Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 61 of 308 (289135)
02-21-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Murphy
02-21-2006 10:54 AM


Re: Apropos the OP
Murphy writes:
I think this is dumb. If something is a solid theory, it should be taught
That's the whole point. If a theory is not provable by experiment it is not a 'solid' (=valid) scientific theory. To be a scientific, it must be possible to disprove a theory. That is why ID and creationism don't cut it. They don't set up any framework for experimentation. They don't say 'measure these things and such and such a pattern should be evident'.
Murphy writes:
What I observe in nature is more a simplification process, complex being made simplier.
Maybe you're not looking in the right places.
I work as a research scientist in applied ecology and the more I observe, the more complex I usually find things are than I originally thought they were.
Murphy writes:
ID doesn't answer all questions either, but a combination of the two would seem to answer all.
Sorry, but you can't combine science with non-science and expect higher orders of understanding to emerge. I suspect you are seeking answers to questions of 'final origins' and it is important to remember that evolutionary theory does not address such questions. It is an entirely mechanistic set of explanations.
Murphy writes:
Maybe the answer is to admit that we just don't know!
About final origins? Yes.
About the mechanisms of how living things change? No. We are very close to a near-complete understanding (well - some of us anyway ).
However, within the larger context of scientific endeavor your proposition can only be considered unacceptably defeatist.
Not being statisfied with 'not knowing' is precisely what has always driven intelligent people to become scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 10:54 AM Murphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2006 12:19 PM EZscience has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 62 of 308 (289138)
02-21-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by EZscience
02-21-2006 12:08 PM


Re: Apropos the OP
We are very close to a near-complete understanding
Thats the sort of remark that almost always precedes a massive shift in a discipline which radically changes our understanding of how much we know, think of Lord Kelvin's pronouncements about physics towards the end of the 19th century.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 12:08 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 12:24 PM Wounded King has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 63 of 308 (289139)
02-21-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Murphy
02-21-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Higher than species
Murphy writes:
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.
The scientific term is 'adaptation'.
Are you inferring that the process of adaptation has some imaginary limits? Becuase the accumulation of differential adaptations is exactly how species diverge once their gene pools are separate (with some chance effects also involved). So speciation starts in many cases with changes in behaviors that are important in sexual reproduction, like the bird songs. Yes, there are influences of local conditions molding local adaptations, but the *consequences* of these differences between populations can be (1) reproductive isolation of populations and (2) accumulation of even more differences between them. There is no rationale for setting any upper limit on how different things (populations, species, higher taxa, etc.) can eventually become. You will come to appreciate this if you look at the 'Define kinds' thread. No one has yet come up with a meaningful definition of a 'kind' becasue it isn't a scientific concept. It is a concept used to obfuscate and avoid proper taxonomic terminology that does have a scientific basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 11:52 AM Murphy has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 64 of 308 (289141)
02-21-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
02-21-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Apropos the OP
I don't mean 'complete understanding' in the sense of having recognized all nuances of the process of evolution in every biological context.
I mean 'complete' in the sense that the major parameters and processes are well described and understood. I don't think we are going to see a paradigm shift that shakes the foudnations of evolutionary theory, although there may be some important and interesting corollaries of ToE that are yet to be elucidated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2006 12:19 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 65 of 308 (289154)
02-21-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Murphy
02-21-2006 11:52 AM


Defining terms
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.
Discussions can not be had without clear definitions of terms. So you have to, for the duration of the discussion, stick to some agreed to terms.
There has been a lot of work done to try to be clear about the definition of the term "species". The biological species concept is one of these.
For living things it comes down to an population which "regularly" interbreeds.
It turns out that the very nature of living things means that this is a "fuzzy" edged definition. There are different species which are different enough that they are named as different species but regularly interbreed and produce fertile offspring (some trees come to mind but I'd have to dig around to find the specific example). In other cases animals which are "obviously" the same species are NOT. They do not interbreed at all but telling them apart if freakin' difficult if you're not one of them.
Once you are away from the species level it is all really a matter of convention. It is convenient to group life-forms in some way (cause there are too dammed many of them to list alphabetically -- especially if you don't have a name for it). It turns out that picking the right specific characteristics (cladistics) allows for a natural hierarchical grouping to form. This makes it easier to organize things and possible (if difficult) to slot a new discovery in to the right place.
Such a hierarchical grouping is exactly what one would expect from the result of evolutionary processes.
More, there is a high degree of correlation between the hierarchy based on the characteristics of animals and their DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 11:52 AM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 1:29 PM NosyNed has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 66 of 308 (289177)
02-21-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Murphy
02-21-2006 10:54 AM


Re: Apropos the OP
The thing is 'ID' is not a solid theory. "ID" is not even a theory. At it's current state, is a just a philosphical statement, with an attempt to disprove evolution by pointing at holes in knowledge, (or perceived holes, ignorance of the I.D. proponents part is not neccesiarly a gap in knowledge'
It makes no prediction on it's own, it is not testable, nor does it have any use what so ever (from a science poitn of view).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 10:54 AM Murphy has not replied

Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 308 (289183)
02-21-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
02-21-2006 12:44 PM


Re: Defining terms
Okay, I see a jackass and a horse as different 'species'. They can interbreed but as far as I know the offspring is sterile. But, an Appaloosa horse is not a different 'species' from a Bay or Buckskin, yet the coloring is much different and they have different conformations, etc. Does that clear my position up a little? If the definition of a different species is that the offspring is sterile, wouldn't that make two birds with only their song different, the same species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2006 12:44 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2006 1:53 PM Murphy has not replied

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


Message 68 of 308 (289190)
02-21-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Murphy
02-21-2006 1:29 PM


biolocial species
If the definition of a different species is that the offspring is sterile, wouldn't that make two birds with only their song different, the same species?
No, the concept is "don't normally produce viable offspring in the wild". It doesn't matter why they don't produce offspring just that they don't. The sterility of offspring is one marker for different species though.
There may be various external barriers to breeding (the songs), internal (some insects catch a parasite the separates them IIRC) or genetic etc.
OH OH, we have gotten WAY OFF TOPIC. No more of this I'm afraid. I wasn't paying attention.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-21-2006 01:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Murphy, posted 02-21-2006 1:29 PM Murphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by hitchy, posted 02-23-2006 1:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 69 of 308 (289681)
02-23-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NosyNed
02-21-2006 1:53 PM


Re: biolocial species
I teach the barriers to mating when we get to classification. Does that get this back on topic?
Anyway, I teach the biological species concept, but I find that it breaks down when we talk about bacteria. Also, asexually reproducing organisms don't necessarily fall into the bsc either. However, if we take other things into account that point to two organisms being or not being the same, such as genetic info and interspecific and intraspecific behaviors and competition, then we can better define what a species is.
Any ideas on how to teach high school sophomores and freshmen about species without becoming too bogged down in the exceptions? Thanks!
BTW, creationism doesn't offer a better explanation when it comes to delineating species. It just says that god created the species individually basically in the forms that we find them today. Talk about dodging the question! One more reason to not include it in biology class. I think if creationist/ID proponants would look into how much trouble teaching these ideas would be and how they do not fit into any biological framework that makes sense, these misguided souls would stop trying to muddy the intelligence of our youth with their worries about salvation and not pissing off some god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2006 1:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by EZscience, posted 02-23-2006 9:23 AM hitchy has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 70 of 308 (289729)
02-23-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by hitchy
02-23-2006 1:36 AM


Re: biological species
Hitchy writes:
Any ideas on how to teach high school sophomores and freshmen about species without becoming too bogged down in the exceptions?
Yes, now that there is increased recognition of the full range of mechanisms whereby viruses and bacteria are capable of exchanging genetic information ACROSS species boundaries, it does seem to muddy the biological species concept, but I don't think it should. I would emphasize that cross-species exchanges of genetic information are (1) relatively rare events compared to conventional exchange of genes through sexual reproduction (2) very different from normal heredity of genetic information, and (3) typically involve transfers of a few genes, not the entire complement of information required to produce an organism as occurs during normal sexual reproduction.
I also understand your concerns about the difficulties posed by asexual populations that appear to retain species identities without a shared gene pool. However, the biological species concept is still relevant. You can point out that (1) 98 % of all higher multicellular organisms are obligately amphimictic (must outbreed sexually), (2) most higher organisms that reproduce asexually either (a) were at one time sexual and evolved asexuality secondarily (typically in response to conditions that favor rapid reproduction of identical genotypes) or (b) continue to reproduce sexually under some conditions or at certain times of the year, eg. aphids. Plants are useful examples here also. Vegetative reproduction is very common among higher plants, but most still produce flowers and retain sexual capacities (and thus integrity as biological species) even if many are capable of selfing when pollen from other individuals is not available. Sexual reproduction has been, and remains, a cornerstone in the evolutionary trajectory of all higher organisms and the concept of a species as a shared gene pool is still one of the most critical and useful in modern theoretical population biology. Unfortunately, theory on the evolution of sexual reproduction itself is probably too complex to do justice to at a sophomore level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by hitchy, posted 02-23-2006 1:36 AM hitchy has not replied

R. Cuaresma
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 308 (294427)
03-12-2006 7:47 AM


Creation and Evolution in Unification
The problem we have in teaching creation and evolution is we treat them as two distinct schools of thoughts very contradictory with each other. And so we are suffering the consequences of having trouble because we failed to view them as one single unified school of thought.
We are human beings and are given the intellect to understand the works of God. For example, the letter "V" is not "W" but we can have the letter "W" by simply writing the letter "V" twice.
In the teaching of evolution we must not forget to integrate the "creation's point of view." For example, evolution says that we descended from the primates, but have we ever seen a present day primate turns into human being? Did we? But we can conclude that from the "design" of the primate, God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created the Australopithecus. Then, copied the same design, modified it, created another, and so on.
In my own understanding, creation and evolution must be taught in a unified approach because they are the same schools of thought viewed like the two sides of a "single coin."

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 8:48 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2006 8:53 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2006 12:00 PM R. Cuaresma has not replied
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:24 PM R. Cuaresma has not replied
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 1:50 PM R. Cuaresma has not replied

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


Message 72 of 308 (294444)
03-12-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by R. Cuaresma
03-12-2006 7:47 AM


Re: Creation and Evolution in Unification
But we can conclude that from the "design" of the primate, God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created the Australopithecus. Then, copied the same design, modified it, created another, and so on.
If we teach that, we are teaching theology in science class. Moreover, it is theology that many theologians will disagree with. That gets the schools and teachers into a lot of unwelcome problems and controversies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 308 (294445)
03-12-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by R. Cuaresma
03-12-2006 7:47 AM


Re: Creation and Evolution in Unification
For example, the letter "V" is not "W" but we can have the letter "W" by simply writing the letter "V" twice.
... God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created ...
What you are talking about is theistic evolution:
Creationism - Wikipedia
Proponents of theistic evolution may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation.
link in original to:
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia
Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, isn’t a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the (scientific) theory of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it's the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution.
(bold in the original)
This is a perfectly legitimate {opinion\belief\concept} that incorporates a large variety of formats on just how involved the deity is in the matter, with the least involvement being a form of deism (essentially the universe was created for evolution to occur).
In my own understanding, creation and evolution must be taught in a unified approach ...
Must? Why?
The fact that this is NOT a testable scientific theory means that it does not belong in a discussion on science. To introduce this topic takes it out of science into philosophy, a more logical place for such a topic to be discussed, eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied

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


Message 74 of 308 (294491)
03-12-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by R. Cuaresma
03-12-2006 7:47 AM


Tinkering
Then, copied the same design, modified it, created another, and so on.
Well, your order is wrong. The evidence that God left from his workshop is that he made non-H. sapian forms first and, spread over a few million years copied and modified them until, about 200,000 years ago, he got it about right.
Very few of any religious view would want that taught in any class.
Is that what you want?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 308 (294497)
03-12-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by R. Cuaresma
03-12-2006 7:47 AM


Re: Creation and Evolution in Unification
quote:
For example, evolution says that we descended from the primates, but have we ever seen a present day primate turns into human being?
Nor has anyone ever seen the interior of a star, yet no one doubts that it is powered by hydrogen fusion -- in fact, there are several models of the fusion process that are applicable to different types of stars. Ah, the power of multiple lines of consistent evidence.
-
quote:
But we can conclude that from the "design" of the primate, God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created the Australopithecus.
Yes, she might have. But why add an ad hoc hypothesis to account for phenomena that can be explained (and even predicted) by a theory that has been verified through multiple lines of evidence in many different fields using many different methodologies?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-12-2006 7:47 AM R. Cuaresma has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024