quote:
Imperfections are simply mutations.
Oh, ok.
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Using loaded terminology such as you were doing is not helpful, as the judgement of if something is "perfect" or not is entirely subjective, wouldn't you agree?
For example, a mutation that confers a benefit to reproductive success could be said to be more "perfect" than a gene which is neutral with regards to reproductive success, wouldn't you say?
quote:
Mutations rarely result in the betterment of the creature,
But they sometimes do, right?
quote:
let alone give a plausible explanation of how creatures can evolve from one creature to another to another to .........
More creatures are born than survive to reproduce.
All creatures have mutations which make them slightly different from each other in various ways.
All organisms live in a particular environment.
The individuals in a population which, due to mutation among other factors, tend to reproduce more numerous offspring get to pass on those genes to future generations more than those individuals who are not as successful at reproducing.
"Do you suggest that we should avoid teaching children about electrons in science class?"
quote:
No, I do not!
But didn't you say that we shouldn't teach things in science class that are not directly observed?
Electrons have never been directly observed, so if we follow your advice, we shouldn't teach about electrons in science class.
quote:
Yes, evolution should not be taught in the science classroom because it can never be completely proven, as can other elements of scientific study such as nuclear physics, the laws of thermodynamics, electrical engineering, how creatures function and reproduce, how plants function and reproduce, etc.
Actually, nothing in science can ever be completely proven.
Do you think we should teach about genetics in science class? What about population genetics?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-22-2006 01:05 PM