Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?
Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 308 (288444)
02-19-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wiseman45
02-16-2006 11:12 AM


Re: nitpick
I'm reading about how perfect the theory of evolution is but I'm troubled by several aspects of it.
1. I've always heard that 'scientific theories' must be duplicatable.
2. I have yet to see anyone duplicate life. I've read all kinds of theories about lightning striking some pool of 'soup' and suddenly there's life. Why have those scientists not been able to apply their theories and duplicate the origin? After all, it had to be totally uncontrolled and accidental.
3. My understanding is that evolution is a 'use it or lose it' situation. However, according to what I've read, the most intelligent, or most efficient, humans use about 15% of their brain. According to the fossels that evolutionists claim are early man, they had smaller brains than we have today. If for example, an eagle's wingspan was compared to the human brain's over abundance, that eagle would have a wingspan of approximately 35 feet.
4. Man's eyes aren't the best, nose isn't the best, ears aren't the best and athletic ability is extremely low compared to animals. Man's 'development' really makes no sense, overkill in the brain and yet lacking in the basic life requirements.
5. Evolutionists have yet to determine exactly what 'life' is. What is it that one minute something is alive and although everything physical is still the same, the next minute it is dead...without life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wiseman45, posted 02-16-2006 11:12 AM wiseman45 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ReverendDG, posted 02-19-2006 9:23 PM Murphy has not replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2006 12:37 AM Murphy has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 17 of 308 (288454)
02-19-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Murphy
02-19-2006 8:41 PM


Re: nitpick
1. yes evolution is duplicatable, biologists do it all the time in labs, as someone said on the board once, people are confusing replication of evolution with replication of natural history, we can't reproduce history, but we can learn from it
2. evolution isn't about the origins of life its about the changes of populations over time through mutation, filtered by natural selection, you are thinking of abiogenesis which is at an early stage right now
3. i think you are misunderstanding the principle of NS and evolution,its not about "use it or lose it" its about having the best fit for the enveriment, if say you spend more and more time in water, not one lifeform but a population, you might lose your need for longer limbs, over time as the population gets filtered out of genes of longer limbs, they would develop flippers say
pluse humans use all the brain, its just a myth
4.what you are calling development is need, with the larger brain able to think of weapons that would defeat the biggest oppenent of our niche do you really think we need claws? you are concluding a flawed understanding, its not about being the best, but having the right tools for the right job. in our case its a larger brain
5. sorry, as i said before you are equating two differing sciences,you need to talk to the chemists for that one
What is it that one minute something is alive and although everything physical is still the same, the next minute it is dead...without life?
what are you trying to say here?, dead vs alive?, if you mean something like a virus, well they are inbetween since they don't reproduce themselves, but use cells to do it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Murphy, posted 02-19-2006 8:41 PM Murphy has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 308 (288499)
02-20-2006 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Murphy
02-19-2006 8:41 PM


Duplication etc.
1. I've always heard that 'scientific theories' must be duplicatable.
A theory (used as a scientific term) is a "model" or an "explanation". It is a grand, overall description of why what we see happens or came to be.
What must be duplicatable is the individual observations or experiments that are used as part of building, supporting or attacking a theory.
So if I say that a particular hominid skull has such-and-such characteristics that make be see it as being more or less close to another specimen or current humans then when others look the characteristic observations should be duplicatable by them. They should see the same things. That is why researchers are anxious for release of new finds. The finder gets exclusive access for a reasonable time to publish the first official descriptions and establish their priority. Then others must be allowed access to the find (at a mininium to very carefully done casts and, at some point, for somethings, the originals).
Once the basic facts are agreed to (duplicated in others eyes) then the arguing over interpretation starts.
As another example the ToE suggests certain things will happen to a population under specific circumstances. I might right a computer program of that to see what should occur. Someone else should get the same results with another version of a program of the aspect of population genetics under study. Someone else could also examine and critisize my computer program as not accurately reflecting what the evolutionary model is saying.
Still someone else might see if there is a way of testing the programs attempt at emulating the evolutionary model of populations by observing real world populations. My observations might be with west indian land snails. Someone else should duplicate these observations of populations with beetles in south america.
That is what is meant by duplication.
"Life", as noted by someone else, has proven to be very, very difficult to pin down a definition for. We kinda agree that a rock isn't alive but a bacteria is. Viri, noted, are sort of in between. Prions are not, to anyone I've read, alive (they are chemicals). Some viri are somehwat close to prions. Some are very large and complex; not so far from bacteria. There is no sharp line.
This gets worse if we consider a hypothetical environment where the first "life" may have arisen. There have been suggestions (how well founded I don't know) that viri come first. Others point out that some of the most highly adapted (read evolved -- more read: *advanced*) organisms are the parasites. Just because something can't even eat on it's own doesn't mean it isn't alive and maybe better at what it does than you and I.
As noted above the origin of life is not a consideration of the biological evolutionary explanation. This explanation is only about how "living" things change over time. It takes as input something that is "alive enough" to evolve. That means a basic imperfect replicator that is under some kind of selective pressure. The imperfect replicator could be, originally, something we might, today, call a chemical.
The 15% (usually stated as 10 %) is a total myth that has never had any basis in fact. Our brain is an expensive organ to run. It has proven useful in our "success" so far. It is showing signs of being a dangerous over specialization that may prove to be an evolutionary dead end.
4. You example of something with a bit of an (or a lot of) extreme in it's adaptations is exactly what natural or sexual selection can end up producing. (especially sexual). There is no reason to think anything has to "make sense", be "perfectly tuned" or anything else. It just gets that way a little at a time. Our brain may well be, terribly literally, "overkill".
5. Noted above, it is not true that something is dead at one point and alive at another. There isn't any deviding line. Life is just complex chemistry. A bit simpler and it's just chemistry. A bit more complex and the evil doctor is running around the lab yelling "It's ALIVE!".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Murphy, posted 02-19-2006 8:41 PM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 10:50 AM NosyNed has not replied

Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 308 (288615)
02-20-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by NosyNed
02-20-2006 12:37 AM


Re: Duplication etc.
Thanks. Answers lead to additional or more focused questions.
If 'life' could be accidentally started, and continued, in uncontrolled conditions, shouldn't it be possible within very controlled labratory conditions? I've been hearing about scientists working on this for 50 years.
As I see it, evolution is adaptation of a species, not one species becoming something else. I'm not an authority by any means but when I read some report on it there is always a large gap in the line leading up to the 'conclusion'. I could accept that except others use that gap in evidence as 'proof' against an outcome they don't want.
It sounds like your position or question about 'life' is about where mine is. Something is alive or dead, to one degree or so, but what is it that makes it live? What is that essense or whatever that causes something to live? If it's chemical, then it should easily be reproducable.
If the human brain is 'overkill', then why? Why would anything in nature that is successful be overkill? There are mutations in just about every living organism but something that is overdone is very seldom successful.
My college biology prof. was a leading authority on fruit flies, and an extremely interesting lecturer as well, but all he seemed to accept was that evolution is adapting to changing conditions. I don't think he believed that one species became another species, but did modify itself and became a successful species or died out.
As for humans being a 'deadend' species, I think we're killing ourselves with our 'lifesaving' medicine and surgery. Problem genes are spread instead of being ended. A high school friend's first child had to have an operation immediately to correct a major throat problem. She lived and has had several kids, who I would think has that problem gene now passed on to future generations. Multiply that by all such operations performed on a daily basis, plus the life saving medications, and the weakening of the human system seems certain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2006 12:37 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 12:43 PM Murphy has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 308 (288675)
02-20-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Murphy
02-20-2006 10:50 AM


Re: Duplication etc.
If 'life' could be accidentally started, and continued, in uncontrolled conditions, shouldn't it be possible within very controlled labratory conditions? I've been hearing about scientists working on this for 50 years.
You can't easily replicate the right conditions.
Maybe we could create the conditions in a test tube. But the early earth might have been the equivalent of a billion such test tubes, each being periodically replaced by another such test tube, and this continuing for maybe 100 million years.
If abiogenesis is highly probable, then maybe it could easily happen in the lab. If it is highly improbable, then it might need a vast number of experimental situations, repeated for millions of years, such as may have happened in the young earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 10:50 AM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 1:38 PM nwr has replied

Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 308 (288694)
02-20-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
02-20-2006 12:43 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
If I recall correctly, scientists had figured out many years ago what would have had to be included to encourage spontaneous life. If that was the case, then most of the time and number of 'experiments', both in nature and in the lab, would be eliminated.
I love science, always have. But one of the basics that I've learned is that scientists are to be taken with a huge grain of salt! They tend to jump onto something that they want to be and ignore obvious proof that doesn't support their position.
I think it was Einstein who stated that the probability of life not being of some kind of design was too great to be possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 12:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 2:17 PM Murphy has replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2006 3:05 PM Murphy has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 308 (288713)
02-20-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Murphy
02-20-2006 1:38 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
If I recall correctly, scientists had figured out many years ago what would have had to be included to encourage spontaneous life.
I'm afraid your recollection is a bit off.
Scientists have hypothesized what kind of conditions might have been present. Notice that is hypothesized and not figured out. There have been a variety of hypotheses, and they change with new knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 1:38 PM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 2:31 PM nwr has replied

Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 308 (288718)
02-20-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
02-20-2006 2:17 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
That could be so, however, how many actually separate the two? I remember 'facts' in science books that have been completely changed with more knowledge.
What is really important is that so many think they have the answer even if the 'answer' is hypothetical.
Personally, I think the idea of 'life' being brought here by some meteor or such would have a higher probably than the 'soup' theory. However, that doesn't answer the question of what is actually 'life' nor how it ultimately got started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 2:17 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 3:39 PM Murphy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 308 (288735)
02-20-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Murphy
02-20-2006 1:38 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
But one of the basics that I've learned is that scientists are to be taken with a huge grain of salt! They tend to jump onto something that they want to be and ignore obvious proof that doesn't support their position.
Uh-huh. So, essentially, what you're suggesting is that the majority of scientists are either dishonest or simpletons?
What exactly is your experience in the sciences that leads you to conclude that scientists are ignoring counterindications in their data? I work with scientists every day - it's possible to make the argument that I am one myself, though I would not claim such a lofty title yet - and absolutely never in my experience has a scientist reached for data that simply wasn't there, or ignored a disproof of their hypothesis.
Leveling a charge of fraud against an entire profession is a very bold move indeed and I would like you to explain exactly how it is you feel comfortable doing that. Are you trained in the sciences? Do you do science? Do you work with scientists in their laboratories? Or is this just behavior that you're assuming to be true of most scientists?
I think it was Einstein who stated that the probability of life not being of some kind of design was too great to be possible.
Isn't he one of the lying, fraudulent, idiot scientists that you've just told us we need to take with a "grain of salt"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 1:38 PM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied

wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 308 (288742)
02-20-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by EZscience
02-16-2006 4:27 PM


There's no doubt about that
On a point made earlier;
I think it would have been in the president's best interest to stay out of this whole debacle. I about ripped the newspaper in half when I read the article talking about that.
And, ANYONE who considers science to be democratic or needs to be that way needs to get a life. Someone once said (proably some Roman or Greek) "I refuse to be part of a system in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. That's what's going on here. Because the creationists have wizened up (kind of) and created that cute, but pathetic little idea called ID, people in this country who are normally shaky on the whole issue are being suckered into support by the masses. Teach all of the "theories". Let the kids decide. Uh-huh.
You see, what's really going on here is that the religious fundamentalists of this country have decided that the dark ages weren't that bad after all and maybe we should start taking strides towards that kind of thinking. For those of you who are not aware, the dark ages essentially centered around this; science and progressive thinking of any sort is blasphemy, and anyone anywhere possessing those ideas must be extinguished.
Creationists know that the ToE contradicts creationism, and that their only real argument is that evolution does not explain absolutely everything. They also think that if the majority of the populace thinks that evil-lution is well, wrong-headed or otherwise bad, then they can make it so that evolution will be restricted only to its supporters, not the other way around. The sad part is, they're right. With politicians like Bush feeling pressured to play towards the religious right, and with a general ignorance of evolution in particular, evolution can be removed from the forum. It will take them time, but unless things turn around now, and I do mean NOW, we might as well shed this form of government called democracy and call ourselves the Holy Christian Republic of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by EZscience, posted 02-16-2006 4:27 PM EZscience has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 26 of 308 (288746)
02-20-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Murphy
02-20-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
The scientists that I have read or listened to have been very tentative in their ideas about abiogenesis. They have, all along, been clear that they did not have a clear solution to the question of the origin of life.
Yes, panspermia (life coming from outer space) is another possibility often mentioned. That shifts the problem to one of how life arose somewhere in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 2:31 PM Murphy has not replied

Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 308 (288765)
02-20-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
02-20-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
No, as I said, I'm not a scientist but have had an interest in science as long as I can remember.
I remember about 10 to 15 years ago many, if not most, scientists were warning us about a coming ice age, that the earth was cooling. Then it became global warming. Are you going to say that they didn't jump to conclusions beyond their knowledge on either side?
In high school, in the late 50's we were taught that the oil was going to run out in 20 years or less if there was no increase in demand such as another war. I hated that because I was very much into cars. The scientists who had proposed that must have not had knowledge of the possibility of oil supplies being located, but made the statement anyway.
Same time, we were taught that the plate theory of continental drift was bunk. I guess some had pushed that idea but the accepted 'science' was to the contrary. More lack of knowledge before jumping on a theory.
Do I think scientists are liars? Of course not. I think most are very dedicated but want their theories or positions to be right and accepted... and many, if not most, want to be the first to expose something.
Accepted 'truth' can be very difficult to change as has been shown throughout history. Evolution was not accepted immediately and very well could be proven someday to be totally wrong, just as global cooling has at this point to be 'totally wrong'... but I believe the jury is still out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2006 3:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2006 4:36 PM Murphy has replied
 Message 30 by EZscience, posted 02-20-2006 4:55 PM Murphy has replied
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2006 4:56 PM Murphy has replied
 Message 34 by nator, posted 02-20-2006 7:17 PM Murphy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 308 (288772)
02-20-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Murphy
02-20-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
No, as I said, I'm not a scientist but have had an interest in science as long as I can remember.
Oh, ok. So when you level this charge that scientists as a rule ignore clear contradictions to their theories, you're just making that up. You've never actually seen any scientist do that; that's just how you imagine it. Gotcha.
Are you going to say that they didn't jump to conclusions beyond their knowledge on either side?
What, just because they were wrong? Did it occur to you, possibly, that the reason that the scientific consensus - which never was that there would be an ice age, by the way - concluded global warming when before it had not was because they discovered new evidence that prompted them to change their mind?
Same time, we were taught that the plate theory of continental drift was bunk.
Again, did it occur to you that the reason for this change was because, at the time you're talking about, evidence was unknown that later was known? No? Didn't occur to you at all?
More lack of knowledge before jumping on a theory.
What makes you think they knew they lacked knowledge? Did it occur to you that they came to the conclusion that the evidence warranted, and that as the new evidence comes in, it's reasonable to come to new conclusions?
The charge you leveled wasn't that scientists lack infinite knowledge; of course they don't. Science is done by humans who come to tentative conclusions based on what they know at the time. And that's why the conclusions are always tentative - sometimes we learn something new that changes our mind. And that's a good thing. Stasis is a feature, generally, of wrong ideas.
The charge you leveled was that scientists knowingly ignore evidence that their theories are wrong. Again, is that a charge that you can substiantiate, or is that just something you're making up? Again, my experience with scientists - which is pretty considerable - is that I've never met a single one who would consider ignoring data simply because it would disprove their theory. Every single scientist I know has a considerably greater interest in getting it right than in proving their theories, and that's what we would expect - you often gain as much knowledge and acclaim from disproving a theory as proving it. Either way you learn something new. But if you fudge the data you learn nothing.
Do I think scientists are liars? Of course not.
Then why level a made-up charge of dishonesty? Remember that you just accused most scientists of knowingly falsifying their data or ommitting significant disconfirming evidence. Is that a charge you have evidence for, or are you just making things up?
Evolution was not accepted immediately and very well could be proven someday to be totally wrong, just as global cooling has at this point to be 'totally wrong'... but I believe the jury is still out.
On what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 4:24 PM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 7:10 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 02-20-2006 7:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminIRH
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 308 (288785)
02-20-2006 4:50 PM


T O P I C
For reference, the topic is "Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?"
Please stay on topic.

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 30 of 308 (288788)
02-20-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Murphy
02-20-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Duplication etc.
Murphy writes:
Evolution was not accepted immediately and very well could be proven someday to be totally wrong
That is simply not going to happen.
You seem to ignore the fact that evolution is a highly successful model for predicting the course of changes we actually observe happening in the natural world all the time. Those of us working in various applied disciplines of biology, anyway. If it wasn't we wouldn't use it as the foundation for breeding better crops, preventing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. etc. And it's not like there are any viable alternatives to choose from. ID doesn't 'explain' anything, anymore than creation does. It's just science versus mythology.
And your earlier comment about organisms adapting to change but not changing into different species is not valid either.
At some point changes between populations are sufficient that they don't constitute the same gene pool anymore. This is reproductive isolation. At that point, they have separate evolutionary fates. They may not look different at first, but they inevitably become more and more different either by selection or purely by chance, because there is no more gene flow. Speciation is just a continued extrapolation of the same process of change that occurs within species. The differences possible after speciation have virtually no limits. Don't let the creationists tell you otherwise.
ABE (to return to topic)
SOOOO... if you deny students a chance to study evolutionary theory - you deny them access to real scientific understanding that is not only very useful, but very powerful. And go ahead, let them teach 'about' the creation myth if you want (there's sure not much to teach) - JUST DON'T TRY AND CALL IT SCIENCE.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 02-20-2006 04:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 4:24 PM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Murphy, posted 02-20-2006 7:20 PM EZscience has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024