Where evolution is taught

[USincognito]

Astra, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one... I have seen many Christians go through tough trials and then deny God or turn away from him... I don't think that atheists or evolutionists are weak, just different than what I believe...

You do realize that by conflating evolution and atheism you're helping to create more atheists than you are by just arguing against atheism right?

A literal Genesis doesn't withstand scientific scrutiny, but a metaphorical Genesis, when compared to the Babylonian mythology makes perfect sense.

[dollfus46]

Originally posted by USincognito:
I've been reading and posting here for the past few days and have seen zero discussion of the evidence by Creationists. This isn't a metaphysical discussion or a clash of interpretations. It's about the bones we dig from the ground and the DNA we find in our genes. Singsongs, stories and metaphors aren't going to cut it. Either produce some tangible evidence or admit you are opposed to evolution because of your particular sects theology.

I can't speak for all the other "creationist",but I don't need proof.It goes back to faith,believing in something you can't see.I don't disagree with evolution as a whole,I just believe that's the way God designed it.That may not be scientific enough for you,but it's good enough for me.It's good to be simple sometimes.


Heh heh heh. I'm like you, fotno. Don't confuse me with facts. Here's the deal.......There is proof that evolution exists within certain species. There is no proof that it ever created one single new species. Therefore, those who believe that evolution, not God, created everything, are going on faith. It's much easier to disprove a roll of the dice did it than God did it. That's where the atheists are trying to separate themselves from evolutionists. An atheist is an evolutionist but an evolutionist is not necessarily an atheist, depending on which part of evolution you are talking about. That's the fine line the atheists are trying to wak.

[SoMissTV]

I've met quite a few people that don't believe in anything.And do not care how or why they are here.What would you call that.

I'd call it off-topic.

[SoMissTV]

Well, now that is also off-topic.

[PeteH]

There is no proof that it ever created one single new species.

Except there is... so this is a false statement.

Most people that argue against evolution simply have no idea what it is, the evidence in favor it, or how it is applied in today's world.

[PeteH]

Which species are we talking about?

I can't post URLs unfortunately. I'm sure other examples have been posted in this thread.

One good lab example of speciation in Drosophila melanogaster is "The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence." (Rice, W. and Salt, G. 1990)

Something else to note (as I said earlier) is that even without any observed evidence for speciation, it does not nothing to invalidate phylogenetic relationships (i.e. common descent) and how such data is currently used (i.e. as a foundation for much of the work in modern bioinformatics/genomics). That's why I find it odd how people go on about evolution being a "faith", yet clearly don't grasp how important it is to modern biology.

[PeteH]

A hallmark of experimental research is the ability to manipulate the independent variable. All other forms of research are either correlational or quasi-experimental.

Well of course experiments are about manipulating or controlling variables. The whole point of experimental research is setting up a controlled condition. In this case it's to determine mechanisms which can cause speciation events in the wild.

However, there have been observed speciation outside of the lab. For example, "Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations." (Byrne K., Nichols R. 1999).

[PeteH]

O.K.

What species are we talking about?

In the first example, Drosophila melanogaster. In the second example, Culex pipiens. Basically, flies and mosquitoes. :D

[PeteH]

You used the word "experimental evidence" and I was simply pointing out that this term is in fact inaccurate. Perhaps you should try "empirical" next time.

The term "experimental evidence" is part of the title of the paper I was referencing.

[Bahlk]

Man there is some big words in here.

:smt103

[Baloo]

USincognito, as a Christian, I was taught that contention is of the devil and therefore choose not to argue... it does not benefit anyone... I prefer instead to take the high road and just agree to diagree... As a Christian, I was also taught unconditional love and choose to live by that teaching and not harbor animosity toward anyone for what they believe... Having said that, if you are referring to the story, it was, as I have stated more than once, a joke... I am not conflating anything... I can assure you that I am intelligent enough to realize that there is a difference between evolutionism and athieism and have done NOTHING to help create or promote athieism!


You do realize that by conflating evolution and atheism you're helping to create more atheists than you are by just arguing against atheism right?

[nooskye]

Man there is some big words in here.

:smt103



I know right???

Can I ask a question ... in not so big of words??? :smt118

About Evolution ... If we have all evolved from ... hhmmm .. let's go on and say ... the monkey ... where would you propose the monkey came from???? Did it evolve too??? From what?? At what point is there the non-exsitant life form at which we all began??? It *had* to be from something ... *if* evolution is in fact **100%** proven truth and creationism isn't ... can someone show me the evidence from that finding????

[Baloo]

This is a very sweet sentiment, especially the last sentence and since I'm a newbie here I want to give an Amen to it.

Thanks USincognito, it was meant sincerely...

[Valkhorn]

About Evolution ... If we have all evolved from ... hhmmm .. let's go on and say ... the monkey ... where would you propose the monkey came from???? Did it evolve too??? From what?? At what point is there the non-exsitant life form at which we all began??? It *had* to be from something ... *if* evolution is in fact **100%** proven truth and creationism isn't ... can someone show me the evidence from that finding????

Evolution isn't one line, its a tree or bush with many many branches. Just as we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, it is the same with anything else. If you go far enough back into ancestry you will find a common ancestor to any two species - just as you would if you traced any two branches on a bush or tree.

[Valkhorn]

Again, I would ask everyone to walk away from this thread for a little while, and then come back later when this debate can be held in an open and respectful manner.

I agree it wouldn't be a bad idea.

I would love to do a formal written debate on Evolution - and JUST Evolution - sometime with anyone.

[nooskye]

I agree it wouldn't be a bad idea.

I would love to do a formal written debate on Evolution - and JUST Evolution - sometime with anyone.

In this day and age my dear ... they go hand in hand ... sorry, but IMO, that's just how it is ... you can't have one with out the other ...

[dollfus46]

Except there is... so this is a false statement.

Most people that argue against evolution simply have no idea what it is, the evidence in favor it, or how it is applied in today's world.

In my opinion, sir, you are blowing smoke screens and playing "rope-a-dope" with words. "evidence in favor it"? "how it is applied in today's world."? I never saw the word "proof." No picture of a fossil that bridged the gap from one species to a new one. I believe they call it in the "scientific world" missing link. Two little words that blow evolution out of the water. I made sort of a pun there, didn't I? Now I discover someone made it up in a lab. Labs weren't around at the creation. I'm really done with these pseudo-intellectuals. Talk to the hand.

[dollfus46]

O.K.

What species are we talking about?

I think he's talking about Big Foot. They just seem to have misplaced him.

[dollfus46]

In the first example, Drosophila melanogaster. In the second example, Culex pipiens. Basically, flies and mosquitoes. :D


Drosophila melanogaster - Big Foot
Culex pipiens - Loch Ness, fondly known as Nessy.
As soon as they catch these little boogers they're gonna really show us a thang or two.

[dollfus46]

Man there is some big words in here.

:smt103

Yup. Experimental Evidence - It doesn't seem to exist so we're gonna make it up in a lab and say......"TA DAAAAA"

[Astra]

Yup. Experimental Evidence - It doesn't seem to exist so we're gonna make it up in a lab and say......"TA DAAAAA"
Quite the opposite. The whole point of experimental evidence is to get findings that can be replicated by anyone else, justifying the conclusions. That's with ANY kind of science.

[PeteH]

In my opinion, sir, you are blowing smoke screens and playing "rope-a-dope" with words. "evidence in favor it"? "how it is applied in today's world."? I never saw the word "proof." No picture of a fossil that bridged the gap from one species to a new one. I believe they call it in the "scientific world" missing link. Two little words that blow evolution out of the water. I made sort of a pun there, didn't I? Now I discover someone made it up in a lab. Labs weren't around at the creation. I'm really done with these pseudo-intellectuals. Talk to the hand.

Alrighty then. Whatever helps you sleep at night. :D

[the apathetic medic]

In my opinion, sir, you are blowing smoke screens and playing "rope-a-dope" with words. "evidence in favor it"? "how it is applied in today's world."? I never saw the word "proof." No picture of a fossil that bridged the gap from one species to a new one. I believe they call it in the "scientific world" missing link. Two little words that blow evolution out of the water. I made sort of a pun there, didn't I? Now I discover someone made it up in a lab. Labs weren't around at the creation. I'm really done with these pseudo-intellectuals. Talk to the hand.


The term is not "missing link" but transitional fossil.
I can only post links after 15 posts. However, there are many pictures of transitional fossils available from a simple google search. The picture I wished to link to can be found at talkorigins.org. If there is someone else available to post the picture of the many transitional hominid cranial fossils, I would be in their debt if they would do so.

Evolution is still merrily afloat.

[Tully Mars]

I have a few questions and then I am going to leave this thread alone for good. The questions I am about to ask are serious in nature with no sarcasm or hidden intentions to be derived from the questions. The questions are particularly targeted towards the newest folks on the site who obviously have a very specific viewpoint and ideology that they wish to promote on this site. Please think very carefully prior to answering.

What exactly is to be gained by this "discussion"? Who decides who wins or loses? It seems that this is a debate that has been going on for ages...do any of us really think that it will be settled here? And finally, I think that we are all in need of a serious reality check. There are issues and concerns that exist both in our community and nation that warrant open and honest discussion that have significant ramifications on our collective futures as citizens of both the community and nation. I really don't think that either side is going to necessarily convert the other. With all of that being said, is it at all possible to call a truce on this particular issue, welcome these new folks, and move on to other issues at hand?

[Blasko]

What will be achieved here if the discussion goes on? The removal of misconceptions, the learning of some nifty new facts, a greater appreciation for science and how it impacts us.

The thread started out as a discussion of where evolution was taught and shortly after turned into a discussion of whether evolution is right (and not by us new-comers I might add). Maybe that's a message. You can't separate talk about evolution in school boards or P&C meetings without people opposing evolution. Why? That's a critical point that should be talked about, no matter the hurt feelings. This is the nation's education we're talking about. Why do people oppose evolution, when they don't oppose the theory of gravity or the theory of plate tectonics?

This debate is unlikely to turn people away from creationism, yet it will clear up some hazy points. What better way to become more informed citizens than through a process of learning about each other and about your own position?

[Valkhorn]

In this day and age my dear ... they go hand in hand ... sorry, but IMO, that's just how it is ... you can't have one with out the other ...

I beg to differ. There are plenty of Christians who accept Evolution as well - and like any good scientist they check their faith at the door when doing research because it is faith and they understand that faith has nothing to do with scientific methodology.

[zorro]

faith has nothing to do with scientific methodology.
Maybe...maybe not, BUT it can have everything to do with the conclusions reached.

As I've said before, your presuppositions, faith, philosophy, religion, and/or fundamental axioms influence how you interpret the data.

[zorro]

I beg to differ.
Now, that's the way to disagree! :)

[PeteH]

What exactly is to be gained by this "discussion"? Who decides who wins or loses? It seems that this is a debate that has been going on for ages...do any of us really think that it will be settled here? And finally, I think that we are all in need of a serious reality check. There are issues and concerns that exist both in our community and nation that warrant open and honest discussion that have significant ramifications on our collective futures as citizens of both the community and nation. I really don't think that either side is going to necessarily convert the other. With all of that being said, is it at all possible to call a truce on this particular issue, welcome these new folks, and move on to other issues at hand?

Because ultimately it is in the best collective socio-economic interest of a nation to further scientific progress and there are those that attempt to hinder that through really no fault of their own other than adhering to gross misconceptions about the science they oppose. Therefore, I'd like to think that it's doing my social duty to correct such misconceptions. :)

[PeteH]

Maybe...maybe not, BUT it can have everything to do with the conclusions reached.

As I've said before, your presuppositions, faith, philosophy, religion, and/or fundamental axioms influence how you interpret the data.

But what does this have to do with how that data is used? As I pointed out in response to your claims that macroevolution is just a "philosophy", it really is a useful applied science. At the end of the day, whether or not it is useful has nothing to do with the religious or philosophical beliefs of those that use it.

[Tully Mars]

Because ultimately it is in the best collective socio-economic interest of a nation to further scientific progress and there are those that attempt to hinder that through really no fault of their own other than adhering to gross misconceptions about the science they oppose. Therefore, I'd like to think that it's doing my social duty to correct such misconceptions. :)

Then could it also hold true that those of us who have strong religious beliefs feel that it is also their duty to further expand the kingdom by sharing their beliefs with others? I am willing to share what I believe with you. Whether you chose to believe as I do is entirely up to you and I am willing to leave it at that without feeling the need force feed it to you. I would ask that you provide the same measure of respect relevant to your beliefs as well.

I am simply trying to show that the issue of science and religion being at odds is not a new one. This debate (or similar ones) have been going on since before Darwin's time and will likely continue for generations.

I also think that for the purposes of this online community there will be no clear winner in the debate. I am more than willing to accept all of you as new members of this site and community but feel that prolonging this debate with its current tone is counterproductive to what aaron and many others have tried to establish here. There is definitely a need to bring a bit more civility to the discussion (on both sides).

As for my own beliefs, I don't discount the idea of evolution but at the same time believe in a God that certainly has the ability to design evolution into his creation. I also don't claim to be particularly well read on most aspects of evolution and may possibly be among the least qualified here to debate the subject. I do, however, know with no uncertainty what I believe and that belief system has within it the capacity to respect all of you for what you believe.

I would offer this suggestion and advice as a long-time member of this site: Take some time to get to know folks here. Not just within the context of this particular debate but really get to know them. That does require participating in some of the other discussions here that have nothing to do with either evolution or religion. We have some very interesting discussions on politics, sports, men, women, relationships, sex (be careful with that one), books, movies, local culture, local oddballs and a whole host of other things. I, and I am sure many others here, would love to have discussions with all of you on some of these other (more light-hearted) topics.

[zorro]

As I pointed out in response to your claims that macroevolution is just a "philosophy", it really is a useful applied science.
Specifically, what are you talking about?

And specifically, this must mean something that could not have been achieved without a firm belief in macroevolution.

[USincognito]

I can't speak for all the other "creationist",but I don't need proof.It goes back to faith,believing in something you can't see.I don't disagree with evolution as a whole,I just believe that's the way God designed it.That may not be scientific enough for you,but it's good enough for me.It's good to be simple sometimes.

Simple is fresh bread and warm butter. Simple is sniffing a single rose. Simple is hugging a child when they need comfort or deserve recognition for an accomplishment. Unfortunately the history of the Earth and life on it isn't simple. It's long and complex and requires study.

You also seem to be conflating, as many on this forum are wont to do, evolution with atheism. There is nothing that prevents God's hand from being directly involved with every aspect of the planet Earth from it's formation to the advent of life to the diversity we find in the fossil record and roaming it's face today. Your faith is a trust in God for salvation, not in Genesis to be a science text...

[USincognito]

Heh heh heh. I'm like you, fotno. Don't confuse me with facts.

It's that sort of mentality that sends innocent people to prison. You do understand that right?

Here's the deal.......There is proof that evolution exists within certain species. There is no proof that it ever created one single new species.

You make a couple of technical mistakes in this assertion. First, and I stress again, science doesn't deal the "proof," it deals with evidence and falsification. Take a crime scene or example. Every bit of evidence can point towards a suspect being guilty, but just one bit - an ATM photo of them in a different county when the crime was being committed - will shatter that stack of evidence.

Second, you're mistaken about what species means. There obviously is evolution within species as every offspring, be it a moth, a trout or a human is a tiny bit different than it's parents, but until they reach a certain threshold, they are not a seperate species. At that point they become sub-species, not a seperate species.

Finally, we have observed speciation in real tie and in the fossil record.

Therefore, those who believe that evolution, not God, created everything, are going on faith. It's much easier to disprove a roll of the dice did it than God did it. That's where the atheists are trying to separate themselves from evolutionists. An atheist is an evolutionist but an evolutionist is not necessarily an atheist, depending on which part of evolution you are talking about. That's the fine line the atheists are trying to wak.

You're talking metaphysics and conflating evolution with atheism. Until you realize they are seperate issues, we can't have a meaningful dialogue.

[PeteH]

Specifically, what are you talking about?

As I said earlier, I'm talking about use in modern genomics/bioinformatics. Specifically comparative genomics and phylogenomics. Scientists use approaches based on common descent (i.e. phylogenetic relationships) for things like gene discovery and functional prediction of genes, among other things. The basis are phylogenetic trees contructed based on the evolutionary relationships of organisms.

Now it does help to have some background knowledge of evolutionary theory and genetics, otherwise this might come across as a bunch of gibberish.

And specifically, this must mean something that could not have been achieved without a firm belief in macroevolution.

It has nothing to do with "belief". It has to do with data. Do you know what phylogenetic trees are, for example?

[Astra]

T-Rex fossil findings (http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2007/04/22/t-rex-is-a-distant-relative-of-the-chicken-say-scientists/)
The link goes to a short science news article that touches on why scientists think there is a link between dinosaurs and modern creatures, as well as why this kind of research is important to other areas of science.

[SoMissTV]

You also seem to be conflating, as many on this forum are wont to do, evolution with atheism. There is nothing that prevents God's hand from being directly involved with every aspect of the planet Earth from it's formation to the advent of life to the diversity we find in the fossil record and roaming it's face today. Your faith is a trust in God for salvation, not in Genesis to be a science text...

Exactly. And many on this forum do feel that these two are, by definition, mutually exclusive. I believe they exist together.

Call it theistic evolution, if you will.

[USincognito]

A hallmark of experimental research is the ability to manipulate the independent variable. All other forms of research are either correlational or quasi-experimental.

Science isn't just mixing baking soda and vinegar in a papier mache volcano. Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, and a myriad other fields are based on observations that cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Science isn't constrained to beakers, and it's "observational" not "experimental."

[USincognito]

USincognito, as a Christian, I was taught that contention is of the devil and therefore choose not to argue... it does not benefit anyone... I prefer instead to take the high road and just agree to diagree...

So you never discuss with anyone whether Sabbatarianism is Biblical? Ever? You never have any conversations about whether infant Baptism is Biblical? Ever? You avoid any interaction with people who are Catholic about whether the Host actually is the body and blood of Jesus? Ever?

Odd, because those questions have been ruminated over by very pius Christians for two millenia now. Why would something as tangental to Christian theology as a literal Genesis be a playground for Satan while more important issues seem to be fair game?

As a Christian, I was also taught unconditional love and choose to live by that teaching and not harbor animosity toward anyone for what they believe... Having said that, if you are referring to the story, it was, as I have stated more than once, a joke... I am not conflating anything... I can assure you that I am intelligent enough to realize that there is a difference between evolutionism and athieism and have done NOTHING to help create or promote athieism!

And yet, in a discussion about evolution, you raised a story about atheists. Why did you do so if you realize that evolution is not atheism?

[USincognito]

I know right???

Can I ask a question ... in not so big of words??? :smt118

About Evolution ... If we have all evolved from ... hhmmm .. let's go on and say ... the monkey ... where would you propose the monkey came from???? Did it evolve too??? From what?? At what point is there the non-exsitant life form at which we all began??? It *had* to be from something ... *if* evolution is in fact **100%** proven truth and creationism isn't ... can someone show me the evidence from that finding????

Infinate regression is a game for madmen. The metaphyscial questions are best left to priests, monks, imams, sadhus, buddahs and philosophers. I operate in the mundane.

Humans evolved from a common ancestor that our fellow apes the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan evolved from. That ape concestor split from Old World monkeys 15-20 million years ago. That simian concestor split from our fellow placental mammals 50-100 million years ago. Monotremes, like the Platypus split long before then, and back to our mammal-like reptile ancestors, to the first terrestrial tetrapods, to fish and further back to the proto-life that developed into the first living beings.

Whether God sparked that first life or it developed from physical and chemical laws God lay down for the Universe is up for debate. That there is an obvious and demonstrable chain of common descent connecting all life on Earth since it arose is not.

[USincognito]

Exactly. And many on this forum do feel that these two are, by definition, mutually exclusive. I believe they exist together.

Call it theistic evolution, if you will.

:) I came here from Christianforums and some of the most powerful and eloquent advocates for evolution there are TEs. Their denominational backgrounds range all over the map, from Baptist to Catholic to Presbyterian and their iterpretations of Genesis range from a literal Adam and a literal Tree to sin being a pre-programmed aspect of humanity, but all believe in sin, the need for redemption and the reality of Christ crucified and resurrected. TEs rock IMO.

[USincognito]

In my opinion, sir, you are blowing smoke screens and playing "rope-a-dope" with words. "evidence in favor it"? "how it is applied in today's world."? I never saw the word "proof." No picture of a fossil that bridged the gap from one species to a new one. I believe they call it in the "scientific world" missing link. Two little words that blow evolution out of the water. I made sort of a pun there, didn't I? Now I discover someone made it up in a lab. Labs weren't around at the creation. I'm really done with these pseudo-intellectuals. Talk to the hand.

Please, don't get to convinced by your imagined cleverness that you have single handedly sunk evolution with an anachronistic word that should have been excised from the discussion 80 years ago. There is no "missing link." There are missing links in a chain that extends back through H. ergaster/erectus, H. habilus, A. africanus, etc. to our concestor with P. troglodytes/paniscus. Valkhorn posted photos of skulls representing the hominid finds over the last century that simply cannot be denied on morphological grounds.

There is also the evidence of human chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, etc. There is no "missing link" any more, there are hundreds of links in the chain we can see, but a number of connections we just haven't found yet or are lost to posterity.

Whenever you want to escape your 19th Century mindset and join us in the 21st, you're welcome to the debate... we'll be waiting.

[Blasko]

I never saw the word "proof."I believe it has already been mentioned before, but science does not deal in proving things. Proof implies certainty, the original sin of science if you like. Nothing in science is certain, everything is liable to change on the whims of a single repeatable experiment...that's why you read about those breakthroughs scientists make seemingly everyday.

Proof is for maths and a good bottle of sherry.

[USincognito]

What exactly is to be gained by this "discussion"? Who decides who wins or loses?

The educational system of America.

If we raise a generation of people who think that scientists are lying to them about the age of the Earth, that humans are seperate from the rest of Creation, and that all of science is one big conspiracy against their religious beliefs, then what does that do to science education in this country?

In my opinion it destroys it.

I have actually had Muslim apologists tell me that there are 4 women to every man on Earth because Allah condones polygamy. Obviously that's bunk and I would hope that Western Civilization won't succumb to such scriptural blindness that they will reject reality in order to maintain their particular interpretation of Genesis.

[USincognito]

T-Rex fossil findings (http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2007/04/22/t-rex-is-a-distant-relative-of-the-chicken-say-scientists/)
The link goes to a short science news article that touches on why scientists think there is a link between dinosaurs and modern creatures, as well as why this kind of research is important to other areas of science.

Thanks for providing the link. While the evidence for theropod dinosaurs being the progenators for birds is very compelling, it lacks one piece of evidence that would really cement the connection - a living dinosaur that we could extract DNA from and make comparisons with. Dr. Schwietzer's findings, while amazing don't fully evidence a dino/bird connection, but join the ever growing pile of evidence that our beloved sparrows, starlings and robins once where the terror of the planet.

I think it's cute to see a beautiful Cardinal perched on some vines and think that 200 million years ago it's ancestor was "perched" to become T-Rex and Velociraptor. Awww, cute Cardinals and Chickadees... :)

[Astra]

Didn't we learn that lesson from Jurassic Park though? :P

[Blasko]

Didn't we learn that lesson from Jurassic Park though? :P

Jurassic Park was actually one of my favourite action flicks for a long time. But every time I saw the velociraptors, I was continually disappointed that the producers did not portray them with a feathery 'fuzz' cover. I can just imagine a surreal scene with giant turkey-like dinosaurs chasing after people...

[Astra]

Jurassic Park was actually one of my favourite action flicks for a long time. But every time I saw the velociraptors, I was continually disappointed that the producers did not portray them with a feathery 'fuzz' cover. I can just imagine a surreal scene with giant turkey-like dinosaurs chasing after people...
Isn't the feather part still up in the air a bit? I remember hearing a couple bits of fossil skin were found, but nothing about feather impressions.

[Grengor]

Isn't the feather part still up in the air a bit? I remember hearing a couple bits of fossil skin were found, but nothing about feather impressions.

But I think we can agree: we'd all laugh before the feathered raptors promptly mutilated us.

[nooskye]

USincognito: Infinate regression is a game for madmen ...

Although some on here may believe me to be a bit flakey ... a madman I am not ... simply curious if BOTH could exsist ... ??? ... GOD, by your own words, CREATED ... and, as the world turned, we evolved ... the point behind my ridiculously simple statement was that ... in the beginning ... the Earth and all living things upon the Earth was CREATED from something ... be it GOD or a mutation of an organism He originally CREATED. Evolution, IMHO, is just a matter of time passing by ... the addage of "the only thing that is constant is change" comes to mind here ... and the only way we can change is to evolve ... right????

Another question to ponder ... If infinate regression is indeed for madmen ... why do people (and scientists) break their backs to trace geneology to begin with ... it carries on forever and a day in itself, does it not???

[Blasko]

Isn't the feather part still up in the air a bit? I remember hearing a couple bits of fossil skin were found, but nothing about feather impressions.Now you've got me started! :-D

The group of dinosaurs that Velociraptors belonged to is called Dromosauridae. Belonging to that family are other, similar-looking dinosaurs whose fossils showcase feathers.

Microraptor has feathers, Sinornithosaurus has feathers, Cryptovalans has feathers...it is highly likely that all dromaeosaurids like Velociraptor had feathers based on the fact that its relatives did also. For Velociraptor itself, scientists have not been able to dig up a fossil that showcases these downy feathers, but that's not unusual considering the length of time that's passed.

And I would show you a family tree which highlights this idea even further, except I must wait until I get 15 posts.

[Astra]

Ahh, ok. I knew there were smaller critters with feathers, I thought maybe they'd dug up some of the fossil feathers for the raptors. Makes sense they'd likely match the rest of the family (unless perhaps they're the featherless black sheeps, heh).

I always thought it was funny Spielberg got jumped on for making the raptors so large and then the Utah variant was conveniently found that was of the same scale as the movie creatures.

[Blasko]

As promised:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Webster/dino.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Webster/de.jpg

[Quark]

I used to be an ID proponent. The sheer weight of the evidence was too much to ignore.

For decades scientists have been predicting and trying to falsify their theories (that's what they do) and they continuously buttress evolution. There have been many predictions over the years that would have falsified evolution had the predictions turned out wrong. The predictions turned out correct.

The final nail in the coffin was driven long before genetics. Genetics simply covered the coffin with dirt (sorry, that's rhetorical I know. I'll try and keep rhetoric to a minimum).

In any event, scientists predicted that if evolution happened the way Darwinism predicted then there would things like transcription errors in the genetic code that would only be shared by species that were known to have a common ancestor that could account for the transcription errors.

So, scientists set out to find out if that was the case. Guess what? It was the case.

Chimpanzees and humans share transcription errors that birds don't. Birds and humans, to date, don't share any transcription errors that chimpanzees don't. Should any be found the theory of evolution will be falsified.

So, creationists, go out and find a transcription error that would falsify evolution. There are hundreds of these types of hypothesis and they are not limited to those who believe in evolution. Anyone is free to challenge the theory. Come up with one and go falsify evolution. Trust me when I say that evolutionists welcome your contributions (so long as you follow the scientific method).

Odd thing, scientists don't have any fear that such will be found because the weight of the evidence over and over demonstrates that evolution is the only answer as to the diversity of life on the planet earth.

[Quark]

The definining characteristic of "experimental" research is the manipulation of the independent variable. Now you can spin around and use these terms in a laymay's armchair quarterback way until the cows come home and it will still not change this fact. Its research methodology 101. I am not trying to be a smart alleck...but those of us who have actually worked in scientific community have a responsiblity to make sure basic terms are not misused.

Again, the better term would be "empirical," meaning that data have been collected under controlled conditions. When you simply observe something - no matter how fancy you observe it - without the systematic manipulation of the independent variable, then you have not conducted experimental research and, as such, have not produced experimental evidence.*To quote Lawrence Moran, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

We can't always manipulate variables in the lab and this is cognito's point. At the end of the day the only important point is the logic of the argument. It's not about observing something in a fancy way. Newton's observations couldn't be manipulated and observing moving bodies didn't change by viewing them in a fancy manner. All that matters is that Newton's logic to explain the movement of objects was the best at the time to draw conclusions about the universe. His logic has, to a large extent, held up over time simply because it is the best model to explain the observational data.

*www[.]talkorigins[.]org/faqs/evolution-fact[.]html

ETA: There is no misuse of terms here. See wiki on the use of the word emperical.

[Valkhorn]

I am not trying to be a smart alleck...but those of us who have actually worked in scientific community have a responsiblity to make sure basic terms are not misused.

You said you were a music major. Where have you worked in the scientific field and in what area?

Because I'm still unsure whether you realize or not but nearly all Geologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, and Biologists accept Evolution.

[big john]

I had a big ole geneticyst on my ass one time,I had to get it lanced.
It evolved to be really big,and there was a new lifeform in there.

[big john]

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

[Quark]

I am sorry you do not like the definition, but it does not change the fact that the only appropriate use of the word "experimental evidence" is when the independent variable has been manipulated with a high degree of internal validity. It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Words are not laws that govern the universe. Words are simply a means of conveying information. A rose is a rose. So long as we understood what it is we are discussing then it doesn't matter what word we use. In any event I have to refer back to Lawrence Moran.

Once again, the word empirical is the appropriate term.Then we will have to disagree.

Do you have experience conducting research and running various experimental or quasi-experimental methodologies? If so, has your work found a home in a good peer-reviewed journal. I'm just curious.No, but I have plenty of authorities that I can appeal to if that is your meaning.

On a different note, though we disagree, I appreciate that our disagreement can be made in an agreeable tone.Cool.

[Quark]

But when you use a word that has applied authority behind it like "experimental," then those of us who know better have an obligation to enforce its correct usage. By your very use of the word "experimental," you apply very subjective standards to things that should be held to the highest objective standards. I take issue with your assertion that you know better. You are simply appealing to your own authority and I have good reason and other authority to disagree. The usage of the word is correct as I and others have used and it is demonstrably so.

Merriam Webster: (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empirical)

: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

[dollfus46]

Sheeeeh. Do I have time to run to the bathroom? BRB

[Quark]

The entire chapter is available here (http://www.unr.edu/bench/chap05.htm) which is hosted by the University of Nevada Reno. I hope this will establish why the word "empirical" is more appropriate and accurate in this vein.With all due respect I see nothing that would obviate my stance.

[Quark]

That is what I figured.Wow. That is what I figured. Go figure.

[Valkhorn]

But the sources from which you would offer your support for evolution do not subscribe to this definition. With all due respect, this again applies everyday understanding to work prepared by experts in scientific methodlogy.*yawn*

How do you explain the fossils I posted here?
Or the genetic evidence I posted here?
How do you explain speciation being observed in the lab?
How do you explain natural-selection as something that could easily yield the diversity of life we see today?
How do you explain that all of ID's arguments have been thoroughly refuted?
How do you explain that ID hasn't put out ANY scientific research?
How do you explain that ID hasn't put out any predictions?
How do you explain a majority of the experts who actually dig in the ground and work in the lab disagree with you?
How do you explain Evolution as being an applied science?
How do you explain that Evolution helps us find oil (index fossils)?
How do you explain no rabbits in the pre-cambrian?
How do you explain no human and dinosaur fossils together?
How do you explain the thousands of transitional fossils found (like Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik)?

[Ted]

. . . . . . ( Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik)? Eustenopteron and Ichthyostega are good examples of tetrapod transitional forms.

Now - Supper Time!!:)
Catch ya'll later.

[PeteH]

So... does anyone want to discuss the practical application of evolutionary biology in modern industry?

[Valkhorn]

So... does anyone want to discuss the practical application of evolutionary biology in modern industry?

Or care to actually address any of the evidence I have posted? I have posted actual fossils - actual evidence from reputable sources, and they are continually ignored for one argument and one argument alone:

"Evolution is wrong because it is against my religion"

That is what it continually boils down to - and if anyone wants to prove me wrong simply engage me in a formal written debate about (and ONLY) about Evolution. No Bible quotes. No prayers. No blind assertions or strawman arguments. Debate the evidence and evidence alone and you tell me how it could possibly argue against Evolution.

[Valkhorn]

Eustenopteron and Ichthyostega are good examples of tetrapod transitional forms.

This is against TheDoc's religion, so he may deny it fervently even though actual Paleontologists and Biologists agree with you :)

[PeteH]

Or care to actually address any of the evidence I have posted? I have posted actual fossils - actual evidence from reputable sources, and they are continually ignored for one argument and one argument alone:

"Evolution is wrong because it is against my religion"

That is what it continually boils down to - and if anyone wants to prove me wrong simply engage me in a formal written debate about (and ONLY) about Evolution. No Bible quotes. No prayers. No blind assertions or strawman arguments. Debate the evidence and evidence alone and you tell me how it could possibly argue against Evolution.

I think it's interesting that this thread began with a map of how well evolution is taught in various states (not surprisingly, it's not taught so well in the Bible belt). But nobody wants to actually talk about evolution itself.

Instead this thread seems to have a degenerated into an atheism vs religion debate.

[aaron]

At about the 500 post mark, most people burn out. You'll have to put a new spin on this that appeals to the broader interests of the religious groups that post here.

[Conveyor Belt]

Valkhorn, what are you trying to accomplish by browbeating people with facts?

[Valkhorn]

Valkhorn, what are you trying to accomplish by browbeating people with facts?

Facts are so pesky aren't they? ;)

[Valkhorn]

At about the 500 post mark, most people burn out. You'll have to put a new spin on this that appeals to the broader interests of the religious groups that post here.

Well me, Pete, Drk, Quark, and US posted tons of evidence which you decided to ignore. That is not my fault :)

[Conveyor Belt]

Facts are so pesky aren't they? ;)

Yes, they are. But what are you trying to accomplish?

I've read through most of this tread, and you're coming off like those people who like to throw scripture at you and tell you you're going to hell. Except you cite studies and findings and tell people they crawled out of the ocean upteen years ago.

I would assume you stop listening to people who just endlessly quote scripture to you, and how can you not expect the same of people who try to listen to you?

I just want to know what you're trying to accomplish... do you want the creationist to get on their hands and knees and confess the errors of their creationist thinking and thank you for showing them the light? What is the purpose of your posts?

[Valkhorn]

Yes, they are. But what are you trying to accomplish?

Preventing creationism and ID as being taught as science in public schools.

[aaron]

Preventing creationism and ID as being taught as science in public schools.

That problem will take care of itself when the majority of American's are atheists. For now, since 90% of the taxpaying citizens of the United States are religious, let the majority dictate what they want their children to be taught. Creationism and ID aren't sending atheists to a church in droves anyway.

[Valkhorn]

That problem will take care of itself when the majority of American's are atheists. For now, since 90% of the taxpaying citizens of the United States are religious, let the majority dictate what they want their children to be taught. Creationism and ID aren't sending atheists to a church in droves anyway.

Then how come that map only shows approvals of Evolution in states as well? New York and California both have MANY very religious people who see no problem with Evolution and accept it.

It is very possible to be Christian and accept Evolution.

Plus you also do not realize that the more we try to set our children back in learning about science, the more other developing countries will have a chance to take over. Our science education is already failing as it is, and if we keep on this trend India and China will be more than happy to take over.

[aaron]

Yes, I'm sure your entire crusade is to better our children's learning environment. We're behind in several areas, but you've only devoted yourself to this issue. They can be both taught, and I'm sure most people here will tell you that they learned both in school. We're still behind. Teaching evolution is not the problem or the solution.

[fuzzis]

That problem will take care of itself when the majority of American's are atheists. For now, since 90% of the taxpaying citizens of the United States are religious, let the majority dictate what they want their children to be taught. Creationism and ID aren't sending atheists to a church in droves anyway.

I have no problem with that, but Creationism and ID are not scientific theories and do not belong in a science classroom. If they were to be taught in a philosophy class, I'd have no problem with that at all. But not in a science class.

[Valkhorn]

Yes, I'm sure your entire crusade is to better our children's learning environment.

It is.

We're behind in several areas, but you've only devoted yourself to this issue.

But this is a huge topic because evolutionary biology is a billion dollar industry, an applied science, and the only objection to it lies with superstition.

They can be both taught, and I'm sure most people here will tell you that they learned both in school.

Not in a science class. ID and Creationism are NOT science.

We're still behind. Teaching evolution is not the problem or the solution.

But it's a damned good start.

[aaron]

No, evolution is taught in science class. I learned it in school. We're still behind.

[Valkhorn]

No, evolution is taught in science class. I learned it in school. We're still behind.

It has been banned in some states, and even 'warning stickers' are placed on the textbooks in others.

That is not honest at all. I don't feel we should lie to our kids and say Evolution is highly questioned by most scientists because it isn't. I don't think we should single it out as a theory because Gravity is too. I also don't think we should pit it against religion because many people are religious and accept evolution.

[Quark]

That problem will take care of itself when the majority of American's are atheists. For now, since 90% of the taxpaying citizens of the United States are religious, let the majority dictate what they want their children to be taught. No. That's contrary to what the United States of America stands for. Many who came to America did so because they were a minority where they came from. They did not want tyranny of the majority to rule the minority. They thought that religion would best be left to the individual. Teach ID at home. It's religious as the Conservative, ID believing judge of the Dover trial found.

[aaron]

Let's argue this, what would do the world more good? More evolutionary biology? Or U.S. citizens giving up 10% of their income to feed the starving of the world?

[Quark]

No, evolution is taught in science class. I learned it in school. We're still behind.Behind what? Evolution is a science. ID is not.

[Quark]

Let's argue this, what would do the world more good? More evolutionary biology? Or U.S. citizens giving up 10% of their income to feed the starving of the world? Why? Aside from the fact it is a false dichotomy why do you want to argue it?

[aaron]

No. That's contrary to what the United States of America stands for. Many who came to America did so because they were a minority where they came from. They did not want tyranny of the majority to rule the minority. They thought that religion would best be left to the individual. Teach ID at home. It's religious as the Conservative, ID believing judge of the Dover trial found.

How many things have we taught in a science class that ended up being wrong? I don't think it should be taught in a science class. It should be taught in a history class. God made the heavens and the earth. That was the beginning. The Bible, an accurate historic account of that time period, says so. So, teach it in history. Since we don't actually know if Caesar lived, but we teach that. Why? A book says it happened. Many events in the Bible have been verified as accurate using other historic documents, start teaching creationism. It's history. It's definitely not science.

[aaron]

Why? Aside from the fact it is a false dichotomy why do you want to argue it?

If your going to put your time into something as trivial as arguing for evolutionary biology on public message boards, why not saving actual lives today?

[Tully Mars]

Why? Aside from the fact it is a false dichotomy why do you want to argue it?

So it is a false dichotomy simply because you say it is? You guys just kill me. :confused:

[Valkhorn]

How many things have we taught in a science class that ended up being wrong?

So you'll ignore the things Science is right about or the things that it HAS brought us. If you don't like science, don't use a computer.

I don't think it should be taught in a science class.

Even though it is valid science?

It should be taught in a history class. God made the heavens and the earth. That was the beginning.

So your only argument against Evolution is your religion.

The Bible, an accurate historic account of that time period, says so. So, teach it in history.

No it doesn't. Want to have a formal written debate on the topic?

Since we don't actually know if Caesar lived, but we teach that.

We do know he lived. There is evidence.

We may even have evidence for Jesus living. But we do not have evidence that out of 150 billion people that stayed dead he didn't.

We also have no evidence for a 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, or a Global Flood either.

That is why the Bible is not an accurate history book.

Why? A book says it happened.

Forget the book, look at the evidence.

Many events have been verified as accurate using other historic documents, start teaching creationism.

No they haven't.

It's history. It's definitely not science.

Creationism isn't science, you're right. Creationism also explains NOTHING and isn't even useful.

I guess you'd rather us stick back to the dark ages when there was no medicine and you lived in your own filth?

[Valkhorn]

So it is a false dichotomy simply because you say it is? You guys just kill me.

We have shown you why it is a false dichotomy. It is not either Evolution or Christianity. Many people accept both. Plus it's not just Christian creationist myths. What about the norse myths or the aztecs? Or the cherokees? They're all equally as valid.

[Valkhorn]

How many things have we taught in a science class that ended up being wrong?

And how many things were we taught by the Bible that ended up being wrong?


Bats are not birds
There never was a global flood
The earth doesn't stand still
There was never a missing day
The earth isn't 6,000 years old
There wasn't an Adam and Eve
There is no evidence of a hebrew exodus from Egypt
Insects do not have 4 legs
The world is not flat
The world does not have four corners
Pi is not equal to three
The Earth isn't the center of the universe
There is no firmament
The stars are not the sons of AbrahamNeed I go on?

[aaron]

And how many things were we taught by the Bible that ended up being wrong?

Bats are not birds
There never was a global flood
The earth doesn't stand still
There was never a missing day
The earth isn't 6,000 years old
There wasn't an Adam and Eve
There is no evidence of a hebrew exodus from Egypt
Insects do not have 4 legs
The world is not flat
The world does not have four corners
Pi is not equal to three
The Earth isn't the center of the universe
There is no firmament
The stars are not the sons of AbrahamNeed I go on?

Nah, just disprove each of those quoting sources and giving evidence of their falsehood. Also quote the direct verses you got the statements from.

[Quark]

So it is a false dichotomy simply because you say it is? You guys just kill me. :confused:It's a false dichotomy because these are not mutually exclusive things. Why would you think it not a false dichotomy? Give us something more than rhetoric. It's possible to do both, right?

[Quark]

If your going to put your time into something as trivial as arguing for evolutionary biology on public message boards, why not saving actual lives today? Your point is rhetorical. It doesn't advance or rebut an argument. It does not respond to the question at hand. I was responding to you. Suggesting that I save lives is a red herring and a really poor form of argument. My interests on the internet are no less important than yours.

[aaron]

I'm talking to Valkorn, he's on the crusade to leave no child behind in the evolutionary biology field.

[Valkhorn]

Nah, just disprove each of those quoting sources and giving evidence of their falsehood. Also quote the direct verses you got the statements from.You never read your bible?
Bats are not birdsLev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11)

There never was a global flood (Genesis 1, refuted in this thread)
The earth doesn't stand still(1Ch 16:30; Ps 93:1, 96:10, 104:5)
There was never a missing day (refuted by Science)
The earth isn't 6,000 years old (refuted by Science)
There wasn't an Adam and Eve (Genesis, refuted by Science)
There is no evidence of a hebrew exodus from Egypt (Exodus, refuted by Archaeology)
Insects do not have 4 legsLev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
The world is not flat (already discussed in thread, and refuted)
The world does not have four corners (pillars of the earth?)
Pi is not equal to threeAnd he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. - 1 Kings 7:23
The Earth isn't the center of the universe (already discussed and refuted)
There is no firmament (already discussed and refuted)
The stars are not the sons of Abraham (about to have to get off of work and don't have time to find it, but if you have read the bible, it is in there)So in other words you are not an expert on the Bible as you claim since you don't know how it was written, and what people thought back then. Nor does it seem you actually read those verses. So, I find it quite dubious that you tell me to do what you seem to have never done.

Now can you actually give me scientific evidence against Evolution?

I am not playing duelling scriptures with you.

[Valkhorn]

I'm talking to Valkorn, he's on the crusade to leave no child behind in the evolutionary biology field.

Quark is free to ask. If you wanted to ask just me, PM me.

[PeteH]

Let's argue this, what would do the world more good? More evolutionary biology? Or U.S. citizens giving up 10% of their income to feed the starving of the world?

How about using evolutionary biology to increase crop yields to feed the starving of the world. :D

[aaron]

Don't need to, we throw away more food than the world needs. Following Jesus' teachings (even if you didn't believe in him) would solve more of the world's problems than evolution ever will. Please believe that.