NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This article makes a great case for teaching evolution as opposed to "creationism" ( sometimes known as "cetinism" ). The most telling arguments, IMHO, have been bolded.

Your thoughts?



Evolution's Bottom Line (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/opinion/12Thorpe.html?th&emc=th)



By HOLDEN THORP
Published: May 12, 2006
Chapel Hill, N.C.

THE usefulness of scientific theories, like those on gravity, relativity and evolution, is to make predictions. When theories make practicable foresight possible, they are widely accepted and used to make all of the new things that we enjoy — like global positioning systems, which rely on the theories of relativity, and the satellites that make them possible, which are placed in their orbits thanks to the good old theory of gravity.

Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way. The creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in Pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion. They prevailed, however, in Kansas, where the school board changed the definition of science to accommodate the teaching of intelligent design.

Both sides say they are fighting for lofty goals and defending the truth. But lost in all this truth-defending are more pragmatic issues that have to do with the young people whose educations are at stake here and this pesky fact: creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does.

Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn't have such life-saving and life-improving technologies.

Another specific example is resistant bacterial infections, one of the scariest threats to public health. The ones that are resistant to antibiotics are more reproductively successful than their non-resistant relatives and pass the new resistance genes on to more offspring. Just as Darwin said 150 years ago.

The creationists have devised a tortuous work-around for this phenomenon, which endorses natural selection and survival of the fittest, but says that evolution doesn't explain the original development of species. The problem is, there are hundreds of genes that occur in both bacteria and humans. It's hard to see why a designer would do it that way, since having the same genes in bacteria and humans makes infections harder to treat: drugs that act on bacterial gene products act on the human versions as well, so those drugs could kill both the bacterium and the human host. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas? Are we going to close them out from working in the life sciences? And what about companies in Kansas that want to attract scientists to work there? Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?

One Kansas biology teacher, a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers, told Popular Science magazine that students from Kansas now face tougher scrutiny when seeking admission to medical schools. And companies seeking to innovate in the life sciences could perhaps be excused for giving the Sunflower State a miss: one Web site that lists companies looking for workers in biotechnology has more than 600 hiring scientists in California and more than 240 in Massachusetts. Kansas has 11.

In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush mentioned our problems in science education and promised to focus on "keeping America competitive" by increasing the budget for research and spending money to get more science teachers. I hope he delivers, but we can't keep America competitive if some states teach science that has no commercial utility. Those smart youngsters in India and China whom you keep hearing about are learning secular science, not biblical literalism.

The battle is about more than which truth is truthier, it's about who will be allowed to innovate and where they will do it. Sequestering our scientists in California and Massachusetts makes no sense. We need to allow everyone to participate and increase the chance of finding the innovations to improve society and compete globally.

Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school.

Holden Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.

Good old Holden Thorp.

I actually believe we humble NSer's made MOST of those points way back when this was a big debate issue here...

Good old Holden Thorp.

I actually believe we humble NSer's made MOST of those points way back when this was a big debate issue here...
I seem to recall those points having been made as well. Just thought this article would serve to add emphasis to them. :)

I actually believe we humble NSer's made MOST of those points way back when this was a big debate issue here...

I bet Holden has a nation here. :D Stole all our damn arguments!

Of course, if this logical, well thought out reply to the creationists doesn't work, we can always riducule them by worshiping a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And to summarise it for the lazier persons:

The Theory of evolution has been tested and tried for well over a century, and has produced many wonderful results and insights.
The theory of Intelligent Design has existed for a few years and sofar has produced nothing.

Now guess why many do not consider the two "worthy of equal respect and time in the classroom" at all.

I bet Holden has a nation here. :D Stole all our damn arguments!

Best conspiracy theory I've heard today!

Hey, that guy teaches at my school! C'est une petite monde, vraiment.

Of course, if this logical, well thought out reply to the creationists doesn't work, we can always riducule them by worshiping a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm offended! =D

I'm offended! =D
Me too! How outrageous! :D

Me too! How outrageous! :D

Don't worry. His noodliness will extend a noodly appendage to un-noodilize your outrageousness :p

Don't worry. His noodliness will extend a noodly appendage to un-noodilize your outrageousness :p
LMAO! Man ... you just ain't right! :D

Best conspiracy theory I've heard today!

You should hear my theory that the NSA has been deliberately stealing our phone calls in order to ensure that plastic idiot, Katherine McPhee, wins American Idol.

I thought it was a theory anyway ... and then the big announcement about the NSA ... and suddenly the most talented one of the bunch gets voted off.

I may have been right about it! :eek:

You should hear my theory that the NSA has been deliberately stealing our phone calls in order to ensure that plastic idiot, Katherine McPhee, wins American Idol.

I thought it was a theory anyway ... and then the big announcement about the NSA ... and suddenly the most talented one of the bunch gets voted off.

I may have been right about it! :eek:
I've never seen you be "right" about anything, K! Left maybe, but not right! :D

Evolution is a theory, that doesn't mean there isn't a god or anything, its just that evoltion explains some things better than the bible. Did you know there was an archbishop named James Ussher (Year:1664) that calculated using Old Testament geologies that the world was created on the 26th of October 4004 B.C. at 9.00 in the morning.

Anyway, there are many scientists who believe in religion, but also believe in evolution. I guess its all just how you look at the two.

I got this one too in my NYT in the email.

You should hear my theory that the NSA has been deliberately stealing our phone calls in order to ensure that plastic idiot, Katherine McPhee, wins American Idol.

I thought it was a theory anyway ... and then the big announcement about the NSA ... and suddenly the most talented one of the bunch gets voted off.

I may have been right about it! :eek:
I don't know if this is news to you, but they're all plastic idiots. Just last week I saw one of them, Carrie Underwood do a shoe commercial, and it was so flagrantly commercialistic that I wanted to puke because she actually has a lot of fans. Clearly the majority of humans are gullible and ignorant.

I have no faith in humanity. :mad:

The US owes much of its success to scientific and technological innovation. Thus Creationists want America to fail, and are the real threat from within. ;)

Evolution is a theory, that doesn't mean there isn't a god or anything, its just that evoltion explains some things better than the bible.

Oh, it means much more. One of the main problems in this whole silly debate is that scientists and "normal people" mean different things when they call something a theory. A scientist uses the word theory for something that has been rigorously tested and survived - not for some idea a random guy thought up in the pub.

I don't know if this is news to you, but they're all plastic idiots. Just last week I saw one of them, Carrie Underwood do a shoe commercial, and it was so flagrantly commercialistic that I wanted to puke because she actually has a lot of fans. Clearly the majority of humans are gullible and ignorant.

Indeed. The whole thing is a sham perpetuated by modern capitalism to sell us trendy clothes and silly kitsch that we'll all groan at in 5 years.

The US owes much of its success to scientific and technological innovation. Thus Creationists want America to fail, and are the real threat from within. ;)

:p Nice, the unpatrioticness!:D

I'm going to put a slightly different spin to this: By falling lockstep with evolution, many are actually suppressing potential theories that explain what evolution cannot; namely the origion of life from non-life. And lets not forget everything that evolution's survival of the fittest has been wrongly applied to (i.e. social darwinism).

People who think creation should be taught in schools are one of the several groups that make me feel like whenever I tell people I'm a Christian, I have to follow it up with "...but I'm not like an idiot or anything."

I'm going to put a slightly different spin to this: By falling lockstep with evolution, many are actually suppressing potential theories that explain what evolution cannot; namely the origion of life from non-life. And lets not forget everything that evolution's survival of the fittest has been wrongly applied to (i.e. social darwinism).

Your argument doesn't make logical sense. Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origin of life from non-life. It cannot address that issue because it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thus, use of the theory cannot in any way suppress other theories.

Your argument is like saying, "The existence of ice cream suppresses other foods that might be the main course in a dinner."

Your argument also ignores the actual process of science. There is no "falling lockstep into" a theory. Every theory, no matter how well defended, can fall if evidence comes up that disproves it. Evolutionary theory is no different. Thus far, however, no evidence has disproven it and no scientific theory has been put forth which equally or better explains the data we now have.

And the fact that people misuse a theory has nothing to do with its validity.

So you are going to say that the suppression of any ideas that go against evolution, or point out shortcomings with the theory, is not potentially halting scientific process? Afterall, there are many sights that do show some of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory,this one (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm) makes several good points.

So you say that no evidence has disproved evolution, hmm? What about the fact that not one transitional form has ever been found in the fossil record, when we should find loads of them if evolution actually happened? There's a reason transitional forms are called "missing links". It's cause their just not around.

Well, perhaps that was just a negative point, you say, not exactly evidence against evolution but pointing out the lack of evidence. Hold on, I'm not done yet. Here's the evidence that fills the minds of evolutionists with nightmares!

Remember a few months back when soft, flexible tissue was found inside a supposedly 70 million year old T-Rex leg? It was all over the news at the time. All these "experts" were astounded that soft tissue could survive that long. They should have been astounded, because its not possible. But did they ever think that perhaps it was their dates that were wrong? Oh no, you can't question the dates! That would be unfaithful!

There are many evidences that point toward an earth far to young for evolution to ever have occurred. Take for example the amount of salt in the ocean. Salt gets into the ocean by dissolving into it from land. Scientists have calculated the rates of salt erosion and dissolution into water, estimated the amount of salt currently in the ocean, and realized that judging by the amount of salt in the ocean, the earth can't be more than 13 million years old at the most! Far to young for evolution to ever take place.

Next, lets move on to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants emit CO2 into our atmosphere at a steady rate that has been measured by scientists. Scientists have compared the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere to the rate of emission and realized that the earth cannot be more than 6 million years old! Once again, far to young for evolution to ever take place.

What about all the bad things and imperfections in the world, you ask? Why would a loving Creator God create such things as disease spreading bacteria, which were mentioned earlier? The short answer is that he didn't! Read Genesis 3. It's our fault people!

What about all of the great scientific advances that have come from understanding the theory of evolution? Aren't creationists just ignorant, religious nuts who don't understand a thing about science? Nope. In fact, that's hogwash. The founders of modern science were all creationists. Johann Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and Louis Pasteur as well as many others were all avid creationists. Newton wrote more books on theology than he did on science. Pasteur, a contemporary of Darwin, dismissed the theory of evolution as pure nonsense.

What's a cetin?

The US owes much of its success to scientific and technological innovation. Thus Creationists want America to fail, and are the real threat from within. ;)
Heh! I disagee, somewhat. A dynamic, viable nation is largely the product of many different groups and people with widely divergent views. Somewhere in the tension between these groups is a mean which the nation finds, sometimes shifting one way, sometimes another. The key is to give all people an opportunity to convince, persuade and contend.

So you are going to say that the suppression of any ideas that go against evolution, or point out shortcomings with the theory, is not potentially halting scientific process?

No, if anyone were actually doing that, then it would be a problem. Of course, to be scientific, the ideas must be scientific, and the shortcomings must actually exist.

Afterall, there are many sights that do show some of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory,this one (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm) makes several good points.

Actually, it doesn't. It starts out unscientific.

First of all: There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

You can't call this a flaw in evolutionary theory when evolutionary theory has never saught to explain the origin of life. Evolutionary theory describes the way life changes over time - the way species develop.

Again, this is like saying, "The fact that we eat ice cream for dessert means we can't have roast beef for dinner."

The next part is simply a lie:
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

*Every* form in the fossil record, according to evolutionary theory, is a "transitional form." Thus, every fossil we have ever seen is a species that is develping and changing over time. What people like this want to see is every single form that has ever existed - but anyone who understands the process of fossilization realizes that such a request is silly, at best. Once again, not a flaw in evolutionary theory, especially since science works by disproving things. It would take a fossil that disproved evolution to be a problem with the theory. A lack of every possible fossil that could support it is not a disproof.

Your website doesn't bring up a single actual problem or "whole" in evolutionary theory. All it does is whine about abiogenesis - a separate hypothesis altogether, and complain that every single possible fossil form has not yet been found. It also brings up a lot of "early man" fossils that have long since been rejected by science.

Edit: Meanwhile, your page links to a "Creation Science" page, which is inherently unscientific, due to the inclusion of a completely unfalsifiable premise - the existence of God. Science can neither depend on the existence of God, nor the non-existence of God, as either is an untestable and unfalsifiable premise.

The question of transitional form is not "why isn't every single variation accounted for" but "how do we go from the first ape that walked upright to man?" In that respect, there is very little evidence. This is one of the reasons why creationists point to the Cambrian explosion.

1. So you say that no evidence has disproved evolution, hmm? What about the fact that not one transitional form has ever been found in the fossil record, when we should find loads of them if evolution actually happened? There's a reason transitional forms are called "missing links". It's cause their just not around.

2. Well, perhaps that was just a negative point, you say, not exactly evidence against evolution but pointing out the lack of evidence. Hold on, I'm not done yet. Here's the evidence that fills the minds of evolutionists with nightmares!

3. Remember a few months back when soft, flexible tissue was found inside a supposedly 70 million year old T-Rex leg? It was all over the news at the time. All these "experts" were astounded that soft tissue could survive that long. They should have been astounded, because its not possible. But did they ever think that perhaps it was their dates that were wrong? Oh no, you can't question the dates! That would be unfaithful!

4. There are many evidences that point toward an earth far to young for evolution to ever have occurred. Take for example the amount of salt in the ocean. Salt gets into the ocean by dissolving into it from land. Scientists have calculated the rates of salt erosion and dissolution into water, estimated the amount of salt currently in the ocean, and realized that judging by the amount of salt in the ocean, the earth can't be more than 13 million years old at the most! Far to young for evolution to ever take place.

5. Next, lets move on to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants emit CO2 into our atmosphere at a steady rate that has been measured by scientists. Scientists have compared the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere to the rate of emission and realized that the earth cannot be more than 6 million years old! Once again, far to young for evolution to ever take place.

6. What about all the bad things and imperfections in the world, you ask? Why would a loving Creator God create such things as disease spreading bacteria, which were mentioned earlier? The short answer is that he didn't! Read Genesis 3. It's our fault people!

7. What about all of the great scientific advances that have come from understanding the theory of evolution? Aren't creationists just ignorant, religious nuts who don't understand a thing about science? Nope. In fact, that's hogwash. The founders of modern science were all creationists. Johann Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and Louis Pasteur as well as many others were all avid creationists. Newton wrote more books on theology than he did on science. Pasteur, a contemporary of Darwin, dismissed the theory of evolution as pure nonsense.
1. Many, many "transitional forms" have been discovered. One example off the top of my head: feathered dinosaurs.

2. The only lack of "evidence" for evolution is in the minds of those who obviously know nothing about it.

3. Finding "soft tissue" does not disprove evolution. All it proves is that there are still things to which we need to find answers, unlike creationists who claim to have all the answers.

4. There have been repeated impacts with asteroids and comets over the millennia. One of the results has been the incineration of the oceans and the incineration of the minerals therein ... including salt. And this is just one of the things that pokes holes in the false conundrum of "where's all the salt?"

5. Um ... plants give off pure oxygen, not CO2. Try studying science for a change instead of listening to the seamless propaganda passed out by those who stand to profit from ignorance.

6. There are "bad things and imperfections" in the world because the universe is sometimes a dangerous place, not because of some reason positied by an ancient myth.

7. The early scientists were "creationists" because the prevalent view of society in their day was that "God created the earth in seven days." They were simply reflecting the myths of their time, and were practicing science before the theory of evolution was even developed. The truly amazing thing is that science was even allowed. Sometimes, those who practiced science were burned at the stake because their findings were contrary to the myths perpetrated by the ecclesastical myths of their day.

You really should set your beliefs asside long enough to learn just what it is that you oppose. Science is not the enemy ... established religions that still teach ancient myths are the enemy.

1. Many, many "transitional forms" have been discovered. One example off the top of my head: feathered dinosaurs.

You are thinking of Archaeopteryx. While no birds today have toothed jaws, other true birds of the time had teeth. In addition, a palentologist found "modern" birds in the same rock layer that Archaeopteryx was found, making it a contemporary, and not a precursor, of modern birds.

4. There have been repeated impacts with asteroids and comets over the millennia. One of the results has been the incineration of the oceans and the incineration of the minerals therein ... including salt. And this is just one of the things that pokes holes in the false conundrum of "where's all the salt?"

That would melt the salt (which is possible, it would not necessarily change the chemical composition), which would end up being re-absorbed anyway. You can't just "incinerate" matter and claim that it no longer exists in any form.

5. Um ... plants give off pure oxygen, not CO2. Try studying science for a change instead of listening to the seamless propaganda passed out by those who stand to profit from ignorance.

Plants only give off oxygen during photosyntheis, during the process of cellular respiration, they consome oxygen and produce some CO2, though this is outweighed by the amount produced by photosynthesis.



Just to clarify, the only type of evolution that has actually been proven is microevolution, which is a slight change in an existing species. I think the question is whether or not this can be conclusivley applied to macro evolution; going from the elements to the guy typing on a computer.

I'm gonna get right to the point.
Hypothetical scenario: Evolution is bunk. Creationism is bunk. Every current theory of how life came to be is bunk. Thier is some wierd, oddball, as yet undiscovered process by which it all really happened.

Supposing the above to be true and supposing we continue to teach that evolutionis true, despite the fact that it is unproven, and supposing we don't give equal time to opposing theories such as creationism. What happens?

Then science dies. Teaching things despite strong evidence they are wrong as absolute truth is often the basis of dogmatic religion - but the greatest enemy of the scientific method.

The children come to see evolution as a fact, as unquestionable. When the children of today become the scientists of tomorrow, they will accept the findings of those who came before, as is always the case. No one questions something they have been taught to see as fact.

Scientists that adhere to the scientific method do. In fact, that *is* the scientifc method.

So we go on following a false theory, waiting for someone to accidentilly stumble across the truth, and when they do they're criticised for it. Ostricised from the scientific community, labeled a crackpot. Don't tell me it wouldn't go down like that, it's happened before. Years go by, with a small group of determined scientists working on the problem until finally they have the evidence to convince the others. Then, paradigm shift.

So basicly you are saying that scientists tend to not immediately drop the theories that have worked extremely well for years when someone with no supporting evidence comes along and tells them they are wrong... but instead demand proof before considering the validity of those claims ?

Silly them.

Just to clarify, the only type of evolution that has actually been proven is microevolution, which is a slight change in an existing species. I think the question is whether or not this can be conclusivley applied to macro evolution; going from the elements to the guy typing on a computer.

1. Since when does the theory of evolution deal with the transition of non-living elements to human beings ?

2. Why exactly do you believe that small change + small change + small change repeated ad nauseam will never change the species ?

1. Since when does the theory of evolution deal with the transition of non-living elements to human beings ?

2. Why exactly do you believe that small change + small change + small change repeated ad nauseam will never change the species ?

1) Because, in theory, Intelligent Design says the gensis of life came from a divine source, not from pure chance.

2) Because there has not been a total shift in species, i.e. a Wooly Mammoth is still an Elephant. No matter how many variations there are within a species, a new species has yet to really evolve. No new genes can be introduced to a species that did not exist in the species before hand, since DNA is hard coded. Sure, we can manipulate that to a degree, but there is a theory that any radical change such as introducing a "wing gene" would not last more than one generation.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It explains what course life took after it first appeared.

1) Because, in theory, Intelligent Design says the gensis of life came from a divine source, not from pure chance.

That is not an answer to my question.

2) Because there has not been a total shift in species, i.e. a Wooly Mammoth is still an Elephant. No matter how many variations there are within a species, a new species has yet to really evolve.

Unless of course you accept the theory of evolution, in which case about *every* species has evolved.

And now the counterquestion: as the opening post stated trusting in the theory of evolution has worked extremely well for scientists to develop and discover many new things.

What exactly has ID given the world sofar ?

1. Many, many "transitional forms" have been discovered. One example off the top of my head: feathered dinosaurs.

2. The only lack of "evidence" for evolution is in the minds of those who obviously know nothing about it.

3. Finding "soft tissue" does not disprove evolution. All it proves is that there are still things to which we need to find answers, unlike creationists who claim to have all the answers.

4. There have been repeated impacts with asteroids and comets over the millennia. One of the results has been the incineration of the oceans and the incineration of the minerals therein ... including salt. And this is just one of the things that pokes holes in the false conundrum of "where's all the salt?"

5. Um ... plants give off pure oxygen, not CO2. Try studying science for a change instead of listening to the seamless propaganda passed out by those who stand to profit from ignorance.

6. There are "bad things and imperfections" in the world because the universe is sometimes a dangerous place, not because of some reason positied by an ancient myth.

7. The early scientists were "creationists" because the prevalent view of society in their day was that "God created the earth in seven days." They were simply reflecting the myths of their time, and were practicing science before the theory of evolution was even developed. The truly amazing thing is that science was even allowed. Sometimes, those who practiced science were burned at the stake because their findings were contrary to the myths perpetrated by the ecclesastical myths of their day.

You really should set your beliefs asside long enough to learn just what it is that you oppose. Science is not the enemy ... established religions that still teach ancient myths are the enemy.
Nothing personal Eut, but a few corrections and clarifications. (these are all 'as far as I know')
1. Recent research indicates that Dinosaurs may have been feathered/hairy as a norm.

2. Yep

3. Yep

4. 'Incineration of the oceans' as a way of getting rid of salt is... unlikely. Whoever's idea it is about the salt level appears to be assuming that the rate of salt introduction is constant. They are also ignoring the fact that sea salinity changes as a result of many things (as you said). Changes in sea level - ie introduction of more water into the system; evaporation from dying seas (see the Dead Sea for an example) removes 'salt' from the system. Etc.

5. The ratio of O2 to CO2 emissions of a non growing plant is zero. Sunlight is used to create glucose, emitting oxygen. Then, at night - no photosynthesis - this glucose is used in respiration to create energy, releasing CO2. A growing plant, however locks up carbon in it's structure, giving a net reduction in CO2.

6. Yep

7. Amen to that

As you are the logical type, you wont mind these corrections - unlike some I could mention.;)

So you are going to say that the suppression of any ideas that go against evolution, or point out shortcomings with the theory, is not potentially halting scientific process? Afterall, there are many sights that do show some of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory,this one (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm) makes several good points.
The first two statements I saw on that site are so blatantly wrong that I don't feel the need to read on.

1) It claims that evolution doesn't explain how life came from non-living matter. Well, evolution isn't supposed to explain that. Evolution only explains how old species transformed and branched out over time. Complaining that it doesn't explain abiogenesis is like complaining that your car doesn't work as an airplane.

2) It's second claim is that there are no transitional fossils. This is just a blatant creationist lie. Archaeopterix, Homo Erectus, Ambulocetus, and many, many other clearly transitional remains show that creationists who accuse biologists of not having any transitional fossils are bearing false witness against their neighbor.

So you say that no evidence has disproved evolution, hmm? What about the fact that not one transitional form has ever been found in the fossil record, when we should find loads of them if evolution actually happened? There's a reason transitional forms are called "missing links". It's cause their just not around.

Well, perhaps that was just a negative point, you say, not exactly evidence against evolution but pointing out the lack of evidence. Hold on, I'm not done yet. Here's the evidence that fills the minds of evolutionists with nightmares!

Remember a few months back when soft, flexible tissue was found inside a supposedly 70 million year old T-Rex leg? It was all over the news at the time. All these "experts" were astounded that soft tissue could survive that long. They should have been astounded, because its not possible. But did they ever think that perhaps it was their dates that were wrong? Oh no, you can't question the dates! That would be unfaithful!

There are many evidences that point toward an earth far to young for evolution to ever have occurred. Take for example the amount of salt in the ocean. Salt gets into the ocean by dissolving into it from land. Scientists have calculated the rates of salt erosion and dissolution into water, estimated the amount of salt currently in the ocean, and realized that judging by the amount of salt in the ocean, the earth can't be more than 13 million years old at the most! Far to young for evolution to ever take place.

Next, lets move on to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants emit CO2 into our atmosphere at a steady rate that has been measured by scientists. Scientists have compared the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere to the rate of emission and realized that the earth cannot be more than 6 million years old! Once again, far to young for evolution to ever take place.

What about all the bad things and imperfections in the world, you ask? Why would a loving Creator God create such things as disease spreading bacteria, which were mentioned earlier? The short answer is that he didn't! Read Genesis 3. It's our fault people!

What about all of the great scientific advances that have come from understanding the theory of evolution? Aren't creationists just ignorant, religious nuts who don't understand a thing about science? Nope. In fact, that's hogwash. The founders of modern science were all creationists. Johann Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and Louis Pasteur as well as many others were all avid creationists. Newton wrote more books on theology than he did on science. Pasteur, a contemporary of Darwin, dismissed the theory of evolution as pure nonsense.
Dude, you seriously need to go out and read a book. Not the bible either. I mean a work of non-fiction.

I'm gonna get right to the point.
Hypothetical scenario: Evolution is bunk. Creationism is bunk. Every current theory of how life came to be is bunk. Thier is some wierd, oddball, as yet undiscovered process by which it all really happened.

Supposing the above to be true and supposing we continue to teach that evolutionis true, despite the fact that it is unproven, and supposing we don't give equal time to opposing theories such as creationism. What happens? The children come to see evolution as a fact, as unquestionable. When the children of today become the scientists of tomorrow, they will accept the findings of those who came before, as is always the case. No one questions something they have been taught to see as fact. So we go on following a false theory, waiting for someone to accidentilly stumble across the truth, and when they do they're criticised for it. Ostricised from the scientific community, labeled a crackpot. Don't tell me it wouldn't go down like that, it's happened before. Years go by, with a small group of determined scientists working on the problem until finally they have the evidence to convince the others. Then, paradigm shift. The guys who were calling them crackpots are suddenly the guys saying 'I always believed in you'. All because we like to think we have it all figured out. We don't. Thjomas Edison once said, "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything." Look at all the theories of today, some, if not all, will eventually be proven wrong. The more we teach these theories as true the longer it will take to make that one discovery that could change everything.
You show a complete lack of understanding about how science works. Science doesn't hand down laws that cannot be questioned. That's religion's role. Science keeps looking for evidence and builds a model of the world based on that evidence and tests it by trying to disprove it. If evidence that shows evolution didn't happen is found evolution will be scrapped.

I'm gonna get right to the point.
Hypothetical scenario: Evolution is bunk. Creationism is bunk. Every current theory of how life came to be is bunk. Thier is some wierd, oddball, as yet undiscovered process by which it all really happened.

Evolutionary theory does not describe "how life came to be." If you mean, "how life came to the point that it is now," we can continue the discussion.

If every theory of how life has gotten to the point it is now is complete bunk, then science, which is self-correcting, will most likely figure that out. Evolutionary theory will be disproven and thus discarded, moving us closer to the actual method of biological change.

Supposing the above to be true and supposing we continue to teach that evolutionis true,

No one teaches that "evolution is true." It is taught as the leading scientific theory - as it should be, since it is.

despite the fact that it is unproven,

Nothing in science is ever proven. A hypothesis is either disproven or supported. If it is supported and tested enough, without contradictory evidence, it becomes a theory. And it remains as such until it is either disproven or all human beings die.

and supposing we don't give equal time to opposing theories such as creationism.

Creationism is not an "opposing theory." It is certainly an idea - a religious one. It is not, however, by any stretch of the concept, a scientific theory. It has not been arrived at using the scientific method and is completely unfalsifiable, as it it involves the existence of God - something which science cannot rely upon. As such, calling it an "opposing theory" is like calling jello an "opposing ice cream."

What happens? The children come to see evolution as a fact, as unquestionable. When the children of today become the scientists of tomorrow, they will accept the findings of those who came before, as is always the case. No one questions something they have been taught to see as fact.

You don't have the first clue how science actually works, do you? EVERYTHING is questioned. Any piece of evidence that doesn't fit with current theory causes it to either be discarded or altered.

A child who sees anything they are taught in science as unquestionable has completley missed the point - and should have failed their science class on the basis that they don't even understand the basics of the scientific method.

The question of transitional form is not "why isn't every single variation accounted for" but "how do we go from the first ape that walked upright to man?" In that respect, there is very little evidence. This is one of the reasons why creationists point to the Cambrian explosion.

But there is no evidence that actually contradicts evolutionary theory. And there is evidence of human beings, monkeys, and the great apes all sharing a common ancestory.

The problem is that Creationists seem to think that, "We haven't yet found 'x' somehow disproves that 'x' exists."

Just to clarify, the only type of evolution that has actually been proven is microevolution, which is a slight change in an existing species. I think the question is whether or not this can be conclusivley applied to macro evolution; going from the elements to the guy typing on a computer.

Scientifically, there is no "microevolution" and "macroevolution". The two are the exact same process. That which is referred to as "macroevolution" is simply the accumulation of many, many small changes that is referred to as "microevolution."

Watch this:

The brown dog.
The browe dog.
Fhe browe dog.
Fhe browe cog.
Fhe orowe cog.
Fht orowe cog.
Fht orowe cot.
Fht oroge cot.
Fat oroge cot.
Fat oroge cat.
Fat orage cat.
Fat orange cat.

Look, all small changes, but the meaning really changed at the end, no?

Claiming that they are separate is like saying that I have driven to Cincinnatti, but since no one has ever seen me drive all the way to Alaska, it can't be done.

Meanwhile, evolutionary theory doesn't start with elements. It describes changes in life. Thus, it starts with the first lifeforms, and ends up with all the lifeforms we have today.

1) Because, in theory, Intelligent Design says the gensis of life came from a divine source, not from pure chance.

And the untestable and unfalsifiable assumption of a "divine source" is exactly the reason that ID is not a scientific theory.

Meanwhile, evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of life.

2) Because there has not been a total shift in species, i.e. a Wooly Mammoth is still an Elephant. No matter how many variations there are within a species, a new species has yet to really evolve.

There hasn't? Really? No changes have ever built up to the point that one animal could not longer mate with some of its ancestors?

No new genes can be introduced to a species that did not exist in the species before hand, since DNA is hard coded.

Wow, such an incredibly profound ignorance of biology. Mutations happen constantly, paduin. Some of these mutations involve accidentally recopying part of or an entire gene. This adds new genetic material. If the new genetic material is redundant, then it likely can mutate freely, without causing any disadvantage. Watch:

The purple people eater.
purple gets copied

The purple purple people eater.
one purple is redundant, and can now mutate rather freely.

The hurple purple people eater.
The hunple purple people eater.
The hungle purple people eater.
The hungre purple people eater.
The hungry purple people eater.

Now we've added new functionality!

Sure, we can manipulate that to a degree, but there is a theory that any radical change such as introducing a "wing gene" would not last more than one generation.

You have this tendency to completely misues the word "theory". It means a bit more than "idea". First of all, you aren't looking at introducing a gene that would suddenly make a species that had no wings sprout them. It would be more like the following:

Animal has "arms".
Animal has "arms" with some extra skin that helps give it a little bit of lift when jumping after prey.
Animal has "arms" with even more extra skin, for even more lift.
Animal has enough skin to glide for a while (like a flying squirrel).
Animal develops bones in flaps of skin that allow for more control.
Hollow bones begin to develop, giving the animal more ability to fly.
and so on and so on...

You are trying to make the process sudden, when it is in fact gradual. It isn't A to Z in one step. It is A to B to C to D to E and so on.

is someone really suggesting that the biblical story of creation makes MORE sense than evolution?

yeah the theory of evolution doesnt have everything worked out yet but its better every year.

the biblical story is shown to be utterly untrue.

is someone really suggesting that the biblical story of creation makes MORE sense than evolution?

Where have you been for the last year?

Where have you been for the last year?
no i meant HERE. are our critics of evolution suggesting that they think the biblical account of genesis is true?

once you realize that the biblical account of creation cant possilby be true, what are you left with if you discount evolution?

I feel I must apologize for my apparent inability to convey my meaning. It has clearly been lost in my ramblings. I DO understand the scientific method. Even when I sucked at every other subject, I always had straight A's in science. I even wanted to be a scientist of somesort when I was younger. I got over it. The scientific method is in fact the proper way of doing things, the problem is not with it, but rather with the scientific community, which I feel has lost sight of it's purpose. That and the school system, which is completely and utterly failing in its task. But I digress, these are arguements for another place and another time. My previous post was poorly written and distorted my meaning. I guess I just like to hear myself type sometimes. I shall remove it to avoid further difficulty.

creationism has no commercial application.

i think this severely underestimates the market for ken ham's books, carl baugh's videos, and kent hovind's dinosaur adventure land.

Just to clarify: So-called "transitional forms" have been found to be contemparies of many modern species, such as java man and lucy which are virtually indistinguishable from homo sapien, and Archaeopteryx. Still, simple gradual evolution fails to explain the cambrian explosion, and still does have its flaws. Afterall, the changes Darwin himself observed were only temporary. There still is no real concrete proof for anything that goes from monocellular bacteria to ultracomplex humans. The website I included has much more, particularly quotes from palentologists and actual scientists poking holes in evolutionary theory. And the "Idea" I had was from a scientist I was informed of while doing research on gene modification, and I forgot the name. But basically any gene that is mutated will not surpass a generation.

You are thinking of Archaeopteryx. While no birds today have toothed jaws, other true birds of the time had teeth. In addition, a palentologist found "modern" birds in the same rock layer that Archaeopteryx was found, making it a contemporary, and not a precursor, of modern birds.

1) there are far more feathered dinos, proto-birds, and just plain weird flying/gliding evolutionary dead ends out there than just ol' archy. as of a couple months ago they had a few of them on exhibit at the field museum in chicago. use google, you can find a bunch of pictures up on the internet.

2) what "true birds" had teeth? and while we are at it, what "true birds" had long bony tails? and claws at the end of their wings? and an utter lack of a beak?

3) name these "modern birds" found in the same layer as archy.

1) Because, in theory, Intelligent Design says the gensis of life came from a divine source, not from pure chance.

2) Because there has not been a total shift in species, i.e. a Wooly Mammoth is still an Elephant. No matter how many variations there are within a species, a new species has yet to really evolve. No new genes can be introduced to a species that did not exist in the species before hand, since DNA is hard coded. Sure, we can manipulate that to a degree, but there is a theory that any radical change such as introducing a "wing gene" would not last more than one generation.


1. To be sure, evolutionary biology does not cover the initiation of proto-life. You can place your god of the gaps there if you wish.

2. Then the human being is still a mouse! :p Fortunately new genes do crop up now and then, repeats, transposons and viral transfers, but you're right in that most species difference may not result from those. The buzzword is gene regulation in terms of expression amount, timing, duration and location. So there is a theory that any radical change cannot last more than a generation? Let's hear it.

*snip* But basically any gene that is mutated will not surpass a generation.

What about viable knockouts / transgenics? Some of them last numerous generations!

For those who need to know:

Evolution does not mean an increase in complexity for a species.

It simply states that the species best fit to survive, will survive. Which is logical, really.

Evolution has more to do with death, pay close attention to this simplified example:

There are two different traits present in a population: tall plants and short plants. There is a flood, the short plants drown while the taller ones survive. Thus, the plants have evolved.

Or an asteroid hits, in this new environment, only certain bacteria are fit to survive, therefore, evolution happened.

So-called "transitional forms" have been found to be contemparies of many modern species

yeah, and? your uncles didn't all die off when you were born, did they?

lucy which [is] virtually indistinguishable from homo sapien

haha. lucy is three and a half feet tall, and has a brain less than a third of the size of a modern human's.

simple gradual evolution fails to explain the cambrian explosion

no it doesn't. the cambrian 'explosion' actually makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, once you learn about what it actually is.

But basically any gene that is mutated will not surpass a generation.

this is such utter bullshit that i don't know where to start. color blindness, perhaps. or hemophilia. tall people having tall kids, even.

Could a creationist please explain to me how a platypus got from Noah's ark in the middle east to eastern Australia.

1) It would have taken many, many generations of platypus to do the trip. Where is the evidence of these creatures in south Asia and south-east Asia.

2) Platypi require a very particular environment. Surely they would have become extinct before they arrived.

If creationism, aka intelligent design, is a scientific theory, please explain how this could have happened?

Indeed. The whole thing is a sham perpetuated by modern capitalism to sell us trendy clothes and silly kitsch that we'll all groan at in 5 years.

And rebuy in 25.

But basically any gene that is mutated will not surpass a generation.

The disease Sickle-Cell Anemia is actually a mutation that helps survive against Malaria. The Malarian parasyte will not survive in a sickle shaped cell. Thus, it was actually beneficial.

COMMENTARY: This article makes a great case for teaching evolution as opposed to "creationism" ( sometimes known as "cetinism" ). The most telling arguments, IMHO, have been bolded.

Your thoughts?


OK, my thoughts, for what they are worth.


Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way. The creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in Pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion. They prevailed, however, in Kansas, where the school board changed the definition of science to accommodate the teaching of intelligent design.


There is no reason to attack a theory like gravity, because it mostly 'works', and where it doesn't, nobody comes out with blazing guns trying to defend it. Nor is the theory of gravity often used to remove God from someone's world view. It isn't taught in order to make kids athesists.



Both sides say they are fighting for lofty goals and defending the truth. But lost in all this truth-defending are more pragmatic issues that have to do with the young people whose educations are at stake here and this pesky fact: creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does.


I'm lost with that one. Commercial application? What has that got to do with truth? Great stories like the Lord of the Rings make a good deal of money. Isn't that commercial application?



Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn't have such life-saving and life-improving technologies.


It's a common myth that the concept of evolution is actually the basis for all these wonderful innovations. Plenty of people are making progress on antibodies who do not believe that humans evolved from ape-like animals. It isn't the idea that mice and humans have a common ancestor that makes this research possible. It is the idea that homology genes is due to homologous functions, not common ancestry. An example would be the bill on both a duck and a platypus. The bill is similar because of the function that the bill serves, not through common ancestry.

And the immune response is NOT evolution. It is adaptation. The assumption/conclusion is that evolution works through adaptation, but this has never been proven, and I would argue does nothing to help progress.

So I reckon he is quite wrong. Without evolution, we probably would have these life-saving technologies, because we can understand mutation, natural selection, adaptation, etc., without any reference to the concept that life evolved from one ancestor.


Another specific example is resistant bacterial infections, one of the scariest threats to public health. The ones that are resistant to antibiotics are more reproductively successful than their non-resistant relatives and pass the new resistance genes on to more offspring. Just as Darwin said 150 years ago.


This is natural selection, not evolution. Pointing to natural selection as evidence for the evolution of all of life from a single ancestor would be like a IDer pointing to complexity and saying that this is evidence for creation. Plenty of people work with antibiotic resistance in bacteria without any reference to the concept that life evolved from a single ancestor.


The creationists have devised a tortuous work-around for this phenomenon, which endorses natural selection and survival of the fittest, but says that evolution doesn't explain the original development of species. The problem is, there are hundreds of genes that occur in both bacteria and humans. It's hard to see why a designer would do it that way, since having the same genes in bacteria and humans makes infections harder to treat: drugs that act on bacterial gene products act on the human versions as well, so those drugs could kill both the bacterium and the human host. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


So because he can't see something, that demonstrates that there was no creator. Why would a creator have to design life according to the restrictions of modern medicine?



So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas? Are we going to close them out from working in the life sciences? And what about companies in Kansas that want to attract scientists to work there? Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?


Next he will be saying that we can thank the theory of evolution for our food, and our jobs. Like saying 'grace' to the theory of evolution.


One Kansas biology teacher, a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers, told Popular Science magazine that students from Kansas now face tougher scrutiny when seeking admission to medical schools. And companies seeking to innovate in the life sciences could perhaps be excused for giving the Sunflower State a miss: one Web site that lists companies looking for workers in biotechnology has more than 600 hiring scientists in California and more than 240 in Massachusetts. Kansas has 11.


But why should these students face *tougher* scrutiny? Shouldn't it be scrutiny at the same level? And the low number of scientists from Kansas on *that particular website* (no links provided) could have to do with all sorts of reasons, not least bigotry. Hardly an objective way of showing the superiority of evolutionary theory. What a pathetic argument!


In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush mentioned our problems in science education and promised to focus on "keeping America competitive" by increasing the budget for research and spending money to get more science teachers. I hope he delivers, but we can't keep America competitive if some states teach science that has no commercial utility. Those smart youngsters in India and China whom you keep hearing about are learning secular science, not biblical literalism.


He even seems to be stooping to using the common fear of being taken over by India and China as another arrow in his argument.

The battle is about more than which truth is truthier, it's about who will be allowed to innovate and where they will do it. Sequestering our scientists in California and Massachusetts makes no sense. We need to allow everyone to participate and increase the chance of finding the innovations to improve society and compete globally.


Evolution does not equal innovation. I suspect it crushes innovation more than encourages it, since it does not tolerate criticisms very well.


Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school.


Science is a good deal more than the evolutionary theory. In fact, much of evolutionary theory depends on speculation and 'educated guesses'. Science teachers should stick to teaching facts. And instead of teaching the theory of the origins of life, why not teach the philosophy of science?

Errinundera']Could a creationist please explain to me how a platypus got from Noah's ark in the middle east to eastern Australia.

1) It would have taken many, many generations of platypus to do the trip. Where is the evidence of these creatures in south Asia and south-east Asia.

2) Platypi require a very particular environment. Surely they would have become extinct before they arrived.

If creationism, aka intelligent design, is a scientific theory, please explain how this could have happened?

The platypus is an amazing little creature. It was, perhaps, found all over the world at one stage, but only survived in Australia due to a lack of predators there. This is no problem for creation theories.

Actually, the Platypi are quite robust. They are frequently found in any creek and running water, even in the middle of a city, provided the water is not too bad. They are, however, very shy, and seldom seen by humans. They like to come out at night, and during the day time the hide in shadows, under bridges, etc. As a boy, I would sometimes find them, however, in the explorations for yabbies in the creek just behind my parents home. I always had a healthy respect for the male platypus, since his claws contained poison. Never got caught though.

OK, my thoughts, for what they are worth.

*snip*

Oh no. Is it time to recycle arguments again? I will go get Demp, Jacobia and Grave.....

Indeed. The whole thing is a sham perpetuated by modern capitalism to sell us trendy clothes and silly kitsch that we'll all groan at in 5 years.

:rolleyes:

So you say that no evidence has disproved evolution, hmm? What about the fact that not one transitional form has ever been found in the fossil record, when we should find loads of them if evolution actually happened? There's a reason transitional forms are called "missing links". It's cause their just not around.



Actually, many transitional forms have been found. Ever heard of Archeopteryx?

Recently, a fossil animal that was between a tetrapod (land going, legged animal) and a fish was recently found.

So much for your bullshit statement.

One of the problems is that the fossil record, the farther back in time you go, gets worse and worse, because it's actually not that easy for a dead animal to get fossilized. They usually get ripped and torn to shreds by other animals or by weather conditions.

The fact is, if there was credible evidence disproving evolution (and I'm talking about evolution here, the changing of life forms on Earth, not the origin of life, that's a separate issue), the theory would have been dismissed ages ago, as people have been trying, and failing, to disprove it since the first papers on it were published. This is basically just because people are uncomfortable with the chance mutation of genes playing such a huge part in why life is the way it is.

People say "it's only a theory." Gravity is also only a theory, and if it went against religious fundamentalism, it would be fought tooth and nail as well. In science, a theory is an idea for how something works that has well organized evidence behind it, and has stood up to rigorous inquiry. It's not just a guess. A scientific guess is called a hypothesis, not a theory. There is a mountain of empirical evidence supporting evolution, which any biologist could probably regale you for hours on.

As you are the logical type, you wont mind these corrections - unlike some I could mention.;)
Heh! No, I don't mind at all. But don't mention the others ... PLEASE! :D

The key point here is that there are two sorts of evolution people discuss

- Evolution as the manner in which animals change from species to species

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.

The former people dont have so much of a problem with. The latter however has a great many philosophical implications. Its basic implication being that the origin of life itself is an accident, with no meaning behind it. This many people cannot accept and I would agree with that. The idea that life has no inherriant meaning also means that morality is a human construct. If however morallity is purely a human construct then it could be constructed in the complete opposite way to the way it is now and still be considered morally 'right'. If it is the case that morallity is nothing but a human construct, then it is constructed from all the past events of the human history, meaning if they had come out diffrently then the morality would be diffrent. For instace if Hitler had won WW2 then it would have been 'right' to wipe out all non-aryans.

People say "it's only a theory." Gravity is also only a theory, and if it went against religious fundamentalism, it would be fought tooth and nail as well. In science, a theory is an idea for how something works that has well organized evidence behind it, and has stood up to rigorous inquiry. It's not just a guess. A scientific guess is called a hypothesis, not a theory. There is a mountain of empirical evidence supporting evolution, which any biologist could probably regale you for hours on.

This is a confusion between the two types of evolution. Evolution as animals changing species is like gravity, because it is currently obsevable. However evolution as history of how life began on earth is history, and thus not currently obseravable. We have evidence, and it can be discussed and debated a great deal. Certianly the notion of Evolution as changing between animals should be considered like gravity but not evolution as the history of the origin of life.

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.
Thats not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Half this thread has been people explaining that.

Thats not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Half this thread has been people explaining that.

Abiogenesis is the spontanious creation of life

Evolution in its historical conceptation talks about more than that. It talks about the idea that over a process of millions of years we got from an ameoba to humans. That's what people have problems with

Abiogenesis is the spontanious creation of life

Evolution in its historical conceptation talks about more than that. It talks about the idea that over a process of millions of years we got from an ameoba to humans. That's what people have problems with

Didn't you just say only a few posts ago that what you and most people had an issue with was abiogenesis and not evolution per se? Geez, make up your mind.

Didn't you just say only a few posts ago that what you and most people had an issue with was abiogenesis and not evolution per se? Geez, make up your mind.

I don't have a problem with evolution saying how species change

I do have a problem with saying that it is the origin of life and that it is the development of humans from the single cell to Homosapian on its own. Maybe its possible evolution was the tool that God used to create us. But I do not believe that a series of accidental mutations gave rise to humans.

The key point here is that there are two sorts of evolution people discuss

- Evolution as the manner in which animals change from species to species

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.My emphasis... No.
Thats not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Half this thread has been people explaining that.
Abiogenesis is the spontanious creation of life

Evolution in its historical conceptation talks about more than that. It talks about the idea that over a process of millions of years we got from an ameoba to humans. That's what people have problems withYou'#re right here.
Didn't you just say only a few posts ago that what you and most people had an issue with was abiogenesis and not evolution per se? Geez, make up your mind.
I don't have a problem with evolution saying how species change

I do have a problem with saying that it is the origin of life and that it is the development of humans from the single cell to Homosapian on its own. Maybe its possible evolution was the tool that God used to create us. But I do not believe that a series of accidental mutations gave rise to humans.You have a problem with something that you say it isn't. Not flame intended, you just perhaps need to review what you originally said in such a way that it does not (obviously erroneously on our parts) look like you said what you say you didn't say.


However, I'm really not sure what your opinion is. It is also entirely logical that a God started the whole thing off at some point and let evolution take its course, in the uninterfered/random process that (to us) it is observable as. Like the golfer who, knowing the lie of the green and the strength of the wind and the effect on the wind of the trees lining part of the fairway, exhibits superb club-control and launches the golf-ball (whether that be the race-of-man, start-of-life, geology-of-the-Earth, stellar-evolution-of-the-sun, coallescence-of-the-galactic-precursors or even the Big Bang itself) in such a precisely controlled manner that all the little things that affect the flight and subsequent bounces/rolling of that ball lead him to the hole-in-one that he sought.

Or maybe he's just at a driving range and seeing how far he can get us, while all around are planets or universes in which have been hit further or shorter than we, some of whom have fallen into the soggy footprints of ball-collectors while others have hit the range signage that the Player intended to strike.

Maybe we're in a game of crazy golf, and so far we've managed to avoid the sails of various windmills but we're in danger of passing through the wrong gap in the bottom of the wall and bouncing off the subsequent barrier at the wrong angle.

I'd like to think that any god that existed was good enough to overcome all these obstacles in just one shot, or was philsophically inclined towards the "hit it and see" method if not actually omniscient. Either way, there's no real way we could differentiate a God-hit universe from one that just happened to be launched from a freakish collision between two unmanned golf-carts with the accelerator peddles jammed down.


(I don't think I've ever analagised the whole act of creation to golf before. My apologies to any actual golfers out there who find flaw in my descriptions. ;))

Dude, you seriously need to go out and read a book. Not the bible either. I mean a work of non-fiction.

Amen.

Doesn't matter ... this thing always goes the same way:

Scientist: Proof, proof, fact, fact, fact, mathematics, hard evidence, established science, definitive ....

Creationist: WAH WAH WAH WAH JESUS WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH!!!

Choose sides. Good luck.

(I don't think I've ever analagised the whole act of creation to golf before. My apologies to any actual golfers out there who find flaw in my descriptions. ;))
Nice analogy! The universe as a crazy golf course; sounds like gnosticism.

Sorry, I meant to say something, in the last post, but ended up forgetting to fit anything in about it.

Abiogenesis is the spontanious creation of life

Evolution in its historical conceptation talks about more than that. It talks about the idea that over a process of millions of years we got from an ameoba to humans. That's what people have problems with

Your phrasing here might reveal the problem in the way that you think of this.

Evolution isn't "more than abiogensis". As you rightly say, abiogensis is the process (however that might have happened (a least once), by either pure but almost inevitable chance or the application of a divine spark of life) from organic precursors to the first replication-capable clumps of chemicals. At that succesfull juncture, evolution takes over and does 'the rest', totally separate.[0]

Evolution, in fact, does "the bit from ameoba to humans" plus "the bits prior to the amoebic/hominin common ancestor"[1]. I forget exactly how the differentiation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes was suppsed to have occured and the theoretical steps behind the transformation after a couple of billion years of extensive diversification of the former, but amoebas that are alive today[2] are exactly as evolutionarily succesful as we are. (On a discrete scale of 0 or 1, the non-zero value signifying "currently not exinct".)

[footnotes: have become overlong, but you should not need to keep referring down to this section.]
[0] Some might say that the "abio-selection" stages of mix'n'matching pre-life organic compound components is evolutionary in nature. To simplify this grey area I would suggest that each succesful 'self-replication' process be considered life-evolutionary, whether or not a continuous descendance lasted through into times of "viable cell-like structures", and that the genesis of all the many random 'possibly-replicating' molecules that might or might not have become ancestors be considered abiogenetic up until the point of their completion (and ended at the point they replicated or else became reclassified as 'chemical source', a.k.a. 'food', for something more succesful). By this logic, I allow that there might have been uncountably many 'abiogenetic' events, even as the possibility exists today (in any chemical-rich, life-poor enviroment, rare as they may be), but that in any 'prebiotic vs established replicator' situation it becomes purely evolutionary. Early competition between any branches of life having originally formed from separate abiogenetic processes (occurences that should have tailed off to effectively zero, in this day and age, if theory is correct, given how all known 'trees of life' do have a common ancestry) would naturally also be evolutionary, without doubt.
[1] Amoebas of today are also the descendants of an evolutionary path and they will have also changed since the shared "great*n grandma Common-Ancestor", albeit in a different manner and (since our branched found it had to get complicate, w.r.t. reproduction) at a different rate.
[2] It is suggested that somewhere must exist the very first amoeba, the 'mother cell', due to their reproduction by binary fission. But who is to say that (apart from being a bit of an 'Irishman's Broom'[3] if it did exist) the definitive 'mother cell' has not perished due to environmental/competative/predatory reasons.
[3] "Been in the famly for ten generations. Ok, so it has had seven new heads and five new handles, but it is the same broom."

Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way.
They don't know how evolution works, so they assume it's wrong.
They don't know what relativity is, so it doesn't concern them.

hi guys, have been reading through the posts on this thread quite intently and have a few things to say.

1/ evolution as a concept can be demonstrated quite aptly in a petri-dish or test tube with minimal equipment. if you place bacteria, or a virus into an isolated and perfect environment it will replicate and thrive. if you then introduce a poison, most of the bacteria will die, but some will survive. wait. once the community is thriving again, introduce the same poison and many more will survive, as their survival traits have been passed down. wait some more. introduce a different poison and repeat until bored. if you continue this sort of experiment you will eventually have an organism that cannot breed with the original organisms. i believe this is the definition of species is it not? im sure someone here can expand on this concept in much more detail and with greater scientific knowledge than i can, but the point is if it can be demonstrated in this manner, then it must be going on at a larger scale, considering that larger organisms are made up of uncountable billions of simple organisms. thus you have minute changes taking place from generation to generation, which eventually achieve a major change.

2/ the biggest problem with any form of "creationism", and by this i mean every form of religious creationism, biblical, hindu, shinto, aborigine, whatever, is that it is unproven. of course, that is the entire point behind any form of organised religion (and most disorganised) is that it isnt proven, its BELIEVED, and belief is "knowledge" without proof, "taking things on faith".

3/ the fundamental problem with biblical creationism is that of "the literal word of god". Many, many christians on this world believe that the bible is the literal word of god. ignoring such things as "the gospel of christ ACCORDING to saint ..." and "the King james VERSION" and the word "parable" which is defined as a STORY intended to demonstrate a point. if the bible is viewed as an allegorical or metaphorical document, it makes far more sense, god creates light (the sun), creates the land and the sea, creates the fish, then animals, then man; a sequence that mimcs that proposed by evolution and abiogenisis theories.

4/ i watched a documentary a few months ago about the very topic of creationism vs evolutionism, wherin a evangelical preacher hypothosises that dinosaurs did exist, but were wiped out by the biblical flood that noah survived (which conveniently explains fossils and the like). whilst this theory was cutely demonstrated to impressionable children via cartoon dinosaurs and animations, he conveniently fails to mention carbon-14 dating, a process that in my opinion demonstrates that creationism is horribly flawed. carbon-14 dating, and other similar processes let us KNOW that the world is millions, if not billions of years old, something which creationism claims is blatantly impossible as it was creatd by god some 15,000 years ago.



i have to point out to you all that im a little rusty on my science and other related stuff that are relavent to this debate, however i believe the fundamentals of my points are valid, and i hope it provides food for thought, on another note anyone interested in this debate should look up the concept of "mitochondrial eve" which provides some interesting points.

Darkside

1) Because, in theory, Intelligent Design says the gensis of life came from a divine source, not from pure chance.

2) Because there has not been a total shift in species, i.e. a Wooly Mammoth is still an Elephant. No matter how many variations there are within a species, a new species has yet to really evolve. No new genes can be introduced to a species that did not exist in the species before hand, since DNA is hard coded. Sure, we can manipulate that to a degree, but there is a theory that any radical change such as introducing a "wing gene" would not last more than one generation.
1) Congratulations! You've just shown that ID isn't science and has no place in scinece class. You've also shown that you can totally ignore the post you're responding to.

2) Bullshit. New genes can be inserted. New species have evolved. Look at strawberries. Modern strawberries are polyploid. The've got an extra set of genes. Genetic information CAN be added. Mutations in those genes can create a new species. Look at archaeopterix. It combines reptile and bird traits. It's clearly the transition between a reptile and bird. Look at ring species. They are living examples of the process of speciation. They show right now how one species can accumulate enough mutations to split into two new species.

I don't have a problem with evolution saying how species change

I do have a problem with saying that it is the origin of life and that it is the development of humans from the single cell to Homosapian on its own. Maybe its possible evolution was the tool that God used to create us. But I do not believe that a series of accidental mutations gave rise to humans.
It doesn't matter whether you think the gradual accumulation of mutations that led to humans was "random" or guided by god, it's still evolution. Science can't measure or control for supernatural events it can't say whether or not a god guided evolution.

People who think creation should be taught in schools are one of the several groups that make me feel like whenever I tell people I'm a Christian, I have to follow it up with "...but I'm not like an idiot or anything."

That sais it all....

It doesn't matter whether you think the gradual accumulation of mutations that led to humans was "random" or guided by god, it's still evolution. Science can't measure or control for supernatural events it can't say whether or not a god guided evolution.

Reserch the Anthropic Principle. (the following is a brief overview) This is, basicly, the thought that we are how we are because, if we werent, we could not be asking the question of why we are like this. (theres a lot more about multiple universes where things arent right for life, but I wont babble too much)

The disease Sickle-Cell Anemia is actually a mutation that helps survive against Malaria. The Malarian parasyte will not survive in a sickle shaped cell. Thus, it was actually beneficial.

Clarification, if you don't mind.

It is the heterozygous condition that infers protection against Malaria. That is, one gene for "sickle cell" and one gene for the normal condition.

Both homozygous conditions are problematic.
Individuals with two normal genes have no genetic protection.
Individuals with two "sickle cell" genes have the disease.

Clarification, if you don't mind.

It is the heterozygous condition that infers protection against Malaria. That is, one gene for "sickle cell" and one gene for the normal condition.

Both homozygous conditions are problematic.
Individuals with two normal genes have no genetic protection.
Individuals with two "sickle cell" genes have the disease.

Well, the homozygous condition is also protected from malaria, heterozygous is simply more beneficial because you have neither Malaria nor Sickle Cell.

I do have a problem with saying that it [evolution] is the origin of life and that it is the development of humans from the single cell to Homosapian on its own.

Can we stop making this mistake and acknowledge at least one fact here?

Evolution is NOT....nota theory of HOW LIFE BEGAN!

Everytime this argument is applied it is an example of obvious and recognizable error in the understanding of evolution.

The key point here is that there are two sorts of evolution people discuss

- Evolution as the manner in which animals change from species to species

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.



The second is not evolution ;) And why would it have been right to wipe out non-aryans? Variety actually means better survival in a changing environment.

Well, the homozygous condition is also protected from malaria, heterozygous is simply more beneficial because you have neither Malaria nor Sickle Cell.

But, the survival advantage of the homozygous "sickle cell" condition is less than it is for the homozygous "normal" condition.

People with the disease, in times and regions without modern medical technology, were not viable reproducing members of their populations.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A SERIES OF RANDOM MUTATIONS!

Evolutions means that the mutations that give organisms an advantage to survive in their environment will be kept. Those that don't will be discarded through a process of natural selection.

Some have the idea that there were all these random mutations that led to us by chance.

In reality, we kept the mutations that were useful, and those that were bad for our survival were discarded. We still have the remains of gills: Eustachian
Tubes.

It's called natural SELECTION.

he conveniently fails to mention carbon-14 dating, a process that in my opinion demonstrates that creationism is horribly flawed. carbon-14 dating, and other similar processes let us KNOW that the world is millions, if not billions of years old, something which creationism claims is blatantly impossible as it was creatd by god some 15,000 years ago.

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

"Third, because the decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. It is not very accurate for fairly recent deposits. In recent deposits so little decay has occurred that the error factor (the standard deviation) may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample."

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

"Third, because the decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. It is not very accurate for fairly recent deposits. In recent deposits so little decay has occurred that the error factor (the standard deviation) may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample."
Thats why we use Zircon, and various isotopes of Thorium and Uranium instead.

are the detractors of evolution suggesting that creationism is the more correct interpretation of the origins of life ( and that there is no true evolution of the species) so that the incredible scientific advances made based on an understanding of biology and genetics are some kind of fluke?

or are they suggesting that its all "intelligent design" otherwise known as evolution done by god? is "intelligent design" in any way biblically correct?

Thats why we use Zircon, and various isotopes of Thorium and Uranium instead.

Exactly, just arguing for accuracy

There is no reason to attack a theory like gravity, because it mostly 'works', and where it doesn't, nobody comes out with blazing guns trying to defend it. Nor is the theory of gravity often used to remove God from someone's world view. It isn't taught in order to make kids athesists.

Of course, the theory of evolution is not "taught in order to make kids atheists" or "often used to remove God from someone's world view" either.

It's a common myth that the concept of evolution is actually the basis for all these wonderful innovations.

It is a part of it, considering that modern biological research builds upon modern biological theories.

So I reckon he is quite wrong. Without evolution, we probably would have these life-saving technologies, because we can understand mutation, natural selection, adaptation, etc., without any reference to the concept that life evolved from one ancestor.

Of course, evolutionary theory is not "the concept that life evolved from one ancestor." It is, in fact, "mutation, natural selection, adaptation, etc." Evolutionary theory works perfectly well if there were thousands of incarnations of "first life" and each evolved differently.

This is natural selection, not evolution.

Natural selection is a mainstay of evolutionary theory, my dear.

Pointing to natural selection as evidence for the evolution of all of life from a single ancestor

Good thing that evolutionary theory doesn't depend on all life coming from a single ancestor, huh?

But why should these students face *tougher* scrutiny?

The same reason that any student who went to a known-to-be crappy school should face tougher scrutiny. An "A" in science in Kansas will not mean the same thing as an "A" in science in California. Students in California will be taught science with the actual definition and scientific method, while those in Kansas are taught that "God did it," is a valid scientific theory.

Science teachers should stick to teaching facts.

That's going to be a damn short science class, since it means that no theory whatsoever can be taught. There goes pretty much everything taught in science.

And instead of teaching the theory of the origins of life, why not teach the philosophy of science?

(a) Evolutionary theory is not "the theory of the origins of life." Currently, there is no accepted theory on the origins of life, although there are hypotheses out there with varying amounts of support.

(b) Why not teach both? Why can't we teach the leading theories in science as well as the philosophy of science. If the students pay attention during the philosophy of science portion of the class (which is already taught, but most people seem to have ignored it, so maybe more time should be spent drilling it into their heads), then we won't have so many idiots screaming that evolution was taught to them as "fact".

The key point here is that there are two sorts of evolution people discuss

- Evolution as the manner in which animals change from species to species

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.

The second, as it includes "the manner in which life began on Earth" is not evolutionary theory.

Thus, your "second type" of evolution is not evolution at all, and those people need to learn a little about the topic.

I don't have a problem with evolution saying how species change

I do have a problem with saying that it is the origin of life and that it is the development of humans from the single cell to Homosapian on its own. Maybe its possible evolution was the tool that God used to create us. But I do not believe that a series of accidental mutations gave rise to humans.

So your real problem is that science doesn't say, "GOD DID IT!" Well, I'm sorry. You can certainly beileve that God started it all off and personally caused every single mutation. Science, however, deals with the measurable, the testable, and the empirical. As such, God simply cannot be included. Anything that God personally did would still look like "the way nature works" to science, because science cannot measure God.

No one says, "God had no part in this," from a scientific viewpoint. No one says, "God did this," from a scientific viewpoint. Science is entirely neutral on the existence/involvement of God, because the question of God is entirely outside its realm.

So your real problem is that science doesn't say, "GOD DID IT!" Well, I'm sorry. You can certainly beileve that God started it all off and personally caused every single mutation. Science, however, deals with the measurable, the testable, and the empirical. As such, God simply cannot be included. Anything that God personally did would still look like "the way nature works" to science, because science cannot measure God.

No one says, "God had no part in this," from a scientific viewpoint. No one says, "God did this," from a scientific viewpoint. Science is entirely neutral on the existence/involvement of God, because the question of God is entirely outside its realm.

Exactly. The scientific method is good on 'how', and admits it draws a lot of blanks on definitive 'why'.

Exactly, just arguing for accuracy

(and related to the previous post made by apolinaria in response to mine)

note that in the text you quote i say "Carbon-14 dating and other similar processes". im more than aware of the limitations of Carbon-14 dating, however virtually everybody is familiar with the concept, but might not be with the "other similar processes". however, thank you for clarifying my post, as i did say i am no longer up to scratch on the scientific details.

darkside

[QUOTE=Adriatica II]The key point here is that there are two sorts of evolution people discuss

- Evolution as the manner in which animals change from species to species

- Evolution as the manner in which life began on Earth and developed into Humans.[/qutoe]

The second, as it includes "the manner in which life began on Earth" is not evolutionary theory.

Thus, your "second type" of evolution is not evolution at all, and those people need to learn a little about the topic.


Sorry, but your 'second type' is definitly part of evolution. Why does it show up in my evolution textbook, why did I cover it at the beginning of my evolutions course? There are many theories on how life began on earth, and that has to do with evolution because live did evolve at some point or another from non-living things. And by the way, you first type only says things about animals, evolution also happened in plants you know :)

ı have posted this in another thread but let me paste it here too because this is the place:
...making a celebrity deathmatch between science and religion...
oh God! will it never end!
Let me remind everyone that if those two are fighting over your head you neither understand science or religion.
Why does it happens? Partial knowledge! people who doesnt know much about a subject try to connect it with another subject he doesnt know either and messes up. Then says either of them is wrong, but in truth he is just dazed because he is too lazy and stupid to open and read a lot, listen and think a lot before trying to connect dots.
Im not a genious but over years things add over and over I got a clearer picture. For those who wont endure what it takes to learn it will be forever an ignorance maze of frustration.

Sorry, but your 'second type' is definitly part of evolution.

No, it actually isn't. Evolutionary theory describes only the changes after life comes into being.

Why does it show up in my evolution textbook, why did I cover it at the beginning of my evolutions course?

Most likely because it is based in evolutionary theory. The idea of life evolving from non-life through competing self-replicating molecules is not, itself, part of evolutionary theory - it is a separate hypothesis. However, it draws upon the principles of evolutionary theory. It is also the most accepted scientific hypothesis of how life began. As such, it can be taught alongside evolutionary theory.

It is not, however, part of evolutionary theory itself.

I could just as well ask you why my biochemistry textbook occasionally used inorganic reactions as examples?

And by the way, you first type only says things about animals, evolution also happened in plants you know :)

That wasn't something I said.

Sorry to go back but the dinosaur bone thing is REALLY irritating. Soft tissue was NOT found in a bone. The bone was opened and the fossilised tissue inside was treated through a process of de-mineralization which restored some of the features of the original tissue. Read the original paper, not the creationist spin on the research. SOFT TISSUE WAS NOT FOUND IN THE BONE. It required treatment to make it flexible!

...making a celebrity deathmatch between science and religion...Talking about death and opinions regarding such things... bear in mind that atheists (of the explicit kind, especially) are the group least likely to expect any opportunity to say "See, I told you I was right" to their ideological opposition... ;)


[Sorry, a bit out of context...]