What if creationism did get into the science class

But evolution on the origin of life is not science either-it has to be experimentally testable. Also, it depends on what type of evolution you are talking about-macroevolution or microevolution. Microevolution has been demonstrated-macroevolution hasn't. Unfortunately however, at schools many students are being taught what is simply wrong. If you classify evolution as science, you have to classify creationism as science too. They are simply different interpretations of the same data.

quote:

---

All science is, it is basically man's logical interpertaion on a particular problem based on FACTS AND OBSERVABLE PHENOMANA. [mispelled] You have to interpret all the data somehow.

---

And thus the interpretation of the data is what we are debating about There is an article here comparing the theory of evolution and the theory of creation.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Microevolution has been demonstrated-macroevolution hasn't.

---

I've asked this before, perhaps not to you (I can't remember), and hqve not received any answer. Where is the line between micro- and macro-? This question is critical, yet no one seems to be able to pin it down. Until it is pinned down, the whole argument is vaporous.Apparently speciation doesn't count, as this has been observed in the wild and in the lab. Admittedly, speciation is a bit of a semantic game anyway. But this isn't a problem for ToE, but only for Creationism which requires a hard line, somewhere, between 'kinds'.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

​

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

---

--John D. Morris, Ph.D.Morris has a paper on this here[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Morris has a paper on this here

​

---

Neither you nor Morris, answer the question I asked, but only sidestep it. Morris assumes variation within an ancestral species but doesn't define what that means EXACTLY; which was the question. His paper is artful vaguary. I say again, where is the line?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

If you read the article, note the difference he puts-using the evolutionary tree, macroevolution is vertical (ie reptile-bird) while microevolution is horizontal (new breeds, maybe speciation?).

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
If you read the article, note the difference he puts-using the evolutionary tree, macroevolution is vertical (ie reptile-bird) while microevolution is horizontal (new breeds, maybe speciation?).

---

I did read the article. I does not answer the question.This vertical/horizontal distinction is a red herring-- it draws a pretty picture in the believer's brain but it is substanceless. In order to make this distinction at all one has first to assume the idea of 'kinds' or 'basic models' or whatever. And in order to divide critters up into 'vertical' and 'horizontal' one has to know where to draw the line-- which is the question unanswered. So where is that line?An example, take a line of skulls from australopithecines to homo sapien: No webpage found at provided URL: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/gifs/skullsside2.jpgYou can switch any two adjacent skulls in the line and you wouldn't know the difference unless you have dates for the individual skulls. Even specialists ultimately turn to dates for the order. You could switch any three adjacents skulls with much the same result. So where is the line?It magically appears when you compare a skull from the end with one from the beginning, but this doesn't represent the issue properly.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]

blitz: I also have the same question John posed. I noted the "horizontal" adaptation/variation Morris mentioned, as compared to the "vertical" macroevolution. However, nowhere in that article did he mention either any way of identifying what constitutes an invariant type nor what prevents variation over time from becoming macroevolution. The only thing the article even mentions is a bald assertion that mendelian genetics "proves" that genetic diversity of organisms is limited: "As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much." Needless to say, modern geneticists wouldn't agree. Morris also fails to identify those supposed "natural limits".From the evolutionary side, if life evolves by selection of heritable variations, we should expect there to be such variation within modern species that it would be difficult to tell some species apart, and to tell species from subspecies, and subspecies from mere varieties. The longer these populations have been apart, the more they are divergeant. In addition, since similar environments exist in different parts of the world, if life evolves by descent with modification, making do with what exists in a particular place at the time, evolution predicts that equivalent niches will often be filled, not by the same organisms all over the world, but by different ones in each locality - in each place a different design answer to the same problems. This we regularly do find in nature, with similar niches filled with (often radically) different organisms.Finally, since lineages are constrained by their history (no saltation), there should be conserved genes that are "turned off" or no longer expressed. Experiments (surgical manipulation of a chicken's foetus that induce structures to grow that normally would not) have shown that chick embryonic jaw tissue can be persuaded to grow teeth in the right conditions, though no modern bird possesses teeth (but fossil ones do). The genetic instructions for their growth are present, even though they are not usually expressed. Furthermore, the growth of some structures induces the growth of others. The fibula in modern birds is normally just an (atrophied) splinter, and the tarsals are fused. Both reptiles and Archaeopteryx have full tibia and fibula and lots of separate tarsals. By simply inserting a piece of mica between the developing tibia and fibula of a chick embryo, Armand Hamp produced an Archaeopteryx-like leg , with not only a fibula fully to the ankle, but separate tarsals, as well as muscular adaptations required to make the limb fully functional. Here, better than any other, is a true "macroevolutionary change" - or as close to it as you're likely to see in under a few million years - produced in the lab, simply by manipulating existing genetic instructions.In short, Morris's article is highly uncompelling and vague. Perhaps you could link to a different article based on evidence that actually addresses the question concerning the putative barrier to macroevolution?

[QUOTE][B]By simply inserting a piece of mica between the developing tibia and fibula of a chick embryo, Armand Hamp produced an Archaeopteryx-like leg , with not only a fibula fully to the ankle, but separate tarsals, as well as muscular adaptations required to make the limb fully functional.[/QUOTE][/B]Oh dear, somebody call PETA. Seriously, that's quite amazing. Did the chick survive to maturity? But just to double-check, are you sure that *teeth* were produced in the earlier example? I have heard about tooth *sockets* produced in chicks that had a particular signalling pathway activated. [QUOTE][B]Here, better than any other, is a true "macroevolutionary change" - or as close to it as you're likely to see in under a few million years - produced in the lab, simply by manipulating existing genetic instructions.[/QUOTE][/B]Interesting things happen in nature as well. Wing claws appear regularly on hatchlings of some species and fall off with maturity. In other cases the wing claws appear on adult birds, some species are more prone to the oddity than others.From Corliss' Biological Anomalies: Birds, pp. 71-71, topic BBA19 X2. [QUOTE][B]All animals will on rare occasions display atavisms or characteristics left over from their evolutionary predecessors. Once in a great while, for example, a human will be born with a fleshy tail. (BHA53 in Humans I) So, too, some birds that do not normally show wing claws will be found with these leftovers discarded in evolution's progress. Our literature researchers have turned up four such atavisms. There must be many more.

quote:

---

Bobolink (R1)
Red-winged Blackbird (R8)
White-necked crow (R7)
Great Kiskadee (R6)

---

[/QUOTE][/B]R1 is Coale, Henry K.; "Ornithological Curiosities---A Hawk with Nine Toes, and a Bobolink with Spurs on its Wings," Auk 4:331, 1887R8 is Nero, Robert W.; "Vestigial Claws on the Wings of the Red-Winged Blackbird," Auk, 74:262, 1957R7 is Baumel, Julian J.; "Wing Claws in the White-Necked Crow (Corvus leucognaphalus)." Auk, 70:373, 1953.R6 is Friedmann, Herbert; "Vestigial Claws in the Wings of the Kiskadee Flycatcher," Auk, 69:200, 1952.

[edited to remove weird double post][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-13-2002]

Hey gene!Yeah - the article I referenced did in fact produce genuine tooth buds.

quote:

---

Chen and colleagues (2000) have found that the signaling pathways for tooth development have been conserved in bird mandibles, and that the only protein that appears to be missing is BMP4 in the mandibular epithelium. If beads secreting BMP4 are placed into the epithelium, they induce the dental mesenchyme to synthesize the Msx1 and Msx2 transcription factors. Together with Fgf8, they will allow tooth-like structures to form in the chick jaw.

---

(reference: Chen, Y-P. and nine others. 2000. Conservation of early odontogenic signaling pathways in Aves PNAS 97:10044-10049) is the one you were thinking of.AFAIK, Hampe's experiment produced a living chick (I don't know how long it lasted, however). Interestingly enough, subsequent tests of Hampe's experiment showed concurrent modification of muscles, etc, consistent with the growth of the bones, but showed that the physiological changes weren't an atavism! Anytime you changed the tibia/fibula ratio the rest of the body just followed along. IMO, this has significant implications for gross morphological change due to change in a single body ratio. So much for "it's still a chicken" since the morphological changes are consistent with the devo of reptiles...There are a lot of examples in nature - including humans born with fur, horses with three-toed feet, etc. This is one of the key reasons (of many) why I have such a problem with creationist arguments about some mythical barrier to kinds - evidently based on differential morphology or some kind of unidentified taxic discontinuity. There are simply too many examples where this "law" is violated.

quote:

---

You can switch any two adjacent skulls in the line and you wouldn't know the difference unless you have dates for the individual skulls. Even specialists ultimately turn to dates for the order. You could switch any three adjacents skulls with much the same result. So where is the line?

​

It magically appears when you compare a skull from the end with one from the beginning, but this doesn't represent the issue properly.

---

That's why it is such a problem to classify such organisms; just take the many different breeds of dogs for example-wide range in size, body shape, colour, ratio of body parts, etc. So how do we show they come from different species? Evolutionists assume that those fossils "show" the evolution of hominids. Like you said, how do we know they are "new species"?As for the line, changes from reptiles - birds could definitely be classified as macroevolution; one type of organism to another. However, just give me one example that you suppose would be classified as macroevolution.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
That's why it is such a problem to classify such organisms;

---

The skulls can be dated and organised by time.

quote:

---

just take the many different breeds of dogs for example-wide range in size, body shape, colour, ratio of body parts, etc. So how do we show they come from different species?

---

Dogs are a beautiful example of evolution-- the selective force in this case being human intervention. I have a chihuahua and I have a rottweiler. These two are about effectively reproductively isolated one from the other-- right at the edge of speciation. But more to your point, how do we show they are from different species?First, some things about species.The idea of species is a fuzzy concept. There are several ways to calculate species and there are exceptions to every one of them. The idea of species exists for human convenience-- a result of our weird need to classify. These ambiguities don't go away until you get away from the edge, say to the genus level.Evolution doesn't require hard, radical species boundaries hence our difficulty finding a set of defining characteristics for speciation. In fact, it seems that these fuzzy boundaries are exactly what one would expect when dealing with creatures which slowly diverge from a comon ancestor.In living organisms we determine species via a great deal of observation-- which critters mate, etc. With fossils, we can't do that so the distinction is done via average frequency of various traits of the skeleton-- funny protuberences on the knee, oddly shaped teeth, etc. Then compare this to the average variations within modern species such as lorises, lemurs, monkeys and apes.

quote:

---

Evolutionists assume that those fossils "show" the evolution of hominids.

---

The thing is, we don't have to get the species right-- only the order. Where we draw the species line is somewhat arbitrary. We can trace traits from 10mya to the present-- many traits-- that is enough to show descent.

quote:

---

Like you said, how do we know they are "new species"?

---

The implied argument here seems to be that all of the fossils from australopithicenes to homo sapien are the same species.The variations in morphology are extreme. If they are all the same species then some humans should look, or used to look, like apes-- well pretty close. So we classify this morphology as a different genus and species. Actually, defining primate traits can be traced all the way back to a little mouse-like thing contemporary with the dinosaurs. By your logic, we should slippery-slope all the way back to it, and just call it all one species.

quote:

---

As for the line, changes from reptiles - birds could definitely be classified as macroevolution; one type of organism to another.

---

I believe that reptiles and birds split from a common ancestor.

quote:

---

However, just give me one example that you suppose would be classified as macroevolution.

---

Macroevolution is a function of scale. It is the result of the accumulation of small changes. It does not happen over night-- even punctuated evolution happens over milions of years. Assuming a relatively good fossil record, any adjacent fossils will not show macroevolution; but skip five or six million years and you might see it. Why is this so hard to understand?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Okay,
My user name has changed, due to my password not working properly.Evolution is science based. It is based on evidence. What evidence must be considered before basing anything upon it. Physical, observable, or empirical. We have plenty of physical evidence to support[notice I did not say prove] the thoery of evolution. Not all evidence has to come from controlled experiments. Just becuase it does not come from controlled experiments does this mean that we should invalidate it.Take for example, the models of the atom or the cell membrane. We accepted those as theories and worked with them until we had the technology to test those theories and in both cases, we have had to make major revisions to the earlier models.Just becuase something has not been demonstrated, do we dismiss it? The world was revolutionized with the Thoery of Relativity which has only been proven due to Hubble. Did we dismiss it becase there was no proof. Absoulutly not. I believe in time there will be more data, and I am sure we will have to revise the Theory of Evolution.Creationism is not science. To have a creation that implies a Creator. And if we are talking about a Creator we have encroached the Magesterium of Science with the Magesterium of Religion. Not good. Science does not deny nor prove the existence of the Creator, this is not the question it is supposed to answer, that lies with the Magesterium of Religion. Science and Religion are two different fields of teaching or Magesterium.A theory need only to be theoretically testable, until that technology is reached. You only have to say how you would theoretically test it, that is what Einstien did when he proposed his Theory of Relativity. If you cannot test it, it is not a part of the Magesterium of Science.There is a great book that I was privately assigned by my biology professor to read, it is Stephan Gould's Rock of Ages. Goes in to more depth dealing with the Magesterium of different fields.True, glad you liked the last conclusion. And hey nice article. I did enjoy the website. Sorry in so late in posting.Edit by adminnemooseus: Spaces added, to separate paragraphs, to improve readability[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-13-2002]

MACROEVOLUTION - Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of new taxonomic groups, evolutioinary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extiniction.MICROEVOLUTION - A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation.Macroevolution is dealing with evolution on a grand scale, with all these factors listed. It is dealing with many populations at one time.
Microevolution begins when you begin to consider one population and do not consider the rest. This is where the line is drawn.DEFINITIONS TAKEN OUT OF BIOLOGY SIXTH EDITION BY CAMPBELL AND REECE

A portion of my message 9, of the topic, to (perhaps?) guide things more back on topic:

quote:

---

First, let me try to set some ground rules for this discussion of a hypothetical situation.

​

1) Any constitutional impediments are set aside.

​

2) The conflict is between science and fundimentalist (or near fundimentalist) Christian creationism. Other religions or varities or Christianity need not be involved.

​

3) The fundimentalist view need not get equal time; They get the time they need to present their science (and I here deliberatly don't put quotes around science). --- AND --- Mainstream science is presented in it's full form, not some variation that has been "watered down" to molify the fundimentalist perspective. In other words, both sides get to present all their science.

​

4) Put the creationist science into the same classes as the mainstream science. Let creationist biology go up directly against mainstream biology. Same for physics, geology, and wherever else the creationist wish to interject their science.

​

-----

​

Now let mainstream and creationist science battle it out. What will happen? Will the creationist side even be able to come up with a creationist science curriculum?

​

-----

​

(And as a side question, will Kent Hovland get widespread exposure, to display his wonderful ideas? --- In the present system, is he not largely having his success by preaching to the choir?)

---

So, I ask again, how well will creation science hold up, to the scrutiny of widespread exposure?Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-13-2002]