Should evolution be taught in schools?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*why do I feel like I'm looking down the barrels of about 20 shotguns?*

OK, but first, GrayMouser, since you're online, did you read my post on quote-mining, and would you agree that Morris is NOT quote-mining in this example?

I will await your answer, then start with evidence

(believe it or not, I was JUST getting to your posts, and there's something else there I want to cover while you're responding to this)

Don't worry, with the way you post you've got a Gatling gun waiting in reply

OF COURSE I read your post on quote-mining; I read everything you write- I just can't possibly keep up with the pace of reply!

And no, I don't agree- in fact, I've seen this one so many times that it's a red rag to a bull.

What Darwin has done in the first bit you quoted is, with a somewhat dramatical flourish, pose a rhetorical question, which he then proceeds to answer.

Let's say, to quote a hypothetical situation, you were posting on Divine Justice, in response to a savage attack based on Numbers 31

You might say, "When we see the terrible events which occur here, we can hardly help but agree that there is no Divine Justice or Good . However, when we look at this in light of what we know about God, we can see how this is justified by etc. etc."

If I quoted only your first sentence "Rian herself says: ..."
you would quite rightly accuse me of distorting your meaning.

[Cirdan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ibid.
In fact, few scientists, if any, are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups. The reason is simple. All the groups appear as separate, distince, diversified lies in the deepest fossil-rich deposits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THis is a BFL if I ever saw one. See my much earlier post regarding hexacorals. Endless examples can be posted regarding the existence of transitional species, especially among invertebrates.

Phylogenic Classification (def)

Classification of organisms based on genetic connections between other species.

This is the system currently in use to describe species. What exactly is this "group" the author refers to?

What Linnaeus also did was systematically categorize all known organisms. Linnaeus came up with a hierachy of ways to classify plants and animals. The different levels are called taxa (plural of taxon). The different taxa are:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

I see no use of the term "group" here.

[HOBBIT]

Rian, either you don't know what quote mining is or I don't. There were many examples of this in the sample pages that I read.

I'm too lazy to get the quote, but there is one exactly like this:
They have someone labelled as an "evolutionist" saying something like ".....evolution does not work..."

Its not EXACTLY like that, so don't go yelling at me because I did not quote exactly. This is one of the first quotes.

And many others like it. They have evolutions saying things supporting creation - which makes no sense. All these quotes were taken out of context! I wonder what the guy said after and before the quote. Why would an EVOLUTIONIST be saying how evolution does not work?

it uses quotes from evolutionists out of context to say "see - even evolutionists don't beleive in evolution"

Practically all the quotes there are an example of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't quote mining basically taking quotes out of context to look like they mean something other than the original person intended? All the quotes I read in the first 6 or so sample pages were examples of this (maybe 90% is the lowest number).

At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

Yes, I said basically because I did not want to type the whole quote. You have the book, not me. Its the first 7 pages. He says this many times. Basically as in "in not so many words." He does repeat that. No, he was talking about how no one has witnessed evolution - like one thing evolving into another - this isn't pokemon...things don't just evolve in front of your eyes... And I am no expert, but evolution on the small scale in "the lab" has been done. Ask for details from somebody else, but I know this - just no details - not a scientist, others here know more on that than I. Think about viruses and bacteria - thats an example of evolution in the process.

You got all upset when I said offhandly that "rian thinks that evolution should not be taught in school" You went on about that for several days. It was not form any quote, I'm sorry that I assumed that you said this...... It turned out that you want evolution taught in public schools BUT ALSO CREATION TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES, so you might as well have said that first one (because it is just as unreasonable - if not more so)



It is just my opinion that that book is NOT A VERY CREDIBLE SOURCE. I am not debating that this guy has a PhD. Does that mean that everyone with a PhD deserves it? I dunno....just this guy seems very biased against evolution and is definitely twisting things in his favor.........im no expert on biology (yet ) and i have only read the first 6 or 7pages of this book.


I am not alone in my opinion on that on this board btw.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees. OK so far, but Darwin thought that the longer neck (from stretching) could be passed on to the next generation. He thought that at reproduction each organ produced "pangenes" that would collect in the blood and flow to the reproductive organs. So a more-stretched-out neck would make more neck "pangenes"

He did? very -> I was so sure that the neck stretching was Lamarck and not Darwin. Darwin was the one that said that the animals with longer necks and legs were more succesful and got selected...

Now I'm beginning to doubt myself. I have to get my old biology book on this again..... It was in there.

*runs to attic*

RÃ*an, my old biology book says the stretching-induced long necks was definately LAMARCK and not Darwin. And yes, it's still taught in biology. At least it was in my class.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Why do you think it's quote-mining? Because you believe in evolution? If that is the ONLY reason, then it's unfair on your part to claim quote-mining. I think you're over-assuming what he is saying, like what happened about the eye quote. In the book, they were ONLY saying that Darwin saw difficulties, and provided the eye as an example. They were NOT saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution, which WOULD be quote-mining, IMO.

I read that part and that was NOT what they were trying to show by only using a snippet of the quote. They were trying to show that Darwin felt that the complexity of the eye could NOT be explained through evolution. That was not the case at all. He was saying - based on the WHOLE quote - that at first glance it would seem that the eye was to complex to evolve - but if you lay out the different stages of the eye, the different animals that go from simplistic eyes to complex - they all build up on each other.

I read the pages off of Amazon and that book is laughable. Obviously it is geared to people who already believe in it and don't want to look any further. He repeatedly says that so and so is an evolutionist and then provides a quote from the person where they say evolution is impossible. How is the person an evolutionist if they don't think it's possible?

As for intelligent design - you can NOT prove it. You can NOT show evidence of intelligent design. Evolution shows how something might have occurred. Intelligent design tries to show that something was behind it - guiding it. How can you prove that - what evidence is there to support that?

As for atheist scientists versus religious ones - ahteist scientists don't get blinded by their religion (since they don't have one) like many deeply religious scientists. The most that an atheist scientist (as well as any scientist) runs into is being hooked on a theory (and I don't mean evolution).

There was an article in Discover magazine about a scientist wonders if Einstein was completely right about the speed of light being constant. In the beginning of the big bang there was so much heat that protons and hence light - moved much faster. As things cooled - the protons and light slowed to what today is the current speed of light. He was ridiculed for this theory - but it seems to solve a lot of problems that scientists couldn''t explain and his theory is getting more credence.

[Lizra]

I just read that article. I found it intertesting, and certainly plausible. Einstein's theories are nice because they provide "the constant"...but seeing as the universe is so diverse, "a constant" might be asking for too much! It just underlines (IMO) the necessity to keep and open mind! Did anyone enjoy the show on Discover channel last night, "Walking with Cavemen"? It started with Lucy, and hit on quite a few different hominid species, telling their story, how long they survived and if they had any relation to homo Sapiens. We enjoyed it!

[jerseydevil]

I missed it - I wanted to see it too. It'll be on again this week probably. I'll have to look at the times. I have Walking with Dinosaurs on DVD. That has like 4 DVDs to it - so it's pretty long.

Did you see the show where they showed what types of animals things could evolve in in the future? It was very cool - although it was of course just simple speculation.

[Cirdan]

I read the first seven pages of What is Creation Science? and it even contains some of the examples of quote-mining dicredited in the links GM provided. Are we to believe that Stephen Gould and Mark Ridley devoted their lives to researching and publishing something they thought was wrong? And one of the "evolutionists" quoted is a history professor heavily into the theological speaking circuit.

[HOBBIT]

exactly cirdan... thats JD and Cirdan backing up that there was quote mining there.... carry on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I just read that article. I found it intertesting, and certainly plausible. Einstein's theories are nice because they provide "the constant"...but seeing as the universe is so diverse, "a constant" might be asking for too much!

It is like evolution - you take snapshot in time - a particular span of time -and it appears to be constant. But then as you increase the frame of time - you see that it isn't constant (I would bet that if light moved much faster at one point - that the speed is still changing). You can't see the speed of light changing becuase it happens so gradually - just like animals evolving and breaking off into completely new species.

[Rían]

by GrayMouser
What Darwin has done in the first bit you quoted is, with a somewhat dramatical flourish, pose a rhetorical question, which he then proceeds to answer.

But GrayM, he "answers" it with some huge - and I mean HUGE! - ifs! That's not an answer, it's a hypothesis! And unproven, at that!

Here's the quote again for reference:

from Origin of Species, by Darwin
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Now I'll "bold" the areas that contain huge "if's":

from Origin of Species, by Darwin - bolding and numbers added by RÃ*an
"Reason tells me, that (1) if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, (2)each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; (3) if further, the eye ever varies (4) and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and (5) if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

And my point still remains that the only point that Morris/Parker were showing by the quote was - that Darwin himself saw difficulties with things such as the eye!. THAT is the context in which they used the quote, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and I would not call it quote-mining.

Can you agree with this now? For me, quote-mining is a serious charge, because it's a charge against someone's integrity (or a charge of sloppiness, as you pointed out, but I don't see sloppiness charges being made here).

As far as your Numbers 31 example, I'm using logical reasoning, not scientific evidence. I would call it quote-mining if you distorted things by saying I CONCLUDED etc., but not if you say that I saw difficulties. But you wouldn't do that, would you?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
He did? very -> I was so sure that the neck stretching was Lamarck and not Darwin. Darwin was the one that said that the animals with longer necks and legs were more succesful and got selected...

Now I'm beginning to doubt myself. I have to get my old biology book on this again..... It was in there.

*runs to attic*

RÃ*an, my old biology book says the stretching-induced long necks was definately LAMARCK and not Darwin. And yes, it's still taught in biology. At least it was in my class.

Yes, Darwin said that they were more successful and got selected, but he also was quoted as saying that new traits came about "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment." IOW, he believed Lamarck's idea.

Now the Morris/Parker book says:

from What is Creation Science?, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
"About 40 years before Darwin, a famous French evolutionist, Jean Lamarck, argued for this kind of evolution based on the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse.

But it goes on to say that Darwin believed this, too, and then gives the quote.

Let's try to look into this some more, because I think that your biology book is RIGHT saying that the idea was Lamarck's, but I think they are omitting ON PURPOSE that Darwin thought the idea was correct. And that is a serious omission, IMO.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Why do you think it's quote-mining?

Quote mining is when only part of a quote is put in, and the context of the quote is left out. Thus, the person using the quote can then put his own slant on it. Darwin's so-called eye problem is a common form of quote-mining. That he put forward a hypothesis (which is basically what the point of Origins is (a very good read, btw - I recommend it for those who haven't read it yet)) does not automatically discount evolution out of hand.

Rian:
At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

Not so. They have seen microevolution in the lab. And they can see evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. They have just found a new species of Homo sapiens which shows an earlier transition in the Homo branch. He's called Homo sapiens idaltu. Have you ever sat down and closely examined some of these early hominid skulls? I have - both real, and endocasts - and I can tell you that there is very definately variation within the species. (I studied Neanderthalensis - the australopithecines were far too fragmented for a generalised study.)

[HOBBIT]

waiting for bop to say all that.

[Rían]

*sigh*



Did I say that the eye quote was NEVER used in illegitimate quote-mining?

No, I'm saying that in the specific example that I posted from the Morris/Parker book, the quote was NOT used in an illegitimate quote-mining way. Could you guys please get off quote-mining in general and look at the specific case I'm talking about?

The CONTEXT - I'll say it again - the CONTEXT of the section was PROBLEMS that Darwin saw. The title of the chapter in O. of Sp. was even called "Difficulties with the Theory"!!! Now Darwin posed a hypothetical solution to the PROBLEM that he saw, but until the hypothetical solution is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, which it is NOT, the PROBLEM still remains. Morris/Parker agree with Darwin that systems like the eye are a PROBLEM that needs a solution, but they differ on the solutions proposed.

People, you don't need to worry about admitting I'm right every once in awhile (of course, only if you think I am). That will NOT turn you into a creationist! Don't worry! I've consistently said that I think evolutionism is a scientific theory formed by intelligent scientists. Does that make me an evolutionist? Why has no one but Cirdan even commented on the first bit of evidence that I presented?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, Darwin said that they were more successful and got selected, but he also was quoted as saying that new traits came about "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment." IOW, he believed Lamarck's idea.

How does this suppose that he is following larmarck's hypothesis here? Granted, it is perhaps true that quite a few people believed Larmarck initially, but I sincerely doubt that Darwin thought that changes came about in a lifetime of an organism after his voyage of the Beagle.

The basic premise of evolution is to have the best possible fitness. Evolution IS environment. Phenotype = Genotype + Environment. I don't really see how this quote is following Larmarck. That quote is not stating that organisms evolved in their lifetimes.

[Cirdan]

From:GM's Link

The failure to indicate any textual omission within the quote is always a misquotation and often makes a large effect on the meaning of the words.
The Black Hills Creation Science Association: Newsletter tells us7:
FAMOUS EVOLUTIONIST OF THE MONTH QUOTE:
"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary time in the fossil record?" -Niles Eldredge in "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", pp. 51, 52, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985)
When one looks at what Eldredge8 wrote, there is a huge omission that is not marked by ellipses. The first two quoted sentences start one paragraph in the original, while "And this poses something of a problem..." is in the middle of the next paragraph. Here is the first paragraph with what the creationist newsletter quoted in green:
Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. Sometimes igneous rocks, rocks we can date chemically, intrude into sedimentary rocks, and in such a fashion some hard-core "absolute" dates--expressed in terms of millions of years--are available for all subdivisions of geologic time....
Radiometric dating usually cannot be used on the layers of sedimentary rocks with fossils, but rather is employed on volcanic layers above and/or below the fossiliferous rocks. If the fossil is in between two datable volcanic tuffs, its date will be dated to being in between the dates of the tuffs. In the work that Eldredge was doing there was often no volcanic layer since he was doing work on isolated outcrops, roadcuts, etc. So how could he tell time? Skipping to the next paragraph Eldredge continues:
But none of that helps in a cow pasture in upstate New York. Long before radioactivity was known to physicists, paleontologists had another way to tell time. Fossils occur in the same vertical sequence thoughout the geologic column. The same, or closely similar fossils frequently occur in many far-flung localities; some are even found worldwide. This repetitive pattern of occurrence allows geological minded paleontologists to correlate: rocks are mapped, and frequently certain distinctive horizons, such as volcanic ashfalls, can be traced over great distances. But rocks in isolated quarries can be matched up according to the nature of the fossils they contain. And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary time in the fossil record? ...
Kent Hovind has used the same quote without ellipses in the transcript for his creation seminar. It was no longer online at the time this paragraph was written. In a video file he used the above quote and claimed that it was Eldredge admitting the geologic column was circular reasoning when Eldredge stated a few paragraphs latter that there is "no problem of circularity." More information on this quote can be found here. The charge of circular reasoning is addressed by the Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? FAQ.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I read the first seven pages of What is Creation Science? and it even contains some of the examples of quote-mining dicredited in the links GM provided. Are we to believe that Stephen Gould and Mark Ridley devoted their lives to researching and publishing something they thought was wrong? And one of the "evolutionists" quoted is a history professor heavily into the theological speaking circuit.

Same thing here, Cirdan - what is so implausible about scientists identifying problem areas? I would REALLY worry if the scientists thought everything was peachy-keen, wouldn't you?

[Cirdan]

FromWhat is Creation Science?

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has be imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by the fossils.

"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rock by their fossils, then how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldridge; 1985b)

"A circular arguement arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" (Tom Kemp; 1985b)

So, not only is he quote mining, it's from another creationist author. The previous post clearly shows that the original author's intent and point of discussion was completely distorted by the editing of the quote. He clearly seeks to impune the "dating" techniques geology. The quotes are edited to support his claim, which the source material clearly does not.

How do you not see this as an obvious attempt at deception?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But GrayM, he "answers" it with some huge - and I mean HUGE! - ifs! That's not an answer, it's a hypothesis! And unproven, at that!

Here's the quote again for reference:


Now I'll "bold" the areas that contain huge "if's":

There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

Darwin did pose a hypothetical - that's the way all theories get their start - as observation, questioning and hypotheticals. All those things there - we KNOW happen. We know that based on conditions - over time - an organism will develop defenses or attributes. Look at the different facial bone structures and pigments in skin around the world. That is evidence of evolution based on changing conditions and useful changes - which ARE passed on. Or are you going to tell me that if black people didn't go outside - they'd turn white? The darker pigments protect the people of Africa against the sun. As man moved away fgrom Africa - we didn't need the dark pigment anymore. The eye is no different - it's just more complex. I'm not saying that white EVOLVED from blacks or that blacks are "less human" - just that our characteristics changed based on changing conditions of where we lived.

Also - saying "if god made the eye change" is not the same - there is absolutely no way of proving that or studying that. Science is always posing questions - that is the nature of science - throwing in a supernatural being into the equation - is not science.

And my point still remains that the only point that Morris/Parker were showing by the quote was - that Darwin himself saw difficulties with things such as the eye!. THAT is the context in which they used the quote, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and I would not call it quote-mining.

Can you agree with this now?

No - I would still call it quote mining. Darwin proposed the theory of evolution - but science has gone on since then to study it. It is the book's contention by using out of context quotes to discredit evolution. You read it one way - I read it another.

Darwin was merely stating that ON THE SURFACE it would seem to be impossible - but if someone looked at the gradation through the species - you would see how they built up on each other.

This is the key part the book leaves out in order to make it's point...

... if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor,as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Remember that Darwin was at the very beginning of the evolutionary theory. This was over ONE HUNDRED years ago. Science has continued to study this and we have a much better understanding of things.