological infiltration, natural disasters, various geological intrusions, etc. I believe I can count on all my fingers and toes the amount of complete hominids dating from before the genus H. sapiens.

Regarding transitional forms: that just not the way it works. We, as anthroplogists, are having a hard enough time piecing together the existences of the varying hominids, without actually having to worry about transitional fossils. Besides which, as I mentioned in the religion thread, Evolution is geared towards change, thus transitionals (individuals - see down below) are erroneous. I can't really get into this in more detail, otherwise, I think I'll have finished a dissertation by the time I've finished trying to explain! But I will add this: there are too many factors acting on organisms for there to be any ONE transitional. It would be more accurate to consider transitional phases, than it would be to consider transitional fossils.

rian:
Well, that seems pretty unfair to me - aren't you working backwards? "All" specimens could be considered transitional (BTW, is that the right term?) because that is what the theory of evolution says?

I don't believe so. See above, RE: phases, rather than individual fossils. The key component of evolution is selecting for the best fit. Evidence is available from varying geological surveys that at the very least, there were great environmental changes occuring. This would suggest that organisms would have had to have ensured their survival through constant adaptation, and therefore, constant change would have been necessary. I don't think I am being erroneous in saying that Evolution is about change, and therefore all organims could be considered as transitionals. But the fact of the matter is that I don't believe in transitionals - I believe in phases.

Rian
....to look impartially at the data and decide whether or not it fits the theory?

When was I not doing that? The fossil evidence suggests phases of transitional periods, rather than transitional individuals. (I don't like that word, btw.)

Rian:
Wouldn't you say that the fossil record agrees very well with the creation by intelligent design model of living beings appearing fully formed?

Not particularly. Mitochondrial DNA evidence now suggests that we interbred with Neanderthals. If it were just the fossil record, then perhaps. But there are other factors to consider now. Like genetics, and cultural evidence such as tool specialisation, grave burials.

Rian:
Weren't the th. of ev. people originally trying v. hard to find transitional forms?

Perhaps there were some - you have to remember the time it occured in though. People were still claiming that there were strange monstrocities in the Americas, and the wealthy were interested in funding these expeditions. Lamarck certainly encompassed individal change (well prior to Darwinianism) - he theorised that changes in the environment could impinge upon an organism within it's own lifetime - he thought that giraffes got long necks because they couldn't reach the leaves basically, and so they adapted in their own lifetime. However, this is well before Darwin published Origin of Species.

Rian:
I think that currently they're not being looked for because they've been looked for for so long and not found.

See above, on transitional phases.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I DON'T "strongly disbelieve evolution" :) My one and only beef is with the people that so strongly disbelieve creation by intelligent design and say it is not "scientific" ONLY because it is based on a belief that an intelligent being was behind things!

My personal opinion is that creation by intelligent design fits the observable facts better, but I have NO problem with people that believe that evolution fits the facts better. My problem is when evolution people say that a scientist can't be scientific and believe that creation by intelligent design is a better model.
I don't think the Bible has anything against evolution. As a matter of a fact, in Genesis Chapter 3 we see God punish one of his own creatures by changing it into something else. The serpent.

Though I tend to view that as a whole species transformation, that the serpent represented the dinosaur. Because he said "you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust." For that to be a punishment, it must imply that it didn't crawl on its belly and eat dust in the past, which implied it was in a more upright position. In fact, the dinosaur perfectly fits that.

I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did. And what it does show beyond a doubt is that God doesn't mind changing his creatures from one sort of creature to another.

As is plainly proved by humans, as well. Aren't we born again? Changed into a totally new life :). Different from evolution, of course, but once again, I see science as paralleling the Christian experience.

Now, as far as evolution disproving intelligent design, I greatly agree with you. Evolution doesn't say whether or not a creator is pulling the strings of the universe and pushing everything into place in his perfect plan.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did.

Hmmm. Reptiles are cold blooded. Last time I checked, Dinosaurs weren't considered to be cold blooded. I could be wrong though - not my field. However, I can tell you that the aves (birds) are more closely related to dinosaurs, than reptiles are.

[Lief Erikson]

Sheeana, would you mind responding to my first post today on this thread? The one that discusses Micro and Macro evolution and the environment. These discoveries also take into account the lack of transitional species.

And look, there SHOULD be transitional species, if we have so much on particular species, from various continents. They cannot possibly have evolved in a steady rate.

Meanwhile, the recent discoveries on Micro evolution and swift environmental changes support each other strongly, and make it seem as though Macro evolution over a large scale, though possible, isn't very necessary.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Hmmm. Reptiles are cold blooded. Last time I checked, Dinosaurs weren't considered to be cold blooded. I could be wrong though - not my field. However, I can tell you that the aves (birds) are more closely related to dinosaurs, than reptiles are.
So it might seem. I haven't studied that either. It would be fascinating to study though, one day :).

Meanwhile, my point was primarily to RÃ*an, that God plainly is willing to change his creatures.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't think the Bible has anything against evolution. As a matter of a fact, in Genesis Chapter 3 we see God punish one of his own creatures by changing it into something else. The serpent.

Though I tend to view that as a whole species transformation, that the serpent represented the dinosaur. Because he said "you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust." For that to be a punishment, it must imply that it didn't crawl on its belly and eat dust in the past, which implied it was in a more upright position. In fact, the dinosaur perfectly fits that.

I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did. And what it does show beyond a doubt is that God doesn't mind changing his creatures from one sort of creature to another.

As is plainly proved by humans, as well. Aren't we born again? Changed into a totally new life :). Different from evolution, of course, but once again, I see science as paralleling the Christian experience.

Now, as far as evolution disproving intelligent design, I greatly agree with you. Evolution doesn't say whether or not a creator is pulling the strings of the universe and pushing everything into place in his perfect plan.

The dinosaur thing is quite interesting, Lief. :) But I've always taken the simplistic view, and thought that the serpent had legs before. :p I mean, since this was before Death, there wouldn't have been any dead serpents around, and therefore of course there wouldn't be any skeletons of ancient legged snakes. ;)

Though I personally don't like what's towards the end. Sounds a bit like Deism to me.

So then, do you believe that man, made in the image of God, was originally a single-celled organism?

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry if I came across as sounding like Deism at the end :). That was a mistake.

We have another thing we must remember. That "death" really only started when man sinned, and separated himself from God. Mankind is dead without Jesus. It could be a spiritual death that was being spoken of. (Shrugs) Anyway, it isn't too serious an objection.

Besides, you really have to believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days for it to be possible for pain and death to have not existed till man ate the fruit. None of the species before humanity could have existed if there was no death and no pain. And the 7 days is something that I object to being taken as literal days, simply because they aren't very Scripturally logical.

It seems as though in this respect (pain and death), the simplest meaning is different. The creatures weren't separated from God, but the separation they chose for themselves was painful and caused them to spiritually die. This is a Biblical fact. Whether this death was being talked about, or physical death, is a matter of opinion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(1) - yes, it is BASED on science, but there are certain parts which are only guesses, like where stuff originally came from. And creation by intelligent design is also based on science, and it has certain parts that are only guesses. Evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind things - can you deny that?

Yes I can deny that - because evolution just doesn't put the question of god into the equation whatsoever. No where does evolution rely on there being NO god. And the guesses that you mention are based on scientific study. As I have said before on this thread and others of it's ilk - a good scientist needs to leave their beliefs at the door. God has no place in science unless it can proved that there is a god.

(2) - I disagree. The theory of evolution is based on a BELIEF that there is no intelligent being behind the process. The theory of creation by intelligent design is based on the BELIEF that there IS an intelligent being behind the process, and this being is behind the observable, measureable events and things that are out there.

NO evolution is just trying to figure out how things became what they are today - it has nothing to with whether is or is not a god. If that is what you think the study of evolution requires no belief in god - then you are grossly misinformed. I was taught evolution all throughout Catholic school.

(3) - then don't teach evolution either. Or, what is really the best solution and the one with the most scientific integrity - teach the 2 most supported theories, both of which are based on an unproveable BELIEF but have testable tenets developed by intelligent scientists - the theory of creation by intelligent design (by far the best :D) and the theory of evolution.

Why - evolution evolves and chnages as the science changes. It's a huge jigsaw puzzle and the pieces are coming together. Intelligent design is just the creationists trying to to get creation into the classroom. They trying to shoehorn pseudo-evolution and add in god. God if not science and not provable or disaprovable and therefore has no place in science.

(4) There is scientific evidence to support creation by intelligent design - whether you agree with it or not.
Where? Because some of the evolutionary puzzle is missing and it's easier to just explain it away as "well that's because god did it that way?" That's not science and it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[Lief Erikson]

There's another thing that ties right into that, Gwaimir. Ah . . . I'll send you it over email. This thread shouldn't turn into Christian discoveries discussion :D.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

yes. evolution should be taught in school, but so also the controversy about it should be taught in school and the religious way of explaining how it happened

in my opinion...evolution did happend...g-d didnt just create humans and all the other animals

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn
yes. evolution should be taught in school, but so also the controversy about it should be taught in school and the religious way of explaining how it happened

in my opinion...evolution did happend...g-d didnt just create humans and all the other animals
Why the religious way of explaining it? that has nothing to do with science. God is NOT science.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Evidence has shown that the environment changes extremely rapidly. I think you'll find I gave evidence for this on one of the previous pages most recent to this one.

What evidence? Your mystery island evidence doesn't count.

LE
Thus, Micro evolution seems to be the more logical view.

How so?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that you cannot seperate the two. Both are reliant on changes within the alleles, however, one exhibits small changes (which are usually combined within the species), and one exhibits big changes (which either diverge or converge between species). Your idea that the two are somehow separate is erroneous.

LE
The fits and bursts theory is the only way to get around that, but that's basically Micro evolution, not Macro. And it needs to be Micro to keep up with the environment.

You're a really nice person to debate with, but your lack of knowledge and justification is beginning to bug me. Punctuated equilibrium is not basically micro. It merely details that changes will occur more rapidly at certain times than others. It generally specifies macro changes NOT micro. Btw: if an organism is "keeping up with the environment" then the changes would more likely be macro rather than micro. You only have to look at specimens of australopithecines to see this: they had all their brachiating abilities in conjunction with a new bipedal locomotion ability. This is attributed to the change from a grassy woodland environment to a more open savannah. This environmental change produced MACRO changes to the organism, not micro changes. I think some defintitions are in order there:

Micro: within the species. (small changes at the genetic level)
Macro: At, or above the species. Your example of the birmingham moth would actually be considered an example of macroevolution, not microevolution, btw.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

This means that any mutations that cause significant changes in the phenotype, ie bipedalism, as opposed to quadrapedialism, also serve to significantly change/diverge the organism from its predecessors, and therefore the changes are occuring above the species, thefore macro.

LE
It is true that there are some transitional species that are known of, like for the horse. The horse has a large amount of transitional species, though it is a rare example of creatures lacking the transitional species.

As I said earlier in my posts to Rian, anthropologists don't tend to label phases as transitionals. This is because the whole 'chain' is considered to be a period of transition. We look for phases of change, granted, but not specifically for transitionals. Evolution occurs gradually, which is backed up by both the fossil, geological, and archeological records. Since the change is gradual, and since it occurs over long periods of time - you only have to look at the detailed change of hominid dentition to see this (Early australopithecines had larger more robust teeth which branched off into two different sub-sets: this is often used as evidence of a changing diet, and this evidence coveres a few million years.) - transitionals is a bit erroneous. Your idea of transitional is silly: the other problem I have with this is that it assumes the evolution is linear, which we know is incorrect.

LE
There are hundreds or thousands of constructed skeletons of creatures from thousands of years ago. These are counted as species that aren't transitional, while it seems logical to call 'transitional' those species that there are very, very few of, and which fill in the gaps between one major species and its next evolutionary step that has large amounts of specimens.

Actually, if we're talking hominids, then those skeletons aren't transitionals (god I hate that word) because they're sapiens - same as us.

What examples are you thinking of here? I'd like to see less postulation, and more evidence to back your claims. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Lizra]

I agree, until there is some scientific proof of an "intelligent designer", keep it out of the schools. Just saying evolution is too complicated or random to happen naturally, is not a good enough reason to say intelligent designer exists. There are many churches available for teachings about God. Schools should stick to the known facts. That doesn't mean it can't be said we don't really know what created the Big Bang, but once the primordial soup started up, fossil records, dna mapping, and other scientific data works well for me. Keep religion out of school! Everyone has different beliefs, you shouldn't have it in school!

The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are not on equal footing (IMO). Rereading all the posts in this threads will prove that! (Remember, I love you Rian!:D )

[Sheeana]

LE
And look, there SHOULD be transitional species, if we have so much on particular species, from various continents. They cannot possibly have evolved in a steady rate.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. The fossil record supports the idea that organisms change over time. Because of the time frame that we're looking at, I think that it is a silly idea to look for transitionals, because a) evolution isn't linear and b) the nature of evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME, and therefore, all change is transitional, and therefore there is no one particular phase that would stand out as transitional.

LE
Meanwhile, the recent discoveries on Micro evolution and swift environmental changes support each other strongly....

Which are where? Cite your evidence please.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
....Meanwhile, my point was primarily to RÃ*an, that God plainly is willing to change his creatures.

And I've thought about your question since I posted my answer, and I do, in fact, have some other problems with evolution, which I"ll post about tomorrow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
.....The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are not on equal footing (IMO). Rereading all the posts in this threads will prove that! (Remember, I love you Rian!:D )

Mwa!! XOXOXO :D

And I disagree with you! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I've thought about your question since I posted my answer, and I do, in fact, have some other problems with evolution, which I"ll post about tomorrow.
People had a problem with the world being round or the earth revolving around the sun too - and you see how right religion was about those things. It wasn't until they had no choice but to accept that science was right and religion was wrong - even though religion condemned many good men to death for teaching such heresy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I agree, until there is some scientific proof of an "intelligent designer", keep it out of the schools. Just saying evolution is too complicated or random to happen naturally, is not a good enough reason to say intelligent designer exists. There are many churches available for teachings about God. Schools should stick to the known facts. That doesn't mean it can't be said we don't really know what created the Big Bang, but once the primordial soup started up, fossil records, dna mapping, and other scientific data works well for me. Keep religion out of school! Everyone has different beliefs, you shouldn't have it in school!

I agree - schools should teach that we don't fully understadn evolution or what caused the big bang. The thing is they do - even Discovery Magazine has "could" and "indicates" all over their articles. Science is all about searching for the truth. If something doesn't fit right - then it has be figured out why it doesn't - does the theory have to be completely reworked - do all the pieces need ot be relooked at? People don't look at religion in scientific terms - it is pure belief.

[Lief Erikson]

This I posted earlier in this thread, when discussing the environmental research.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Yes, there are (Quoting from the World Book) a few species which have the intermediates found for them. Not many at all though, and I'm certainly not warring with the existence of intermediates. But because I think a faster evolution happened, it makes sense that there aren't a whole lot of those found.

All that you basically said is that there are a few intermediate species. What does that prove? What I'm saying is that there are several different species found in many different locations. Why should these species appear in multiple locations while hundreds of intermediate species of all sorts of creatures go entirely unobserved. I think that we should be seeing less of the same creatures and more of many different species.



Now back to the environment question. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, the Sahara/Gobi desert chains were all lush without any evidence at all of any desert life. Between 120,000 years ago and 9,000 years ago, this area became extremely arid, turning into a desert type region. Between 20,000 years and 18,000 years ago, this area became so hot, dry and impossible to live in that there is extremely little evidence of any creatures living in these regions. That period was the most difficult during that stretch for the desert inhabitants.

Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the climate changed again, and forest and grasslands spread all over the region, with only a few patches of desert left. The country then received 50 times as much precipitation as it had during the arid years before.

Then everything became desert again. I get these dates from the World Book Encyclopedia and an Internet article written by E. Lioubimsteva called "IMPACTS OF CLIMATIC CHANGE ON CARBON STORAGE VARIATIONS IN AFRICAN AND ASIAN DESERTS." You can reach it through a search at google.com.

[Ruinel]

I was originally NOT going to post in this thread. But oh, well.

First of all Iron Parrot has already said pretty much all there needs to be said (as I read back to the beginning).

Second, I get the impression from anti-Evolution posts here that they think teachers should just tell students that things just appeared from nowhere, as if by magic, despite the fact that evidence points to the contrary. Or just tell them to go talk to their parents about it.

Many false and misleading statements have been posted here and in the 'Offshoot...' thread about fossil records. Truly, only under certain circumstances can a fossil form from the dead remains of an animal. Only the parts of an animal that contain minerals (like calcium) can actually be fossilized. This leaves out animals without some hard mineralized part(s). That's quite a lot of the earlier animals. Since most dead animals are eaten or parts carried off by scavengers, the vast majority of animals will not be fossilized. If the animal rots too much, no fossil either. If the animal is not covered in sediment quick enough... no fossil. See? The conditions under which an animal can actually be fossilized is not as common as you might think. And even when the animal is fossilized, it may be crushed or broken or heated under the pressure of the earth.

All of these fossils are buried in layers. The top most would be considered the youngest. The bottom layers being the older fossils. Even microbial fossils have been found in rocks that are 2 billion years old. Through this layering and dating of rock, there is apparent a sequence of events... shelled organisms appear around 540 million years ago; simple fish 490 million years ago; amphibians 350 mil yrs ago; reptiles 310 mil; mammals 200 mil; primates (not human) appear 60 mil; early apes 25 mil; Australopithecine (human ancestors) 4 mil; and modern humans appear about 150 000 yrs ago to present.

From the fossil records we do have, we know that a variety of animals lived on this earth, many of which are similar to the ones that now exist in our time. We can use these records to compare animals from differing time periods, their similarities and slight structure changes and adaptations over time.

Evolution also explains hereditary variations in species. The study of genetics and molecular biology explain hereditary variations that are essential to the natural selection argument. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected in a lab and described with great precision. Go science!

Just look at humans for example. We all came out of Africa. We are all basically a living example of evolution. The first human population lived in Africa and over thousands of years migrated out moving north to Europe or East. We also know that modern living humans are not related to Neanderthal Man. We are however, related to Cro-Magnon Man. How do we know? Frozen bodies in Europe and Asia. We can genetically match those samples with current human samples.

There is more... I just feel like this is long enough. Feel free to expand on what I have written or add more evidence.

[Lief Erikson]

And here is the conclusion of my post on the fast changing environment. There are other evidences too, like in Africa. I can get you that also, after you read this, if you want more.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Now to continue my question posing. Between 150,000 and 120,000 years ago, you have a lush climate. This supports creatures that live in a beautiful and fertile land, and there is no evidence at this time of any desert life. This information is based upon pollen. The first question that this (if you accept the current methods and information) raises is: Where did the desert animals come from that filled the Gobi and Sahara desert regions? And where did all of the other animals that filled this enormous space of land (18,000,000 km., all the territory from the Atlantic Ocean and Sahara Desert to Northern China) go to? Did they all migrate or die? And the desert creatures, there was no evidence of desert life at all to our knowledge in these areas, even in minority. Yet they came from no where to spread out over enormous tracts of land, replacing the former inhabitants.

You have to assume the migration of enormous numbers of creatures if you're going to get anywhere. Let's say you do this. What then? You have these creatures migrating into already populated areas by other creatures, thus causing enormous conflict over the resources available. Predators would be encountering other predators and needing food just as the others did.

But enough of raising those issues, let's get back to the dates. Between 18,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago, there is almost no life recorded due to the enormously hostile environment in these regions. Then, between 9,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, everything became lush again. You had grasslands and forests (Information taken from the World Book) in these regions. The desert creatures largely vanished. Migration, or death? Anyway, out of the blue in this period of time, we have Hippos, Giraffes, Elephants and many other species. These forementioned creatures cannot possibly have managed to live through the thousands of arid years and survived the extremely hostile period. They need, as I'm sure you know, water and foliage in large amounts in order to survive. The nature of the body structures of the creatures makes it impossible for them simply to have "adapted" over millions of years of the same events happening in structured pattern. They had to have migrated in; there's no other explanation by the current evolutionary standard.

Also in the Arabian peninsula you see no arid landscape at all between the last 9,000 and 6,000 years.

Then the desert took over again, and its creatures. This actually also helps to go against Natural Selection, which says that all the creatures best adapted to an environment are the ones that will survive. The desert creatures would be at a severe disadvantage during this period of 3,000 years, and would be easy prey to the new creatures which are so much better adapted to the climate.

If these sorts of drastic changes (Not influenced at all by man at that time) were happening over those periods of time, we cannot simply assume that it is only during the past million years or so that these things are happening. There isn't any reason why the time we're looking at now should be any different than that which has been since life on Earth first evolved. This implies that these enormous shifts we see today could easily have been happening during these older periods of time as well.

The main explanation that I can see is migration, but there is a difficulty with the migration theory. And that is that slow evolution theory assumes that creatures slowly evolve to their environment. The migration theory basically shoots that, for they no longer need to evolve that much (Although they still can, to some extent), they can simply migrate, and they have to migrate. Species built for plentiful food resources cannot survive in arid desert climates, however much you argue "adaptation due to experience."

And BeardofPants, jerseydevil, whoever out there has some knowledge of evolution and this kind of thing, I don't want to be holding a private conversation with Cirdan. I'd rather hear of your opinions on this as well.

[Ruinel]

Damn LE! That's a long winded post. *rubs eyes*

[Sheeana]

Long winded, and erroneous. *sigh* Hey Ruinel, wanna join me at the wall here? *bangs head*

Leif, we've covered this before. Cirdan (spelled it right this time, dammit), myself, A-E, and JD debunked you. Must we cover this again?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Let me explain where I'm coming from. The fossil record supports the idea that organisms change over time. Because of the time frame that we're looking at, I think that it is a silly idea to look for transitionals, because a) evolution isn't linear and b) the nature of evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME, and therefore, all change is transitional, and therefore there is no one particular phase that would stand out as transitional.
I know, I don't expect there to be large numbers of one particular species that is a transitional species. However, I wanted to point out that those changes there are are sharp. For example, we have Velociraptor skeletons and Velociraptor skeletons, collected in different places. Deinonycas (Agh! Been too long since I studied dinosaurs- I've forgotten how to spell its name! :eek:) and others are very, very similar and are found on different continents. The question is raised as to how come there are so many of many species that have been found, over a such a large terrain, while hundreds of other intermediate species aren't also there in bulk. This problem is particularly accute when you take into account what Ruinel just posted, about the unlikeliness of something's becoming a fossil at all.

Fast environmental changes are another major problem with Macro evolution.

The fact that Micro evolution is becoming broadly accepted solves the Macro evolution problem, if you accept it, and the missing intermediate species in one blow. The intermediate species were there and did exist at one time. There simply weren't many of them, because they were changing as the environment stabilized into a different form. After the environment had thus stabilized, major species were able to develop, and exist until the environment changed dramatically again.

Thus the existence of small amounts of intermediate species is explained, along with the fact that major species are able to be found in different places.

At least, that somewhat solves it. There are some discrepancies still, such as the fact that extremely similar species were found on different continents, which is totally illogical if you think that the break-up of the continents happened a long time ago.

Fast environment and Micro evolution are accepted, scientifically. It's simply another step in logic to say that that's the reason we lack these intermediate species. This doesn't say Macro evolution doesn't exist, it simply says that it's had no major affect, because all the major changes happened quickly through Micro evolution.
Originally posted by Sheeana
Which are where? Cite your evidence please.
I have now produced some of my evidence, in the above two posts. Other evidence jerseydevil brought up later on in the discussion, and I'll call on that too, if you dispute what I've brought up. Thanks for being polite, I do appreciate it :).

[Melko Belcha]

Evolution should be taught in schools, but schools and religion should remain seperate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
1) Sorry if I came across as sounding like Deism at the end :). That was a mistake.

2) We have another thing we must remember. That "death" really only started when man sinned, and separated himself from God. Mankind is dead without Jesus. It could be a spiritual death that was being spoken of. (Shrugs) Anyway, it isn't too serious an objection.

Besides, you really have to believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days for it to be possible for pain and death to have not existed till man ate the fruit. 4) None of the species before humanity could have existed if there was no death and no pain. 3) And the 7 days is something that I object to being taken as literal days, simply because they aren't very Scripturally logical.

It seems as though in this respect (pain and death), the simplest meaning is different. The creatures weren't separated from God, but the separation they chose for themselves was painful and caused them to spiritually die. This is a Biblical fact. Whether this death was being talked about, or physical death, is a matter of opinion.
1) I don't mind. I just don't believe in Deism. :)
2) Seems to me that it makes more sense as physical death. Remember, that after the fall, people lived for a very LONG time, and there life started to (generally) decrease then. It seems to me rather logical (or at least not far-fetched) that the long life spans came after immortality.
3) If I remember correctly, the Hebrew word used means a twenty-four hour period...not sure though...
4) Why?

Shutting up now. :D

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Long winded, and erroneous. *sigh* Hey Ruinel, wanna join me at the wall here? *bangs head*

Leif, we've covered this before. Cirdan (spelled it right this time, dammit), myself, A-E, and JD debunked you. Must we cover this again?
I beg your pardon? No one debunked me that I remember. Are you referring to the migration argument, or Dunadan's patchwork argument?

Micro evolution is accepted and proved, as much as Macro evolution is, and in my opinion, more. Scientists are at least able to test Micro evolution because it's meant to take place in a short period of time. And they have tested it, and their findings were in my Biology book.

As for the environment, that's scientific too. Cirdan ended up saying migration must be it, but that's simply because he refused to accept what scientists are saying about Micro evolution.



Sheeana, I don't remember you being in that thread, anyway. Or are you really BeardofPants? She was occasionally in that argument, I remember.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Long winded, and erroneous. *sigh* Hey Ruinel, wanna join me at the wall here? *bangs head*
:(

Look, Sheeana, if you aren't interested in reading my long posts, don't bother. Ruinel already hates to do it; she made that plain in the Offshoot thread. So don't respond if you're not interested in responding. And remember that this largely is not me talking. The only part that is me talking and not science is the part where I'm using it as a logical explanation for the missing intermediate species. What's wrong with that, I'm not sure.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Micro evolution is accepted and proved, as much as Macro evolution is, and in my opinion, more. Scientists are at least able to test Micro evolution because it's meant to take place in a short period of time. And they have tested it, and their findings were in my Biology book.

*sigh* Micro- and Macroevolution are the same things, just on a different scale.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

THAT is why I think your postulations are erroneous. Anything that exhibits significant change within the organism regardless of how quick the change occured, is considered to be macro.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
....So then, do you believe that man, made in the image of God, was originally a single-celled organism?
Good point, Gwai!

NOTE TO SELF - comment on Lot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt ... does that mean my fate is to be a pile of crystalline matter? If so, can I choose the substance? How about sugar?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
*sigh* Micro- and Macroevolution are the same things, just on a different scale.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

THAT is why I think your postulations are erroneous. Anything that exhibits significant change within the organism regardless of how quick the change occured, is considered to be macro.
Yes, I know you call Micro and Macro evolution just different speed rates. The speed though is the important thing, to me. Slow evolution is what I'm arguing against, and fast evolution is what I believe is correct. That things can evolve quickly is established (Even if not among Creationists), that environment changes fast is established.

So what's your problem with my theory? Where is my logic flawed? What do you believe happened to the creatures during the time slots I gave? Did they die in mass scale, did they migrate, or did they evolve?

Very well, we're talking entirely within the realm of Macro evolution. The name doesn't matter to me so much as the concept. And I'm saying the concept of slow evolution is flawed by the known speed of the environment, and the reason for us believing it exists is shrunk by our knowledge that evolution can happen fast.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Good point, Gwai!

NOTE TO SELF - comment on Lot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt ... does that mean my fate is to be a pile of crystalline matter? If so, can I choose the substance? How about sugar?
In response, I have a question. How is being made out of dust more fitting for God's creatures than being made from a single celled organism?

Especially when the definition of "dust" is organic material.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hm, good question. ;) I suppose it's because it wasn't ALIVE until God "breathed life" into it, at which point it was Man, made in His image.

[Lief Erikson]

So something's not being alive makes it more worthy to be made into God's creature? :confused: Besides, if it was organic material man was made from, who's to say whether or not it already was alive?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know, I don't expect there to be large numbers of one particular species that is a transitional species.


Ardipithecus
|
Anamensis
|
Afarensis....................|
|................................?Boisei
Africanus....................|
|................................?Aethiopicus
Habilis........................|
|................................?Robustus
??Rudolphensis
|
??Ergaster
|
Erectus......................|
|................................Heidelbergensis
Sapiens......................|
..................................Neanderthalensis

Which would be the transitionals?

Editted: to move Heidelbergensis.

[Lief Erikson]

The transitional species I speak of are the ones that fit between species that have a large number of fossil specimens.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Hm, good question. ;) I suppose it's because it wasn't ALIVE until God "breathed life" into it, at which point it was Man, made in His image.
In other words, we were the first. We were basically created without any phases of being different species going on first.

Besides, I don't find dust any better than a one celled organism, even so :). God breathed life into any creature that is alive now. I suppose the primary problem with it that people have is that it was a scientific method, not a supernatural occurence. However, if God's power is directing things, then whether he uses a natural means or an unnatural means to accomplish his end in the physical universe, I don't see that it is very bad for people to have been created by evolution. We were created by God either way.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The transitional species I speak of are the ones that fit between species that have a large number of fossil specimens.

That doesn't work either, because a large number of the genus Australopithecus simply don't have a large number of fossil specimens. Why? Because they don't survive well. Are you saying that all the early hominids are transitional simply because they don't have ample representation in the fossil record? Specifically, which ones would you consider to be transitional?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
In other words, we were the first. We were basically created without any phases of being different species going on first.

Besides, I don't find dust any better than a one celled organism, even so :). God breathed life into any creature that is alive now. I suppose the primary problem with it that people have is that it was a scientific method, not a supernatural occurence. However, if God's power is directing things, then whether he uses a natural means or an unnatural means to accomplish his end in the physical universe, I don't see that it is very bad for people to have been created by evolution. We were created by God either way.

I agree with you, overall. I mean, I don't see why people seem to think it invalidates the Will of God in something, if they can explain it. God has to do it SOMEway. Why can he not do it in a way working within the natural laws, which He created? But I suppose I draw the line at Creation and Evolution.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
:(

Look, Sheeana, if you aren't interested in reading my long posts, don't bother. Ruinel already hates to do it; she made that plain in the Offshoot thread.
It was just long... that's all. You posted really long posts in the other thread too. It just gets to the point where you skim and don't really read it thoroughly. I'm sure you had something important to say, but it's late for me and therefore lost on me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I agree with you, overall. I mean, I don't see why people seem to think it invalidates the Will of God in something, if they can explain it. God has to do it SOMEway. Why can he not do it in a way working within the natural laws, which He created? But I suppose I draw the line at Creation and Evolution.
(Shrugs) Fine. It just leads to some tough disagreement with Atheists that I don't think is necessary. That's all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
It was just long... that's all. You posted really long posts in the other thread too. It just gets to the point where you skim and don't really read it thoroughly. I'm sure you had something important to say, but it's late for me and therefore lost on me.
Yes. You see, when I post, I like to explore many of the different aspects of a problem that are visible to me, rather than just doing one. If there are many supporting evidences, I like to bring them all up, and if I draw a conclusion, I like to show the place from which I've drawn it. That's why my posts are long. I just really like to explore different issues in depth, rather than giving simple statements and hoping everyone believes or accepts them.

[Lizra]

My favorite saying LE..."Less is more" Instead of boring people to death with hard to follow minutiae, hone "Your" thoughts down to some crystal clear ideas that flow and make sense! :) A more powerful style of communication (IMO)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
That doesn't work either, because a large number of the genus Australopithecus simply don't have a large number of fossil specimens. Why? Because they don't survive well. Are you saying that all the early hominids are transitional simply because they don't have ample representation in the fossil record? Specifically, which ones would you consider to be transitional?
Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains? Why have we found so many of certain species, particularly considering the large amounts of time we're dealing with (Millions of years) and the number of species we have to accept existing. I haven't seen you strike at my evidence or opinion in any affective way.

All you have done is deny that there are any transitional species. What I label a transitional species is one that has very little record of its existence. In other words, one that has very little supporting evidence that it remained on this earth for a long period of time. The ones that have few fossil remains (If evolution was happening slowly) are the ones that are most logical to point to.

Also note that many of the species that have been found in large numbers aren't simply the most successful species of the time. Different little creatures that were easy prey still have large amounts of fossils found to them.

You have not explained why we have found so many fossils of certain species and so few of others, if they were all constantly changing at a very gradual rate. It's illogical that we'd be able to find hundreds of fossils of some creatures, and then have no record at all of other species that filled the earth for large periods of time.

Meanwhile, I have given accepted (In other words, created by distinguished scientists using the scientific method) scientific evidences in support my opinion. Fast evolution is accepted. Swift environmental changes are accepted. This being a good reason for the lack of intermediate species between major species that have huge amounts of fossils for them is what I'm advocating. Will you please find some substantial flaw in this theory, if you object to it?

It just seems like the next step in logic, to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
My favorite saying LE..."Less is more" Instead of boring people to death with hard to follow minutiae, hone "Your" thoughts down to some crystal clear ideas that flow and make sense! :) A more powerful style of communication (IMO)
I'll go to the bare essentials for you :).

Swift environmental changes are accepted. Fast evolution is accepted. I'm simply going to the next step, saying that fast evolution because of fast environment is probably what causes the lack in our having many intermediate species.

[Lizra]

Fossil remains are dicovered at random, as nature permits. Much is under water! Holes and gaps exist because this evidence was not preserved and documented for the future masses to understand. It's too bad scientific evidence for the theory of evolution doesn't flow as fully and smoothly as you would like, but don't resort to grabbing at straws to disprove it. (IMO) Where's the proof of the intelligent designer? Where is he? Where is the heaven. How'd he do it? I think the creation theory has many more holes than the theory of evolution. Thanks for the short reply! ;)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
Fossil remains are dicovered at random, as nature permits. Much is under water! Holes and gaps exist because this evidence was not preserved and documented for the future masses to understand. It's too bad scientific evidence for the theory of evolution doesn't flow as fully and smoothly as you would like, but don't resort to grabbing at straws to disprove it. (IMO)
I don't think I'm grabbing at straws. I just told you the basics of the problem; I went into more depth on the problem I see with the lack of intermediate species earlier. You see why I have to give long posts? ;)
My not-very-long response ;)
There are large numbers of certain species that have been found. Hundreds of fossils, and these weren't all the most advanced species either. Some less successful species still were fossilized in abundance. However, there are large gaps in which few specimens are found. Not none, but few- very, very few or none, in some instances. These seem to me like transitional phases in which the species changed according to its environment. There wouldn't be any problem with few intermediate species if there were few major species to match. There simply isn't an even strain of creatures. Fast evolution requires no such thing, and it fits beautifully with the scientifically accepted knowledge we have today.
Originally posted by Lizra
Where's the proof of the intelligent designer? Where is he? Where is the heaven. How'd he do it? I think the creation theory has many more holes than the theory of evolution. Thanks for the short reply! ;)
Are those holes? It rather astounds me how much we can discover about our universe just from here on Earth. God (In my experience)repeatedly doesn't give us what we can take ourselves. If there were no mysteries, it wouldn't be any fun anyway, would it? :) Are you blaming God for not giving us a full knowledge of the universe from the start?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains?
One word: Pangaea.

As well, it stands to reason that if animals have a common genetic beginning that those animals faced with the same climate and environment would, by process of natural selection evolve similarly after they were separated from their common ancestral home.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
One word: Pangaea.

As well, it stands to reason that if animals have a common genetic beginning that those animals faced with the same climate and environment would, by process of natural selection evolve similarly after they were separated from their common ancestral home.
Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sheeana, how do you explain the large number of fossil specimins that are found of specific species over the broad terrains?

Divergent evolution. Oh wait... Are you talking about fossil distribution? In that case: see below.

LE
All you have done is deny that there are any transitional species. What I label a transitional species is one that has very little record of its existence.

No, I am not denying it; I'm just plain not understanding where you're coming from. If something is under-represented in the fossil record, I would attribute it to either being luck of the draw in terms of surviving the fossil record, or that it was an unsuccessful adaptation. Are you referring to the specimens that are hard to classifying taxonomically? :confused:

LE
You have not explained why we have found so many fossils of certain species and so few of others, if they were all constantly changing at a very gradual rate. It's illogical that we'd be able to find hundreds of fossils of some creatures, and then have no record at all of other species that filled the earth for large periods of time.

How so? I believe Ruinel brought up basic fossilization techniques. Some species are made up of compounds that are simply easier to fossilize. There are some regions in the world in which fossilization occurs more successfully than others. Fossilization needs specific requirements before it can occur. Time is also a factor. The older the specimen, the less likely it is to survive in the fossil record. Then there's geography/geology. There are many factors as to why fossils are more prevalent in some regions of the world, than others. Africa's desert environs are a good example of this.

LE
Fast evolution is accepted.

This is not represented in the fossil record. Modern Radiometric dating methods have given reasonably reliable dates for hominids. We're looking at a period of four million years. Have you got any evidence to assert that hominid evolution happened quicker?

LE
Swift environmental changes are accepted.

Really? So why don't the laws of Superposition support this? Or deep sea cores? Surely your swift environmentalism would be reflected in those areas of study? The geological record simply does not support this. There is evidence of cyclic environmentalism, as well as catastrophism (hence punctuated equilibrium), but it's surely not as swift as you would have it.

LE
This being a good reason for the lack of intermediate species between major species that have huge amounts of fossils for them is what I'm advocating.

For the sake of clarification, let's take hominids (my field of study, so I can understand a bit better.) WHAT would you consider to be the intermediates of the genus Homo or Australopithecus? Perhaps if I better understood your reasoning behind 'transitions' and 'intermediates' I could agree/disagree with you. Because as far as I can see, the fossil record details specimens that you would call 'intermediates', so I'm not sure if I'm reading this right. :confused:

Also, if a species doesn't survive for very long, then it's small wonder than it's under-represented in the fossil record.

If you're not comfortable detailing hominid intermediates, then I am also comfortable with primates.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
It's too bad scientific evidence for the theory of evolution doesn't flow as fully and smoothly as you would like, but don't resort to grabbing at straws to disprove it.
One thing more to note. I try never to enter into an argument unless I have more than straws to hold onto. I learned on Entmoot the hard way not to grasp at straws :).

Another thing to note. I'm not trying to disprove the theory of evolution.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?

EVEN if I accepted for a moment your supposition on rapid environmentalism - which I don't - there's still the nature of the changes. An organism will not change to adapt to an environmental change if it doesn't have to. And such is the nature of the geological record is that there simply ain't enough catastrophism to support your theory. It is true that evolution relies on the environment impacting upon the genotype, but it is also true that you shouldn't fix something if it ain't broke. (;))

[Lief Erikson]

None of this explains the answer to the problem, to me, in a satisfying way. Look at the horse. It has a just about complete set of intermediate species between its one major form that it shows up in in the past and the next such major form. What sense does there being any intermediate species make if the creature's substance isn't of a sort that can become fossilized?

Also, the horse evolved, but it still had bones, and it didn't change in any major substantial way during that period that made it less capable of being fossilized. I just see no evidence to support that argument.

Time I don't think is a factor. Because there are breakages in intermediate species between species we know about. I'm not making assertions about the earliest species, that we know nothing about.

Meanwhile, about geography. Fine, I'll accept for the sake of argument that environment changes slowly (Though it doesn't) and that certain areas of the world would be more capable of having fossilization take place in them than others (Which they very well might). This in no way solves or answers anything. Though it is interesting to learn; thanks for posting it :).

The breakages in intermediate species aren't simply in places where no fossilization can take place. Fossils are spread all over the place, and certain species are very dominant all over America at certain times. However, between them and their predecessors, few intermediate species are found. This isn't anything wrong or astounding about fossilization, I think the techniques for fossilization that Ruinel posted are largely correct.

I have heard you give some good reasons for why fossils aren't formed sometimes, and I tend to believe you're right. What I don't understand is how that explains the large gaps in numbers of fossilized creatures.
Originally posted by Sheeana
This is not represented in the fossil record. Modern Radiometric dating methods have given reasonably reliable dates for hominids. We're looking at a period of four million years. Have you got any evidence to assert that hominid evolution happened quicker?
It is attested to by scientists, who have done experiments.
Originally posted by Sheeana
Really? So why don't the laws of Superposition support this? Or deep sea cores? Surely your swift environmentalism would be reflected in those areas of study? The geological record simply does not support this. There is evidence of cyclic environmentalism, as well as catastrophism (hence punctuated equilibrium), but it's surely not as swift as you would have it.

Perhaps not all science is in agreement; that's not my problem. It's not "as I would have it", it's as modern scientific discoveries are proving it.
Originally posted by Sheeana
For the sake of clarification, let's take hominids (my field of study, so I can understand a bit better.) WHAT would you consider to be the intermediates of the genus Homo or Australopithecus? Perhaps if I better understood your reasoning behind 'transitions' and 'intermediates' I could agree/disagree with you. Because as far as I can see, the fossil record details specimens that you would call 'intermediates', so I'm not sure if I'm reading this right. :confused:

Also, if a species doesn't survive for very long, then it's small wonder than it's under-represented in the fossil record.

If you're not comfortable detailing hominid intermediates, then I am also comfortable with primates.
Hominids aren't my area of study, and neither are primates, as yet. I'm learning about evolution and Biology, but I still have much to learn. I'm quoting scientific discoveries. Scientists say that fast evolution takes place and that fast environmental changes take place. I gave a great deal of evidence for the environmental changes earlier. The fast evolution I gave less evidence on, because I only gave examples of two different species of insects. The new discoveries about environment DO contradict previous thought about slow changing environment. That's a fact. That swift environment contradicts slow evolution also is a step I wouldn't be too hesitant to take. That fast evolution has been shown also to take place helps to fill that gap, to fix that problem. That the lack of intermediate species is also solved by this is simply an added bonus- it's not necessary to my theory.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
EVEN if I accepted for a moment your supposition on rapid environmentalism - which I don't - there's still the nature of the changes. An organism will not change to adapt to an environmental change if it doesn't have to. And such is the nature of the geological record is that there simply ain't enough catastrophism to support your theory. It is true that evolution relies on the environment impacting upon the genotype, but it is also true that you shouldn't fix something if it ain't broke. (;))
You plainly haven't looked closely at the evidence I cited. There were enormously large and extremely huge environmental changes, spanning the entire Sahara-Gobi desert stretches. There likewise have been huge climate changes in Africa, over almost the entire continent, well within the last 200,000 years. In the Sahara-Gobi desert stretches there were changes from lush tropical jungles to harsh desert climate. And then to grassland, and then to desert again, and then to such harsh desert for 2,000 years that there is almost an absolute zero amount of evidence of any sort of form of life during that period. Then they shift again, and again . . . just look at it. You plainly just skimmed it, and that was a major mistake.

There were elephants, giraffes and hippos found. Do you think they could have existed in harsh desert terrains for thousands of years?

[Lizra]

I imagine that many species move to a more suitible climate, constantly adapting, (at various rates, whatever the different circumstances involved allow) changing and evolving over time while doing it.

In my opinion, the reasons for the "not perfect enough" (in your eyes) fossil record (as of this time! :rolleyes: ) have been stated repeatedly, and plainly. Just some from my laywoman's veiw....It *could * be certain fossils were never made, due to various chemical processes or environmental factors, the fossils are there but undiscovered as of yet, (That one is screaming at me! :) ) the tale of the 'slow' ascent of life on earth is too varied and complicated (constant climate changes, land upheavals and submersions, species constantly migrating, the evidence gets eaten :eek: or possibly destroyed in some other manner...fires, floods :) constant start ups, set backs, dead ends) and therefore naturally has some "holes" to us looking back without a map.

So exactly how do you think the world came about?

I edited that last bit about how fantastically complicated the theory of evolution is "in action", to make more sense. (I hope! :) )

[Rían]

Lief - I have some time this morning, so I'm going to get to another aspect of your question to me. I'll make it brief, tho, because it is slightly OT.

You asked why I was so against evolution (forget exact wording) and I said I wasn't against it, I was just against those that said that creation by intelligent design couldn't be scientifically evaluated, while evolution could. To me, both are theories, and both have some testable tenets and some educated guesses that are NOT testable. And both are based on untestable beliefs - evolution, that there is no intelligent direction behind things, only chance; and CBID, that there IS intelligent direction behind things.

As I thought about it more, I DO have other objections to th. of evolution, which I had stated previously in this thread. These didn't immediately come to mind, tho, because of the wording of your question and how I interpreted what you were asking. So to be complete, I'll state my other objections. These are not scientifically testable, like many other logical things that people believe (such as the belief that a man named Tolkien lived and wrote LoTR, as discussed in the Good and Evil thread), but I believe them to be logical.

And I"ll put them in the next post, because I just got praised for not having really long posts, and I like it when people say nice things about me! :D (don't we all like it!)

[Rían]

I have 2 main objections to the th. of ev. in the logical area (i.e., not scientifically testable in the lab, but the result of logical thinking and logical inferences) - first, that it has absolutely no explanation for the common sense of morality that is in people, and second, that the results of the premise upon which it is based are so devastating to people.

A Common Sense of Morality
(trying desperately to keep this short....) Now actually this part IS scientifically testable - one could pull in a statistically significant percentage of people and ask them if certain things are "right" or "wrong", and you could count the results. I think that everyone one here would admit, if they were honest, that at the very least some things are considered right and some wrong; and additionally, that people's sense of what is right and wrong is amazingly similar.

Now as C. S. Lewis points out, some of the details may differ (IOW, one culture may think it's ok to have multiple wives and others may think only 1 wife is right), but all cultures agree that there is some set of people with whom sexual relationships would be wrong. And some cultures may think that it's ok to lie to some people, while others think all lying is wrong, but all cultures agree that deceit/lying at some point is wrong.

Now when I say "all cultures", of course every person that has ever lived has not been interviewed; but I think - again, if you're willing to honestly evaluate things w/o a bias - you will have to admit that it is very, very observable all over the world. In fact, those few people that do NOT think these things are wrong are considered "abnormal" - that alone should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Anyway, to come to a screaming halt because this is getting long, the th. of ev. absolutely cannot explain this common morality - chance, by definition, is amoral, altho the RESULTS of a chance happening may be considered to be good or bad by an INHERENTLY MORAL BEING - i.e., humans who were created by a moral God and have a sense of morality instilled in them. So the whole argument of "well, things like not murdering or lying or sleeping with every man/woman came about because it was good for the species" are not valid because "good" has no meaning. And if you try to be sneaky and substitute "beneficial to survival" or some such phrase, then it still doesn't work, because that's just one step removed - you're saying that it's GOOD for a species to survive.

[Rían]

And my second objection:

The results of the underlying premise of evolution

Now Lief, I disagree with you and JD, I believe it was, when you say that the theory of evolution says nothing about God. Of course, it is not explicitly stated as premise number 35 that "God does not exist". However, it does say that chance is the driving force behind the evolutionary changes, doesn't it? IOW, random beneficial mutations, etc. Of course, there is theistic evolution, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the basic th. of evolution that is taught in schools. And if you say that chance drives the events, then that by logical inference means that God does NOT.

And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. And believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

[Rían]

ps - and that is why the whole "self-esteem" movement came about, BTW - people are told that they are worthy because of the things that they can DO, and in areas where there are winners and losers, well, GET RID OF THOSE AREAS! Give EVERYONE a trophy, because EVERYONE is a winner! :rolleyes:

The truth, however, is that everyone is VALUABLE - NOT because of what they have done, but because of WHO has created them. And if you lose at a game, so what? Cheer the person who won, and you are still just as valuable as they are! Work hard to do well, but your achievements DO NOT make your value! You are valuable in spite of what you can do/not do. It is good and right to strive to achieve good things, but it doesn't set your value.

[Rían]

And finally, for Lief, re the salt pillar and the serpent changing -

I think the difference btwn single celled organism evolving and the making of man out of dust is that the former is simply rife with mistakes and death (remember, a mutation by definition is rare, and a beneficial mutation the rarest of rare birds, so all those UN-beneficial mutations would cause death and disfigurement and disease, etc); while the latter is one simple, beautiful, elegant, incredible creative act, done right the first time (man was declared "very good"), and is more consistent with the character and "style" of God, IMO.

I think the serpent thing was a v. unique and one-time occurence, and not a model for evolution. The pillar of salt thing was just a funny thought I had :) that I put into the post I made to remind me to address your question more fully.

[Lizra]

Well I'll say this...Rian and I are at total odds here! ;) At this point, I will type the famous "agree to disagree" statement. :) Two brick walls! ;)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Not if the environment changes as rapidly as science is now acknowledging it does. In evolution, is it widely accepted that common ancestry leads to near exact duplications of species across continents?
There are no exact duplications. If you are referring to earliest fossil records when the continents had not yet or had barely drifted, then that is due to migration of the same species. Not that they had evolved separately in different places.

It is commonly accepted that Neanderthal Man evolved separately from Cro-Magnon Man on different continents. Since primates began to evolve and spread they carried with them a common gene. However, Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man were quite different species.

As far as your comment about fossils being found all over the place, you are incorrect about that. Reread my post explaining why not every animal that dies in every place and in every situation will leave a fossil record. That information is NOT my opinion. It is a scientific fact.

Eek! :eek: too much to read.... I'll do it later. maybe.

[Sheeana]

Leif, last night I did some research on the climatology of Africa, specifically the Sahara. What I found does not support your supposition at all. When I have more time, I will post some of my findings, however, a brief summation of global geography follows:

Precambrian:
Archean 4600.* Crusts and Oceans
Early Proterozoic 2500. Carbonate sediments form
Riphean
~Early 1600
~Middle 1300
~Late 900. Violent upheavals and metamorphism
Vendian 650. Warm with shallow seas

Paleozoic:
Cambrian 590. Extensive volcanic activity and marine sedimentation
Ordovician 505. Continental drift and sedimentation
Silurian 438. Varying sea levels. New mountain ranges form
Devonian 408. Continents collide, raising mountain ranges; seas deeper and narrower
Carboniferous 360. New land rises from the sea; extensive swamps; coal formation.
Permian
~Early 286.
~Late 258. Mountain formation; glaciation in the southern hemisphere

Mesozoic:
Triassic 248. Extensive desertification, turning to hot and wet conditons
Jurassic 213. Mountain erosion; limestone forms. Atlantic Ocean opens
Cretaceous 144. Extensive swamps; limestone and alluvial desposition. Continents move apart

Cenozoic:

Tertiary Period
Paleocene 65. Extensive land subsidence; widespread volcanic activity
Eocene 54.9. Mountain formation and glaciation
Oligocene 38. Sea levels fall; new mountains form
Miocene 24.6. Sea levels continue to
fall; mountains erode
Pliocene 5.1. Continents near their present positions

Quartenary Period
Pleistocene 2. Glaciation and melt affect sea levels
Holocene 0.01. Glaciers recede; our world emerges

*All dates given in millions of years.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well I'll say this...Rian and I are at total odds here! ;) At this point, I will type the famous "agree to disagree" statement. :) Two brick walls! ;)

oh, well! :( Amazing how 2 such brillant people can disagree like this! :D Do we have pretty vines climbing up our walls? :)

[samwiselvr2008]

Oh boy, as Rian knows (a little, I PMed her a while back) I have been having problems with my science teacher on this very subject. I am a Christian, so of course when my science teacher stood up and told us that evolution was treu, I began to fill a little uneasy. First, let me tell you some facts about my science teacher, all of them I do not disagree with:
1. He has very strong appinions
2. He believes in evolution
3. He believes that science can be rong, and everything in science is a theory

To continue...
I first talked, and asked, and argued. I lost the argument, but I did not give up. I went home and thought about what Mr.Tucker (the teacher) said. Second, I researched more (that is when Rian found out about it. Finallly, I thought, "should evolution be taught in schools?" And this is what I have decided so far. Evolution should be taught in public schools
but only if they also teach about creationisom and all of the other main beliefs also, it should all be said as "some people believe" or "it is possable" and stuff like that it should not be said as the treuth. So, that's that, I would post more, but my sister is nagging me about getting online, so I have to go, be back later to reply and add to this post. Tell me what ya think!:)

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
oh, well! :( Amazing how 2 such brillant people can disagree like this! :D Do we have pretty vines climbing up our walls? :)

Well, we already debated it once, I think we're both too busy :rolleyes: to go around repeating ourselves! This would be a good one for the mudpits. Bliss Ninny versus Toxic Granny. ;)

[The Ben]

No Way! That will just mean more homework.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. [...]And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God.

Personally I don't mind having a onecellular entity as my pre-pre-pre- ect- ancestor. It teaches me humilty and gives me a connection to this world. And I think that's both a very good thing to have. However it doesn't mean I don't have value. But my value comes from myself, who I am and who I can be, not from the possible fact that I'm created by a god. In fact if I'm only valuable because I am a created being, this would make me very sad. But I can understand other people like it the other way around. :)


Originally posted by Samwiselvr2008
Evolution should be taught in public schools but only if they also teach about creationisom and all of the other main beliefs also, it should all be said as "some people believe" or "it is possable" and stuff like that it should not be said as the treuth. So, that's that, I would post more, but my sister is nagging me about getting online, so I have to go, be back later to reply and add to this post. Tell me what ya think!

I think it's a little over the top to go saying "some people believe in evolution". :p A better way would be saying "The current evolutiontheory is the best scientific theory available today.". When I got evolution in biology classes we learned about the history of evolution and the older, now disregarded theories too. It was very smart to do so because we learned that evolution was not answer to all problems. Creationism was largely dealt with in religionclasses. Personally I think that's the best way to do it.

PS: Samwiselvr2008, it's feel not fill. :) Each time you type fill, it reminds me of a christmas turkey. ;)


Originally posted by Lizra
Bliss Ninny versus Toxic Granny.

That's one match I'd love to watch! :D *brings out the popcorn*

[Jesus Freak]

isn't evolution a religon or faith not science? cause you have to have faith that matter came from nothing and that if you gave an empty jar ten trillion years it would create matter . and what about the physical laws? so why can't we take nothing , make it explode it and make something? i will even be nice and give you a rock an tell you to spit on it for a million years(the theory that it rained on the rocky surface for millions of years and made a primeval soup that all creatures evolved from), then tell you to make something only as complex as a human eye. it is also obvious that the schools should be left to the states not the guys in D.C. you should read th dec. of independence. i say we teach both evolution and other religions in the public schools or not teach any.

P.S. Science means knowledge not faith.

[Jesus Freak]

oh and coney i would read you bible before saying that my Lord is behind your beliefs.or you might be thinking of a different Jesus than He who died for our sins.

oh and Jesus is ALLWAYSALLWAYS spelled with an upper case J.

[HOBBIT]

Yeah, well JesusFreak, it is obvious from your posts that you know very little about evolution - and it is science not "faith."


Creation should NOT be taught in school - that should (and IS STAYING) stay in religious schools and in private schools - no way public schools. It is all faith. Sure I guess you can't disprove, but in no way can you.. its not science in the least and has no place in the science class room. maybe in a bible studies course.

Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

short post since i am in a very big rush...but i got my point accross.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Jesus Freak
oh and coney i would read you bible before saying that my Lord is behind your beliefs.or you might be thinking of a different Jesus than He who died for our sins.

oh and Jesus is ALLWAYSALLWAYS spelled with an upper case J.

Nope, I think I'm thinking of the right jesus.....bearded bloke, ran the catering for outdoor events, ran a small wine distillery, pretty good with a chisel and wood, had a little medical knowledge, hung around with 12 men,...........ended his days hanging around with a couple of criminals? That the one? :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

I would agree with you, honestly I would. It does seem to me a bit unfair. But this creation story is both Jewish and Christian, and I think Muslim as well, though I'm not sure about that. Obviously, they can't teach ALL of the viewpoints, so it makes sense to me that the most commonly believed ones (evolution and Judeo-Christian(Islamic?)).

He wasn't always bearded. They pulled it out when they killed him.

If you don't mind, Coney, I've often wondered what you believe about all this? Do you believe that the world came about by a Big Bang, or was created by the Gods? What about life? Mankind?

If I'm being too intrusive, sorry.

[Cirdan]

...except that the class it would be taught in is science, not creation. The biblical creation story is not science. The closest existing general curriculum that would be appropriate for any bible studies would be a history class.

[samwiselvr2008]

That is another thing that you could argue about, is evolution a religion or not? Personally I believe that it is a religion, but other people say that it is not, oh well, that's just me. The first thing that we probally have to decide before we kick the teaching of evolution out of school though, is if it is a religion or not? Answer that and I can go on with.

P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.

[The Ben]

Nick, this has already been done.:( No.

[Rían]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.
Could you please PM it back to me first? I think I may have put some personal-type things in, and I'd like to check first. Thanks for asking :)

[IronParrot]

Hmm. It looks like most of the arguments against teaching evolution in schools reduce to one of the following:

- "Evolution is just a theory"
- "Evolution is not fact"
- "Evolution has some flaws"

These are in fact the same argument, so I'll address them together. In a sentence: these concerns do not preclude the theory of evolution from being scientific, and thus teachable.

"Evolution is just a theory"

Yes, it's a theory. So is Newton's Theory of Gravity. Are you anti-evolutionists out there saying gravity shouldn't be taught in schools?

The Origin of Species does not claim to be a canonical document (unlike some works I won't mention ;) ) - biologists and geneticists have refined Darwin's theories over the years in the same way physicists like Planck, Einstein and Schrodinger revised the trappings of the classical models of Newton and Maxwell, and chemists like Bohr and Pauling patched up the flaws of Mendeleev and Dalton's theories.

"Evolution is not fact"

And neither is the Theory of Gravity. It lends itself to some pretty neat calculations regarding the proportionality of gravitational force to distance, and generalized orbital calculations (escape velocity and such), but recent developments in physics - namely, field theory - blow it right out of the water. Even though the currently accepted explanation is that gravity is not a force, but rather a spatial distortion, Newtonian gravity is still taught because on a macroscopic level, it is still applicable.

Similarly, while the Darwinian Evolution has some flaws, they do not preclude it from being the groundwork for the best and most thoroughly reasoned explanations we have of the mutability of life, contrary to what Plato may say about things being modeled on absolutes.

"Evolution has some flaws"

What's the purpose of a "theory", anyway? It's a model for predicting experimental outcomes, thus leading to the design of new experiments and (hopefully) new breakthroughs in science. In short, new theories that fix the mistakes of the old one. And now we have genetics, the field that finally makes biology a science rather than "stamp collecting" as Rutherford called it.

Evolution may not be solid "fact", but in science, there are no such things as facts, just increasingly accurate models. You teach children at a certain level of accuracy, which lays the groundwork for further refinement. Gravity is an example, as I already pointed out. Mathematics are another - the axioms and operations that children are taught are specific to the domain of real numbers. Evolution is a critical foundational step to understanding the concept of genetics.

Should we eliminate all mention of radioactive carbon dating from schools as well, because that mechanism can be used to date the age of the planet as far older than what the Bible implies? (If the Bible is taken literally, that is. If it isn't, there's no contradiction with evolution in the first place.)

Now let's look at Creation, and why it shouldn't be taught.

Is it scientific? No. The so-called "Creation Scientists" who say otherwise are definitionally wrong.

Scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, theories are created to fit the data within a margin of error. (Note that they have a margin of error.) It is a cardinal sin of experimentation to forcibly fit data to an expected theory. Old theories are discarded upon being disproven, though sometimes reused if (and only if) their error is negligible. The Conservation of Energy, for example.

But what happens if we adhere to the Bible? Then our reasoning becomes deductive. We are fitting the data to what the Holy Book says. The theory cannot be derived from the evidence alone.

As I have observed, the proponents of "intelligent design" use complexity as "evidence" in this regard. "Things are complex, so they must have been designed." Absolute rubbish, and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of entropy.

And what of its applicability to further studies in the field of biology? None. So what's the use of teaching it in the first place (theistic propaganda aside)? None. At least evolutionary theory leads to further scientific studies. Teaching Creation as science is in fact harmful, as it distorts the inductive nature of the scientific method.

If you don't like a theory, come up with a better one that is inclusive of the successes of the previous case.

It's increasingly obvious to me that Creationists don't have a problem with macro-evolution, just that Man was somehow a product of it. And really, macro-evolution and long-term speciation has been verified in a few cases; the prehistoric ancestry of horses, for example. That fossil record is complete. There is indeed a missing link in the "apes to humans" part last time I checked, which is why it is so contentious.

[IronParrot]

Oops... I read the first page again and realized that not only was my last post a complete rehashing of stuff I've said before, but I started this thread too... :p

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
[B]...In fact if I'm only valuable because I am a created being, this would make me very sad.
Would you be sad if all the people in the world were pictures made by framing accidental, random splashes of paint, and YOU were a picture made by Rembrandt? (ignoring the fact that pictures can't think :D ) That's the idea I'm trying to get across. Given the view that we were created by God, we have an inherent value - Rembrandt makes fabulous paintings, and God makes incredibly complex and very valuable people.

And I agree that what we DO is very important, and we should rightly be commended for our accomplishments (how did your practical end up, BTW?)

Now what people DO with their free will is another thing, and often a sad thing...


That's one match I'd love to watch! :D *brings out the popcorn*
You might get to see it - we got mad at each other on another thread.... *hopes Lizra still likes her*

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Would you be sad if all the people in the world were pictures made by framing accidental, random splashes of paint, and YOU were a picture made by Rembrandt? (ignoring the fact that pictures can't think :D ) That's the idea I'm trying to get across. Given the view that we were created by God, we have an inherent value - Rembrandt makes fabulous paintings, and God makes incredibly complex and very valuable people.

And I agree that what we DO is very important, and we should rightly be commended for our accomplishments (how did your practical end up, BTW?)

I would be sad if the other random splashes only valued me because I was a Rembrandt, meaning a painting MADE by Rembrandt. But that situation isn't aplicable here. Either everyone is a Rembrandt or everyone is a random splash. If God created man, he didn't make this one set of humans and let randomness create the others. So there is no difference in value. I get what you're trying to say, though. :)

OMG I just reread the paragraph, it sounds incredibly dumb....

Practical was handed in a month or two ago. Hopefully I get some points at the end of the schoolyear. I should be looking out for the next company to do a practical next year, though. This one is 7 WEEKS instead of seven days! :eek:

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
..... Either everyone is a Rembrandt or everyone is a random splash. If God created man, he didn't make this one set of humans and let randomness create the others..... Yes, I agree, but I was just trying to compare the two (which I think you understood)

Practical was handed in a month or two ago. Hopefully I get some points at the end of the schoolyear. I should be looking out for the next company to do a practical next year, though. This one is 7 WEEKS instead of seven days! :eek: When do you get your grade on it?
Eep!! 7 weeks! Oy! Good luck!

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
That is another thing that you could argue about, is evolution a religion or not? Personally I believe that it is a religion, but other people say that it is not, oh well, that's just me. The first thing that we probally have to decide before we kick the teaching of evolution out of school though, is if it is a religion or not? Answer that and I can go on with.

P.S. Rian, can I post what you PMed me a while back? I printed it out, so I could retype it, plus I think that I have it saved to some folder, so I could copy and past it over here, but I want your permission first.

How could the theory of evolution be considered a religion??? That makes no sense. ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Plus, there are many many christians, jews, muslims, and people of all faiths that agree with it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would like to point out that there are many people of all religions who agree with many of the teachings of Christ, and indeed most of the Ten Commandments are agreed upon by the vast majority of people.

Coney, I will take your lack of response as saying that I was too intrusive. Sorry. :(

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yeah, well JesusFreak, it is obvious from your posts that you know very little about evolution - and it is science not "faith."


Creation should NOT be taught in school - that should (and IS STAYING) stay in religious schools and in private schools - no way public schools. It is all faith. Sure I guess you can't disprove, but in no way can you.. its not science in the least and has no place in the science class room. maybe in a bible studies course.

Plus, why the heck should the christian creation story be taught? hello, there are like 50 million other creation stories from other religions and cultures, all JUST AS VALID as the one in the bible. So there. :P

short post since i am in a very big rush...but i got my point accross.

you are right about the many different beliefs and maybe there shouldent be creation or evolution faiths taught in schools. again Science means knowledge. evolution is taken as part faith. same as any other views. for your infoormation i used to be an athiest

[HOBBIT]

*sigh* i advise you to read IP's post a few posts up.

[Sheeana]

Okay, my follow-up to Lief's Rapid Environmentalism theory. What I have discovered thus far is that it seems primarily limited to the Holocene sub-period, with cycles occuring every 1500 years or so. What I can discern from my research is that the aridity of the Sahara is a fairly new phenomenon: there were two significant time frames in which colder, dryer temperatures resulted in the aridity of the Sahara - the first was between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was significantly more brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. These drops in temperature are generally attributed to the "changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis. Some 9,000 years ago, Earth's tilt was 24.14 degrees, as compared with the current 23.45 degrees, and perihelion, the point in the Earth's orbit that is closest to the Sun, occurred at the end of July, as compared with early January now. At that time, the Northern Hemisphere received more summer sunlight, which amplified the African and Indian summer monsoon." Evidence presented by Martin Claussen (see below) via his CLIMBER-2 modelling implicated that feedbacks within the climate and vegetation systems were the major cause of Saharan desertification, building rapidly upon the effects of the initial orbital changes. While this research appears to support your supposition for rapid environmentalism, it does not however, support your case for catastrophism. The aridity, as mentioned earlier, was a relatively new phenomenon that occured over two incidences mid-way through the holocene. I could not find any research on this from earlier epochs (has any been done?). Furthermore, my research also uncovered that the Sahara environs consisted mainly of woodland/savannah, grassland and lakeside ecosystems (one theory on bipedalism is based on Aquatics, btw. The other is based on the thinning out of the woodlands.) There is no mention of verdent lush jungle climates occuring within the Holocene - this comes from the much earlier Mesozoic epoch which spanned several million years (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Warmer, and more moist. The 'reign' of the crocodile.) Futhermore, while DeMenocol's study of sediment (from cores) does document that African dust levels and offshore ocean temperatures rose and fell synchronously and very rapidly, pollen analysis indicates that these earlier rapid dry spells were more akin to savannah ecology rather than desert terrain.

I will add a couple of things to this. Firstly, I do not argue against your idea that the environment is cyclic (it swings from interglacial periods, to glacial maximums interceded with smaller fluctuations), and I do not (for now) argue against your idea that perhaps the Holocene period is subject to rapid environmental changes BUT I have only found two people who have put forward this idea, one of which based his studies on pollen analysis, and deep sea cores (of which I can not find the actual data to analyse.) My next point is that while the two researchers mentioned rapid environmental changes, it was also mentioned that not all changes were catastrophic, nor were all of them extreme. The extreme aridity for example, only occured twice, and both are fairly new to the ecology of the Sahara. Nor was there the extreme see-sawing that you implied. During the Holocene the environs mainly shifted between savannah/woodland, and lake ecosystems.

To be continued...

[Sheeana]

The other thing I would like to add is that both references cited in my research are quite dated. I could find no new research on this topic, so if you could further enlighten me, that would be terrific.

Finally, the event of the Holocene also beckons the arrival of Homo Sapiens, neolithic farmer: around this time, agriculture is making its first appearance, and as such, so are the first man-made greenhouse gases that are associated with farming. Perhaps the event of farming also had an impact on the environment?

Which leads me to my next point: I would like to examine evidence again put forward by the Potsdam institute. In another research proposal, they used an Earth system model to "investigate the interactions between climatic warming and the shifting of vegetation zones in North Africa and Siberia." They describe Earth system models as, "expanded climate models which describe the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, vegetation and ice masses." The models from this research showed that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, together with associated warming and with increasing precipitation in tropical regions, may have an especially strong influence on the vegetation at the southern margins of the Sahara and in the tundra. And this is the interesting bit: thereby causing parts of the Sahara and the tundra to possibly change.

Anyway, I will follow shortly with a hopefully more brief essay on the process of fossilisation, etc.

Edited: I forgot to add that both the Sahara and the Antartic are considered to be geographical "hotspots" - the more extreme fluctuations that have occured in these two regions are not considered to be typical of the rest of the world.

References:

Martin Claussen of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung. 1999.

Peter deMenocal of Lamont-Doherty, /Columbia sciences research institute. 1998.

[Sheeana]

Whoops, did I do a Rian?;) The thread's come grinding to a halt. :p

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Whoops, did I do a Rian?;) The thread's come grinding to a halt. :p

heh heh ...or a Cirdan.:o

This particular discussion begs the question. If the fossil record (ie pollen) extrapolates the weather, then why the leap back to say that this show a change of flora and fauna, since it is the basis of the analysis. What is missing is fossil evidence for extinction, non-migration of species, a lack of island (intra-continental, too) microcosms, etc. There is no basis to say that the presence of certain species somewhere in the drainage basin precludes the existence of any other species there. The pollen record is a limited view of the total biomass and and collected in sediment, reflects only population and not distribution. The pollen record would not document the time involved in the migration, distribution, and growth of species from the time that the conditions became compatible to the species until the time that there was significant pollen generation to record. The only conclusion that can be drawn scientifically is that climatic change can occur relatively rapidly which is not really news. Glaciation occured relatively rapidly as well. The hypothesis of rapid macro-evolution is not supported by any direct fossil evidence to date.

...and please stop using large mammals (i.e. horses) as examples of non-transitional species. The fossil record on these is extremely limited due to the terrestrial nature of the habitat (and that it is delicious). It's not as though we've found millions of fossils and there is no transitional species, but rather there are not enough fossils to judge.

[barrelrider110]

pardon me for digressing, but i believe a bird's -eye view is in order.

"we walk by faith, and not by sight"
2 Corinthians, 5:7

science is the process of observation, hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and further observation. science is a process, not an answer. science is the opposite of faith-- to paraphrase st. paul--to walk by sight, and not by faith.

faith and science, like oil and water, do not mix.

good theories predict the future.

quantum theory has have provided us with the microrchip, the cellphone, and God help us, nuclear energy. the theory of relativity has enabled space travel. yet both theories are irreconcilable: there is yet to be a unified theory. (read stephen hawking's "a brief history of time").

all theories are flawed. we are not endowed with the omniprescience of our creator, therefore we must make do with what we have.

the theory of evolution is a hypothesis. it belongs in the science classroom, but it should be taught as a theory, not fact. it's not a bad theory, but it is flawed.

faith-based theories such as "creation science" have no business in the science classroom--they are not based on observation, but a combination of faith and science-- that like oil and water, do not mix.

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by barrelrider110
pardon me for digressing, but i believe a bird's -eye view is in order.

"we walk by faith, and not by sight"
2 Corinthians, 5:7

science is the process of observation, hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and further observation. science is a process, not an answer. science is the opposite of faith-- to paraphrase st. paul--to walk by sight, and not by faith.

faith and science, like oil and water, do not mix.

good theories predict the future.

quantum theory has have provided us with the microrchip, the cellphone, and God help us, nuclear energy. the theory of relativity has enabled space travel. yet both theories are irreconcilable: there is yet to be a unified theory. (read stephen hawking's "a brief history of time").

all theories are flawed. we are not endowed with the omniprescience of our creator, therefore we must make do with what we have.

the theory of evolution is a hypothesis. it belongs in the science classroom, but it should be taught as a theory, not fact. it's not a bad theory, but it is flawed.

faith-based theories such as "creation science" have no business in the science classroom--they are not based on observation, but a combination of faith and science-- that like oil and water, do not mix.

i see a verry good point here.

however for more info go to drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) i recommend the 25,000 dollar offer and the questians section

[Eomer]

Yes evolution should be taught in school, but only as a theory.
it has never and canot be proven so they should say what is thought, but that it is only a theory. let people make up their own minds when they have both sides of the argument.
I rest my case.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
How could the theory of evolution be considered a religion??? That makes no sense. ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Plus, there are many many christians, jews, muslims, and people of all faiths that agree with it.

It's hard to explane, I will try to pull up a website that could explane it to ya! *starts searching for website*

[Jesus Freak]

Originally posted by Eomer
Yes evolution should be taught in school, but only as a theory.
it has never and canot be proven so they should say what is thought, but that it is only a theory. let people make up their own minds when they have both sides of the argument.
I rest my case.


yes but some of this stuff isn't possible so how can it be a good theory

[Jonathan]

The theory should definitely be thaught at school. It doesn't matter if it's "right" or "wrong". The theory is accepted by a majority in the scientific world, and therefore it should be considered general knowledge to know what evolution is about. You don't have to believe in evolution, but how could you know you don't believe in it, if you haven't been taught what it is?

Let me draw a parallell to the ideology of the Nazis. I think everyone agrees that the kids in school should be taught what the Nazis believed in. Just because the Nazi ideology is "wrong", one shouldn't neglect teaching what it is about.


And evolution exists. Now, you might say that it's impossible to prove evolution, but there is always micro-evolution to look at. Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. You can see that right under your microscope.
Even if you don't believe that animals evolve, you can't say that evolution doesn't exist. The bacteria and viruses have demonstrated it. Bacteria and viruses do no longer look like they did when God created them.


The theory of evolution, good or bad, must be taught. It's general knowledge.

[gollum9630]

i agree wit jonathan.

you can believe God created the univers and everything in it. I believe he created the beggining of everything, and then everything else evolved from that, so yes, it should be taught in school

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Even if you don't believe that animals evolve, you can't say that evolution doesn't exist. The bacteria and viruses have demonstrated it. Bacteria and viruses do no longer look like they did when God created them.
You mean when humans first encountered them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lief- I have some time this morning, so I'm going to get to another aspect of your question to me. I'll make it brief, tho, because it is slightly OT.

You asked why I was so against evolution (forget exact wording) and I said I wasn't against it, I was just against those that said that creation by intelligent design couldn't be scientifically evaluated, while evolution could. To me, both are theories, and both have some testable tenets and some educated guesses that are NOT testable. And both are based on untestable beliefs - evolution, that there is no intelligent direction behind things, only chance; and CBID, that there IS intelligent direction behind things.

As I thought about it more, I DO have other objections to th. of evolution, which I had stated previously in this thread. These didn't immediately come to mind, tho, because of the wording of your question and how I interpreted what you were asking. So to be complete, I'll state my other objections. These are not scientifically testable, like many other logical things that people believe (such as the belief that a man named Tolkien lived and wrote LoTR, as discussed in the Good and Evil thread), but I believe them to be logical.

And I"ll put them in the next post, because I just got praised for not having really long posts, and I like it when people say nice things about me! (don't we all like it!)
Thanks for responding to my question in as much depth as you have :).

I've written out my responses to all your various arguments, and I hope that I can successfully point out to you why I think they're . . . ah, not so accurate. You can completely disagree with me for the argument you posted here:
Originally posted by RÃ*an
while the latter is one simple, beautiful, elegant, incredible creative act, done right the first time (man was declared "very good"), and is more consistent with the character and "style" of God, IMO.

I think the serpent thing was a v. unique and one-time occurence, and not a model for evolution. The pillar of salt thing was just a funny thought I had that I put into the post I made to remind me to address your question more fully.

, but I don't think that many of your other reasons are completely on target. Very sorry, I know that's sounding awful :o.

I hope I can explain my reasoning adequately.

I'll start by making one point inside this same post, about the earlier part of the bit of your post I quoted directly above.
Originally posted by RÃ*an
And finally, for Lief, re the salt pillar and the serpent changing -

I think the difference btwn single celled organism evolving and the making of man out of dust is that the former is simply rife with mistakes and death (remember, a mutation by definition is rare, and a beneficial mutation the rarest of rare birds, so all those UN-beneficial mutations would cause death and disfigurement and disease, etc);
As has been pointed out by Jonathon, I think, bacteria and viruses are known to evolve. We also know that our own bodies are capable of adapting to new environments they’re thrust into. I have given examples for fast evolution, like the Drosophila fly (Which was found in expirements to grow new wings) and the Burmingham Moth. I wish I was more up to date :). Those are the only two examples I have :(. My Dad spoke of another far more major evidence for fast evolution that was discovered by scientists, but I don’t have any reliable information. :mad:

That's for fast evolution though, which is one of the things I've most been jumping on whenever I can find things for :). I really should read a bit more on evolution in general, rather than focusing myself quite so much.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks again for making the long posts, RÃ*an.
Originally posted by RÃ*an
A Common Sense of Morality
(trying desperately to keep this short....) Now actually this part IS scientifically testable - one could pull in a statistically significant percentage of people and ask them if certain things are "right" or "wrong", and you could count the results. I think that everyone one here would admit, if they were honest, that at the very least some things are considered right and some wrong; and additionally, that people's sense of what is right and wrong is amazingly similar.

Now as C. S. Lewis points out, some of the details may differ (IOW, one culture may think it's ok to have multiple wives and others may think only 1 wife is right), but all cultures agree that there is some set of people with whom sexual relationships would be wrong. And some cultures may think that it's ok to lie to some people, while others think all lying is wrong, but all cultures agree that deceit/lying at some point is wrong.

Now when I say "all cultures", of course every person that has ever lived has not been interviewed; but I think - again, if you're willing to honestly evaluate things w/o a bias - you will have to admit that it is very, very observable all over the world. In fact, those few people that do NOT think these things are wrong are considered "abnormal" - that alone should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Anyway, to come to a screaming halt because this is getting long, the th. of ev. absolutely cannot explain this common morality - chance, by definition, is amoral, altho the RESULTS of a chance happening may be considered to be good or bad by an INHERENTLY MORAL BEING - i.e., humans who were created by a moral God and have a sense of morality instilled in them. So the whole argument of "well, things like not murdering or lying or sleeping with every man/woman came about because it was good for the species" are not valid because "good" has no meaning. And if you try to be sneaky and substitute "beneficial to survival" or some such phrase, then it still doesn't work, because that's just one step removed - you're saying that it's GOOD for a species to survive.
Morality I believe to be spiritual. I completely agree with C.S. Lewis in the quotes you gave of him, from Mere Christianity. So it’s true, morality is not (To me) explained successfully by science.

However, where does that leave us? The implication in your statement is that morality has to be scientific, and as evolution doesn’t explain it scientifically, it has some problems.

It doesn’t matter that evolution doesn’t adequately explain morality, to me, because that’s spiritual. Just as the soul is spiritual.

Atheism merely says that the beneficial mutations are random. A more biblically based point of view would see things rather differently, that they were designed that way.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And my second objection:

The results of the underlying premise of evolution

Now Lief, I disagree with you and JD, I believe it was, when you say that the theory of evolution says nothing about God. Of course, it is not explicitly stated as premise number 35 that "God does not exist". However, it does say that chance is the driving force behind the evolutionary changes, doesn't it? IOW, random beneficial mutations, etc. Of course, there is theistic evolution, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the basic th. of evolution that is taught in schools. And if you say that chance drives the events, then that by logical inference means that God does NOT.
That is a very good objection to the belief that chance is ruling everything . . . or is it? If God is in complete control of his creation, then doesn’t he completely control chance as well? Which means it’s not chance after all, but merely appears to be chance . . .
Originally posted by RÃ*an
And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. And believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

I completely agree with you here. Except as far as it involves evolution, because it really doesn’t, you see? It involves a misinterpretation of evolution, which really is atheism. It shows that people are being fed false information in schools, which is a terrible shame. It shows that religion is being verbally, not scientifically, struck against in schools, and that inhibits parents’ freedom to bring up their child in the religion they choose. It is a terrible thing, and I think it’s ridiculous for people to think that Quantum Mechanics (From which stems the belief that everything is chance), that evolution or that the awesome things that are discovered by science and which DON’T contradict Christianity really do. It’s a misinterpretation of what people see. As the Bible says "We see as if through a mirror darkly, but when we reach heaven, we shall see clearly." Uh, that’s not an exact quotation, but that’s the gist of what a Bible passage says. It’s misinterpretation, and it’s Atheism, but it’s not wrong in those aspects of science themselves. So far as I can see, anyway.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - and that is why the whole "self-esteem" movement came about, BTW - people are told that they are worthy because of the things that they can DO, and in areas where there are winners and losers, well, GET RID OF THOSE AREAS! Give EVERYONE a trophy, because EVERYONE is a winner!

The truth, however, is that everyone is VALUABLE - NOT because of what they have done, but because of WHO has created them. And if you lose at a game, so what? Cheer the person who won, and you are still just as valuable as they are! Work hard to do well, but your achievements DO NOT make your value! You are valuable in spite of what you can do/not do. It is good and right to strive to achieve good things, but it doesn't set your value.
It sounds more like atheism that that self-esteem movement started, then. Evolution really doesn’t point one way or the other to God’s existence.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I have 2 main objections to the th. of ev. in the logical area (i.e., not scientifically testable in the lab, but the result of logical thinking and logical inferences) - first, that it has absolutely no explanation for the common sense of morality that is in people, and second, that the results of the premise upon which it is based are so devastating to people.
Your entire argument, to me, RÃ*an, is for something that is already very strongly set in my mind. It is against random chance, not against evolution.

Current science's view of chance is that it is random, because they see no reason to believe otherwise. Of course, they have no evidence that Quantum Mechanics actually are controlled by God, so they don't put that into their theories as a possibility. They deal with what they can see, and as you know, no one can see God. Christians can discern his hand in events, sometimes easily. God speaks to us through nature, through what he created.

There is no way science has of knowing whether this chance really is random, or whether a divine being directs it completely.

As for the morality, I think that that also is an argument against evolution and the physical realm being all that there is. Here again, I agree with you. However, I don't think that you should believe evolution or these current scientific theories to be flawed, simply because Atheists believe that the physical is all that there is. Some Atheists might teach incorrectly about it in schools, ignoring the possibility that there is a supreme being in control. This is simply because they're talking from what they know, just as we speak from what we know. They have part of the story, and they tell what they can see. We have another part of the story (Though plenty of people here will disagree, this is for RÃ*an), and we tell what we can see. It is sad when people learn only a part, and the less important part (The physical) of what is.

Just be careful not to misdirect your feelings on this. I believe evolution to be the wrong target, and so are most of the things science teaches at the present time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana


Leif, last night I did some research on the climatology of Africa, specifically the Sahara. What I found does not support your supposition at all. When I have more time, I will post some of my findings, however, a brief summation of global geography follows:

Precambrian:

Archean 4600.* Crusts and Oceans
Early Proterozoic 2500. Carbonate sediments form
Riphean
~Early 1600
~Middle 1300
~Late 900. Violent upheavals and metamorphism
Vendian 650. Warm with shallow seas

Paleozoic:

Cambrian 590. Extensive volcanic activity and marine sedimentation
Ordovician 505. Continental drift and sedimentation
Silurian 438. Varying sea levels. New mountain ranges form
Devonian 408. Continents collide, raising mountain ranges; seas deeper and narrower
Carboniferous 360. New land rises from the sea; extensive swamps; coal formation.
Permian
~Early 286.
~Late 258. Mountain formation; glaciation in the southern hemisphere

Mesozoic:

Triassic 248. Extensive desertification, turning to hot and wet conditons
Jurassic 213. Mountain erosion; limestone forms. Atlantic Ocean opens
Cretaceous 144. Extensive swamps; limestone and alluvial desposition. Continents move apart

Cenozoic:

Tertiary Period

Paleocene 65. Extensive land subsidence; widespread volcanic activity
Eocene 54.9. Mountain formation and glaciation
Oligocene 38. Sea levels fall; new mountains form
Miocene 24.6. Sea levels continue to
fall; mountains erode
Pliocene 5.1. Continents near their present positions

Quartenary Period

Pleistocene 2. Glaciation and melt affect sea levels
Holocene 0.01. Glaciers recede; our world emerges

*All dates given in millions of years.


Here's Jerseydevil's link on African climate changes:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html
Here's the link to the article I was getting my information from:
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/perso...hange_on_ca.htm

Other information I got from the World Book.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Jonathan
And evolution exists. Now, you might say that it's impossible to prove evolution, but there is always micro-evolution to look at. Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. You can see that right under your microscope. Not only micro-evolution has been proved. Some animals have undergone fast evolution, like the Drosophila fly, which Lief Erikson mentioned.
It's easier to prove evolution amongst smaller life forms like bacteria and insects, simply because they breed faster than bigger animals. There is less time between the generations and mutations occur more often.
This doesn't mean that human evolution can't be proved, because it already has. I will give an example:
2000 years ago, the Jews in Israel were exiled by the Romans. The Jews then spread over the world to Europe, to Africa etc.

Some of the Jews mixed with the population in their new countries. But many of them didn't, they prefered only to have children with other Jews. Therefore, no new genes from the native population were added to the Jewish decendants.
2000 years later, the Jews in Africa have evolved black skin to adapt to the sunny Africa. The Jews in Europe didn't need to evolve black skin since the sunlight is weaker there.
Genetic tests show that the African Jews haven't mixed with the other Africans during the 2000 years. However, the test shows that they are more related to the European Jews than they are to any other people on earth, genetically speaking.
The African Jews, who developped genes that could make them more resistant to the African sun, survived to a greater extent than those who didn't develop these kind of genes. According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin.


I've said it before and I say it again: The theory of evolution should be taught at school. It isn't balsphemy or anything to at least learn what the theory is about.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Here's Jerseydevil's link on African climate changes:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html
Here's the link to the article I was getting my information from:
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/perso...hange_on_ca.htm



One of the links doesn't work. The other I already checked out - it's where I got the 1500 year cycle figure from (and referenced at the bottom of my post). Again, I can only reiterate that this information is quite old, and there appears to be only the two sources advocating this.

[samwiselvr2008]

I looked for a website on how evolution is a religion, but I couldn't find one, and for some reason I must have deleated all of the ones saved to my favorites folder, because they arn't there. Could anyone please help me out by eather explaining it or giving a link to website for HOBBIT and anyone else who needs it? Thanks :) .

Let me draw a parallell to the ideology of the Nazis. I think everyone agrees that the kids in school should be taught what the Nazis believed in. Just because the Nazi ideology is "wrong", one shouldn't neglect teaching what it is about.
But unless I am making a mistake to think/say this, the Nazis had no real beleaf in how the earth was created/evolved, right?

Rian, could I sher that PM you sent me a while back? You still haven't said if I could or not, unless I missed it. If you did say yes (or no) then please say it again, but pute it in deeppink or another bright color so that I will notice it.
:)

[HOBBIT]

Sam, I believe that the Nazis believed in some type of christianity. That quote though was making a parallell - it doesnt have to do with their ideas on creation or evolution.



Let me repost seomthing i also included in my recent long posts in the religion topic:

*SOMEONE in this topic* has said that evolution should not be taught in schools because it will confuse little kids - telling them as FACT that evolution is true and creation is not. How is this any different from when they are born ppl telling them that god is FACT and being taught it in church/temple and religious school. Who gave them a choice to believe??? No one. When presented with a better idea - kids with QUESTION their religion. They will assess WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE for themselves. Many today choose evolution. Are you really that afraid that after THINKING more will choose evolution?

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
But unless I am making a mistake to think/say this, the Nazis had no real beleaf in how the earth was created/evolved, right? You're completely missing what I'm trying to say here.

And I agree with HOBBIT. The children should have the chance of choosing for themselves. Therefore, they must learn about both their religion AND evolution. If they are not taught in school about evolution, they can't make a choice of whether or not they should believe in it.
Of course, they could combine their faith and believing in the theory of evolution, if they'd like.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sam, I believe that the Nazis believed in some type of christianity. That quote though was making a parallell - it doesnt have to do with their ideas on creation or evolution.



Let me repost seomthing i also included in my recent long posts in the religion topic:

Rian has said that evolution should not be taught in schools because it will confuse little kids - telling them as FACT that evolution is true and creation is not. How is this any different from when they are born ppl telling them that god is FACT and being taught it in church/temple and religious school. Who gave them a choice to believe??? No one. When presented with a better idea - kids with QUESTION their religion. They will assess WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE for themselves. Many today choose evolution. Are you really that afraid that after THINKING more will choose evolution?

How about the kids that don't go to church? Could we invite a preacher in for them? Was if what you say happens, and they only hear about evolution? Then they only hear one part. Because of this, I would like to repeate, "teach all or nothing" and saying what I am, I think that if an evolutionist is aloud to teach evolution (my science teacher is an evolutionist, but even if not an evolutionist, I still say...) that you should also teach the other major religions. But I still need to explain how/why evolution is a religion, so this might be pountless untill then.

I still don't see how this parellel is supposed to make a point! Arn't we also tought the "right" side of the thing? Oh well, try to explain it to me please!

Edit: Sorry about that, I was typing this when ^ typed what he did. I still don't understand the parellel though, please try again. And read the other part of my post.

[HOBBIT]

Sam, do you spell like that on purpose? ;) Not like I am the world's greatest speller, (should have seen me on the board years ago) but I have improved greatly. I cringe when I read some of your spellings for common words, sorry - no offense.

Kids that are not taught about creation are missing out - agreed. They should choose. BUT creation should not be taught in science class alongside evolution - for it is not science. Bible studies class sure - but there is no such thing in most schools. Closest thing is history - but where would you fit that in in? Surely not at the beginning as a possible fact for how we started. I took world history this year - the book started with hominids, not adam and eve.

Evolution is taught in history class though. If not the theory itself, the impact it had on the world. There is a small section on how Darwin's theory impacted the world GREATLY and how people reasoned that it applied socially too - hence Social Darwinism and "survival of the fittest."

[Jonathan]

Ok, here's the parallell. Like the theory of evolution (which is NOT a religion, I'll come to that later) the Nazi ideologi is considered "wrong" by many.
However, the people who are not Nazis still want their kids to learn about the ideology. It's important to know what the Nazis believed in and what they did.
Now, there are many peoples who don't believe in the theory of evolution. But shouldn't they, like the non-Nazis, want their kids to learn what evolution is about?

You see my parallell now?


And why is evolution not a religion? Well, religion is so much more than just God and how everything was created. It's about ethics and morale too.
Evolution is science. Not even the Social Darwinism could be considered a religion. It's an ideology, like communism or capitalism. It is an idea of how to govern, it's not at all a religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry, Sheeana. Here's the link (Hope it works this time ;)).
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/personal_info/impacts_of_climatic_change_on_ca.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The pollen record is a limited view of the total biomass and and collected in sediment, reflects only population and not distribution. The pollen record would not document the time involved in the migration, distribution, and growth of species from the time that the conditions became compatible to the species until the time that there was significant pollen generation to record. The only conclusion that can be drawn scientifically is that climatic change can occur relatively rapidly which is not really news. Glaciation occured relatively rapidly as well. The hypothesis of rapid macro-evolution is not supported by any direct fossil evidence to date.
So others have pointed out. Not knowing enough about the dating methods myself, I cannot comment. I do know that fast evolution has been proved to occur. Whether it is responsible for all evolution or not is open to discussion, and it is my opinion that it is, based upon the swiftly changing environment. We have observed that creatures change quickly to adapt to their environment. Jonathon pointed out, quite correctly (IMO) that in the case of some Jews moved to Africa, they gave birth to children whose skin turned black, because of the environment. The Burmingham Moth turned black because of pollution, so that it could survive as a species. The Drosophila fly's offspring sprouted another set of wings, because of the new environment. Bacteria and viruses are constantly changing, often directly because they are attacked by new medical research. The Peppered Moth is another example. Many pests and insects have adapting swiftly to changes in environment or predators since the 1800s, because of human technological advances affecting the environment.

The Worldbook and these research papers confirm that environment changes extremely rapidly.

Heck, as jerseydevil pointed out earlier, examples of this are extremely easy to find, if you don't accept the major scale ones. Take forest fires, or prairie fires, or floods. They might not have much to do with aridity of climate, but it cannot be denied that life is capable of springing up extremely quickly.

I know those are small scale changes, but all I'm demonstrating is that the environment, through natural causes, does repair itself very quickly.

The pollen dating merely shows us some transformations occuring on a far larger scale. In Africa, huge climate changes that affected the aridity of the terrain. In the Sahara-Gobi desert stretches, huge transformations back and forth within 120,000 years.

There is material in The World Book on those changes as well as the article I posted.

It's true that I'm extrapolating, in one major area. That is in the rapidly changing environment. I believe that because of what we have found regarding these huge changes, the same goes for basically all the time of the Earth's existence. I can't see any major historical event that would cause environment to change in such dramatic ways, out of order with the way it naturally behaves.

So my extrapolation is that these changes have not only all happened within the last 120,000 years, but also have been happening for far further back in history.
Originally posted by Cirdan
...and please stop using large mammals (i.e. horses) as examples of non-transitional species. The fossil record on these is extremely limited due to the terrestrial nature of the habitat (and that it is delicious). It's not as though we've found millions of fossils and there is no transitional species, but rather there are not enough fossils to judge.
Cirdan, you misunderstand me :).
Originally written in the World Book
More recent fossils disclose a variety of species with increasingly complex adaptations. Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development. Scientists have found fossils that show many stages in the evolution of the horse.
If I was trying to disprove the continuity of animals, I certainly wouldn't choose the horse ;).

But actually, there are a lot of fossils to the same or very similar species. I'll do some research soon, to see both distribution and amounts. Thanks for getting me started on that though, it is high time I got a bit more information together.

Thanks for sending the response you did :).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Jonathan
.... According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin....
Sheeana, is this a misuse of the word "evolved", in your opinion? I would say this demonstrates natural selection; it doesn't demonstrate "evolving". What's your opinion?

[Rían]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Rian, could I sher that PM you sent me a while back? You still haven't said if I could or not, unless I missed it. If you did say yes (or no) then please say it again, but pute it in deeppink or another bright color so that I will notice it.
:)


You missed it! :D I asked if you could please PM it back to me first, because I think I had put some rather personal things in it, and I'd like to look it thru first. Please PM me if you would prefer to email it, and I'll PM you my email address :)

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Sorry, Sheeana. Here's the link (Hope it works this time ;)).
http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/personal_info/impacts_of_climatic_change_on_ca.htm

Thanks. Reading this article just backs up what I said in my longer exposition on this though - that the aridity is relatively new, and that it occured mid-Holocene, and that the sub-tropical jungles belonged to an earlier epoch, not the Holocene.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sam, do you spell like that on purpose? ;) Not like I am the world's greatest speller, (should have seen me on the board years ago) but I have improved greatly.
She has tried very, very hard to improve, but it just seems like this will not ever be a good area for her. But she does her best, and we like her anyway :) and like to hear her opinions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
....Rian has said that evolution should not be taught in schools ....

*SIGH!*
Hobbit, I defy you to produce a quote where I said that! :mad: because I certainly don't believe that!! You just probably think I do, because of some other beliefs that I have (you know, the ones where I"m right and you're wrong.... ;) :D)

I absolutely think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools!!! What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference. The theory of evolution is a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!! The theory of creation by intelligent design is also a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!!

And THAT is my position :)

[Coney]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
She has tried very, very hard to improve,

She does :) and the improvment in the last year or so has been amazing :)

Good on yer Sam:D

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sheeana, is this a misuse of the word "evolved", in your opinion? I would say this demonstrates natural selection; it doesn't demonstrate "evolving". What's your opinion?

I would partially agree. Evolution is an ongoing process - the whole of which natural selection is a part: it is basically a history of biological development. Granted, "evolved" wasn't the best word he could have used - "selected for" would have been more appropriate, but he was not strictly wrong in using it either, because to evolve is to undergo change.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If God is in complete control of his creation, then doesn’t he completely control chance as well? Which means it’s not chance after all, but merely appears to be chance . . .

Lief, I'm going to choose to not post in this thread much, I'd rather apply my v. limited energy to some other areas at this point, so I'll just try to v. briefly say that I am ONLY talking about the theory of evolution which is popularly taught and "known", which, if you ask people about it, they would say that there is no God behind it anywhere at all. If you want to put God "secretly" behind the theory of evolution as driving or directing chance, that's a whole different matter (and another one I don't care to get into at this time :) ).

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference.

As you know, I did my degree in Anthropology at University, and you'll be gratified to know that "theory" was never once dropped from Evolution. It would not be considered particularly scientific if it was! :p

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
I would partially agree. Evolution is an ongoing process - the whole of which natural selection is a part: it is basically a history of biological development. Granted, "evolved" wasn't the best word he could have used - "selected for" would have been more appropriate, but he was not strictly wrong in using it either, because to evolve is to undergo change.

Thanks, Sheeana, I appreciate your opinion, as you have much more training in this area than I have had.

If you wouldn't mind, how would you define macro and micro evolution? I've heard those terms, and I've also used them, but I never really looked up an "official" definition *bops self on head*. Are those terms that are appropriate today?

Also, my understanding for "selected for" or natural selection is that a certain configuration becomes more prevalent because of environmental and other issues; however, the characteristics that are being SELECTED BETWEEN are ALREADY PRESENT in the gene pool; is that roughly right?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
As you know, I did my degree in Anthropology at University, and you'll be gratified to know that "theory" was never once dropped from Evolution. It would not be considered particularly scientific if it was! :p
Oh, I know it was never "officially" dropped. :) And I agree, it would not be particularly scientific to drop it!

It is, however, commonly dropped, both outright (as in not spoken outloud - people talk about evolution, not the theory of evolution) and, as I said, by inference (perhaps not the right word, but when teachers say things like "evolution is now a well-known fact", or "all really significant scientists believe that evolution has been basically completely verified", or things like that).

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*SIGH!*
Hobbit, I defy you to produce a quote where I said that! :mad: because I certainly don't believe that!! You just probably think I do, because of some other beliefs that I have (you know, the ones where I"m right and you're wrong.... ;) :D)

I absolutely think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools!!! What I object to is when the word "theory" is dropped, either outright or by inference. The theory of evolution is a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!! The theory of creation by intelligent design is also a theory believed by many intelligent scientists! So of course it should be taught!!

And THAT is my position :)

Sorry - i did not quote you. And I did not say that just because of your beliefs. I think i missed your first few posts in this topic - i did not see any posts of yours in this topic saying that evolution should be taught in schools. From all the many posts I read of yours in this topic, it seems like you are VERY (you even suggested in one topic that evolution NOT be taught in schools if creation is not taught right next to it in the science classroom, also that it can not be proven, complete belief, etc - unless that was some other RÃ*an) against evolution and favor creation. My apologies. You are rational after all :P I'm glad that you do see it as science and it therefore should be taught in school :)

Well - it is presented just like any other scientific theory in science text books.

Also, that was just my opening sentence. I was mostly replying to something else you said. Was it you who said something like the problem with it being taught in school was that it went against creation and they don't know what to believe. What about what I said about that?

Also, will you reply to my long ramblings in the offshoot topic? Some of my ideas make no sense, and others make a lot of sense. I'd appreciate some rational logical replies showing how silly I am (if im wrong that is).

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sorry - i did not quote you.
You sure didn't, buster, because I never wrote that!! :p

You just said "Rian has said that evolution should not be taught in schools", and I just really object when people say things like that that are untrue :(

And I did not say that just because of your beliefs. I think i missed your first few posts in this topic - i did not see any posts of yours in this topic saying that evolution should be taught in schools.
I haven't said that in THIS go-round :) But I did in the last, many pages back. But I just objected to that opinion being assigned to me, when I HADN'T said it (IOW, please don't fill in my silences).

From all the many posts I read of yours in this topic, it seems like you are VERY (you even suggested in one topic that evolution NOT be taught in schools if creation is not taught right next to it in the science classroom, also that it can not be proven, complete belief, etc - unless that was some other RÃ*an) against evolution and favor creation. My apologies. You are rational after all :P I'm glad that you do see it as science and it therefore should be taught in school :)
I think if you read all my posts on the matter (like you have time!!! RIGHT!!!) you would see my basic opinion is there are 2 intelligent theories out there, ev. and CBID, and both are believed by many intelligent scientists for good reasons, and both should be taught. There's other side issues, too, but that's my basic opinion on the thread topic. I may have stated that opinion in the way you worded it, (ev. shouldn't be taught unless BOTH are taught), I don't remember, but that's a HUGE difference.

Was it you who said something like the problem with it being taught in school was that it went against creation and they don't know what to believe. What about what I said about that? No, it wasn't me!!!

Also, will you reply to my long ramblings in the offshoot topic? Some of my ideas make no sense, and others make a lot of sense. I'd appreciate some rational logical replies showing how silly I am (if im wrong that is).
I'd be glad to, but have you read my posts about my visiting in-laws? I'm typing furiously right now, because I have to leave in about 1 minute, but I will indeed get to your posts. You have some intelligent opinions, from what I've read, and I would enjoy discussing things with you, but realistically it's going to be next week......

GTG!! bye.. rats, had to type so fast, I hope this makes sense....

[Sheeana]

Just thought I should pull this up: what you should know about Peppered and Birmingham moths is that there was also an intermediary species as well, ie there were THREE types, not two.

3. Case 2: H.B.D. Kettlewell

Another favorite textbook icon is the peppered moth, which evolved during Britain's industrial revolution. The popular images of the moths against different backgrounds epitomizes the classic study by Bernard Kettlewell, contrasting survival in polluted versus rural forests. Many biology texts describe-and typically celebrate-the elegant design of these experiments. Recent accounts have sought to update the science (Majerus 1998; Rudge 2000). Here, I am concerned primarily with how the story is told.

Again, the history contrasts sharply with the canonical classroom image (Allchin 2001a). First, Kettlewell's monograph, The Evolution of Melanism, plainly shows that in addition to the familiar dark and "peppered" forms, there is a series of intermediates, known as insularia (1973, plate 9.1). The range of coloration in insularia indicates greater complexity. One easily finds such specimens, Kettlewell noted, in museum collections. -And he included them in his own field studies. Having recruited observers from around Britain, Kettlewell catalogued the relative frequency of the three forms in various locations. The incidence of insularia was sometimes as high as 40% or more (Kettlewell, 1973, pp. 134-36). Insularia was no trivial exception. Still, while Kettlewell documented insularia in his research, it became eclipsed in subsequent renditions of his work.

Note: Intermediate isn't being used in the sense that you are using in your fast evolution theory.

[Ruinel]

And now you will find the Creationists back paddling to cover their tracks. :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
How about the kids that don't go to church? Could we invite a preacher in for them? Was if what you say happens, and they only hear about evolution? Then they only hear one part.

It's up to the chirdren's parents to take them to the church of THEIR choice if they want to learn about a god. You say bring in a preacher - that's rather one sided. Would you be happy with a Hindu or Muslim coming in to teach you their beliefs? It's not a schools responsibility to teach BELIEFS - it's a schools responsibility to teach SCIENCE.

Because of this, I would like to repeate, "teach all or nothing" and saying what I am, I think that if an evolutionist is aloud to teach evolution (my science teacher is an evolutionist, but even if not an evolutionist, I still say...) that you should also teach the other major religions. But I still need to explain how/why evolution is a religion, so this might be pountless untill then.

Why? Religion is a belief - it has nothing to do with science. Can you tell me how creationism has any basis in science? It's the first chapter of a book that YOU BELIEVE is by god - there is no proof of it.

[corrected typos]

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
If you wouldn't mind, how would you define macro and micro evolution?

Rian, I already posted definitions of micro- and macroevolution earlier on in the thread. Here, pulled for your convenience. :)

Originally posted by Sheeana
Micro: within the species. (small changes at the genetic level)
Macro: At, or above the species.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html



Rian:
Also, my understanding for "selected for" or natural selection is that a certain configuration becomes more prevalent because of environmental and other issues; however, the characteristics that are being SELECTED BETWEEN are ALREADY PRESENT in the gene pool; is that roughly right?

Sort of. Sometimes, changes in the environment, or a change in niche can 'force' certain individuals to mutate at the genetic level, and that mutation may be considered to be beneficial to the gene-pool. OR, as you said, that attribute may have already been lying dormant in the gene-pool, and has suddenly become advantageous. Putting it VERY simplistically.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And now you will find the Creationists back paddling to cover their tracks. :D
I never said there weren't any intermediate species. On the contrary, I have been trying to give a logical explanation, based upon observed evidence, for why there are so few.
Originally posted by Sheeana
Just thought I should pull this up: what you should know about Peppered and Birmingham moths is that there was also an intermediary species as well, ie there were THREE types, not two.
I found the evidence you gave very interesting. I have one question, as well. Were these intermediate species between the moth that eventually evolved and became prominent, and did they disappear after they'd completed their evolution into the more thoroughly adapted species? Were they transitional, in other words, between the white moth and the black? Were there still any intermediates around after the evolutionary adaptive process was complete?

[Sheeana]

No, they weren't intermediates in your sense of the word. They existed prior to the industrialisation, as well as the peppered, and black. As far as I know insularia still exist, but I haven't checked.

[HOBBIT]

rian - ok it was someone else then - too many ppl and too many posts to keep everything straight. can you summarize how creation th. is rational? btw you believe in the judea/christian version, right? how is that version better than the hundreds of others from other cultures and religions that have to do with god(s)(dess)(desses) creating everything and everyone.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
No, they weren't intermediates in your sense of the word. They existed prior to the industrialisation, as well as the peppered, and black. As far as I know insularia still exist, but I haven't checked.
Then that leads me to another question. What have these insularia to do with my examples?

[HOBBIT]

Sorry for saying generally that you seemed to not agree with evolution being taught -

but the thing i was refering to - you did say it

And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. And believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

That is what that whole several sentences in that para was concerning. I was replying to basically what you said - i did not have the quote in front of me at the time. Just disregard the first sentence then - i just edited the rian part out anyway. I did not realize that you were for evolution in school but otherwised seemed against it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Thanks. Reading this article just backs up what I said in my longer exposition on this though - that the aridity is relatively new, and that it occured mid-Holocene, and that the sub-tropical jungles belonged to an earlier epoch, not the Holocene.
Yes, the jungles were in the Pleistocene Ice Age, and there were forests and grasslands there, during that period. These disappeared around 4000 B.C., when the Sahara region became a desert and began to expand.

The environment turned arid very quickly, in my opinion. Too quickly for the millions of years version of macro evolution. Evolution says that the animals change with their environment, and because of other things.

However, that is merely one instance. The World Book backs up that change, but the posted report backed up the other changes I said happened.

Are you saying that the article speaks against any part of what I posted, Sheeana? Any of the different changes in climate, which I brought up?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sorry for saying generally that you seemed to not agree with evolution being taught -

but the thing i was refering to - you did say it



That is what that whole several sentences in that para was concerning. I was replying to basically what you said - i did not have the quote in front of me at the time. Just disregard the first sentence then - i just edited the rian part out anyway. I did not realize that you were for evolution in school but otherwised seemed against it.
What she was saying was not against evolution being taught in schools, but against atheism being taught in schools.

[Cirdan]

LE, regarding your response to my previous post, I believe that SheenaBoP addressed it, but for clarification I think it is important to recognize that in the specific examples you cited it was selection for a particular trait, as opposed to new traits arising. Complex organisms carry many dormant or reccessive traits that were previously successful that come forward under times of stress.

The exception is the bacteria and other such simple organisms which has also been addressed. The quick reproductive cycle and the single celled nature of the organisms allows a quicker rate of change in the organism. A single celled organism has just one set of DNA. If it is altered then the organism's next division leads to a new type of organism (assuming viability). This does not translate well to complex multicellular organisms. It is, however, evolution; whether it is "fast" is not relevant. Fast is a relative term, Accelerated evolution would be a better description of what I think you are trying to describe. Punctuated Equllibrium has addressed the concept that change can come in varying rates and frequencies, depending on many factors, mostly environmental stresses.

I don't think I've ever disputed that climates can change rapidly. It is more likely that species that have evolved to adapt to such variable climates thrive over the long term in areas effected in this way. I don't believe you have provided us with specific species in the Sahara that you believe evolved at some unexpected rate. In privious posts you had stated that you didn't believe that migration (and I would add recessive trait selection) could account for species that appeared to exist in only one extreme of the climate range. I guess I would need specific examples of species that fit this description before I could discuss the "fast" aspect of the evolution/adaptation/selection of them.

[HOBBIT]

hmm it didnt seem like she was saying that - ill wait for rian's response. ive never seen atheism being taught in school. none of my teachers have ever said how great atheism is and how its better than religion. if anything, ive had a few nutcase religious teachers (not that they were nutcases BECAUSE of this, but they simply were).


and whats with the whole 'sheena' thingy bop.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Then that leads me to another question. What have these insularia to do with my examples?

My point is two-fold - that the peppered moth example is a bad example of "fast evolution" (because you have instances of all three prior to the industrialisation, plus it is an instance of macroevolution, not microevolution) and that the issue is more complex that led to believe.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The environment turned arid very quickly, in my opinion. Too quickly for the millions of years version of macro evolution. Evolution says that the animals change with their environment, and because of other things.

The article stated that there had been environmental changes - that I do not dispute. However, it does not state that all changes were catastrophic, nor that changes occured rapidly - as rapidly as you imply anyway. Take a look at how long the Pleistocene lasted. That doesn't indicate rapid environmentalism.

Evolution DOES NOT state that animals change with their environment. It states that organisms select for the best possible fitness - this may mean that in the case of the Sahara that adaptability to environmental fluctuations might be the best possible adaptation.

[Sheeana]

The process of Fossilization:

The word fossil actually comes from the Latin word fossilis, which means "dug up." Most fossils are excavated from sedimentary rock layers, which is rock that has formed from sediment, like sand, mud, and small pieces of rocks. Over long periods of time, these small pieces of debris are compressed (squeezed) as they are buried under more and more layers of sediment that piles up on top of it. Eventually, they are compressed into sedimentary rock. The layers that are farther down in the Earth are older than the top layers (Law of Superposition).

Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones and teeth) were formed as follows:

Some animals were quickly buried after their death (by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc.).
Over time, more and more sediment covered the remains.
The parts of the animals that didn't rot (usually the harder parts likes bones and teeth) were encased in the newly-formed sediment.
In the right circumstances (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering), parts of the animal turned into fossils over time.
After a long time, the chemicals in the buried animals' bodies underwent a series of changes. As the bone slowly decayed, water infused with minerals seeped into the bone and replaced the chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals. The process of fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original minerals in the object with other minerals (and/or permineralization, the filling up of spaces in fossils with minerals, and/or recrystallization in which a mineral crystal changes its form).
This process results in a heavy, rock-like copy of the original object - a fossil. The fossil has the same shape as the original object, but is chemically more like a rock! Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains, although it is saturated with silica (rock).

There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:
unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
recrystalization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).

Most animals did not fossilize; they simply decayed and were lost from the fossil record.

See also the study of Taphonomy. (http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/308/taph.html)

[samwiselvr2008]

Oh boy! So much to reply to- I need to get some sleep, it's 11:22 pm where I am, and I have to get up at 4:30, my daddys picking me up and I'm gonna visit him there. I'll try to get online somehow there.

Sorry about my spelling mistakes, I'm trying, really really hard, my mom is pointing out spelling mistakes that I make in school work, but schools over for the summer, oh well, I'll try to improve (Thanks Rian, I fill special now because of what you said about that, and whoever else commented on it, my brain isn't working very well tonight, so I can't remember who.)

Anyhow, what I have been trying to say (but I geuss I can't really say what I think that good) is that the teachers is always saying that it is against the law to teach religions in public schools in my state, however, me and many other people that I know believe that evolution is a religion (I STILL need to explain that, don't I?) okay, so this is why (I can't really explain it to good) evolution is a belief, it is backed up by scientists more then other religions, but it is still a belief, because if my science teacher explained it to me correctly, then it all starts with a beleif of some sort of ball flying through space that explodes, and well I don't have time to continue with this. So when me and others are taught evolution in school, we sometimes think of it as a realigion.

Okay, my sis. is breathing over my shoulder now, I'll try to reply to this later.

P.S. whoever said that I was only supporting christianity, please go back and read the next part to my post where I say "all major religions" or something like that.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
....however, me and many other people that I know believe that evolution is a religion (I STILL need to explain that, don't I?) okay, so this is why (I can't really explain it to good) evolution is a belief, it is backed up by scientists more then other religions, but it is still a belief, because if my science teacher explained it to me correctly, then it all starts with a beleif ....

Okay Sam, thanks for attempting to explain in the short time you obviously have, why exactly you believe that the theory of Evolution is a religion. However, I'd like to point out a couple of things, if you don't mind. Firstly, the term science comes from the Latin root scientia, from scient-, sciens which means, "having knowledge." Secondly, science is about building paradigms. What this means is that the field is constantly reinventing ways in which to approach problems. Part of that criteria is to come up with a hypothesis, in which a range of experiments are used to test it to be true or false. If at the end, the results support your hypothesis, then it becomes a theory. This means that the original hypothesis has been tested with empirical data, and has been found to be the best possible answer to the problem. Because science is about shifting paradigms, it is always necessary to revisit and revamp theories with any new information that surfaces. This is what a good scientist does. Nowhere is there any mention of faith (in a supernatural being) - which is a pretty important requirement for religion. However, I do see why you think that a certain level of belief is needed for the theory of Evolution. Microevolution is observable in a lab - you can see single-cell evolution in a relatively short period of time. Macroevolution is more difficult. It relies on conclusions drawn from the fossil record, and that in itself can be problematic, due to the scarcity of the record. All that needs to be said here is that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps - the logical inferrence. But, and this is important, there is a difference between a belief, and a logical inferrence.

Finally, to believe in something does not necessarily make a religion; and in science you do not make leaps of faith - you investigate problems until you arrive at a logical conclusion, supported with empirical data. On a final note: another key difference is the opposing views - Religion is subjective, Science is supposed to be objective.

[cassiopeia]

Is the General Theory of Relativity a religion too? Or Quantum Mechanics? All hail Einstein and Pauli! :)

Okay, religion means:
1. Institution to express belief in a divine power.
2. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Note the key words, "divine" and "supernatural". We (evolutionists) don't believe in these things were needed to explain us being here. We believe that the scientific evidence shows that animals evolved over many, many years from 'primordial slime'; this has nothing to do with divine or supernatural powers.

It's interesting that there aren't such heated debates about, say, Quantum Mechanics; the ideas are much, much weirder.:)

EDIT: Oops, Sheeana, you beat me! :D

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
EDIT: Oops, Sheeana, you beat me! :D

Yeah, but yours puts it in a nutshell. Mine is just waffle. ;)

There aren't as many debates about Quantum Mechanics just yet, cos there isn't a laymans version out yet. Just wait. It'll come, and then every joe blogs will be just as well informed about QM, as he is on the second law of thermodynamics. :rolleyes:

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
What she was saying was not against evolution being taught in schools, but against atheism being taught in schools.

Well, kinda, but not really....

*is now too tired after an incredibly long day out in the hot sun (field day at school - oh joy - NOT!) to figure out WHAT she was saying .... will figure it out after the in-laws leave tomorrow*

PS - thanks for the defs, Sheeana.

And I like that you mention the "logical inference" idea in your post to SamW - it's the "evolution is scientifically proven" line that pushes my button - when people point out (correctly) that there are some logical inferences involved, that removes the trouble spot for me.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Yeah, but yours puts it in a nutshell. Mine is just waffle. ;)

There aren't as many debates about Quantum Mechanics just yet, cos there isn't a laymans version out yet. Just wait. It'll come, and then every joe blogs will be just as well informed about QM, as he is on the second law of thermodynamics. :rolleyes:
No, yours is better; I'm too lazy to type out much. :rolleyes:
Even if people understood Quantum Mechanics (if anybody could! :) ), I still think that it won't stir up so much debate because it doesn't speak of our origins.

Just to continue the debate, biological evolution is fact. The thing is, scientists are unsure of the exact mechanism of evolution - hence the term theory of evolution. Scientists don't dispute evolution occurs, it does, and can be seen from the evidence. I would never say that the theory of evolution is scientifically proven - nothing can be proven, except in mathematics (which I have to do, yuck!)

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Sorry for saying generally that you seemed to not agree with evolution being taught -
As on the other thread .. thank you for the apology and the edit :)

but the thing i was refering to - you did say it (Hobbit quotes brilliant post by RÃ*an :D )
Yes, I did say that, because I believe it to be true.

That is what that whole several sentences in that para was concerning. I was replying to basically what you said - i did not have the quote in front of me at the time. Just disregard the first sentence then - i just edited the rian part out anyway. I did not realize that you were for evolution in school but otherwised seemed against it.
ok :)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And now you will find the Creationists back paddling to cover their tracks. :D
why, do creationists object to natural selection? I've never heard that!

[Rían]

Sheeana (or others who are more up on this topic than I am) - at what level(s) of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species can different animals produce offspring?

*yes, I'm too lazy to look this up, just like the macro/micro thing, and I hope you don't mind informing me, if you know it off the top of your head*

IOW, I don't think a human could breed with a canary and produce offspring! Where IS the interbreeding line drawn? Is it general or are there a few exceptions?

[Sheeana]

It's another one of those can of worms. We spent a whole class once trying to define "species" and we couldn't. It was far too complicated. Where do you draw the line? Biologically isolated? Geographically isolated?, etc. :) I *can* take a stab and say that it would probably have to be narrowed down to at least a sub-species level, but I'm making a wild guess here. The Linnaean system wasn't my strong point.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Jonathan
...According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin. Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sheeana, is this a misuse of the word "evolved", in your opinion? I would say this demonstrates natural selection; it doesn't demonstrate "evolving". What's your opinion? You are quite correct, this isn't really evolution but rather natural selection, which eventually leads to evolution.
If the African Jews had 'evolved' in the true meaning of the word, then they would have to be considered a separate species, unable to have children with other humans (unless the other humans evolved in the same way).
Now, the African Jews did not evolve to a separate species, they rather became a sub-species of the Israelites.

Lief Erikson mentioned the Burmingham Moth that turned black so that it could survive as a species. This was not 'evolution' either. It was just that Moths with a special genetical deffect (that made them black) became more common among them, because the deffect suddenly helped them to survive.
But the black Burmingham Moth and the white Burmingham Moth were still the same species, and therefore it's wrong to talk about 'real evolution' here.

Not until one species have changed into an entirely new species, you can't really say it's evolution.


I also want to point out that scientist in their labs have witnessed how one species of banana flies has evolved into two species over a relatively short time. Now there's real evolution.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Not until one species have changed into an entirely new species, you can't really say it's evolution.

Bullshite. Evolution can still occur at a genetic level. That's why there's a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Bullshite. Evolution can still occur at a genetic level. That's why there's a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Ok then. Say microevolution is what happened to the Birmingham Moth and to the African Jews. And say that macroevolution is what happened to the banana flies I mentioned.

Definiton of Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html)

[Sheeana]

Well, no, because macroevolution occurs at the level of the organism or higher, whereas microevolution is only at a genetic level. Any dramatic change in phenotype, like a change in skin colour, or wing colour, would be macroevolution. Cladogenesis does not have to occur for it to be macroevolution.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Any dramatic change in phenotype, like a change in skin colour, or wing colour, would be macroevolution. A dramatic change in phenotype does not have to be a dramatic genetical change. Skin colour for example, can depend on only a few genes, which in different combinations can give different colours. In a population, there can be many different phenotypes even though the genes are the same. They are just combined in different ways.

The Birmingham Moth (that turned from white to black) had by your definiton a dramatic change in phenotype. But it was absolutely not macroevolution.
First there were populations of white moths. Among them, there were always black moths too. They belonged to the same species, but they had a defect gene that made them black, and they could never survived for long because of that.
When the environment changed, the black Moths survived at a greater extent than the white Moth.

This is not macroevolution, since there has always been both white and black moths amongst the Birmingham Moths. When the phenotype changed to black, it was only a single defect gene that was responsible. And that gene had always existed amongst the moth populations.


Marcoevolution is more than just a gene or two that changes the phenotype. It's when an entirely new species is born.