|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The bible says Satan appears as an angel of light. So if some spirit calling himself Gabriel appeared to some guy, I see no problem with that. If it had actually been Gabriel, we could tell. Every time Gabe came to earth, if I recall, it had to do with announcing the coming of One Person. Jesus. And that is all religious teaching. If that were to be taught in US public school it would have to be in a comparative religion class with many other religions presented on an equal basis. It certainly does not belong in any science class nor any history class. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Despite your personal inability to see all your zombified so called correlations rest on one belief and one belief alone, that you cannot address, let alone prove, ... LOL the irony. You have not established that they are beliefs rather than evidence based conclusions -- your failing, not mine. You have made claims based on your beliefs alone, and think they are as credible as science. They aren't, and the reason they aren't is the total lack of supporting evidence that you have failed to present.
... you are defeated. By a failed empty personal fantasy assertion? Somehow I think not. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are defeated by your inability to show your claims anything more than biased and belief based hooey. Hardly. Ignoring evidence does not make it disappear, nor does it explain the correlations. Tree ring age is documented by the annual tree rings that show characteristic growth patterns for the various seasons. These ages can be validated by cross-checking between chronologies and by correlations with other events of known age. Early growth rings can be compared to late growth rings to show the consistency of the characteristic growth patterns for the various seasons. These comprise a large set of objective, empirical evidence for actual age, not belief. The correlations with historical events and other chronological systems validate the accuracy of the measured time, and they are also based on objective empirical evidence to support them. You on the other hand believe in a magic time in the past, but have not presented any objective empirical evidence to support your claim.
You are defeated by your inability to show your claims anything more than biased and belief based hooey. The irony is amusing. Certainly in school we should teach students to be skeptical of claims, and to test them by seeing if there is evidence to support the claims. If there is evidence, that lends some credence to the claim, but if there is no evidence then the claim is unsupported and has little credence. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'll try again to lay out my points on why Dawkins comes across as suspicious to me from an agnostics perspective That is one person, not all biologists. You can say the same about other atheist that are not biologists. You cannot say the same about other biologists that are not atheists. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not all that is taught in schools is science. This is news? Even the stuff that is taught as science filled with belief. There are comparative religions courses for example. They might deal in spirits in some way. For example the spirit that Mohamed spoke to. Nothing to do with natural only limited little science! How about sex ed? History..etc etc? It is not all science. No, but it all involves a cognitive framework for learning that is based on logic, objective information, facts and fact finding. Basically you want to teach students how to identify good information from bad, how to reach valid conclusions from information available, and how to learn valid knowledge.
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
chronologies and by correlations ALL based on the same belief. All tested, validated by peer review, replicated and documented conclusions based on evidence, not belief. The fact that you don't know what science is or how it operates leads you to false conclusions. Your further ignorance of what scientific conclusions are leads you to think they are the same as your basis for making conclusions -- belief. Dunning-Kruger Effect. Curiously, you are providing an excellent example of the difference between fact based learning and belief based indoctrination, and what should and should not be taught in public schools. The prime goal is learning how to learn, so that one can continue to learn after school is over. You want people to only learn your beliefs and the quit learning. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
We are tired of the godless framework that led nowhere and ended up in lunatic fables of the damned. Kids deserve better. There is no "we" there is only you desperately trying to fool yourself that reality isn't real. Kids definitely deserve better that fantasy based beliefs and religious indoctrination in the name of education. Teach kids how to learn, teach them how to fact-check information, teach them how to identify false premises and invalid logic structures, teach them to be open-minded but skeptical of unsupported claims, teach them how to make rational rather than emotional decisions. The god/s gave you a brain, use it. Use it to learn and understand life, the universe, and everything ... strive to reach your potential and keep going. Pass it on to the next generation so they can surpass your efforts. That is the goal of education. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... There are children of God, and children of Satan. ... How do you know you are one and not the other? This is one of the fundamental aspects of education -- how do you know what you (think you) know? How do you validate it? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nothing is tested about nature in the far past actually. ... Every time we make a measurement of something from the past (C14, star light spectra, etc), we are testing the past and the nature of that past.
... The models are constructed assuming it was the same. ... Nope. When the results show similarity to the present we conclude it was the same. We conclude this because it is the best explanation for the results showing similarity to today. This is a great thing to teach in school -- how conclusions are reached based on evidence, and what those conclusions tell us about the past and the present.
... You test here and now. ... It's kind of hard to test elsewhere and elsewhen when we are here and now. Your assertions are here and now, and you have no knowledge nor evidence of things being different elsewhere and elsewhen. You make an assumption that it is different based on a fantasy belief that the earth is young. This runs counter to the evidence. When we teach children, one of the important things is to teach them how to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, what tools to use, what validation process to use.
... You use religion for tests, because it is only belief that says nature was the same. ... Nope. We use conclusions based of the results of searching to find differences in the past and not finding any significant differences in the ways things (C14, light spectra, etc), happen. You keep confusing religion and belief with conclusions, because that is the way you think, the way you reinforce your beliefs is through religion and belief. Another great teaching point: being able to understand what you are talking about so that you can make valid statements, premises, conclusions, versus just making wild assertions.
... Proceeding as if it was the same without proving it is wasting time and indulging in beliefs. ... Proceeding as if it was the same because that has not been invalidated in spite of serious effort to do so is how science works: you proceed on the basis of conclusions reached until - and only until - those conclusions are invalidated. Talking about fantasy alternate worlds is a waste of time and indulging in beliefs, and yet this is what you propose in place of science. Again, an important thing to teach is being able to discern between factual results and fantasy/imaginary results.
... All correlations based on that are circular and belief based. You keep saying this, but methinks you do not know what circular reasoning is. Correlations occur because two different measurement systems reach the same conclusion. Neither system uses the any element of the other to reach their conclusions (which would be circular). If either measurement system was prone to error or was wildly inaccurate then the correlations would not occur. Again, this is a perfect example of what should be taught in school -- how to reach valid conclusions from the evidence, rather than just making claims based on belief and ignorance. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD Message 1236: ... There are children of God, and children of Satan. ... How do you know you are one and not the other? This is one of the fundamental aspects of education -- how do you know what you (think you) know? How do you validate it? creation Message 1239: Jesus Strangely, that does not answer the questions. Please tell me where Jesus specifically talks about a change in nature -- not your interpretation of parts of the bible but where Jesus is recorded as specifically talking about a change in nature.
Every time you take a measure of something from the past you are looking at it here. Always. So we do not need your assumption of what nature was like. Either you know, or not. We've already covered this, they are conclusions from the evidence, not assumptions. The evidence shows the same types of tree rings indistinguishable from the types of annual rings today: conclusion - they are annual rings, and counting them gives the age/s in years. Every test on the tree rings, from C14 levels to matching historical events has only confirmed they are annual rings.
You claim to look for differences in light spectra from the past, the thing is there is only light coming in now. The elements it reveals cannot tell us what time is like out there. You must know what time is like to claim billions of years. You only measure things here. No, we look at light spectra here and now, and we see the same patterns of light bands in the spectra that match the patterns of elements here and now:
quote: Each element has their own unique pattern of light bars because of the quantum physics of energy states. When we see the same pattern, we see the signature of those elements. Each element has multiple bands, one for each energy state that produces a photon emission. The star light we are seeing them in is from far away in the universe, and thus there is some red shift in the position of the emission spectrum bands, due to the expansion of the universe. We observe the emission bands, we observe that the pattern of bands and gaps match specific elements here on earth, we observe that they are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, we observe that this is consistent with great distance and the expansion of the universe. We conclude that this confirms the current model of the universe.
... You must know what time is like to claim billions of years. ... Nope, we only need to conclude that the observations are consistent with the current model of the universe and that the red shift is consistent with great distance and the expansion of the universe.
Your claims of the far universe having the same time are science fiction. Except that the evidence supports the conclusion of similar time, as modeled with relativity.
You talk of two different measurement systems. Too bad for you ALL your systems stem only from ONE belief. ... So tell me again how this "ONE belief" affects the Egyptian chronology and the tree rings and results in multiple correlations of dates in the Old Kingdom and afterwards. Be specific:
Demonstrate your claim instead of just repeating it. Because this is what should be taught in school -- how to demonstrate that a claim is valid. But you won't, because this is just a fantasy of yours, not reality, and you can't demonstrate evidence that does not exist. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I haven't got the time to lay down an argument to people who lack the reasoning of viewing things from an Agnostics perspective. Consider this: being open-minded to ideas/concepts/opinions but skeptical of claims without objective empirical substantiation. Not gullible, and not ruling out those ideas/concepts/opinions. Consider the following decision process:
... what drives people to decide things when you have a lack of evidence and no need to make a decision? (C) would be the agnostic position on any question (like "is there god/s"). Open-minded to consider the possibility, skeptical because of the meager evidence (essentially anecdotal), willing to wait for further information before deciding. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
quote: Wherever Genesis or another part of the bible speaks, He speaks. He talked to Moses and confirmed that things written about the beginning were correct. Jesus talked about heaven so that involves a change from nature as we know it also. All the miracles He did also show He was not limited by nature. So you have no reference to a time when nature changed, no documentation that anything close to what you claim about a change in nature, no objective empirical evidence. All you have is your fantasy based on claims you make about what the bible says. Lots of Babble response with nothing new requires no repeated discussion when you haven't provided squat to substantiate your position and you haven't dealt with the evidence.
Rings grown in weeks would not represent years, ... Correct ... ... Because they would not look like annual years, and you would need several every day (one every 4 minutes) while you have no way to make such rings with sufficient growth pattern to simulate actual annual rings. And this doesn't address the changes in C14 from ring to ring. This is pure escapist fantasy on your part.
... your so called correlations and chronologies crumble into absurdity. And yet you have not shown why or how that happens, all you have done is deny evidence and then post a repeated assertion with nothing new. Fail^2 But it might be a candidate for discussion in a class on escapist fiction. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Wrong. The document of Scripture tells us when things started to really be different. But you can't find dates and documentation (evidence) of these purported changes ... that make them rather useless in a science thread.
As I deduce things, ... ie - make up.
... it was likely at the time of Babel, in the days of Peleg, possibly when he was six years old, which may have been about 107 years after the flood. This is you making stuff up that is not supported, listing mythological people, places and events that have no evidentiary basis. Like all your assertions.
As for what rings grown is some former unknown nature would look like...sorry, your opinion cannot be based in any fact. Find something you know about and talk about that. Your 'correlations' have been shown to all rest on the concept/belief that this present nature existed all the while. The correlations therefore, obviously are no better than that belief. Your repeated and repeated assertions (nothing new here folks) are not founded on any objective empirical evidence, nor have you demonstrated that there was a former nature, or that the correlations are based on belief rather than observed fact. Fail Your post is another in a line of meaningless babble that accomplishes nothing except to show how bankrupt creationist arguments are and how they are unable to refute science. What we should teach in school is how to learn the facts supported by evidence and how to tell real probability from pure hogwash. You're giving them a prime example of pure hogwash. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Long lives in Sumer and Scripture, and apparently China also all agree. Science has nothing to say about it. ... What science says is what the objective empirical evidence shows, and it does not show any lifespans of 150 years or greater. Myths are not objective empirical evidence. Fossils are. There are no fossils showing that kind of age.
The changes in life spans are at the time of Peleg in the bible. ... Myths are not objective empirical evidence. Fossils are. There are no fossils showing that kind of age. There is no objective empirical evidence showing that "Peleg" was a real person and not myth. The bible is not objective empirical evidence that "Peleg" was real and not myth. Scripture is not objective empirical evidence that "Peleg" was real and not myth. Myths belong in classes on mythology, not in history or science classes.
It is amusing that someone that claims the universe was farted out of some small speck o soup, and that man is related to flatworms with no evidence at all would declare the records of antiquity to be 'meaningless'! It is amusing how ignorant you are, yet feel you can talk with authority about things you don't know. Another thing to teach in school -- how to base an argument on knowledge of the subject instead of made up junk opinions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What science covers/deals with the far past early history of man and what nature existed? None. Pretending science is needed/available to deal with this is not honest. This thread is about what we should teach in school and whether both evolution and religion should be taught in public schools in the US. One way to teach learning is to ask questions, so let's ask the question: what can we learn about early humans and the world they live in?
Your answer: nothing. Because you can't know the past nature (whatever that may be). MY answer: a lot. First we define the process of Evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Then we note that this is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism. Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes. The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction. This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies. Next, if we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from and unknown in the earlier parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary. If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations. Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch. An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). At this point we can pause and note that creationism claims that animals and plants etc are divided into created "kinds" and that each "kind" reproduces after their "kind" ... cows beget cows, dogs beget dogs, etc but cows do not beget dogs. Thus there is a "bovine kind" and a "canine kind" ... and they can microevolve from the original created "kind" to a family of related species -- the "bovine kind" evolving into all the species of cows, buffalos, etc. and the "canine kind" evolving into all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc. If we compare this to the diagram above we see that all descendants of (A) have each been begat by their parents according to their breeding population at the time. That the breeding pattern of creationist "kinds" matches the pattern of clades, and that there is a "bovine clade" and a "canine clade" ... and the question then becomes what is the original population? Is there a definite original original population that did not evolve from an older parent population? How can we find this out?
Your answer: you can't. Because you can't know the past nature (whatever that may be). MY answer: by looking at the evidence of the past and seeing what it tells us. First we define the Theory of Evolution:
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. And we note that this theory can be tested by:
If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations. We can look for this happening in the past. If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern, and we can look for this happening in the past. For instance, we can look at the fossil record for Pelycodus:
quote: Here we can observe both anagenesis in the changes from population to population, level by level, and cladogenesis in the division of the populations at the top. Similar study can be done with DNA comparisons:
quote: So once again we can see that anagenesis has occurred in the evolution of humans and neanderthals from a common ancestor by the 99.7 percent similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and we can see cladogenesis by the 0.3% differences that have built up since divergence from a common ancestor. Likewise we can see that anagenesis has occurred in the evolution of humans and neanderthals and chimpanzees from a common ancestor by the 98.8 percent similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and we can see cladogenesis by the 1.2% differences that have built up since divergence from a common ancestor. So the ToE predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Furthermore, there has been no evidence of this process halting at some common point in time that would indicate diversification from an original common ancestor "kind" -- either after Noah (circa 4,500 years ago), nor from original creation (circa 6,000 years ago). The evidence shows that the creationist interpretation of the bible is in error. The earliest common ancestor found is single cell organisms back at the dawn of life.
We can know parts of the past by studying the evidence that has been left for us to find and study, with the brains we have been given, to understand what has happened ... to the best of our abilities to understand. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024