Should evolution be taught in schools?

[MasterMothra]

what is the most important thing in your life; god, your husband, your family,etc?
would you sacrifice one of your children for god, as abraham was to sacrifice issac?

[Rían]

Whew, this is waaayyy OT, MM! I'll answer over in the Offshoot thread, out of respect for the other posters here

Offshoot link

[afro-elf]

But it's not macro evolution, either. It's natural selection operating on pre-existing genetic variation.

The thread says evolution not macro or micro.

[Rían]

Yes, and we are discussing the various aspects of the entire theory of evolution. One aspect is micro evolution, one is macro evolution. I have no problem with micro evolution, but a HUGE problem with macro.

Micro evolution is also in creationism - can I say that since you have no problem with micro evolution, therefore you have no problem with the entire theory of creationism? Methinks you would object

[cassiopeia]

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

The point is that if the monkey hits the wrong key, it's corrected. This is akin to a harmful mutation; the animal dies because it's harmful. But when a 'good' mutation occurs, it is kept, because the animal can breed. There is no need for an intelligent being. It was only an analogy.
You're right about the monkey hitting the same letter more than once, but considering there are only 26 letters, eventually it will hit the right one.

[Cirdan]

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

What do you have that invalidates the hypothesis? The gill function does not need to accompany the evolved structure.

[MasterMothra]

i apologize for the OT post, i was in the wrong thread.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
What do you have that invalidates the hypothesis? The gill function does not need to accompany the evolved structure.

Well, I think I'll have to pass on this part of the discussion, since I don't think it's important anyway, and I'm swamped with all the things I want to reply to that I think are more important. I was just surprised to see it come up, since I thought the recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") had been dropped.

Sheeana and others - do you think recaptulation happens (just out of curiosity....)

And Cirdan, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but was I right in thinking you had a uni degree or background in microbiology? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And Cirdan, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but was I right in thinking you had a uni degree or background in microbiology? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

BS in Geology.

Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
BS in Geology.

Well, close! I got the "ology" part right

Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny and there's nothing you can do about it.

And pharyngeal pouches have nothing to do with gill slits, either!

But we shall have to agree to differ on this point, I imagine

(and I love your new avatar, BTW - I've always liked that pic of JRRT. There's a pic of his friend, C. S. Lewis, with his pipe, that reminds me of the Tolkien pic. I can just picture those two in the "Bird and Baby" (Eagle and Child) pub puffing away! Is that pub still around, do you know?)


Other evolutionists - do you believe that recapitulation happens, esp. Sheeana? I"m just curious what the consensus of the posters here is.

[Rían]

Oh, here it is.

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

His objection is the following: "This analogy fails as there is no identified limit to change in the original idea being demonstrated."
Now, he is correct in that the THEORY of evolution does not identify any limits. However, just because something is stated in a THEORY does not automatically make it true, of course; (IOW, you have objections to the THEORY of creationism!) My point is that the TYPE of change that is postulated HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED, and what we HAVE observed in breeding, time and time again, consistantly and without fail, is that changes have limits, and the animals that are bred remain the original animals (dogs are still dogs, cows are still cows, flies are still flies, etc.)

YOUR analogies of dictionaries and word lengths fail, IMO, because they are mere additions to existing things, without changing the type. It's the same thing as GM's pile of sand analogy. As far as that one, if you're going to use sand piles, I would say this would be a better picture of micro/macro evolution: "Here's a sand pile. Let's add grains of sand. Now we have a bigger sand pile. Let's keep adding grains of sand. Now look over there - there's a beach buggy zipping along the sand. Since we can observe both of them on the beach, we can deduce that if we keep adding grains of sand to the pile, then eventually we'll get a beach buggy."

(yes, JD, another one of my analogies that you don't like because you think them ridiculous - but that's my point - one certain TYPE of change (macroevolution) that evolutionists are asking us to swallow is, um, well, I'll just say it doesn't make sense, and it is not demonstrated by anything we've ever seen. It's just an improper extrapolation of variation within type, which we DO see. But in variation within type, we ALSO see that ... birds remain birds, cats remain cats, etc. There is a LIMIT to change.)

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

It's a cute phrase, but it also sums up one of the things that evolutionists would have us believe, right? RIGHT? You can hedge about and say "not fish, but fish-type" - but it's still a very good summation, don't you think? Do you have any objections to the claim that fish and men share a common ancestor? I certainly do.

And remember, there is a valid place for common sense and logic in this debate. If I were to hold up a single fossil and say "this is a well-defined fossil of an existing species today; therefore, creationism is true!", then your common sense would object, wouldn't it? IOW, it is an illogical deduction. And if an evolutionist were to hold up a single fossil and say "here is a fossil of something that is extinct; therefore evolutionism is true!", then I think I can safely say that your common sense would object here, too, because it is an illogical deduction.

I"M NOT SAYING that evolutionists or creationists do this! Please note I said "single fossil"!! I'm just trying to show that there is a valid place for common sense and logic. Would you agree?

[Rían]

Cirdan - back to your link - I started reading it again, and clicked on the first link on "macroevolution" - here is an entire paragraph (so you guys won't charge quote-mining it saddens me to think that that charge might possibly be leveled against me...)

from Cirdan's macroevolution link, with bolding added by RÃ*an
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Cirdan, do you agree with the bolded sentence? If so, can you explain why a claim based on EXTRAPOLATION should be accepted unless a mechanism is discovered which prevents it? That sentence really shocks me. Usually, a claim is supported by evidence. Here, not only a claim, but a claim, by the author's own admission, based on an EXTRAPOLATION, is claimed to be true, unless a mechanism preventing it can be discovered.

Doesn't this go against your logic and training?

[Gulio, Strength of Many]

Ooooooooooo this looks like fun!

It's my belief that macroevolution is totally false. I believe, however, that microevelution is true. Microevelution has been proved with the different breeds of animals and plants. However, macroevelution has yet to be proven.

I firmly believe the theory on creationism. It seems more realistic to me.

Wow, this post is miniscule compared to Rìan's!

[Cirdan]

The dictionary analogy is actually a very good one for describing speciation. DNA is just a very simple molecular language, the genomes words, etc. Also species derive from one another or have a common root just like words. And it makes the point about a system without a limit to change. Extending beyond that point is not the intention.

Cirdan, do you agree with the bolded sentence?

Sure, since the process is really an accumulation of micro steps.

It reminds me of a parable from my youth. Someone claims to be able to jump to the top of the castle. Some wager is made (ok I forgot that part). The the person jumps up each step on the stairs up to the top of the castle. A single leap from one to another seems impossible, but step by step, it is.

Doesn't this go against your logic and training?

Not really. It's mathematical; more of the same is more. Many small changes can lead to a big change (or many smaller variations or both etc).

[Gulio, Strength of Many]

Cirdan, if you can show me at least one example of macroevelution, a real, studied-and-proved example, I'll believe you.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Gulio, Strength of Many
Cirdan, if you can show me at least one example of macroevelution, a real, studied-and-proved example, I'll believe you.

Macro Evolution Examples

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gulio, Strength of Many
Cirdan, if you can show me at least one example of macroevelution, a real, studied-and-proved example, I'll believe you.

Can you prove creationism? And supply a studied and proved example?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gulio, Strength of Many
Wow, this post is miniscule compared to Rìan's!

*hee hee*

Yes, I'm famous for lulling people to sleep with my lengthy posts....

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Sure, since the process is really an accumulation of micro steps.

So any extrapolation anyone makes is fine with you, as long as it's in small steps?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So any extrapolation anyone makes is fine with you, as long as it's in small steps?

No. That's one extrapolation too many.

But seriously. It's not as if we are applying atomic theory to the physics of solar systems. The terms micro and macro evolution were political in origin and just became useful distinctions. There is no different mechanism involved, no different theory. The only difference is deep time. We superimposed types and categories for our own benefit, not because it describes any true separation of types or any barrier to change. Many of the specific scenarios are hypothetical and subject to revision, but I see no problem with the basic theory.