Where evolution is taught

[aaron]

Here's a scan from the Scientific American showing where evolution is taught in the U.S.

http://www.myhattiesburg.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/v6i8g11.jpg

[Astra]

We not only skipped the chapters on evolution and evolution-related topics in biology class, but skipped the first several chapters on early human civilization in world history class as well. Even later in the biology text on the few occasions where the world "evolve" was used, the teacher would omit those facts or twist the wording to avoid having to acknowledge it.

[58ford]

I was taught evolution without even a nod to Creationism or other alternatives. Why does it say we don't teach it in MS?

[Astra]

I was taught evolution without even a nod to Creationism or other alternatives. Why does it say we don't teach it in MS?
I think they are going by what the state educational standards say should be taught. Those don't necessarily reflect what really happens in the classroom, of course.

[58ford]

I guess it could depend on which shcool you went to.

[Fish-Bait]

I guess it could depend on which shcool you went to.

I dont remember evolution being taught in grammar school, maybe mentioned in marine biology. The first place I do remeber it taught was the first biology class I took at JCJC, and man was it taught there, matter of fact I think I failed the test.........course now we are talkin' bout 15 years ago also. So maybe once you get past the 12th grade its taught?

[58ford]

I was taught it in the early 80's, but that was at Pascagoula HS.

[SoMissTV]

Where did the quotes on the graphic come from?

[Fish-Bait]

I was taught it in the early 80's, but that was at Pascagoula HS.

Graduated Pascagoula High in 1993.

[Hermione]

Who's doing the evaluating? Who is saying what is useless vs. what is good? Just asking -- I accept the basic tenets of evolutionary theory and natural selection, I just believe they are tools in the hand of God, and very imperfectly understood by us.

[aaron]

Where did the quotes on the graphic come from?

Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach

[zorro]

I was taught evolution without even a nod to Creationism or other alternatives. Why does it say we don't teach it in MS?
That is how it was with me also. I was a non-Christian at the time and I liked the idea. After becoming a Christian, however, my thinking in many areas was reevaluated and this area was one of them.

[zorro]

Many books by professing Christians could be listed here which contain proof of the myth of evolutionary thought, but they are usually dismissed by Darwinists as being prejudicial just because they were written by Christians. The problem for the modern evolutionist is that an increasing number of non-Christian scientists have come to the conclusion that there really is no convincing proof for the theory of evolution.

For example, in 1985, Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor, published Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Dr. Denton is not a Christian, nor does he even appear to be a theist). Here are a few statements from the last chapter of this book:


Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. . . .

. . . it is abundantly clear that in every analogous system, pure unguided random events cannot acheive any sort of interesting or complex end.

Yet no matter how convincing such disproofs might appear, no matter how contradictory and unreal much of the Darwinian framework might now seem to anyone not committed to its defence, as pholosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have pointed out, it is impossible to falsify theories by reference to the facts or indeed by any sort of rational or empirical argument. . . .

Evolutionary thought today provides many other instances where the priority of the paradigm takes precedence over common sense. . . .

Of course, the triumph is only psychological and subjective. The rationalizations are unconvincing to anyone not emotionally committed to the defence of Darwinian theory. To an outsider from the community of [evolutionary] belief, they merely tend to emphasize the metaphysical nature of evolutionary claims and the lack of any sort of rational or empirical basis.

. . . contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evoutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach. . . .

. . . The idea that it was the opponents of evolution who were blinded by the error of a priorism is one of the great myths of twentieth-century biology. If anyone was blinded, it was the seekers after the phantom of continuity.

. . . even in the face of what are "disproofs", Darwinian concepts continue to dominate so much of biological thought today.

. . . there can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate it [Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.

. . .it was the increasingly secular outlook in the nineteenth century which initially eased the way for the acceptance of evolution, while today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of the twentieth century. What was once a deduction from materialism has today become its foundation.

The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientifc evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. . . . One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth.

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.

[58ford]

Graduated Pascagoula High in 1993.
Class of '84

[Pine Belt Girl]

I graduated from Petal in the mid 80s. Darwin was mentioned as a historical figure, and the subject of evolution was given a very brief overview.

What would be even more relevant to life today would be a break down of sex education (and the facts about pregnancy prevention) and how it is taught in school. Regardless of where we came from, we're here now - and making more of us every minute!! Heck - I guess we don't need sex ed; we're all ready pretty good at it -or at least practicing! :)

[Augustus McRae]

I graduated from Hattiesburg High in 1966. In biology, we collected insects, leaves, and wildflowers, and dissected a frog. We ended by learning the human body - form and function. I have taught A&P and health for many years, but I learned the human body in biology at Hattiesburg High. We did not discussion evolution - what would have been the purpose, may I ask?

[CircusRide]

Maybe Mississippi has evolved to the point that we understand evolution is a bunch of crap. Hopefully the others will catch up with us soon.

[HorseWhisperer]

We learned about Darwin, natural selection and all that but if someone asks me... There was a Big Boom and God made everything... I cant explain it because I dont know I wasnt really there when it happened. Really no one can explain it. Nobody was here and until they prove we came from monkeys or dolphins then that is just a theory, there oppenion. I dont belive in evolution.

[Mr. Bama]

Scientist schmientist...... forget PHD's and learned men... evolution can be debunked with a simple or a jar of peanut butter... :roflwtf:

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9zwbhAXe5yk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>


<object height="350" width="425"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

[Astra]

That peanut butter thing makes my head hurt.

[EricStratton]

I didn't believe in evolution until I came on here and read the "Love and Relationships" thread....Some people are definitely related to animals.

[Conveyor Belt]

In high school, we were taught about the theory of evolution. Things adapt and evolve. Creatures come and go, according to fossil records. My teacher in hs prefaced the theory of evolution with a statement about how he was required to teach this, but we all knew what really happened.

[Augustus McRae]

I have "evolved" from a young, wiry, agile and mobile young man to a fat, slow middle aged man. Is that what you mean?
The discussion about evolution v. creationism is very similar to the discussion of types of baptism. God is not in either discussion, I don't think!


We learned about Darwin, natural selection and all that but if someone asks me... There was a Big Boom and God made everything... I cant explain it because I dont know I wasnt really there when it happened. Really no one can explain it. Nobody was here and until they prove we came from monkeys or dolphins then that is just a theory, there oppenion. I dont belive in evolution.

[EricStratton]

I have "evolved" from a young, wiry, agile and mobile young man to a fat, slow middle aged man. Is that what you mean?
The discussion about evolution v. creationism is very similar to the discussion of types of baptism. God is not in either discussion, I don't think!

"Middle-aged"? Is your real name Abraham?

[Augustus McRae]

Hey, Stratton, don't you find it funny as crap that you, me, and Big John got "summarily dismissed" from this "community" a while back for a little intensity and for saying "shit" and now the main theme of most of these threads is rancous, gratuitous, anything goes sex??? Heck fire, we got the same folks posting about "deacons at the Baptist church" one minute and "trolling" for a 3-some two minutes later on another thread! I they called ME crazy!!!!



"Middle-aged"? Is your real name Abraham?

[EricStratton]

Hey, Stratton, don't you find it funny as crap that you, me, and Big John got "summarily dismissed" from this "community" a while back for a little intensity and for saying "shit" and now the main theme of most of these threads is rancous, gratuitous, anything goes sex??? Heck fire, we got the same folks posting about "deacons at the Baptist church" one minute and "trolling" for a 3-some two minutes later on another thread! I they called ME crazy!!!!


Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[Augustus McRae]

K Mart sucks...


Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[Buggy]

Without a good and fair exposure to evolution in high school you end up with kids that go off to college armed with rebuttals like "if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys" and other nonsense that either
makes them look like total idiots in front of the professor and other students
makes them cover their ears and whisper "it's not true!" over and over
makes them sit there amazed at how this stuff (despite what they've been told their whole lives) actually makes sense and just *has* to be true, with no ability to critically think about any of it

[Astra]

If there is ONE THING I wish we would teach more of in schools, it is critical thinking. Telling kids "this is what happened because I said so" is a lousy tactic whether you're teaching evolution, creation, or anything else. Show them WHY people think it happened and the evidence for and against it so that they can understand it.

Besides, there is nothing more annoying than someone who won't hesitate to tell you that you're dead wrong, but doesn't know enough about their own position to defend it.

[Augustus McRae]

But "Why" have the discussion? If you hold fast to your belief in God, what difference could it possibly make HOW he created man and other living things? The discussion of evolution is man's creation. It serves little, if any, purpose to science and should serve no purpose the the formation of a person's faith. Just my opinion. I've never understand the under-pinning of the debate, to be quite honest.



Without a good and fair exposure to evolution in high school you end up with kids that go off to college armed with rebuttals like "if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys" and other nonsense that either

makes them look like total idiots in front of the professor and other students
makes them cover their ears and whisper "it's not true!" over and over
makes them sit there amazed at how this stuff (despite what they've been told their whole lives) actually makes sense and just *has* to be true, with no ability to critically think about any of it

[Augustus McRae]

While I do agree with the "critical thinking" part and with both of you, Astra and Zorro, please allow me a caveat if you will indulge me. Developing critical thinking skills is a by-product and result of LEARNING. Learning, in turn, is a DISCIPLINE. Without the discipline of learning, we do not learn to think critically. I think we all too often in recent years ask the educational process to prepare our students to "think critically" without asking them to ask our students to "learn" things.

We are producing students from K-12 with very limited skills in writing or "framing thoughts" verbally, for example. Students need to LEARN the parts of sentence, about reference and other writing factors and how to put thoughts together in a succinct fashion to "look at" and speak to others. Unfortunately, I would guess that 75% of the students (even the good students!) come to the college with which I am associated and have very poor skills in both areas.

Critical thinking requires having LEARNED things on which to base "critical thoughts." And it does not matter how sharp and honed your critical things skills become, if you cannot write them or speak them, they are of no value.

I FULLY agree that NO material should be presented to a student on the basis of "...because I said so..." But facts should be presented and LEARNED. "Styles" and rules of offering thoughts should be taught and LEARNED.

Thanks for listening!


If there is ONE THING I wish we would teach more of in schools, it is critical thinking. Telling kids "this is what happened because I said so" is a lousy tactic whether you're teaching evolution, creation, or anything else. Show them WHY people think it happened and the evidence for and against it so that they can understand it.

Besides, there is nothing more annoying than someone who won't hesitate to tell you that you're dead wrong, but doesn't know enough about their own position to defend it.

[aaron]

But "Why" have the discussion? If you hold fast to your belief in God, what difference could it possibly make HOW he created man and other living things? The discussion of evolution is man's creation. It serves little, if any, purpose to science and should serve no purpose the the formation of a person's faith. Just my opinion. I've never understand the under-pinning of the debate, to be quite honest.


It helps to form an opinion about it. Maybe you have your mind made up, but others may not. This is like people not forming an opinion about prayer in schools, and the next thing you know, it's gone.

[Augustus McRae]

No, quite the contrary - although I respect your opinion. I do NOT have my mind made up about:

1) evolution
2) prayer in schools
3) baptism - immersion, sprinkling, or as "spit bath"
4) Daniel in the lion's den (real or allegory)
5) the length and breadth of Noah's Ark
6) homosexuality as an abomination,
7) whether the condemnation of Ham makes Black people "less" in God's eyes than white folks
8) what made the "burning bush" burn

I'm not trying to argue. But why spend emotional energy on things that are man-made and don't much matter to God. That's just my opinion. I respect yours.



It helps to form an opinion about it. Maybe you have your mind made up, but others may not. This is like people not forming an opinion about prayer in schools, and the next thing you know, it's gone.

[fuzzis]

We are producing students from K-12 with very limited skills in writing or "framing thoughts" verbally, for example. Students need to LEARN the parts of sentence, about reference and other writing factors and how to put thoughts together in a succinct fashion to "look at" and speak to others. Unfortunately, I would guess that 75% of the students (even the good students!) come to the college with which I am associated and have very poor skills in both areas.


Actually...there's quite a body of research (going on some 60 + years now) out there that says that students do not need to LEARN the parts of a sentence in order to effectively construct an argument. What they need is the time and space to read examples of good writing (thinking) as well as the time and space to write (think) about topics that matter to them, and then they need a mentor to coach them through their thinking (writing) about what they have written (thought)...why did you write (think) this? And this doesn't follow from what you have said here-what were you trying to do with this? This is an excellent point-is there any way you can expand on that or do you have similar points? Did you mean to say x because when I read it, that's what it seems to say to me? Can you clarify this point for me? You know, Y says this about your topic and it's very similar to what you've written (thought) here-is there anyway you can add Y's voice to your own writing (thinking) to help bolster or support your position?

Once that has been accomplished, then students again need time and space to re-write (re-think).

It is a time-consuming process, but one that ultimately yield rich rewards. There is not a short-cut to it, regardless of how many Jane Schaeffer or Traits programs get sold. Our educational system is not designed to help students succeed on a level like that.

fuzzis

[58ford]

As far as evolution goes..................
It's an on going process & belief in it does not mean you don't believe in God or creation.
Stating that God created all of us, but evolution is a false theory is about the same as saying, My daddy built that house, but there ain't no such thing as hammers.

[Augustus McRae]

I am well aware of that body of research and the resulting methodology, Fuzz. In my opinion, after 40 years in the working world - much of it in academia, the method does NOT yeild effective communicators, and it helps reinforce the "McDonald's model" of work and learning. I hope you will allow me to disagree, and I thank you.




Actually...there's quite a body of research (going on some 60 + years now) out there that says that students do not need to LEARN the parts of a sentence in order to effectively construct an argument. What they need is the time and space to read examples of good writing (thinking) as well as the time and space to write (think) about topics that matter to them, and then they need a mentor to coach them through their thinking (writing) about what they have written (thought)...why did you write (think) this? And this doesn't follow from what you have said here-what were you trying to do with this? This is an excellent point-is there any way you can expand on that or do you have similar points? Did you mean to say x because when I read it, that's what it seems to say to me? Can you clarify this point for me? You know, Y says this about your topic and it's very similar to what you've written (thought) here-is there anyway you can add Y's voice to your own writing (thinking) to help bolster or support your position?

Once that has been accomplished, then students again need time and space to re-write (re-think).

It is a time-consuming process, but one that ultimately yield rich rewards. There is not a short-cut to it, regardless of how many Jane Schaeffer or Traits programs get sold. Our educational system is not designed to help students succeed on a level like that.

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

I am well aware of that body of research and the resulting methodology, Fuzz. In my opinion, after 40 years in the working world - much of it in academia, the method does NOT yeild effective communicators, and it helps reinforce the "McDonald's model" of work and learning. I hope you will allow me to disagree, and I thank you.


I would argue that what you're talking about does NOT yield effective communicators and helps reinforce the "McDonald's model of work and learning." If you're aware of the research and the methodology--which asks students to actually think about what it is they're writing and its effect on the intended (and unintended) audience rather than follow a somewhat plug-and-play formula--I'm not sure how you can reasonably come to any other conclusion.

That is not to say that many people do not correctly implement the methodology. Without the mentoring process, it is about as useless as having students learn parts of the sentence and parts of speech and hoping that will somehow magically make them better writers (and in fact, that has been shown in study after study (http://www.npatterson.net/rcwp/grammarrcwp_files/v3_document.htm) to actually negatively impact the writing of students because it takes time away from real writing instruction).

fuzzis

[Augustus McRae]

Forgive me, but I have "...reasonably come to (another) conclusion..." based on my observation and working with the product we are turning out from this methodology or some derivative of it. It's a LEARNING question, as I indicated before. We cannot communicate without LEARNING to communicate, in my opinion, regardless of our capacity to think, or think critically, about that which we are communicating. Let me say that I think the style you espouse would be very effective if PAIRED WITH a solid TEACHING/LEARNING process.

We disagree, I suppose. Oh well...



I would argue that what you're talking about does NOT yield effective communicators and helps reinforce the "McDonald's model of work and learning." If you're aware of the research and the methodology--which asks students to actually think about what it is they're writing and its effect on the intended (and unintended) audience rather than follow a somewhat plug-and-play formula--I'm not sure how you can reasonably come to any other conclusion.

That is not to say that many people do not correctly implement the methodology. Without the mentoring process, it is about as useless as having students learn parts of the sentence and parts of speech and hoping that will somehow magically make them better writers (and in fact, that has been shown in study after study (http://www.npatterson.net/rcwp/grammarrcwp_files/v3_document.htm) to actually negatively impact the writing of students because it takes time away from real writing instruction).

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

Forgive me, but I have "...reasonably come to (another) conclusion..." based on my observation and working with the product we are turning out from this methodology or some derivative of it. It's a LEARNING question, as I indicated before. We cannot communicate without LEARNING to communicate, in my opinion, regardless of our capacity to think, or think critically, about that which we are communicating. Let me say that I think the style you espouse would be very effective if PAIRED WITH a solid TEACHING/LEARNING process.

We disagree, I suppose. Oh well...


The methodology...or some derivative of it...is not what is turning out products, and it is not what you have observed or worked with. As a whole, there are very few teachers who have the desire (or these days, the time) to engage in the work that it requires.

The style IS a TEACHING/LEARNING process all on its own (part of the reason why it is called a "process" approach). It's what the "style" is...that you refer to "pairing" it reveals your unfamiliarity with what it entails, despite your having said that you know the research and methodology. It is "LEARNING to communicate" by asking those that you are communicating with if your message is reaching them in the way that you intend.

Forgive me, but this is *my* stuff. It is the stuff that I have spent most of my post-secondary career working on. It is the stuff that I know works...not just from reading the research but from doing it in my own classrooms hundreds of children, from visiting the classrooms of colleagues who are dedicated to the messy, time-consuming work of helping students refine and hone their thoughts. It is the stuff that I give my free time to work with other teachers on implementing in their own classrooms. It is powerful stuff, and it works.

It is one of my great passions, and while we can disagree about it, I cannot let you say it doesn't work when you're not actually talking about "it", nor can I in good conscious allow someone to advocate a methodology that assuredly does not work without saying something. (A prime reason why I am no longer in the public schools...I cannot do what I know does not work and is actually harmful to children)

fuzzis

[Augustus McRae]

I love your passion, Fuzz, but it just happens to be my passion and my "stuff" also. And we disagree.


The methodology...or some derivative of it...is not what is turning out products, and it is not what you have observed or worked with. As a whole, there are very few teachers who have the desire (or these days, the time) to engage in the work that it requires.

The style IS a TEACHING/LEARNING process all on its own (part of the reason why it is called a "process" approach). It's what the "style" is...that you refer to "pairing" it reveals your unfamiliarity with what it entails, despite your having said that you know the research and methodology. It is "LEARNING to communicate" by asking those that you are communicating with if your message is reaching them in the way that you intend.

Forgive me, but this is *my* stuff. It is the stuff that I have spent most of my post-secondary career working on. It is the stuff that I know works...not just from reading the research but from doing it in my own classrooms hundreds of children, from visiting the classrooms of colleagues who are dedicated to the messy, time-consuming work of helping students refine and hone their thoughts. It is the stuff that I give my free time to work with other teachers on implementing in their own classrooms. It is powerful stuff, and it works.

It is one of my great passions, and while we can disagree about it, I cannot let you say it doesn't work when you're not actually talking about "it", nor can I in good conscious allow someone to advocate a methodology that assuredly does not work without saying something. (A prime reason why I am no longer in the public schools...I cannot do what I know does not work and is actually harmful to children)

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

I need to clarify that I am very specifically talking about writing instruction. The rest of your thoughts about education I can agree with, but you're wrong about writing instruction. There's a place for learning the parts of a sentence, but that is not when you're teaching students how to construct an argument or how to communicate.

Come to some Writing Project events (they're not just for those in K-12).

fuzzis

[aaron]

I'm not trying to argue. But why spend emotional energy on things that are man-made and don't much matter to God. That's just my opinion. I respect yours.



Simple answer. Because to non-believers (you know, those people your trying to get to church), man-made things matter a lot, and God doesn't matter to them at all. So, how will you have an intelligent conversation with them? They don't care about God, and you don't care about man-made. Sounds like a whole lot of uncomfortable silence.

[Augustus McRae]

We disagree, but I appreciate your passion.


I need to clarify that I am very specifically talking about writing instruction. The rest of your thoughts about education I can agree with, but you're wrong about writing instruction. There's a place for learning the parts of a sentence, but that is not when you're teaching students how to construct an argument or how to communicate.

Come to some Writing Project events (they're not just for those in K-12).

fuzzis

[Augustus McRae]

My experience is that MOST "non-believers" do not care about these things as part of their faith base (or lack there of). It's very easy for me to have an intelligent conversation with non-believers or searching people - I treat them and converse with them like I do everyone. I don't argue with them about evolution, prayer in schools, or other issues. In fact, when asked, I tell them "...God does not care about that..."



Simple answer. Because to non-believers (you know, those people your trying to get to church), man-made things matter a lot, and God doesn't matter to them at all. So, how will have an intelligent conversation with them? They don't care about God, and you don't care about man-made. Sounds like a whole lot of uncomfortable silence.

[aaron]

My experience is that MOST "non-believers" do not care about these things as part of their faith base (or lack there of). It's very easy for me to have an intelligent conversation with non-believers or searching people - I treat them and converse with them like I do everyone. I don't argue with them about evolution, prayer in schools, or other issues. In fact, when asked, I tell them "...God does not care about that..."


Then why did he bother to mention how things were created in the Bible?

[Augustus McRae]

if "HE" means God, then He did not write the creation story in the Bible. I don't think he gave a lot of details, do you?


Then why did he bother to mention how things were created in the Bible?

[aaron]

if "HE" means God, then He did not write the creation story in the Bible. I don't think he gave a lot of details, do you?

I think He gave me enough to know who created what.

[58ford]

I knew this was gonna happen.


I just thought Zorro was gonna be more involved.

[Augustus McRae]

Can't seem to "flush" him out - back to work, I guess!



I knew this was gonna happen.


I just thought Zorro was gonna be more involved.

[chaz]

I was taught it in the early 80's, but that was at Pascagoula HS.
It was taught the same way 20 years later.

[EricStratton]

I need to clarify that I am very specifically talking about writing instruction. The rest of your thoughts about education I can agree with, but you're wrong about writing instruction. There's a place for learning the parts of a sentence, but that is not when you're teaching students how to construct an argument or how to communicate.

Come to some Writing Project events (they're not just for those in K-12).

fuzzis

As long as they pass the State Test, who really cares about this whole critical thinking and effective communication mumbo-jumbo? I mean the State Test covers everything, right? If a vast majority of our students can pass the state-sanctioned test, they're ready, right? Let's just all follow our pacing guides and leave critical thinking to someone else.:)

[CircusRide]

Well, I think I evolved tonight. Told the wife to go to hell, drank 8 guinness.....BRILLIANT!!

[dollfus46]

In high school, we were taught about the theory of evolution. Things adapt and evolve. Creatures come and go, according to fossil records. My teacher in hs prefaced the theory of evolution with a statement about how he was required to teach this, but we all knew what really happened.

That's the point. No fossil has been found to prove evolution. Evolution can and has been disproved. Creationism has never been disproved and can't be. Evolution has never once proven where a new species was formed or created. Granted, there is the existence of evolution and changes, adaptations within a species, but not one new species has ever been created via evolution. We didn't come from apes anymore than we came from apricots. And if evolution is true the we both had to be apricots at one point, for evolution is based on the survival of the fittest. The weak die out and the strong survive. Seems the apricot should have long since become extinct.

[dollfus46]

Mongo only pawn in game of life.

Heh heh heh. funny movie.

[Astra]

That's the point. No fossil has been found to prove evolution. Evolution can and has been disproved. Creationism has never been disproved and can't be. Evolution has never once proven where a new species was formed or created. Granted, there is the existence of evolution and changes, adaptations within a species, but not one new species has ever been created via evolution. We didn't come from apes anymore than we came from apricots. And if evolution is true the we both had to be apricots at one point, for evolution is based on the survival of the fittest. The weak die out and the strong survive. Seems the apricot should have long since become extinct.
I think we might want to figure out if we're all on the same page regarding what the theory of evolution actually IS. Last time I checked, the core component was that species adapt and evolve to better survive in their environment. The whole idea is that life isn't a static thing that popped into existence and has stayed exactly the same ever since - it is always changing to fit a niche.

As far as new species never having been created, the fossil record goes back a few million years. Most of the species that are around today weren't around 65 million years ago - we've found examples of precursors to modern bird species, but there don't appear to have been canaries flapping around in the Cretaceous.

I don't know that science can really prove that some supreme being didn't snap their fingers and blink the universe into existence, but I think there is enough evidence out there to cast a lot of doubt of the traditional "the universe was created in a week and is only 6,000 years old" beliefs. There's got to be some kind of hedging to allow for the existence of dinosaurs and fossils of ancient humans.

Taking your apricot example, why should it have gone extinct? It's a hardy plant that survives well in a variety of climates. The fruit provides food for people and animals, and encourages the seeds to be spread. Sounds like it's working out successfully thus far. Maybe a better example would be dinosaurs? They were huge creatures that couldn't handle a climate change and died out, but the small mammals that had insulating fur and didn't need such huge amounts of food made it through.

I really don't see, unless you take a strictly literal reading of Genesis, why the idea of evolution and the Big Bang theory has to be mutually exclusive with any kind of theological belief. Maybe it didn't happen quite like the book says, but someone kick-started the whole "life on Earth" thing. Science can put together reasoned out explanations with enough evidence, but it's not like we have any eye witnesses.

I don't like the idea of avoiding evolution in schools because whether you like it or not, or whether it matches your theological views or not, it is what is generally accepted in the scientific community as how things work. There's evidence that supports evolution occurring in the form of species adapting over time and changing characteristics. I don't think anyone can say exactly how it happens or why, but you can follow the fossils from lizardy things with the beginnings of feathers up to modern day birds. You can't really say the same thing for the idea that someone is guiding those changes - we can observe the changes happening, but there's really no way to say who or what dictates them. They just happen, generally to make the species more likely to survive, but that's all we can really observe.

Too many advocates of Creation science just seem to want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" to every bit of scientific evidence that doesn't fit within their belief framework. I NEVER want to run into another teacher who skips biology lessons regarding fossils or ancient human civilization because they don't fit with his or her idea of how the world was created. There's evidence on one side that things happened one way, and words in a book on the other. It may be a pretty important book, but you can't just pretend challenges to the story it tells don't exist. Teach kids what we think happened, why we think it, and let them and their families figure out how it fits with their religious beliefs.

[zorro]

I think we might want to figure out if we're all on the same page regarding what the theory of evolution actually IS. Last time I checked, the core component was that species adapt and evolve to better survive in their environment. The whole idea is that life isn't a static thing that popped into existence and has stayed exactly the same ever since - it is always changing to fit a niche.
Change and adaptation within species and small populations is known as microevolution, and neither science or the Scriptures have a problem with this. The problem is with what is known as macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution is what Denton is addressing in his initial quote in my first post in this thread (and which is repeated here):

Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. . .

It is also what is described by Denton when he says, "the grand claim. . .that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small gentic changes guided by natural selection and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events which take place within population and species. . . remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago."

As a matter of fact, some type of microevolution seems to be obviously taught in the Scriptures!! This is because the Scriptures teach that all men are descended from Adam and Eve, as well as from Noah and his wife through their sons (who had wives with them on the ark who were not children of Noah). Thus, if all the different tribes and races of men came from the 8 people on the ark, I also believe that the many types of dogs, cats, horses, etc, also came from just a few (maybe just a couple) of dogs, cats, horses, etc, that were with Noah on the ark. If the diversity of all men comes from just 8 people (really 6 since it seems to teach that Noah and his wife had no more children after the Flood), then the subsequent diversity of other species developing from a few on the ark seems to be implied also. I certainly see nothing in Scripture that is against this point of view (and thus organisms within a species changing and adapting neither violates the evidence of the Scriptures or science).

The real impetus behind macroevolutionary teaching is to get rid of the idea of God, a Creator to whom we are all accountable. This is the real reason that modern man clings to this theory.

[zorro]

Too many advocates of Creation science just seem to want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" to every bit of scientific evidence that doesn't fit within their belief framework.
Actually, the reverse is just as true (in fact, even more so). Too many advocates of evolution just seem to want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" to every bit of scientific evidence that doesn't fit within their belief framework. Denton makes this point in the last chapter of his book (the chapter is titled "The Priority of the Paradigm").

[zorro]

I just thought Zorro was gonna be more involved.
I apologize for not meeting your expectations sooner. :)

[Astra]

Change and adaptation within species and small populations is known as microevolution, and neither science or the Scriptures have a problem with this. The problem is with what is known as macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution is what Denton is addressing in his initial quote in my first post in this thread (and which is repeated here)
That's not really the problem at hand though. Evolution as a WHOLE is seen as a dirty word in some schools. I have occasionally seen it reduced to "adaptation" (thus avoiding the dreaded e-word), but most evolution opponents I know of don't want to acknowledge it in any form. Seriously, how is a teacher supposed to avoid evolution and yet teach kids about early hominid species, dinosaurs, and carbon dating? They all contradict Biblical teachings, but there's an awful lot of evidence that corroborates them.

The real impetus behind macroevolutionary teaching is to get rid of the idea of God, a Creator to whom we are all accountable. This is the real reason that modern man clings to this theory. Um, no. The idea is to go where the science leads. There's no way to prove a creator, or at least we haven't found one yet. I don't think anybody has ever really set out to say "Ha, look, there's no such thing as god!" If they did, they're a jerk and a lousy scientist.

That's not what science does. You observe things and try to figure out the underlying processes based on those observations. If we can't tell whether a being of some kind is involved, we can't just say, "Oh, nevermind, that's just God." If something comes out with an unexpected result, you keep going until you find a possible explanation. We're talking about teaching these subjects in schools and that goes completely against the scientific method.

Actually, the reverse is just as true (in fact, even more so). Too many advocates of evolution just seem to want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" to every bit of scientific evidence that doesn't fit within their belief framework. Denton makes this point in the last chapter of his book (the chapter is titled "The Priority of the Paradigm").
So where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the evolutionary theory and fits creationist ideas better? Is there more evidence that doesn't fit the evolutionary theory than there is evidence that doesn't fit creation theory?

Evolution is a working scientific theory, so it's certainly not perfect (or else it wouldn't be a theory), but by that definition, so is gravitational theory. We see it, it works in most situations, and it explains the vast majority of stuff.

And one more thing: do you actually have any opinions on this yourself, or do you just believe everything this Denton guy says?

[zorro]

So where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the evolutionary theory . . . And one more thing: do you actually have any opinions on this yourself, or do you just believe everything this Denton guy says?
Let's not start throwing out childish insults. If you honestly want to know some of the evidence, then read Denton's book. If you don't want to read that one, it won't be hard to find another one.

[Astra]

Let's not start throwing out childish insults. If you honestly want to know some of the evidence, then read Denton's book. If you don't want to read that one, it won't be hard to find another one.
I'm not throwing out insults at all. I don't like insults, they accomplish nothing. I simply want to know what you think, rather than being directed toward someone else's words. I'm not asking for a reading assignment - I'm asking for your thoughts.

[zorro]

I'm asking for your thoughts.
Then read my posts. They are not ambiguous.

I quote others only the better to express myself. --Montaigne

And also to save time. :)

[Astra]

I DO read your posts... but I don't understand this guy's logic. If he's okay with microevolution, then what does thousands of years of little evolutions add up to? Doesn't that amount to macroevolution?

Also, a lot of the material you're posting is of the "what they think isn't true because we said it isn't true." The quotes I've seen in this thread really don't present any evidence, just lots and lots of saying "we're right and they're wrong." I'm looking for scientific evidence in terms of "This contradicts this because of this" and I'm not really seeing it.

[zorro]

I DO read your posts... but I don't understand this guy's logic. If he's okay with microevolution, then what does thousands of years of little evolutions add up to? Doesn't that amount to macroevolution?
No. The difference isn't between big and little in this case.

Quoting Denton again, macroevolution is described here:

Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. . .

Both macroevolution and microevolution are mentioned in the following statement:

"the grand claim. . .that all evolution (macroevolution and microevolution) is due to the accumulation of small gentic changes guided by natural selection and that transpecific evolution (macroevolution) is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events which take place within population and species (microevolution) . . . remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago."

[dollfus46]

I think we might want to figure out if we're all on the same page regarding what the theory of evolution actually IS. Last time I checked, the core component was that species adapt and evolve to better survive in their environment. The whole idea is that life isn't a static thing that popped into existence and has stayed exactly the same ever since - it is always changing to fit a niche.

As far as new species never having been created, the fossil record goes back a few million years. Most of the species that are around today weren't around 65 million years ago - we've found examples of precursors to modern bird species, but there don't appear to have been canaries flapping around in the Cretaceous.
Therefore the fossils that link that precursor to the canary should be somewhere and it's not. It's not for any one species from the billions of species that exist today. It's all theory. Theory that has been disproven and not once proven. That chart in science books showing ape to man is a farce a lie being taught to our children. It's theory being taught as fact. Evolutionists believe there is a missing link, and the proof is that they just haven't found it yet. Your belief is based on faith as is ours.

I don't know that science can really prove that some supreme being didn't snap their fingers and blink the universe into existence, but I think there is enough evidence out there to cast a lot of doubt of the traditional "the universe was created in a week and is only 6,000 years old" beliefs. There's got to be some kind of hedging to allow for the existence of dinosaurs and fossils of ancient humans.

I don't think I'm familar with the fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old and our week of 7 days corresponds to Gods week. I'm pretty sure the world was timeless back then. Just my opinion on that one.

Taking your apricot example, why should it have gone extinct? It's a hardy plant that survives well in a variety of climates. The fruit provides food for people and animals, and encourages the seeds to be spread. Sounds like it's working out successfully thus far. Maybe a better example would be dinosaurs? They were huge creatures that couldn't handle a climate change and died out, but the small mammals that had insulating fur and didn't need such huge amounts of food made it through.

Well the apricot had to go extinct if it evolved into something else, unless a new species was formed form it. How'd we get from apricot to human? A new species had to be formed. Evolution cannot find one example of that happening.

I really don't see, unless you take a strictly literal reading of Genesis, why the idea of evolution and the Big Bang theory has to be mutually exclusive with any kind of theological belief. Maybe it didn't happen quite like the book says, but someone kick-started the whole "life on Earth" thing. Science can put together reasoned out explanations with enough evidence, but it's not like we have any eye witnesses.

I think here's where we disagree and we'll just have to disagree and respect each other's opinion. Whomever had the power to "kick start" the whole life on earth thing, certainly had the power to create new species just as easily. I don't think science has enough evidence to give a good debate on how life formed. I don't think evolution could have created anything as precise as the human eye, much less the entire complicated body.

I don't like the idea of avoiding evolution in schools because whether you like it or not, or whether it matches your theological views or not, it is what is generally accepted in the scientific community as how things work. There's evidence that supports evolution occurring in the form of species adapting over time and changing characteristics. I don't think anyone can say exactly how it happens or why, but you can follow the fossils from lizardy things with the beginnings of feathers up to modern day birds. You can't really say the same thing for the idea that someone is guiding those changes - we can observe the changes happening, but there's really no way to say who or what dictates them. They just happen, generally to make the species more likely to survive, but that's all we can really observe.

You're saying everything can be explained by science. Christians don't think so. So far science has come up way short.

Too many advocates of Creation science just seem to want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" to every bit of scientific evidence that doesn't fit within their belief framework. I NEVER want to run into another teacher who skips biology lessons regarding fossils or ancient human civilization because they don't fit with his or her idea of how the world was created. There's evidence on one side that things happened one way, and words in a book on the other. It may be a pretty important book, but you can't just pretend challenges to the story it tells don't exist. Teach kids what we think happened, why we think it, and let them and their families figure out how it fits with their religious beliefs.

That's pretty condescending and demeaning. Because we don't agree with you we stick our fingers into our stupid heads and hum or sing. Christians aren't stupid, nor closed minded to learning. Many of our most dedicated teachers, scholars, scientists are Christians. We believe in science, medicine. I could say that evolutionists respond the same way to the theory of creationism. And that they take "evidence" and make up what they can't prove. Asking evolutionists to "prove it" is not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing lalalala.

[dollfus46]

Then read my posts. They are not ambiguous.

I quote others only the better to express myself. --Montaigne

And also to save time. :)

It is my belief, theory, thought that our thoughts and opinions ARE what other informed and learned people say on a subject like this (as opposed to what is pretty and what isn't). I have neither the intellect nor the time to figure out evolution, relativity, nor how sound is made. I have to rely on someone else's work that I trust. I have to see proof or take it on faith.

[Astra]

Therefore the fossils that link that precursor to the canary should be somewhere and it's not. It's not for any one species from the billions of species that exist today. It's all theory. Theory that has been disproven and not once proven. That chart in science books showing ape to man is a farce a lie being taught to our children. It's theory being taught as fact. Evolutionists believe there is a missing link, and the proof is that they just haven't found it yet. Your belief is based on faith as is ours.
This is what I'm talking about. You say it's a "farce." Why do you say that? What piece of evidence do you base that conclusion on? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I just want to understand how you have come to that belief. I think this is what Zorro was misunderstanding when I asked for evidence. I can read the quotes and get that the guy who wrote that book doesn't believe in evolution, but he states things aren't true and doesn't give examples of why they aren't. I don't follow his logic in the "macro" versus "micro" evolution descriptions at all and I have a hard time understanding how that example proves or disproves anything. I'm trying to understand, not prove anyone wrong.

I don't think I'm familar with the fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old and our week of 7 days corresponds to Gods week. I'm pretty sure the world was timeless back then. Just my opinion on that one.Then that's a good example of belief reconciling with science. The two don't have to be at odds with each other. I mentioned the 6000 year/7 day thing because it was something that came up in school with no explanation as to how it could be true considering other scientific evidence that doesn't fit. I know not all Christians and/or creationists believe that, but it is certainly something I've heard mentioned when discussing the flaws of science.

Well the apricot had to go extinct if it evolved into something else, unless a new species was formed form it. How'd we get from apricot to human? A new species had to be formed. Evolution cannot find one example of that happening.Er, we didn't get from apricot to human. As I see it, life on a very small scale came into being. That life specialized into a variety of forms, both plant and animal. Humans didn't "come from" apricots, or vice versa. Humans came from rougher forms of humans, from earlier mammals, from the first little critters that came out of that beginning life, but I doubt plants and humans have many common ancestors unless you go all the way back to primordial goo. New species don't have to kill off and replace an existing one - otherwise we wouldn't have ended up with the specialized subspecies we observe now.

I think here's where we disagree and we'll just have to disagree and respect each other's opinion. Whomever had the power to "kick start" the whole life on earth thing, certainly had the power to create new species just as easily. I don't think science has enough evidence to give a good debate on how life formed. I don't think evolution could have created anything as precise as the human eye, much less the entire complicated body.I don't understand why we have to disagree. Science can't disprove the existence of a god. As far as human eyes goes, ours are complicated, but simpler eyes exist in many other creatures, as do more complex ones.

You're saying everything can be explained by science. Christians don't think so. So far science has come up way short.No, I'm not. I'm saying we TRY to explain everything with science, but that science can only explain what we can observe. We can see things happening, but we can't say for sure if God's causing them, a chemical process is causing them, or maybe if God's causing a chemical process to occur that causes those things to happen.

That's pretty condescending and demeaning. Because we don't agree with you we stick our fingers into our stupid heads and hum or sing. Christians aren't stupid, nor closed minded to learning. Many of our most dedicated teachers, scholars, scientists are Christians. We believe in science, medicine. I could say that evolutionists respond the same way to the theory of creationism. And that they take "evidence" and make up what they can't prove. Asking evolutionists to "prove it" is not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing lalalala.You're overgeneralizing what I said (and it took me a minute to realize you meant to quote me, or at least I think you did). You're also putting words in my mouth in a major way. I NEVER said Christians were stupid or closed-minded. Not even close.

I am speaking specifically of those people who wish to see all references from evolution deleted from school curriculums in favor of what they believe in. I mentioned my teachers who simply avoided dealing with subjects that challenged their own beliefs, who liked to pretend things didn't exist (like dinosaurs) in order to avoid their own conflicts. If their faith was so weak that they couldn't find a way to reconcile old bones with it, maybe they should not have been teaching science classes.

[58ford]

I haven't read all the info here (long posts make my head hurt) but it seems to me that if you believe that a deity created life, then fine, I get it, I believe that too. What's wrong with someone trying to figure out how it "might" have happened without a deity, and proposing a theory as to how that might have happened. The quest for knowledge is never wasted. We didn't "need" to go to the moon, but look at all the great discoveries that were made along the way. Perhaps someone attempting to find the origin of life might stumble on the cure for cancer. Who knows? As I stated in an earlier post, I can hold my faith in one hand and a fact in the other, what's so hard about that? My math teacher didn't save my soul, but the gospel didn't teach me calculus.

[Conveyor Belt]

When does science become evil? How is it that evolution as an explanation causes controversy, while chemistry and math, which are also human explanations for things, go unchallenged in our modern world. No one has a problem with astronomy, because we can all go down and buy a microscope and see it if we want to. I don't see people getting all wadded up about that... can we please get some consistency???

[wilebill]

We didn't "need" to go to the moon, but look at all the great discoveries that were made along the way. We've been to the moon?!!!

[EricStratton]

We've been to the moon?!!!


That's what THEY would like you to believe.

[dollfus46]

"Middle-aged"? Is your real name Abraham?


Heh heh heh. Middle aged. I was thinking the same thing, Eric. I passed "Middle Age" 20 years ago unless I plan to live to 120. And I'm giving odds.

[Augustus McRae]

Bof'n y'all can kiss my ass!


Heh heh heh. Middle aged. I was thinking the same thing, Eric. I passed "Middle Age" 20 years ago unless I plan to live to 120. And I'm giving odds.

[EricStratton]

Heh heh heh. Middle aged. I was thinking the same thing, Eric. I passed "Middle Age" 20 years ago unless I plan to live to 120. And I'm giving odds.

Reality is a painful "theory" to accept for some people, Dollfus.

[Augustus McRae]

To accept everybody else's "reality" is to accept defeat - never will I do that!


Reality is a painful "theory" to accept for some people, Dollfus.

[dollfus46]

This is what I'm talking about. You say it's a "farce." Why do you say that? What piece of evidence do you base that conclusion on? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I just want to understand how you have come to that belief. I'm trying to understand, not prove anyone wrong.
That's certainly fair enough, Astra. Let me give it an honest shot. The evidence I have that the ape to modern man chain, as shown in the charts in school books, is pure speculation, presented as fact. Scientists who promote the Evolutionary Theory present it as fact. When, in fact, there is no proof that we came from apes. In fact, the DNA suggests it didn't happen. There is no match. That's why I call it a farce. It's someone's drawing of how they think we got to were we are today. Where you and I differ is in our faith. You have faith the proof is there, just yet to be found. I have faith God created it all and the proof is not there. I could be wrong but it seems Evolutionists think science can answer all and if you are a Christian, you don't believe it can. It won't all be revealed until you get to heaven. We can never agree on this because our books start out on different pages. That's okay. Then that's a good example of belief reconciling with science. The two don't have to be at odds with each other. I mentioned the 6000 year/7 day thing because it was something that came up in school with no explanation as to how it could be true considering other scientific evidence that doesn't fit. I know not all Christians and/or creationists believe that, but it is certainly something I've heard mentioned when discussing the flaws of science.

Er, we didn't get from apricot to human. As I see it, life on a very small scale came into being. That life specialized into a variety of forms, both plant and animal. Humans didn't "come from" apricots, or vice versa. Humans came from rougher forms of humans, from earlier mammals, from the first little critters that came out of that beginning life, but I doubt plants and humans have many common ancestors unless you go all the way back to primordial goo. New species don't have to kill off and replace an existing one - otherwise we wouldn't have ended up with the specialized subspecies we observe now.

I think this in contradictory to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. But I'm certainly no one to ask about that. Again, I go back to my original point that of the billions and billions of species on earth, somewhere there would be proof of the beginning of an entirely new species. Just one would do it. But Evolution must rely on human drawings to connect the dots. My way is soooooo much simpler. I just believe God Almighty (not just "a god") made it all happen.I don't understand why we have to disagree. Science can't disprove the existence of a god. As far as human eyes goes, ours are complicated, but simpler eyes exist in many other creatures, as do more complex ones.

No, I'm not. I'm saying we TRY to explain everything with science, but that science can only explain what we can observe. We can see things happening, but we can't say for sure if God's causing them, a chemical process is causing them, or maybe if God's causing a chemical process to occur that causes those things to happen.

You're overgeneralizing what I said (and it took me a minute to realize you meant to quote me, or at least I think you did). You're also putting words in my mouth in a major way. I NEVER said Christians were stupid or closed-minded. Not even close.
Sorry, didn't mean to do that. I just read it wrong.

I am speaking specifically of those people who wish to see all references from evolution deleted from school curriculums in favor of what they believe in. I mentioned my teachers who simply avoided dealing with subjects that challenged their own beliefs, who liked to pretend things didn't exist (like dinosaurs) in order to avoid their own conflicts. If their faith was so weak that they couldn't find a way to reconcile old bones with it, maybe they should not have been teaching science classes.


I don't wish to see all references of evolution deleted from school. I learned it and I'm not "damaged." I never once thought God didn't have a hand in what was being taught.

[fuzzis]

I don't remember a chart showing the evolution from ape to modern man in my science books. In fact, I don't remember that evolution says that modern man came from apes. I remember something about similar beginnings (what with all that similar DNA), but that's a far cry from modern man evolving from prehistoric ape. Now modern man evolving from prehistoric man...*that* particular chart I've seen.

fuzzis

[dollfus46]

I haven't read all the info here (long posts make my head hurt) but it seems to me that if you believe that a deity created life, then fine, I get it, I believe that too. What's wrong with someone trying to figure out how it "might" have happened without a deity, and proposing a theory as to how that might have happened. The quest for knowledge is never wasted. We didn't "need" to go to the moon, but look at all the great discoveries that were made along the way. Perhaps someone attempting to find the origin of life might stumble on the cure for cancer. Who knows? As I stated in an earlier post, I can hold my faith in one hand and a fact in the other, what's so hard about that? My math teacher didn't save my soul, but the gospel didn't teach me calculus.

Correcto Mundo, but Math also put us on the moon. Heh heh heh. That's what blows my simple mind. X - 2y/ 3Z = The Lunar Capsule has landed. Anyway, nothing wrong with research. Nothing wrong with hypothesizing and setting out to prove your hypothesis. It's when one (Creationism) can't be taught (under the guise of separation of church and state) while one (evolution) is taught as fact, when it's been debunked several times, that causes the hard feelings I think, sir. I could be mistaken.

[dollfus46]

When does science become evil? How is it that evolution as an explanation causes controversy, while chemistry and math, which are also human explanations for things, go unchallenged in our modern world. No one has a problem with astronomy, because we can all go down and buy a microscope and see it if we want to. I don't see people getting all wadded up about that... can we please get some consistency???

I see your point, CB, but we're on different pages, I think. Evolution is not proven. Chemistry and math are. Math is used to prove galaxies and black holes etc beyond our telescopes range, exist and precisely their position. And when you mix two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen you have a glass of water. There it is. We don't have the holes in those branches of science that we have in geneaology of species.

[dollfus46]

We've been to the moon?!!!


Heh heh heh, Don't buy into that crap, wilebill. Anybody with half a brain knows it was staged. Look at the masterful way they handled Star Wars. Making it look like we put a man on the moon was child's play and in fact was the precursor to the technology of producing the scenes in Star Wars et al.

[dream member]

Wow, let's continue to just teach one side of the story and maybe we'll remain the "most ignorant" state in the country...FOREVER! This is the bad thing about living in MS (in my opinion)...too many people are DIE HARD SOUTHERN BAPTISTS (no offense to some of you), but I've never run into people who have been more hypocritical in my life. I know it can't be all of them; it just can't be! But some of them are so busy PUSHING their beleifs on others, they don't see anything else, just those beliefs. So not teaching evolution to a child...then he/she hits college one day...maybe in the north (let's just say)...and wow, evolution comes up. That student has no idea what is being talked about...because someone REFUSED to teach it, based on their beliefs. Let people make their minds up about what they want to believe, just teach both sides of the story.

Did I get off topic? I didn't read all the posts...SOOO much too read! lol

[dollfus46]

To accept everybody else's "reality" is to accept defeat - never will I do that!

What's gonna cause my death, Gus, is this 18 year old brain I'm still shuffling along with. Proof the Lord enjoys a good practical joke.

[dollfus46]

I don't remember a chart showing the evolution from ape to modern man in my science books. In fact, I don't remember that evolution says that modern man came from apes. I remember something about similar beginnings (what with all that similar DNA), but that's a far cry from modern man evolving from prehistoric ape. Now modern man evolving from prehistoric man...*that* particular chart I've seen.

fuzzis

Perhaps yours was the one about the tree moth. That was in text books and still is even though it's been disproven too

[Augustus McRae]

Nice sweet thoughts, Dfus, but NOT YOU! Look back over countless threads here, and we can find very clear, well written thoughts that were YOURS. ALL of our thoughts are synthesized and assimilated from what we read, see, hear, and experience - no doubt. But you've expressed WAY, WAY too many good thoughts here - some with which I have agreed and some I have not - to get away with the simple statement you made here.

Bear in mind, I think Zorro's contributions here are excellent. We come at our "Christology" from different perspectives, but he's a smart, well-read, courageous guy - EXCEPT when it comes to being courageous enough to say 'THIS IS WHAT I THINK!" That's all I'm saying!

In all honesty, I think when we come forward with our thoughts - even when we start to question them - is when we really begin to grow. As long as Zorro, me, or anyone just uses up line after line hear quoting Scripture or the writings and thoughts of others, we can "deflect" criticism and imply that those who disagree are "arguing with the experts."

There is nothing WRONG with having one's own thoughts about something!




It is my belief, theory, thought that our thoughts and opinions ARE what other informed and learned people say on a subject like this (as opposed to what is pretty and what isn't). I have neither the intellect nor the time to figure out evolution, relativity, nor how sound is made. I have to rely on someone else's work that I trust. I have to see proof or take it on faith.

[zorro]

Bear in mind, I think Zorro's contributions here are excellent.
Thank you. :)

[Valkhorn]

I really find a lot of replies in this thread disturbing as a lot of what is said about Evolution simply is not true or is a mis-representation of what the theory actually is.

First of all, Evolution is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are ways to explain known facts and observations. Theories are a step ahead above facts and known theories include heliocentric theory (the Earth going around the Sun) and gravitation (it isn't fully understood what causes it and why it is so weak compared to electromagnetic force).

Second, all Science uses what is called naturalistic methodology. That is to say that the scientific process follows these steps:
Uncover facts
See where the facts point us
Derive a conclusion
Alter hypothesis or theory to fit new uncovered factsIn other words, no matter what, if something is right we keep it. If something is wrong, we reject our ideas and formulate something new. And, along all of those steps we cannot under any circumstance invoke anything supernatural. We cannot say a miracle occured in any of these steps because it explains nothing and explains everything. We could very well substitute a 'miracle' or something supernatural for any step and reach any conclusion we want - this is why Science does not do this, and should never. In fact, doing so would place science in the same branches as astrology or phrenology - known pseudosciences which do not explain anything.

Now with regards to Evolution. Evolution has changed a lot since Mendell and Darwin's time. Darwin first published his 'On the Origin' book 160 years ago and since that time there has been ample evidence which has been uncovered in independent fields to show that Evolution is true and that it happens.

To define Evolution, Evolution is "The non-random natural selection of natural varying replicators" (Dawkins).

Fossils are increasingly found from the Burgess Shale to Whale evolution. Stromatolite fossils have been found as old as 3 billion years in age through independent radiometric dating techniques. The entire Geologic column exists in several places in the world (including South Dakota). Genetics has also increased our knowledge of evolution. We share 98% the same DNA as chimpanzees - in addition to an exact chromosome fusion proving that we share a common ancestor. And, if that wasn't enough, fossils have been found showing a clear common ancestry of not only humans and the rest of the Great Apes (to which we are a part) but Horses, Whales, Dinosaurs and Birds, etc.

The evidence is simply overwhelming in terms of an ancient Earth and biological Evolution. From the Nylon Bacteria to Endogenous Retroviruses, Evolution has almost as much support if not more than the theory of Gravity itself.

And yet, it is clearly treated as if it is bad. Why is this? It is simply because of religious objection by a minority of people. Many people of many faiths accept Evolution because it just makes sense and all the facts point towards it. However, you have fringe groups which include the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis who clearly have an Agenda and it is not for scientific fact and truth. Their agenda is for Biblical literalism and they will tell you in their websites and personally that if any evidence doesn't fit their idea of creationism, then it has to be invalid.

That is not science, and that is not logical. To put it to you in another way, Science is so competitive that ANY evidence against such a widely supported theory like Evolution that stood the scrutiny of peer-review (which ID and Creationists never do) would perhaps grant its discoverer the Nobel prize.

To this date, we have NEVER seen any peer-reviewed scientific creationist work - or even any from the ID crowd. They provide no experiments or predictions, and it all boils down to an argument from ignorance.

To sum up, acceptance of Evolution is acceptance of reality, and if you reject reality in favor of fantasy then you will not be able to really think critically about anything. Millions of people accept Evolution across many faiths - yet we have fringe groups in our own state who would rather hold people to religious ignorance rather than letting wisdom and knowledge 'darken' their horizons.

To me, this is inexcuseable.

[Valkhorn]

For example, in 1985, Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor, published Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Dr. Denton is not a Christian, nor does he even appear to be a theist). Here are a few statements from the last chapter of this book:

1985 is 20 years behind the times. Since then we have uncovered 20 years of strong evidence in favor of Evolution.

Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. . . .

This is obviously not true. The fossil record, genetics and genetic drift, and even ERVs show common ancestry. Also, Evolution is not 'blind random'. Natural selection is by any means NOT 'blind random'. So, that is a lie.

. . . it is abundantly clear that in every analogous system, pure unguided random events cannot acheive any sort of interesting or complex end.

This is also not true. Irreduceable Complexity (promoted now by the ID creationists) is not so. IC 'machines' like the Bacterial Flagellum, the Eye and the Circulatory system have all been shown in peer-reviewed journals to have clear evolutionary steps in the fossil record.

Yet no matter how convincing such disproofs might appear, no matter how contradictory and unreal much of the Darwinian framework might now seem to anyone not committed to its defence, as pholosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have pointed out, it is impossible to falsify theories by reference to the facts or indeed by any sort of rational or empirical argument. . . .

This is also not true. This is more evident of Creationism than actual science. In Science, ideas are challenged CONSTANTLY. It is ID and Creationism where ideas aren't challenged and refutations ignored.

Evolutionary thought today provides many other instances where the priority of the paradigm takes precedence over common sense. . . .

Evolution is common sense. Are you a clone of your parents? No.

Of course, the triumph is only psychological and subjective. The rationalizations are unconvincing to anyone not emotionally committed to the defence of Darwinian theory. To an outsider from the community of [evolutionary] belief, they merely tend to emphasize the metaphysical nature of evolutionary claims and the lack of any sort of rational or empirical basis.

Evolution is not metaphysical. It is real science and deals with reality.

. . . contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evoutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach. . . .

This is most certainly a lie and is most certainly not the truth. Five minutes research in Google will tell you that.

. . . The idea that it was the opponents of evolution who were blinded by the error of a priorism is one of the great myths of twentieth-century biology. If anyone was blinded, it was the seekers after the phantom of continuity.

ID and Creationism are the proponents of 'a priori' argument. They have the conclusion BEFORE any facts are found - unlike real science which is the other way around.

. . . even in the face of what are "disproofs", Darwinian concepts continue to dominate so much of biological thought today.

Because it works and it is tangible real science. It helps us find oil, it helps us cure diseases, and helps us to understand Biology.

. . . there can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate it [Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.

This is also baloney. Evolution is not random chance, and a large majority of Biologists everywhere all agree that Evolution is a fact.

. . .it was the increasingly secular outlook in the nineteenth century which initially eased the way for the acceptance of evolution, while today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of the twentieth century. What was once a deduction from materialism has today become its foundation.

Science is secular and has to be. Why can't you understand this?

The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientifc evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. . . . One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth.

Because it is real science and reality.

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.

This is also not the truth (a lie).

I should also note that Denton is now on the side of Evolution, and that the only people that support his old book of mistruths are Creationists. That ought to tell you how bogus the book really is.

[EricStratton]

I think zorro's evil twin has surfaced.

[Valkhorn]

I think zorro's evil twin has surfaced.Hardly. I just stand up for what is factual and what can be backed up by actual evidence.

I have also argued for many years against ID and Creationism and have researched it well on the topic enough to know that it is bunk. It was even shown to be bunk in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case a few months ago.

Also, please do not lump me into 'evil' because I accept scientific fact. Plenty of good people (including Pope John Paul II) accept or accepted Evolution.

[EricStratton]

Hardly. I just stand up for what is factual and what can be backed up by actual evidence.

I have also argued for many years against ID and Creationism and have researched it well on the topic enough to know that it is bunk. It was even shown to be bunk in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case a few months ago.]

Also, please do not lump me into 'evil' because I accept scientific fact. Plenty of good people (including Pope John Paul II) accept or accepted Evolution.

I wasn't really calling you evil, V. Actually, I tend to side more with you on this argument.

Just pointing out that, while having vast philosophical differences, you and zorro seem to share an affinity for long posts.

Just being a smartass. Some find it charming. Some don't.

[Valkhorn]

I wasn't really calling you evil, V. Actually, I tend to side more with you on this argument.

Just pointing out that, while having vast philosophical differences, you and zorro seem to share an affinity for long posts.

Just being a smartass. Some find it charming. Some don't.

It's forgiven :) Sometimes I get paranoid when talking about things that tread on more fundamentalist values.

[dollfus46]

Nice sweet thoughts, Dfus, but NOT YOU! Look back over countless threads here, and we can find very clear, well written thoughts that were YOURS. ALL of our thoughts are synthesized and assimilated from what we read, see, hear, and experience - no doubt. But you've expressed WAY, WAY too many good thoughts here - some with which I have agreed and some I have not - to get away with the simple statement you made here.

Bear in mind, I think Zorro's contributions here are excellent. We come at our "Christology" from different perspectives, but he's a smart, well-read, courageous guy - EXCEPT when it comes to being courageous enough to say 'THIS IS WHAT I THINK!" That's all I'm saying!

In all honesty, I think when we come forward with our thoughts - even when we start to question them - is when we really begin to grow. As long as Zorro, me, or anyone just uses up line after line hear quoting Scripture or the writings and thoughts of others, we can "deflect" criticism and imply that those who disagree are "arguing with the experts."

There is nothing WRONG with having one's own thoughts about something!




Huh? Let me just try to deal with your last sentence. Heh heh heh. Certainly nothing wrong with having your own thought. We all have our own thoughts, I think. Just my thought. HA. But it's based on all the information we've assimilated. At that point, once we've decided on one side of the issue or the other, we tend to back up our opinion/thought (perhaps this is where we are conflicting......the definition of these words as being the same or different) with quotes or thoughts of those who are more learned in the field and who have a reputation as being an expert on the matter/subject. We quote Will Rogers, Roosevelt, Kennedy, poetry, even lines from movies, scripture, and it's really a synopsis of our opinion. Just my opinion. I really think we agree. I might not have worded my post in such a way as wasn't ambiguous.. I ono.

[dollfus46]

Wow, let's continue to just teach one side of the story and maybe we'll remain the "most ignorant" state in the country...FOREVER! This is the bad thing about living in MS (in my opinion)...too many people are DIE HARD SOUTHERN BAPTISTS (no offense to some of you), but I've never run into people who have been more hypocritical in my life. I know it can't be all of them; it just can't be! But some of them are so busy PUSHING their beleifs on others, they don't see anything else, just those beliefs. So not teaching evolution to a child...then he/she hits college one day...maybe in the north (let's just say)...and wow, evolution comes up. That student has no idea what is being talked about...because someone REFUSED to teach it, based on their beliefs. Let people make their minds up about what they want to believe, just teach both sides of the story.

Did I get off topic? I didn't read all the posts...SOOO much too read! lol

"No offense to some of you". Heh heh heh. Which ones? Those who are not Baptists nor Mississippians? That's one of the most offensive posts I've ever read on here. You must not have been born and raised in MS, nor be a Baptist. My guess is that you wouldn't know a Southern Baptist from a Baptist. You just sort of spat the word "Southern" out in a derogatory manner.There is a difference in a Baptist and a Southern Baptist, and both worship in MS. And before you start calling Mississippians ignorant, you should learn to spell. I didn't read anywhere where Creationism should be taught and not Evolution. I could have missed it. There are those of us who think one unproven theory should not be the only unproven theory taught. There's a huge difference and I can see nothng wrong with it.

[dream member]

"No offense to some of you". Heh heh heh. Which ones? Those who are not Baptists nor Mississippians? That's one of the most offensive posts I've ever read on here. You must not have been born and raised in MS, nor be a Baptist. My guess is that you wouldn't know a Southern Baptist from a Baptist. You just sort of spat the word "Southern" out in a derogatory manner.There is a difference in a Baptist and a Southern Baptist, and both worship in MS. And before you start calling Mississippians ignorant, you should learn to spell. I didn't read anywhere where Creationism should be taught and not Evolution. I could have missed it. There are those of us who think one unproven theory should not be the only unproven theory taught. There's a huge difference and I can see nothng wrong with it.

Well, I should have been more specific...NOT ALL Southern Baptists are that way. (Sadly, I ran into quite a few at JCJC, who thought anyone who wasn't, was a bad person).

I guess we didn't get voted WORST STATE in the country for nothing...maybe it is due to the intelligence here. I was raised in south MS...on the coast. As for my spelling...I guess I'm the only one with typos and the only one who isn't perfect...very sorry.

However, I thought we shared opinions here, therefore I shared mine. I really would like to see both sides of the story taught, so that people can decide which one they believe on their own, not because they were swayed. Just broaden their knowledge.

[Valkhorn]

There are those of us who think one unproven theory should not be the only unproven theory taught. There's a huge difference and I can see nothng wrong with it.


Woah there, pardner. Evolution is about as proveable as you can get for a scientific theory. It ranks up there with gravity. Also, in science there is no such thing as a proof. Proofs are for math and alcohol.

The problem with teaching both sides is that in this case, both sides are NOT equal at all. Evolution compared to Creationism is like comparing Chemistry to Alchemy. One is in the 21st century, one is in the 16th.

Furthermore sometimes we do not need to give both sides of a debate. Do we teach children that some people believe the Moon landing was a hoax? Do we tell them why they believe that (even though it's very erroneous)? Do we teach children when they study WWII that some people believe the holocaust never happened?

No. And we shouldn't. The Moon landing happened. The holocaust unfortunately happened. And Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

[Valkhorn]

Huh? Let me just try to deal with your last sentence. Heh heh heh. Certainly nothing wrong with having your own thought. We all have our own thoughts, I think. Just my thought. HA. But it's based on all the information we've assimilated. At that point, once we've decided on one side of the issue or the other, we tend to back up our opinion/thought (perhaps this is where we are conflicting......the definition of these words as being the same or different) with quotes or thoughts of those who are more learned in the field and who have a reputation as being an expert on the matter/subject. We quote Will Rogers, Roosevelt, Kennedy, poetry, even lines from movies, scripture, and it's really a synopsis of our opinion. Just my opinion. I really think we agree. I might not have worded my post in such a way as wasn't ambiguous.. I ono.

Funny you mention that. The truth of the debate on Evolution is that the experts unanimously agree that Evolution happens and that it is a fact. They unanimously agree that all the evidence points towards it happening.

Now with regards to ID and Creationism (which is the same thing) - the only opposition that exists is religious and not scientific. There is no evidence which points to a young earth, a global flood, or intelligent design. Furthermore, ID is untestable, unpredictable, and undefinable - and as of yet, ID hasn't produced ANY peer-reviewed scientific research.

The only basis for any belief in ID or Creationism is religious and NOT scientific. That is why those should not be taught in a science class.

Like I said previously, both sides in this case simply are not equal. There is a reason why we no longer accept phrenology or alchemy. Would you like those taught as fact in science class when they are not?

[aaron]

Micro-evolution exists, macro-evolution is not provable.


If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.


The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins.

[Valkhorn]

Actually as someone trained and well versed in research, I cannot more strongly disagree with this statement.OK then, its time for you to show evidence.

Actually, you can never PROVE any theory. Strong scientific theories are made stronger by how potentially refutable they are when studied closely.True. Evolution is very refutable, but it hasn't been done so. All of these things would refute Evolution:

* Dinosaur fossils in the Quaternary
* Trilobite fossils reappearing in the upper Permian or Quaternary
* DNA not being an imperfect copier.

Do I need to go on? Evolution is very refutable and there are plenty of things that would refute it. So, what makes you think Evolution is non refutable?

What is the mechanism of evolution? DNA is an imperfect copier. From generation to generation DNA is copied and sometimes mistakes are made. So you get generation after generation that is somewhat different as time goes on. You have genetic drift and imperfect copies.

So as time goes on the environment weeds out certain members of a population and so they no longer get to pass on their genes. This is non-random natural selection. So naturally it makes sense that over time, over a long period of time (say > 100,000 years) you would get a population of people more adapted to the environment.

This is why over 25,000 years tribes in North and South America got darker skinned, and why over that time tribes of people in more polar regions got lighter skinned. The lighter skinned people saw less sunlight, and the darker skinned people were out in the sun more. This happens with bears too - just look at Grizzly Bears compared to Polar Bears.

Or even look at the Samurai crab in Japan. Legend had it that an army of Samurai drowned in a Japanese Harbor around 1100AD. And so the people of that area believed that the souls of the Samurai were now in the crabs (the Heike crab in particular). So over 1000 years fishermen threw back all crabs that looked like the face of a Samurai, and guess what. Today nearly ALL of the species of that crab are now wearing the proud face of a Samurai.

Evolution is observable, and predictable, and testable.

You'll say natural selection, but this is nothing more than another construct.Natural selection IS a driving force. And, I just explained how it could be.


What is the driving force? How does macroevolution take place?There is no Macroevolution. Everything is either micro or punctuated equilibrium. If you were to line up every single generation of every organism that ever lived through time and saw them side by side you would really see very very little difference between one generation to the next. However, if you saw a generation next to one that was 100 generations later - you would see more difference. A thousand? Even more.

The fossil record shows us slices of populations that were sometimes 1000 or more generations apart. And, naturally with populations of one species you will get separations of groups. A river could split them apart for a very long time, or an ice age/land bridge could send a group of animals to an Island. Once a population is isolated from another it will go in a separate course. Weather and Climate is often very different in some places that are just 100 miles away (look at Washington State or Norway).

When did it begin? Evolution has got nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

How can you replicate it (a major required in reputable scientific theory)? It has been done in the lab. Speciation has been observed with fruit flies. Also, genetics can be tested in the lab as well. Evolution also makes predictions in addition to that. Evolution predicts that we won't find dinosaurs in human strata, or Trilobites pretty much past the Devonian.

The truth is that we really don't know nearly as much about the human race as we'd like to believe.We don't but we have plenty of evidence which points us to Evolution. The amazing thing is that some people *cough* like to ignore the evidence and give equal time to people who have no evidence. It explains far more to say what Darwin said than to rather claim that there was Magic somewhere:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[I]And no Darwin never recanted on his deathbed. I just thought I'd refute that before some Creationist says it.

[Valkhorn]

Actually evolution is very circular, and though there is much in your post, you are simply talking around the issue.Where? This ought to be good since maybe you'll back it up? Well we'll see...


Scientific discovery begins with empirical observations. Those observations are called scientific facts when the empirical events upon which they are based are ordered by scientists into functional relations.

Exactly. We observe organisms giving birth to new generations. We observe genetic drift. We observe the fossil record. We observe gene similarities. We observe the Nylon bug. We observe ERVs.

A functional relation is a type of relationship between two things (called variables, e.g. A and B) such that the value of A determines the value of B. We would say that all things being equal, B is said to be a function of A. This constitutes a rudimentary scientific fact. Can you concisely define the rudiments of evolution. And on a side note, you are missing the fact as we discuss macro and micro evolution that these concepts are very prevalent in the literature.

Yes I can define the rudiments of evolution. I have done so in about four posts now. Did you not read them?

And, yes Micro is prevalent in mostly creationist literature, not scientific literature. If you can name me some peer-reviewed literature that mentions it I'll give you a cookie. Heck, I may even send you some money through Paypal if you can find one.

Selection of populations over evolutionary time is referred to as phylogenic selection.

Actually its more commonly referred to as Phylogenetic. Not Phylogenic. [Phylum-Genetic] And that relates to the general history of a Phylum which got its start from Linnean taxonomy. In fact I just went through several peer-reviewed papers and did not find Phylogenetic Selection to be defined as what you said it was. Can you actually point to one?

Natural Selection also doesn't select based on Phylum. It doesn't say "Well this group is a plant so I just won't apply to that" or "This is a fungus... selection, hoooooooo". It just doesn't work that way.

I wonder where you've gotten your research because it seems rather dubious. Once I get to 15 posts I'll start posting citations, but you have more than 15 posts so where are yours?

But consider this...if an organism is food-deprived

Then it will probably die.

and some resposne produces food, that response is likely to occur more often.

What? If a 'response' produces food? You mean an animal next to it is a food source?

These behaviors are "selected" and others that are non-benficial are extinguished.

You're going off into a tangent now. To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think it means what you think it means".

This kind of selection is called ontogenic selection (what some call microevolution) and, according to experts in the field, is the driving force behind phylogenic selection over multiple generations. Scholars have been referring to this interplay between "macro" and "micro" evolution since the 19th century (see the writing of D. Spalding, a 19th century British naturalist).

You're quoting someone from the 1800s in terms of 21st century modern biology? Ontogenic as far as I can research (and again I'm thumbing through actual peer-reviewed papers here) is what can be learned in one's lifetime. It is behavioral. Therefore it is not evolution.

I agrue that ontogenic selection is part of God's natural order. These type of evolution can stand the test of scientific rigor. Phylogenic selection leaves much to be desired.

So in other words, your whole argument is that God did it. How very scientific of you. Can you cite some peer-reviewed papers or sources please?

I just spent almost two pages in multiple posts explaining how natural selection works and how evolution is obvious, and when I get to 15 posts will cite references. Yet how could you possibly gloss over the facts?

Your entire argument boils down to "I don't know how it works, therefore God".

So, scientific facts are not simply casual observations, but rather observations that possess a reliable, repeatable order among them.

Which is what Evolution does. Evolution makes predictions. Modern Medicine is based on that. Hell, even petroleum and fossil fuels are found on index fossils and the study of Evolution. To quote one of my Geology professors (yes I studied Geology for a bit) who actually dug into the ground and dug for oil for 30 years - "Evolution is a fact."

So, I apologize but I'm going to trust a geologist who actually worked in the field over someone who's only argument is "I don't know, therefore god".

When the word “theory” is used in science, it should mean more than just a guess or opinion: in science, theory should be derived from scientific facts.

Which is what Evolution is.


Even the leading evolution scholars in the world admit that from a phylogenic standpoint, evolution does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered a scientific theory, let alone a fact.

This is a lie.

Eugenie Scott, Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins, Steven Gould, E. O. Wilson, etc. are great scientists who definitely disagree with you there. In fact, I bet money that you cannot find a single quote from one of these leading evolutionary scholars that isn't taken out of context that says what you are trying to say.

Again, creationist quote mines don't count.

[Augustus McRae]

I just caught up on these Valkhorn posts. My eyeballs are circling, my head hurts, and I am dizzy!