Biology teacher resource help

You asked for arguments that make sense from a creationist (ID?) perspective. Here are some arguments.Natural selection works against macroevolution. The idea that things can evolve is not sufficient to assume universal common descent and moreover, to assume that by Darwinian or NeoDarwinian methods. This is something, imo, that is glossed over (for all the evos here...I think he knows you disagree so no need to rant). Darwinian processes of what creationists call microevolution have to be shown to be sufficient to and be shown to actually create macroevolution.Best way I know to explain and illustrate this is with dog breeding. All canines (all canine species) can actually successfully interbreed, and you can take a group of canines or dogs and create specific forms. Pure-bred dogs are a good example of that.But what happens when you do that?The genetic range within the breed is diminished. That's one reason so many pure-bred dogs have so many problems. A mutt is generally a healthier and smarter dog. This decreasing of genetic diversity is evolution in the wrong direction for macroevolution to be true. It's a dead-end, and so when evos insist natural selection, etc,...created living and extinct biota, they are actually using evidence against their theory when you think about it.There are many more such arguments.....you can find some of them here. One involves the lack of transitionals in fossils and living biota. If species and subspecies gradually morphed into new species and so forth, this should be amply evident in the fossil record but it is not. At best, evos present a paltry few "intermediates" but they show no gradual morphing beyond evolution within a specific range.The evo argument is that the fossil record is incomplete, though you will hear them paradoxically also state it is "very complete." However, there really are not comprehensive studies to qualify their claims of fossil rarity. Fossils may be rare for individual living things, but are they rare for many species within theoritical evolutionary lines? Are they rare at the genus and family level, etc,...?I used to believe in Darwinism as well, and I was challenged by someone to look at all the data and arguments I was taught concerning evolution and see if they were true. Are they rooted in actual facts, for example? Are the things stated as facts genuinely facts or something else such as hoaxes, overstatements, assumptions, etc,...I suggest you do the same with an open mind.

What do you think Darwinian evolution teaches about genes and genetic evolution?I think that most people get the idea that less complex, maybe not the best way to say it, but organisms that, for example, don't have a complex nerve system, etc,....would evolve via random mutation and natural selection (a little overly simplistic for sake of brevity). So genetic complexity would evolve as a genetic mutation occurs that confers a selective advantage in a specific trait for the individual and this mutation is spread gradually within a group or subgroup of organisms, a species or subspecies or isolated group, and that through this gradual process, genetic complexity would increase over time from the simpler, earlier evolved organisms to later organisms.Genes and genetic complexity would build up in this manner over time more or less matching new traits emerging.Is that your impression of evolutionary theory?Well, what could demonstrate that may not be correct. What if, for example, we found genes and genetic sequences for complex human nerve functions in a species without a complex nerve function indicating that genetic complexity in this area predated by, say, millions of years assuming evo dating, human beings or complex vertebrates?Would that suggest to you that perhaps the story of Darwinian evolution is incorrect?

Do you think I should be presenting the evo side of the debate? This is from the OP? This is a debate board welcoming the non-evo perspective in debate, right? The question is asked of "anyone."It seems to me you are insisting that only evolutionists can answer that question and anyone else would be pushing their ideas falsely?

I appreciate your intervention....Obviously fishboy is an evolutionist and may therefore not agree with me, and he seems to perhaps have been influenced by PaulK's smear or maybe not.However, this was his response to my post: Seems to me he wanted to hear what I and other non-evos have to say. He stated this was the type of info he wanted, and then a partisan evo here slams me as ill-informed (I think if fishboy reads my posts in-depth he will know that isn't true), and the result now seems to me that creationists and IDers cannot present the arguments they think are valid.

Hmmmm.....so your argument is we should present "full" arguments on every creationist or ID argument? One thread cannot do that, nor present the full spectrum of evo arguments. I was presenting a cursory review of some arguments and saying he could peruse the forum for more details.But I'll drop off now per admin's comments.

My approach was just to provide some cursory review of creationist and ID arguments against Darwinism which might mean talking on a bit to do that. In other words, I was more or less just trying to list some arguments in a way someone not familiar to them might get a basic handle on the argument, and then I was pointing them to the remainder of the forum that debate and discuss the ideas. Hopefully fishboy will take some time to read in this case, some of my arguments or other critics of evo's arguments.One cannot really give a full-orbed answer on one thread, heck not even on many threads, and just listing them by some title wouldn't mean anything not familiar to the debate.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You and I have a VERY different opinion on the quality and validity of TalkOrigin material. I see it as basically propaganda and think my comments or anyone is on a par with it.....it's not exactly peer-review material, is it?

Ironically, I think that particular site can illustrate a creationist criticism of evo theory. The linked article on the 29 Evidences states: And elaborates on one of those theories, for example, which entail "evolution." However, another article under the heading "What is Evolution" contradicts that definitionhere: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlThat is a much more narrow concept of what evolution is. So which is it? Is evolution a change in a species or subspecies gene pool, or is it universal common descent, the microbe to man story?Note the same article states: So most biologists don't understand it, but this internet site does, and yet they have different definitions of the term "evolution." Note the comment "very few" understand it. Are appeals to elite knowledge on this subject indicative of well-thought out scientific reasoning? Is this reflective of genuine well-reasoned discussion or a smear and propaganda tactic?Imo, evolutionists don't help students develop critical thinking. Even this site claims most biologists don't even understand evolution all that well....maybe they are correct and I shouldn't slam them for that. But if that is the case, why are we teaching kids something Phds don't really understand?Elsewhere the site defines evolution as: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlOnce again, this is a limited concept of evolution that no one disputes. It's misleading to suggest that what critics of evolution are disputing is this definition when it is not, but that's what evos often do. They accuse creationists of not understanding what evolution is and then offer up a limited definition. Creationists understand what microevolution is and they don't disagree with it.But "evolution" in terms of the Theory of Evolution is more than that. It is as the 29 Evidences states: That's what is being debated and so it's a false response to creationists and Iders to try to switch to debating "evolution" as defined by mere heritable change, but that's the underlying tactic, imo.Take this for example: Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryWhat can be demonstrated? They are conflating the idea of evolution as heritable change with universal common descent and using one definition, the one that is demonstratable, to suggest the other disputed idea is demonstratable. Imo, that's wrong and clouds the mind. It's propaganda.Note: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlNote where they are basically saying creationists are wrong because evolution is "easy to demonstrate." Did you catch that? It's propaganda because creationists are not arguing over the idea of heritable change, they are arguing over universal common descent and macroevolution. So what the evo here is saying is that, hey, the creationist criticisms are wacko and ill-informed because they are arguing against something easily demonstrated.But is that true? Is that what creationists are taking issue with?Moreover, how can a site that cannot even give a consistent definition of evolution accuse the public, biologists, and creationists and IDers of being ignorant?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

fb, keep in mind that most evos posit subgroups of species are isolated and thus evolve, which is similar to dog breeding.If you want both sides of the debate, however, this may not be the place. As you can see on this thread, some arguments, coincidentally those for evolution are more allowed, and critics of evos are disallowed to a degree.

Fine. I hope it is also clear to fishboy that this interpretation of what he is asking for means he will only get the evolutionist version of the debate.I think it is fair to say that evos here do not accept that any creationist arguments make sense, and likewise, creationists and IDers find that either very few or no evolutionist arguments are reasonable either.I had interpreted fb wanted both sides' opinions here. I also was a bit puzzled in how evos are allowed to present evo arguments and debate them here but not me.I'll drop off with just a warning to fb that he will thus be getting material from just one perspective on the thread.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Pierre Grasse
Goldschmidt
Broom
John DavisonGrasse accepted universal common descent but rejected mainstream evo theory (NeoDarwinism) as a "myth." These are a couple of salient quotes in that regard. Those all accept some sort of evolution but strongly reject Darwinism.You may want to read Behe and some of the papers and books found here for an ID perspective. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. Randman - Please see RAZD's reply - Maybe you should go to a "Practice Makes Perfect" topic and experiment with shortening how links are displayed.

Just giving him some references to check out some reading material. I am sure he's capable of making up his own mind about what they have to say.

A cursory review of the Modern Synthesis can be found here. Note: wikipedia is not always accurate but can nevertheless be useful. Modern synthesis - WikipediaGrasse's comments, an evolutionist that agreed with many criticisms of NeoDarwinism that some IDers and creationist make, come from a book published in 1978, well after the origin of the modern synthesis.Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.31 - Google SearchWiki makes this comment about him. Pierre-Paul Grass - WikipediaGoldschmidt, another evolutionist that disagreed with NeoDarwinian mechanisms, disagreed the Modern Synthesis on scientific grounds.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Besides Goldschmidt, Grasse, Broom and Davison (the latter mainly worth reading because he synthesizes some of their earlier thoughts), you may want to read some of Leo Berg.They all disagree with NeoDarwinism on factual grounds.

You must have missed the DI link for "modern" references and Davison. It's a silly request anyway because the basic set of facts haven't really changed that much in this regard except some are taking hopeful monsters more sriously, as one of the science writers of the NYTs points out.