Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)

no i dont.chemical compounds do not produce life. no, living things contain chemicals, but chemicals to not produce living things.the reproductive ability is not contingent on chemicals alone but on existing life. An organism can die and still contain all the chemicals that it had while it was alive...but those chemicals do not keep it alive nor do they work to bring the dead to life.

Hi Peg! I've been reading your argument about breeds and hybridization and enjoying it a lot. We know that pairs of what are called different species of animals can interbreed and produce hybrids. As, for example, lions and tigers; horses and donkeys; sheep and goats; finches and uhm, other finches? The normal creationist argument is that these aren't really different species or "kinds", they are just very different breeds of the same kind. That is, even though sheep and goats are very different varieties of creature, they do have a common descent, say from something on the ark for example. Whereas other things, like apes and men for example, are definitely not related, as proven by the fact that they cannot interbreed. That there is, as you have argued, an internal law or species barrier which prevents it, and which they cannot possibly breed past.So what I got to thinking was, a nice proof that this argument was wrong would be an animal A who could interbreed with animal B, and an animal C who could also interbreed with animal B, even though animal A could not possibly interbreed with animal C. Assuming evolution was right, we ought to have gobs of these kind of situations, right?

Not only genetics, Peg. Natural selection plays an important role here too. Or do you think the variation is purely random, with no benefit to the population at all? Actually, what has been proven that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely different.Here's a test for you. Go out into the street, have a good look around, nice surroundings eh? Now, take a single step. Take another good look around, not much has changed. Now, take another step,and another, and another.... After 1 million steps, have your surroundings not changed completely? And only by taking small steps! And they are. We have created new species through selective breeding. Cross breeding is not selective breeding. Cross breeding is breeding one species with another. Selective breeding is breeding a single species, looking at the offspring of that, and selecting those offspring that hold the characteristics you want in your "end-species". First of all, we have done it. Second, nature has far more time than we do. And this means that through small steps and after many many many generations, the offspring cannot be different from the "original species" how? Remember, each step in this process has the ability to breed with their own parents. brothers/sisters and other members of the population, only after 1 million generations, the "end-species" would not be able to breed with the "original species". Also, would you like to point out this "barrier or law"? First of all, that's not a paper. It's more like an essay, second, where are the tests he's done to confirm this? All he relies upon are quotes from works of other scientists, who I doubt share his views (which make it quotemining), like Gould.Here's one of my favourites:

quote:

---

He notes that "despite the efforts of breeders," the winning times of thoroughbreds in the English classic horse races "have not fallen substantially over the past fifty years"

---

Yes, it's of course impossible that there is an actual physical limit to how hard something can run.... And that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution being wrong. So, you're a punctuated equilibrium advocate? That's still evolution, you know...

It isn't. It's contested because they somehow think it is. But they are wrong....again.... Then you accept evolution. Now, all you have to realize is that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely Differnt, given enough steps have been taken. And that's all evolution is about. Every other thing is a logical consequence (no, not the origin, that's irrelevant). So, all the evidence we have does not exist? You can even find the evidence on wikipedia, or google scholar, jus type in speciation, and voila, there you go (on google scholar, there are currently 324,000 articles about speciation, that's a lot for something we don't have evidence of). Yes, completely arbitrarily believing one account over another makes that one account true.... Of course, just like evolution says they will. The children will be a bit different from their parents though, as will their children be. This difference is never big enough to stop them looking very much like there parents, yet never completely so. Look at yourself, you don'texactly look like your mother and father, do you? Now then, after a million generations, what makes you think all those small changes could not have added up and there is a very different species then the "original species", but very similar to it's own parents?

i did look up some sites about these sorts of hybrids and found it quite intersting.
One site did say that in the wild, lions and tigers would not normally breed though...this only happens because man interferes with them. Also, the offspring are infertile so it kind of backs up the point i made about the species barrier...they can only go so far. to be honest, i havent read a great deal about ring species. What is known about the genetics of the various ring species?

that is pure speculationNo one had been around long enough to see an entirely new species develop. Everything we have today is the same as it was millions of years ago. perhaps the evidence you have has been fitted into the existing theory. with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same. We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.show me where we have changed dramatically? (and dont show me an ape)

Thank god you creationists are here to tell evolutionary biologists what evolution is all about. Sadly you all think that it is only about what Darwin wrote and tend to ignore the subsequent 150 years of research.We do also see both of those things that were in your quote, and you going "LA, LA, LA!" with your fingers in your ears doesn't change that. Just because you have an insane creationist understanding of the concept of what 'becomes a new species' actually means doesn't mean that what it actually means in evolutionary terms, two supopulations from an originally interbreeding population becoming reprodcutively isolated (post-mating for a strong biological species concept), doesn't happen. So all the people with polydactyly and syndactyly simply don't exist? Plus way to once again present the idiotic creationist strawman version of what evolution should look like?

No it isn't. Look up "speciation" on google scholar (324,000 articles) and then tell me there's no evidence for it. We've seen them develop, both in the wild and in the lab. Yes, like Modern humans... Who weren't around millions of years ago... Not really no. No we don't. We look differnet from homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago. Not by much, but there hasn't been much pressure on humans to evolve further, since we can fit adapt the environment to fit our needs, bu still, there are some differences between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens. Of course, there's not been much pressure. Just like evolution predicts. Ok. No, that's not an ape, and yes, that is our ancestor. Now, tell me we haven't changed from that?

No. Evolution is so fiercely contested by creationists mainly because it turns "THE creation story" into allegory. Most of the rest of the bible can still be taken at face value, even in light of the facts of evolution, provided you view it as no more than a history book.But wait! THE creation story can still be *true* if you don't actually thk A&E were actual humans, but just the first lifeforms.

I asked on semi-almost-creationist friend of mine what race he thought A&E were. He said caucasion. I almost fell out of my chair. Do they really think that caucasion's were the first people? Was jesus caucasion as well?

No it cannot.The majority of the Bible is false. The Bible is not a history book. Jesus would have looked very much like any other male Israelite at the time, that's why Judas had to identify Him with a kiss.He would not be blue eyes or white and certainly not have long hair.

I didn't intend what i wrote to be taken LITERALLY. of course I know the bible is not a history book.....at least not the way we see actuall history books. I meant you can view it to gain perspective of what our ancestors thought. Isn't that still history? (psst: That was a rhetorical question.)

no it can't. The bible is the communication from the one who created the man and woman in his image, and all the animals 'according to their kinds'he does not say that the put molecular life on the earth and allowed it time to evolve. He says he created each kind of animal and finally created the human man and woman as separate creations.This is exactly why christians contest evolution. Jesus christ spoke about A&E as real people. They are even listed in his geneolgy...so if they are not real, then nor is Jesus. Not all christians think that. The reason why some might is because most christians dont study their own religion. They should know that he was not a caucasian because caucasian people are decended from Noahs son Japheth who was the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European (Indo-Germanic) branch of the human family. The son Shem gave the line of Jews/Cannanites/Assyrians/Aramaeans etc.It is pretty funny though to see a picture of Jesus with blonde hair...makes me cringe lol

I know about speciation...there was a discussion on it here recently where I pointed out that the Golapogas finches were said to have developed into new species...but the facts are that the finch's are still finch'sEach 'kind' of animal has the genetic potential for great variety, thats why there are more then 400 different breeds of dogs. You might call it speciation, but the reality is that they are all still dogs. so a skull with a thick brow means a different species?Im sure you could still find some people with very thick brows

Why can't Jesus' genealogy be fictional?