The whole point of this thread isn't to talk about the many evidences that disprove evolution
Well, there's no evidence that disproves evolution, for starters. "Problems with the current evolutionary theory" are something totally different than "evidences that disprove evolution."
There is no evidence that disproves evolution, just to repeat.
but to talk about why it would be a bad thing for people in school to be taught these evidences.
It would be bad for any school or class to teach things that aren't true.
Now, if your question is "evolutionary theory is not currently perfect; why is it bad to examine these current flaws?" then the answer is that it isn't bad to teach them, but it is bad to call them "flaws."
In any other scientific endeavor, current holes in the body of knowledge are referred to as "frontiers", not "flaws." It's crucial to teach these evolutionary frontiers to schoolchildren because where else are we going to get biologists? Why would anyone grow up to be a biologist if they thought there were no questions left to be answered?
Do you see my point? We don't know everything about human cancer, for instance. There are "flaws" in our cancer models. But that doesn't mean we tear down hospitals; it means we build more schools. Like all science evolution is a work in progress; it's certainly appropriate to show children the work of biologists in action. It's certainly not appropriate to imply to childen that since we don't know everything, we know nothing.
If we do some how create life in a laboratory, although I really doubt that that will happen, it would only prove that intelligent life could create life.
That's cute, but it's not true.
If we use natural processes to make life, using steps that could have reasonably happened in the absence of intelligent design, then regardless of the presence of intelligent brains in the lab, we'll have proved that natural processes suffice for the generation of life.
Honestly why on Earth would you think that the presence of intelligence and naturally-occuring processes are mutually exclusive? Under your model, nothing happens naturally, I guess.
Evolution explains the origins of everything just like any religion such as christianity, or hinduism.
Again, you're cute, but that's just plain false. Evolution is not an origins myth. It's a narrative of the development of life on Earth, post-biogenesis. It has nothing to do with origins.
Well, I agree. And you might want to be careful with that argument in the future - after all, if we're never able to do it in the lab doesn't that prove, by your reasoning, that intelligence can't ever be enough to make life?
really? because a lot of people on this forum argue that our origins are from some chemical reaction.
Right, but that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a theory of biology. It's certainly a related question, but the origin of life is a problem for chemistry, not biology.
I don't know much about this Human Hemoglobin C. explain it to me.
It's a mutation to (as the name suggests) human hemoglobin that confers exceptional resistance to the malaria parasite. To learn more, I suggest that you go to www.pubmed.org (a searchable database of biology/medical journal abstracts) and search for "human hemoglobin C."
What are some examples of mutations that add entirely new information?
Any frame shift mutation resulting from the addition of one (or more) extra base pairs. That would constitute the addition of at least one base pair's-worth of information.
For instance, he's repeatedly made the claim that "human protiens are closer to a bullfrog's than to a chimpanzee's", though he's never substantiated that claim or pointed to which specific protiens he's referring to.
Moreover he's refused to relinquish the claim even in the face of contradicting evidence. In other words, it's a claim he knows is false but repeats anyway, which makes him a liar.
Actually since the teaching of evolution says in effect and indeed says directly that the Bible and Christian doctrine on origins is wrong
Remember the last time when you made this claim, and we all refuted it, and you had no significant response?
It's against the forum rules that you agreed to to keep repeating it:
quote: Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
When you repeat arguments already shown to be false you're not debating in good faith.
If we look at everybody we find that the biological community is united in its support of evolution, and that evolutionary ideas dominate current biological thinking. The vast, vast majority of biologists - paid or otherwise - are evolution supporters.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you represent any kind of majority, except a majority of the ignorant.