|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murphy Inactive Member |
"That's not adaptation; that's metamorphosis, a programmed body development in the organism. Insects metamorph no matter what environment you place them in; adaptation is inherently environment-dependant."
I know it's metamorphosis. What I said and gave an example of was changing from one type of creature into a different creature. Metamorphosis would be an example if it weren't the same life, just in different stages. We've not even mentioned intelligence. That's way beyond evolution. I asked if there were any definite changes into a different form that has been observed without big gaps that have to be filled by speculation. Proof is proof. Speculation is not proof, nor should it be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murphy Inactive Member |
It appears the 'goal posts' are being moved here. If evolution is the answer, and the sole answer, then shouldn't there be proof that such has happened and is happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murphy Inactive Member |
I saw an article several years ago, I kept the magazine until I moved and it went out with a lot of other stuff, but it talked about an 'explosion of life' and the sudden appearance of thousands of different types of animals some millions of years ago. Don't remember the number nor the way they came up with their conclusion.
If, as you say, life has evolved from simple animals to more complex, etc. why would a worm evolve into a legged or flying creature of some sort. I'm not talking about a single worm, but a species (maybe I'm not using the correct scientific term) of worms. I would think that would be the natural progression?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What I said and gave an example of was changing from one type of creature into a different creature. Metamorphosis would be an example if it weren't the same life, just in different stages. Evolution doesn't posit creatures changing into other creatures; evolution describes how populations change over time by means of descent with modification. So your example is an example of science fiction; organisms don't "morph" in evolution, they give rise to offspring that are slightly different than themselves. Which is, of course, exactly what we observe.
I asked if there were any definite changes into a different form that has been observed without big gaps that have to be filled by speculation. Hundreds. For instance, the observed development of multicellularity from previously unicellular organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If, as you say, life has evolved from simple animals to more complex, etc. why would a worm evolve into a legged or flying creature of some sort. Because a population moved into an environment where adaptations such as legginess or flight were supremely beneficial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
Why is evolution still being taught if it is not 100% correct or 100% proven or whatever degree of certainty you require? Well, let's see...
1)It is a theory (well, many interconnected theories) that has been supported by the available evidence since its publication in 1859! (Yes, I know that the amount of time that an idea is accepted should not be used to verify to its acceptance. I am just pointing out the viability and vitality of the theory.) 2)The ToE is very good a what it does--explaining natural phenomena and making accurate predictions. For instance, every fossil we find and correctly date adds to the pile of evidence and is predicted to be where we find that fossil. 3)The ToE is falsifiable. Has it been falsified yet? NO!!! 4)The ToE is incredibly useful. Since the introduction of modern genetics, we have been able to unlock the history of the DNA of many organisms and their relationships to other organisms. I am not saying that we would not have this knowledge of these genomes w/o evolution, but the ToE tells us where and what to look for. These relationships are crucial in many fields--agriculture and immunology for example. 5)Any claim that is w/in or supports the ToE is throughly criticized through peer-review. As with the rest of science, hoaxes don't last. 6)All other alternatives to evolution have been debunked. Yes, even creationism and ID have been flattened! I teach evolution b/c it is essential to any understanding of the history of life on Earth. I teach evolution b/c it is science. I teach evolution b/c it is incredibly well-supported by the scientific evidence. I teach evolution b/c my students deserve a good science education. I teach evolution b/c it is what it explains--naturalistic processes that can be tested and left to stand on the merits of the evidence. I teach evolution b/c it is the only scientifically viable answer.
If evolution is the answer, and the sole answer, then shouldn't there be proof that such has happened and is happening? The proof is all around us--in genes and DNA, in fossils, in embryology, in homologous body structures, etc. You seem to think that just b/c we cannot do something now, we won't eventually be able to do it! Yet, even if we did do it, people cry foul b/c we did it and it wasn't natural! Science provides possible explanations for past phenomena. For example, just b/c the gases in the Miller/Urey experiment were wrong, people throw the findings away. That is not how science operates. Scientists change and improve the experiments to better replicate what most likely happened. Other experiments since Miller/Urey have shown that organic compounds can develop under numerous different circumstances with various materials and energy sources. When you get a chance, take a look at what happens around the black smokers on the ocean floor! (I know this is abiogenesis and not necessary for the ToE to be true, but I think it is a good example and appropriate based on the previous discussions.) The thing that surprises me most is the lack of wonder on the part of people who expound on the wonders of their creator! I am not religious (although I once was), but the shear reliance on revelation to guide the human spirit at the expense of our senses is a damning rebuke of who we are and who we can become! Who do you want to be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, do you know the height, build, and eye color of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother? If you don't does that mean you didn't have one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Well you can't assume everyone in Kansas is a Bible-thumping creationsist. That would be like assuming we are all Republican !
Murphy writes: when was the last time you saw real evidence, not conjecture, of one species turning into a different species There are *tons* of examples of direct observation of speciation in progress. Try this one here for starters. ...and don't come back and say they are still the same *kind* of bird !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It appears the 'goal posts' are being moved here. If evolution is the answer, and the sole answer, then shouldn't there be proof that such has happened and is happening? No goal posts have been moved. You asked for evidence of speciation being obserevd, I gave it to you. It seems you didn't know how species were defined, not a problem, its a relatively common area of ignorance. I was ignorant of it until I came here There isn't proof, but there is overwhelming evidence that it has happened. I discuss this evidence in this thread, feel free to go there and ask further questions about the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I just noticed this story on BBC this morning.
"US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution." I find it interesting that the one ID proponent quoted, a supposed biology teacher in Missouri, wants to teach students about ID because "if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society." This is, in essence, the same objection of creationists to the fact that evolution is not a 'directed' process and therefore negates the need for a 'guiding hand of God'. If people don't believe in a designer, then their life will somehow be lacking a higher purpose and their behavioral standards will deteriorate. What needs recognition here is that science does not in any way aim to dictate human morality (as religion does), it only infers logical, naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena. It is only those who wish to transpose their own religious and societal ideals on everyone else in a very unscientific manner that are the hold-out objectors to teaching principles of evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murphy Inactive Member |
Several posters here seem to think I'm against the teaching of evolution. I'm not. I think it's interesting and does answer some questions as animals adapt to conditions, but I don't see it as an 'ends all' theory. A bird changing it's mating call, to me, is only adapting to what may be an area that's too crowded or has other pressure to change. Does that make it a 'new' species? Scientifically it sounds like it does, so maybe the word 'species' isn't the correct one for a real change that someone outside a limited 'expert' would observe. Real change would be when a fin becomes a leg or a leg becomes a wing, etc. I know that those changes would take a long time in nature, but shouldn't that line be observable through fossils? Especially if the 'where we should look' concept is leading the search.
From the link in your post:"These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools." I think this is dumb. If something is a solid theory, it should be taught, with the supporting evidence AND the questions unanswered by the theory, as a theory. If there is more than one strong theory for something then they all should be taught. I'm not convinced that adaptation is how things get more complex in nature. I lost most of my hearing through my profession and seeing the complexity of the ear and everything that must be perfect to allow it to work at all is mind boggling. What I observe in nature is more a simplification process, complex being made simplier. ID doesn't answer all questions either, but a combination of the two would seem to answer all. Maybe the answer is to admit that we just don't know!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Scientifically it sounds like it does, so maybe the word 'species' isn't the correct one for a real change that someone outside a limited 'expert' would observe. This is the same conclusion the larger creationist groups came to some decades ago. They realized that fighting against new species was a lost cause so they moved the line up a bit. As new genera were observed they notched it up again. They seem to have it at about the family level now -- more or less. You might want to drop in on the "define a kind" thread for what problems they get into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I know that those changes would take a long time in nature, but shouldn't that line be observable through fossils? It can be inferred, but not observed. We can see lobe finned fishes, and fishes with lungs etc. The best evidence lies in the DNA though, which provides absolutely enormous amounts of evidence for these large scale changes. You mention ears. Here is an interesting picture about ears, and I have a message that explains the diagram. Its not concrete evidence as you'd be right to say, but it is yet another piece of evidence to go into the growing pile of evidences. As I said though, the DNA evidence is the most compelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
There was a recent Nature paper on the evolution of the middle ear which showed a transitional form between Osteolepiform fish and primitive tetrapods (Brazeau and Ahlberg, 2006).
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murphy Inactive Member |
I think you may be misinterpreting the word usage as moving the goal posts. As I said, the word 'species' to me, a non-scientist, could have a different, less limited meaning than to a scientist using the word every day.
I see color change, hair development or loss, change in a mating call, etc. as adapting to the surroundings as opposed to actual changes in the creature. What scientific term that would be, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024