Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

msjones

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

Recommended Posts

Mountains and valleys. Great geological disturbances that distribute water. There are a lot of explanations. Yes, in fact, God could very well zap it away... turn it back into hydrogen and oxygen.... etc.

 

But if that much water was turned into oxygen and hydrogen we would have a very different atmosphere that we do today.

 

If we just want to say: "magic" then what can I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's why I try my best to say "bible literalists". :)

 

Since I don't take the bible literally, any more than I'd take Greek myths literally, I don't see the point in changing the bible literalist's minds, it's a waste of breath for myself. I would like to say the Tiktaalik is one cute little guy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if that much water was turned into oxygen and hydrogen we would have a very different atmosphere that we do today.

 

If we just want to say: "magic" then what can I say?

LOL! that's right, you can't argue with magic! No one said that he had to leave the oxygen and hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere either.

 

Just to be clear: I do not believe in a young earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RegGuheert. I don't think any of those ideas make sense, but I figured there had to be some reconciliation of facts with beliefs.

 

Another thing I've never understood in the various creationists theories. The sheer volume of fossils. If the density of fossils in the massive amounts of limestone in the midwest was the result of the one flood event, then the seas during that time must have been packed wall to wall so to speak with aquatic plant and animal life. Hardly any room to swim around almost no room for water. Looking at the microfossils that make up limestone and seeing how densely pacted it is really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are not familiar with evolution concepts, but are truly curious about evolution and want to teach it to your children, here's a good list of books to teach kids ages 4-8. (My daughter is 4, otherwise I'd list more for the older kids.)

 

I already listed some DVDs, and we got some nice books listed earlier. Here's some websites to help you get up to speed quickly:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/evolution/evolutionrev2.shtml

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/teaching/resources.htm

http://ncseweb.org/evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Sandwalk-Adventures-Adventure-Evolution-Chapters/dp/0967725518

http://www.evolutionarygenomics.com/CERT/TeachEvolution.html

 

http://wikids.wikispaces.com/ (fun website just for kids, get them started now!)

 

Feel free to list more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RegGuheert. I don't think any of those ideas make sense, but I figured there had to be some reconciliation of facts with beliefs.

 

Another thing I've never understood in the various creationists theories. The sheer volume of fossils. If the density of fossils in the massive amounts of limestone in the midwest was the result of the one flood event, then the seas during that time must have been packed wall to wall so to speak with aquatic plant and animal life. Hardly any room to swim around almost no room for water. Looking at the microfossils that make up limestone and seeing how densely pacted it is really interesting.

why would this be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few days after the trial, her father died. Knowing that there are some people that belive their children will go to hell if they believe in evolution, has shown me a different side of this debate (powerful, emotional, and divisive), and I will try to approach it gently.

 

I agree that the debate is powerful, emotional and divisive.

 

But I find it so sad that it is also so very misunderstood. Evolution and what you believe about it is not a doctrinal issue. For it to be represented as such is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks RegGuheert. I don't think any of those ideas make sense, but I figured there had to be some reconciliation of facts with beliefs.

 

 

Another common creationist explanation is that God made the light from stars (that are millions of light years away) already reach to earth at the time of creation.

 

Magic! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heading to bed now, debate away people! Coincidentally, taking my Why Darwin Matters book with me. :) I started 3 nights ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting topic and one that I will be teaching next year. Does anyone have information on Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution series? Basically, I'm wondering if it was worth the money and how did you like the series?

 

Thanks!

Lynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another common creationist explanation is that God made the light from stars (that are millions of light years away) already reach to earth at the time of creation.

 

Magic! :D

HUH?:001_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's one to debate: AIG says that YE is the only acceptable explanation because seed bearing plants would go instinct if too much time elapsed between their appearance and the appearance of animals that would help to pollinate, etc. I had never heard that before reading it on the AIG site and was wondering what everyone would have to say about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very interesting topic and one that I will be teaching next year. Does anyone have information on Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution series? Basically, I'm wondering if it was worth the money and how did you like the series?

 

Thanks!

Lynne

Sounds intriguing. I hope you get a response. I don't know how many people are still looking at this thread at this point. :001_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heading to bed now, debate away people! Coincidentally, taking my Why Darwin Matters book with me. :) I started 3 nights ago.
You went to bed first.

 

I won.

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HUH?:001_huh:

 

That the starlight didn't have to travel millions of light years through space from distant stars. That from the beginning of the creation of stars one could see them on earth because God created the light already arriving here. Already in transit.

 

He zapped it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not claiming it's about 2+2 = 5, I'm claiming that biologists are trying to answer certain questions and evolution is the answer that they have almost universally accepted.

 

Actually, it looked like you were saying that. And evolution isn't a slam-dunk if you really look into the debate.

 

What scientists? Where? Can you name a single non-religious university in the developed world where evolution is not taught as fact in the biology department. Just one.

 

Forget universities. Maybe even a non-religious community college somewhere? There are hundreds of these institutions. If there really were scientists asking questions, surely there would be a biology department somewhere that didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Can you name a single science magazine or peer reviewed journal that is not associated with a religious or quasi-religious group that publishes these scientists who are supposedly asking questions about evolution's flaws?

 

I could be wrong, but I doubt that such a thing exists, because there really isn't any controversy and hasn't been for generations now. Only religious groups--religious apologists--are asking these questions.

 

Wow. Was it you that said you've studied this pretty thoroughly? Either way, it does sound like you've read a good bit.

 

I'm surprised that you haven't seen any of the published authors -- some of whom have been professors who hold different views than strict evolutionists. There are many scientists who hold views that range the spectrum, though I would imagine there aren't many who would be called strict creationists.

 

The scientist who was at the center of the coming ice age debate (1970s) is now a leading scientist warning about global warming.

 

Debate within the scientific community is essential. Unfortunately, the debate has been almost totally eliminated WRT evolution. Especially for professors, you either support evolution or you're toast.

 

You could google intelligent design and the macro vs. micro evolution topics to see scientists and professors who have been blackballed for merely posing other questions and encouraging a debate on the theory of evolution. If you're truly interested, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why would this be true?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

Why is limestone dense with fossils? Have you looked at limestone under a microscope? Disolved it? Limestone is literally made of fossils with a little sand/silt in between them sticking them together. Limestone goes very deep and up to just below whatever topsoil there is in the midwest. So if there was one flood event and a sea filled up all the space and then went away and that created the fossils/llimestone, ipso facto that sea must have been tremendously dense with sea life. Almost suffocatingly dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

Why is limestone dense with fossils? Have you looked at limestone under a microscope? Disolved it? Limestone is literally made of fossils with a little sand/silt in between them sticking them together. Limestone goes very deep and up to just below whatever topsoil there is in the midwest. So if there was one flood event and a sea filled up all the space and then went away and that created the fossils/llimestone, ipso facto that sea must have been tremendously dense with sea life. Almost suffocatingly dense.

No. Why would someone think that limestone is dense with fossils because of one flood event? That makes no sense. :tongue_smilie:Especially ocean animals, didn't they die before the flood? Why would they die in a flood?

 

Is this what YE Creationists believe? That is strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, here's one to debate: AIG says that YE is the only acceptable explanation because seed bearing plants would go instinct if too much time elapsed between their appearance and the appearance of animals that would help to pollinate, etc. I had never heard that before reading it on the AIG site and was wondering what everyone would have to say about that.

 

Not all seed bearing plants need animals to pollinate them. Wind does it for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not all seed bearing plants need animals to pollinate them. Wind does it for many.
Yes. I thought of that. I just wondered why AIG is so sure that this idea proves YE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an open mind, I have been through religion/bible half my life. :) And when I read, I always throw in a book from the other side. Also, I do plan to teach my child the other side, what others believe, so she is well educated, but not this summer. We will cover the most popular creation myths. And just for fun, we will cover a few other fantastic creation myths, such as when people believed that the world was created from the insides of a giant animal, a bird laying an egg, a ripped up corpse, dude that created it all in 7 days and a big flood, a raven coaxing humans out of a clam, etc... :) All highly entertaining!

 

I hope you sleep well.

 

And maybe during tomorrow's discussions you won't feel compelled to call the God of the universe "dude" or some other flippant name?

 

And for the record, he did all the creating in six days. He rested on the 7th--another thing He didn't HAVE to do (seems absurd, maybe?) but He had His reasons for doing it :001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Why would someone think that limestone is dense with fossils because of one flood event? That makes no sense. :tongue_smilie:Especially ocean animals, didn't they die before the flood? Why would they die in a flood?

 

Is this what YE Creationists believe? That is strange.

 

 

That is my understanding of their belief. One flood event. Not much time to do much with 6,000 years so everything has to go into that one event--all the dinosaurs and other fossils. Except I have heard the idea that God created all the fossils and that they never really existed as living plants/animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you sleep well.

 

And maybe during tomorrow's discussions you won't feel compelled to call the God of the universe "dude" or some other flippant name?

 

........

 

 

Yes.

 

I know I would never post anything so disrespectfully worded about any group's sacred text, whether I believed it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But sure, I'm willing to put out my own. Here's the current understanding of the human phylogenetic tree. My ancestors (and yours) were australopithecenes. We have learned this from the fossil record.

 

bigtree2.GIF

 

Oh my, that has become so much more complicated since I was a child. I remember when Lucy was discovered and the human line was pretty much considered a single line of descent. I lost track sometime back when they decided that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. It looks like a lot more has happened since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for the record, he did all the creating in six days. He rested on the 7th--another thing He didn't HAVE to do (seems absurd, maybe?) but He had His reasons for doing it :001_smile:

 

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one "day."

Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2

More: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=796696&postcount=55

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another common creationist explanation is that God made the light from stars (that are millions of light years away) already reach to earth at the time of creation.

 

Magic! :D

Yes. I never liked that one. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My children have heard the term "evolution" but I don't teach it. They get a little bit of it here and there but I simply tell them that we don't need to wade through the mire to find the truth. God is willing to give it to us if we will ask and study His word. I compare my thinking to this. Say I am determined to buy a Toyota. In my mind, they are the best made cars, most reliable, etc. and my mind is made up. So why bother going to all the other dealers and check out their cars. And in the end come back to Toyota anyway. Waste of time and intelligence I think. (I'm not promoting Toyota here just using a hypothetical situation.) Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REgguheert,

 

First let me say that, given our previous discussion on this thread, I have found you to be well-read and found that you genuinely believe what you argue. Furthermore, you are a gentleman.

 

Sadly, I find myself, once again, to be arguing against you.

 

To clarify my position, I believe that evolution currently offers the closest explanation of how the earth came to its present state. I also believe that it says nothing about the existence of God. It is not a fact, nor is it THE TRUTH. It is, however, as respectable a theory as any other scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory.

 

I try to present the facts as I know them and allow my children to make their own decisions. However, there is no reasonable way to present creationism as a viable scientific theory.

 

You have said a few things that don't make sense to me. They are:

 

It does seem that no one is willing to submit a single example of scientific evidence showing one species turning into another.

How about any fossil evidence of an animal that no longer exists when compared to an animal that does exist and is proposed as the former's descendent? Regardless of how you interpret it, this is evidence, isn't it? Just as I would concede that the bible is evidence of the existence of God. If you want proof, don't look to science. It is based upon inductive reasoning and doesn't offer proof of anything.

Or even some evidence of new information being added to the genome of ANY species? Third call... Given that no one has that support for evolutionism, I suppose the only rational response is to attack creation science without reading any of the references.

 

Sad.

 

I don't understand this point at all. If you concede that no two individuals have exactly the same genetic make up (yes, including twins, not that this is relevant), then it seems that you would have to concede that new information is entered into the genome each time an individual is born, no?

 

Furthermore, what about all the various types of mutations and genetic recombination. Don't these result in new information being added to the genome with every occurrence?

 

The genome is a collection of A, G, C, and T in a certain proportion. As soon as this proportion changes (i.e. a new individual [always unique]), we have a change in the genome.

 

Evidence is just a fact or collection of facts that may lead one to believe something. How can anyone who has seen even a couple of the PBS specials argue that there is NO evidence for evolution? There is evidence for creationism. The reason that creationism is not a viable scientific theory is that the theory is designed in such a way so as nothing would count as evidence against creationism.

 

At that size, the Earth would have been inside the event horizon, which would mean that no time would pass on Earth as time passed in other parts of the Universe.

 

I don't understand this statement. Inside the event horizon of what? An object must be inside the event horizon of some occurrence in space and time. To what event are you referring? Time would stand still and does stand still with respect to any other object moving at the speed of light relative to the first object. I fail to understand how being inside the event horizon of an occurrence would make time stand still?

 

There are many, many evidences that the world is young. In fact, most measures of the age of the earth indicate it is young. Here is a link to some evidence for a young earth.

 

I looked at this link and was highly skeptical. I examined a few of the references and was not surprised to find them to be from sources written by authors with obvious agendas. In other words, I do not find this information credible.

 

BTW: There is a basic misunderstanding about scientific taxonomy that seems to be held by many taking part in this discussion (not you regguheert). "Species" is a loosely defined level of taxonomy having as much to do with politics as with definition. A basic rule of thumb (with many exceptions) is that animals of different species do not reproduce in nature. This may be due to geography, behavior, physical attributes on the macroscopic level or on the gametic level. However, there are many examples of animals from different species mating and producing fertile offspring in nature.

 

One more thing: Do you really think that there is a conspiracy within the government to crush creationism and promote evolution? If so, who are some of the individuals behind it, and what is their motivation?

 

Certainly there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep creationism out of the SCIENCE classroom. But that's because it is not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my, that has become so much more complicated since I was a child. I remember when Lucy was discovered and the human line was pretty much considered a single line of descent. I lost track sometime back when they decided that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. It looks like a lot more has happened since then.

 

Yeah, and they just discovered yet another hominid fossil, 3 years ago, just announced to the world June 2! I look forward to more fossils, especially the hominids and transitional fossils. :)

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news163155873.html

 

I watched a documentary on the 6-7 million year old hominid found - the Sahelanthropus tchadensis. (That's the furthest on the left on that image.) It was interesting as he was found far from other hominin fossils from Eastern and Southern Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
REgguheert,

 

First let me say that, given our previous discussion on this thread, I have found you to be well-read and found that you genuinely believe what you argue. Furthermore, you are a gentleman.

Thank you. That is very kind of you to say! :001_smile:
Sadly, I find myself, once again, to be arguing against you.
It's OK. We're BOTH used to it! :D
To clarify my position, I believe that evolution currently offers the closest explanation of how the earth came to its present state. I also believe that it says nothing about the existence of God. It is not a fact, nor is it THE TRUTH. It is, however, as respectable a theory as any other scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory.
I agree that creation is not a scientific theory. However, I believe there is scientific evidence to support the idea of a young-earth creation. The main point I am trying to make is that evolutionism ALSO is not a scientific theory.
I try to present the facts as I know them and allow my children to make their own decisions. However, there is no reasonable way to present creationism as a viable scientific theory.
I think there is, but probably not without a belief in the God of the Bible.
You have said a few things that don't make sense to me. They are:

 

 

How about any fossil evidence of an animal that no longer exists when compared to an animal that does exist and is proposed as the former's descendent?

A descendent? So you find two fossils. By what possible method could you establish that one fossil was a descendent of the other? I cannot imagine any way to make such a connection, even if they were of the same species.
Regardless of how you interpret it, this is evidence, isn't it?
The fossils are evidence. Any suggestion of descent is an interpretation, IMO.
Just as I would concede that the bible is evidence of the existence of God. If you want proof, don't look to science. It is based upon inductive reasoning and doesn't offer proof of anything.
Agreed there is no proof in either case.
I don't understand this point at all. If you concede that no two individuals have exactly the same genetic make up (yes, including twins, not that this is relevant), then it seems that you would have to concede that new information is entered into the genome each time an individual is born, no?
No. I would say that existing information from two genomes has been mixed together to make a new genome.
Furthermore, what about all the various types of mutations and genetic recombination. Don't these result in new information being added to the genome with every occurrence?
It depends upon the mutation. For this type of discussion, I use a definition of information as presented by Dr. Werner Gitt in a book entitled In the Beginning was Information. Dr. Gitt uses a definition of information which is somewhat more strict than that put forth by Dr. Shannon in the middle of the 20th century. He does this because he is trying to develop natural laws related to the nature of coded information. It's a good book which I will recommend, but for now, please suffice it to say that some mutations do not qualify as added information according to Dr. Gitt's definition. For instance, a duplication of a sequence of DNA does not qualify, since that sequence already existed. Also, errors in a sequence which cause a protein to no longer be coded are considered a LOSS of information, even if a symbol was added, since the original message is lost.
The genome is a collection of A, G, C, and T in a certain proportion. As soon as this proportion changes (i.e. a new individual [always unique]), we have a change in the genome.
I agree the genome changes. The question I am getting at is how do you get information for new structures. Most of the literature has focused on the coding for proteins, but this only really accounts for some miniscule portion of the genome. The bigger question is where do all the instructions for how to assemble a complex structure, such as a feather, come from? Even a less complex structure requires a LARGE amount of DNA to describe both the proteins AND how to build it. Dr. Gitt's book is excellent in the way that he attacks this issue from the the viewpoint of an information scientist.
Evidence is just a fact or collection of facts that may lead one to believe something. How can anyone who has seen even a couple of the PBS specials argue that there is NO evidence for evolution?
I can! But only if I limit this to the idea that you can get a MORE COMPLEX genome from a LESS COMPLEX one. Evolution gets credit for EVERYTHING on PBS, but is there REALLY any support for this idea? I think not.
There is evidence for creationism.
Evidence, yes, but it is the SAME evidence as we have for evolution. That's a key point! We all have the same facts. The only difference is whether we interpret these facts to support a creationist worldview or an evolutionist worldview. In some cases, you would say that the evidence supports evolution, while I would say it supports creation.
The reason that creationism is not a viable scientific theory is that the theory is designed in such a way so as nothing would count as evidence against creationism.
I agree with you on this point! The belief that God created the Universe in six days 6000 years ago is not falsifiable.

 

In EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, the believe that man evolved from something else, such as a chimpanzee sometime in the distant past, is also not falsifiable. This is the major problem with forensic science. We only can test/view/experiment in the present. NOTHING from the past can be proven or disproven. There may be strong evidence, but there is no way to falsify an assertion. This is different from scientific laws, which deal with observable phenomena. These are all falsifiable by a single piece of contrary evidence (that can be duplicated experimentally by various scientists, etc.).

I don't understand this statement. Inside the event horizon of what? An object must be inside the event horizon of some occurrence in space and time. To what event are you referring? Time would stand still and does stand still with respect to any other object moving at the speed of light relative to the first object. I fail to understand how being inside the event horizon of an occurrence would make time stand still?
I'm not an expert in general relativity, but my understanding based on Dr. Humphreys' explanation is that in a large gravity well as you would have from the entire Universe, you would have a large event horizon near the center where the laws of time and space become dilated. In his cosmology, he submits that time to an observer on Earth, assuming it is within this event horizon, would not pass until the Universe were stretched to the point where the event horizon shrunk below the point where it still contained the Earth. It's a strange idea, to be sure, but it uses no more outlandish assumptions than the big bang, which suffers an identical speed-of-light issue.
I looked at this link and was highly skeptical. I examined a few of the references and was not surprised to find them to be from sources written by authors with obvious agendas. In other words, I do not find this information credible.
Really? Many (most?) of the references for the material in that book are from scientific papers written by evolutionists.
BTW: There is a basic misunderstanding about scientific taxonomy that seems to be held by many taking part in this discussion (not you regguheert). "Species" is a loosely defined level of taxonomy having as much to do with politics as with definition. A basic rule of thumb (with many exceptions) is that animals of different species do not reproduce in nature. This may be due to geography, behavior, physical attributes on the macroscopic level or on the gametic level. However, there are many examples of animals from different species mating and producing fertile offspring in nature.
I share your rule of thumb. I should have avoided this word altogether, since it is always a source of confustion for this type of discussion.
One more thing: Do you really think that there is a conspiracy within the government to crush creationism and promote evolution? If so, who are some of the individuals behind it, and what is their motivation?
Conspiracy? Perhaps. I do believe there is a strong bias against creation science in the public classrooms. If creation science and intelligent design are such poor theories, then why does anyone feel the need to silence them? To me, it is not an issue of science versus religion. As I have stated, I view it as an issue of religion versus religion.
Certainly there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep creationism out of the SCIENCE classroom. But that's because it is not science.
Yes, and neither is evolutionism, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your reasons above show your own ignorance of the questions scientists are asking about evolution's flaws.

 

Peek, that was not neccessary and I know that you can do better job of debating than that. Seems that your temper has been getting the best of you lately and I would hate to lose your lively input here on the boards. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Peek, ... I know that you can do better job of debating than that. Seems that your temper has been getting the best of you lately
I agree, and I am closer to Peek's POV on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with much of your response. However, in the interest of narrowing the discussion and in acknowledgement that I am not trying to change your mind, please allow me to address only two things.

 

Also, errors in a sequence which cause a protein to no longer be coded are considered a LOSS of information, even if a symbol was added, since the original message is lost.I agree the genome changes. The question I am getting at is how do you get information for new structures.

 

We can look at the classic example used in bio 101 texts when I was young: Sickle Cell Anemia. If I recall correctly, the mutation caused b the selective pressure of this disease is an example of a single nucleotide substitution in a gene that codes for a single protein in a hemoglobin molecule. The substitution did not result in the LOSS of information, but instead the alteration of a single amino acid in a single protein in the hemoglobin molecule. This change in the genome provided the benefactor partial defense against malaria. It also is the cause of the disease Sickle Cell Anemia which is characterized by the alteration of the physical structure of hemoglobin under low oxygen conditions.

 

This is a single nucleotide substitution. Three nucleotides code for an amino acid. Hundreds to thousands of amino acids make a protein. There are four proteins that make up hemoglobin. This is a well documented change in genome resulting in an important change in structure due only to a minor mutation. This is information for a new structure.

 

I have studied many more examples, but certainly there must be thousands of other documented cases. They are particularly convincing in less complicated structures such as viruses and bacteria.

 

In EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, the believe that man evolved from something else, such as a chimpanzee sometime in the distant past, is also not falsifiable. This is the major problem with forensic science. We only can test/view/experiment in the present. NOTHING from the past can be proven or disproven.

 

I disagree. (BTW: Let's not pretend that anyone believes that man evolved from chimps.) If bones of a modern human were found dating back 4 million years to the time of australopithecus or before, this would be strong evidence that man did not evolve from australopithecus. Or, if man's DNA were found to resemble fish more than apes, that would be yet more evidence tending to falsify the theory. Or, if there were no examples of mutations and genetic recombination leading to new structures, that would be evidence against evoluation. If the different finches from the Galapagos islands were found to more closely resemble different finches from the South American mainland than to resemble each other and this trend proved true around the world, that would put a big hole in the theory of evolution. I could really go on and on with ways to falsify evolution. Come to think of it, the fact is, the theory of evolution HAS been falsified, resulting in changes to the theory. The name has remained, but the theory has changed and adapted to fit our current knowledge.

 

I think it is a misunderstanding of any theory to state that it is fact or TRUTH. A scientific theory is nothing more than a discription of nature. When science is at its best, the accepted theory is our best description based upon simplicity of falsifiability. Newton's laws (like his law of gravity and motion) are not fact. THey are, in most circumstances, reasonably good descriptions. Evolution is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My children have heard the term "evolution" but I don't teach it. They get a little bit of it here and there but I simply tell them that we don't need to wade through the mire to find the truth. God is willing to give it to us if we will ask and study His word. I compare my thinking to this. Say I am determined to buy a Toyota. In my mind, they are the best made cars, most reliable, etc. and my mind is made up. So why bother going to all the other dealers and check out their cars. And in the end come back to Toyota anyway. Waste of time and intelligence I think. (I'm not promoting Toyota here just using a hypothetical situation.) Just my opinion.

 

See, now my child has heard the term “creationism†and I have tried to explain this belief system to her so she can better understand others. Her paternal grandparents are staunch supporters. Her grandfather tried to explain that the dinosaurs got wiped out with the flood. Her response at age 3 was “How come God didn’t think they were good enough to go on the Ark with all of his other creations?†Then Grandpa tried to tell her the story of Adam and Eve, she listened attentively. Then asked “If Adam and Eve were the first people then who did their sons marry and what town did they go to?†…… hmmm

 

As far as predetermining something is best “say a Toyotaâ€. You are right, there is not much anybody can say to alter your perception. But if, just if you had no preconceived notions of what car is best “for you†and you did analytical and systematic research to determine what car would be best for you. I’d bet you would be far more satisfied in the long run even if it did turn out to be a Toyota.

 

I am not picking on you by any means. :cheers2: This just goes to show that there are so many pedagogical differences within this particular methodology by which we are all linked. Very, very interesting.

 

BTW this has been a most fascinating and entertaining thread, a sure cure all for insomnia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Her grandfather tried to explain that the dinosaurs got wiped out with the flood. Her response at age 3 was “How come God didn’t think they were good enough to go on the Ark with all of his other creations?â€

 

Just to clarify, most YE creationists believe that dinosaurs died out AFTER the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a religious instructor as a child argue that God used material from other planets in constructing the Earth and that dinosaurs had never lived here at all.

 

Just to clarify, most YE creationists believe that dinosaurs died out AFTER the flood.

 

Wait, so Noah not only had to fit all those thousands of existing species on the ark, he also had to make room for all the sauropods, tyrannosaurs, and the like? Wow, that is some boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peek, that was not neccessary and I know that you can do better job of debating than that. Seems that your temper has been getting the best of you lately and I would hate to lose your lively input here on the boards. :)

 

Kidshappen-

You are such a peacemaker!:001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I ran a university biology department, I would not hire a creationist and I would suggest the termination of anyone who taught creationist "science," for the same reasons that I would oppose a math teacher who taught that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

I have a T-shirt that I wear when I teach math that says, "2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2."

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my, that has become so much more complicated since I was a child. I remember when Lucy was discovered and the human line was pretty much considered a single line of descent. I lost track sometime back when they decided that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. It looks like a lot more has happened since then.

 

Did this make anyone else smile (the bolded part) :001_smile: ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I still have chosen science resources that teach evolution. In fact, I don't think we've ever used resources that taught creation, other than the Bible.

 

It was in my college science courses, where my profs believed in evolution and my texts taught evolution, that my belief in creation became cemented in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can look at the classic example used in bio 101 texts when I was young: Sickle Cell Anemia. If I recall correctly, the mutation caused b the selective pressure of this disease is an example of a single nucleotide substitution in a gene that codes for a single protein in a hemoglobin molecule. The substitution did not result in the LOSS of information, but instead the alteration of a single amino acid in a single protein in the hemoglobin molecule. This change in the genome provided the benefactor partial defense against malaria. It also is the cause of the disease Sickle Cell Anemia which is characterized by the alteration of the physical structure of hemoglobin under low oxygen conditions.

 

This is a single nucleotide substitution. Three nucleotides code for an amino acid. Hundreds to thousands of amino acids make a protein. There are four proteins that make up hemoglobin. This is a well documented change in genome resulting in an important change in structure due only to a minor mutation. This is information for a new structure.

Agreed. This would be an example of new information added to a genome by a mutation. However, one can hardly argue that that Sickle Cell Anemia offers a functional advantage, so it is not likely to survive many generations. 3000 consecutive generations of fruit flies have had their mutation rates accelerated over the course of a century and while many mutations are observed in the laboratory, they do not long survive. In nature, these same mutations are NOT observed since the winnowing process called natural selection removes them from the population quickly. The bottom line is that NO evolution occurs in fruit flies even in 3000 generations.
I have studied many more examples, but certainly there must be thousands of other documented cases. They are particularly convincing in less complicated structures such as viruses and bacteria.
The concept of baterial resistance to antibiotics is often put forth as a prime example of evolution. However, there are two forms of this resistance that have been observed: 1) resistance due to mutation and 2) resistance due to a built-in mechanism called horizontal gene transfer which changes the genome of some individuals under extreme stress.

 

In the case of bacterial resistance due to mutation, this has always been shown to be caused by the loss of the ability of the organism to perform some function, but may in some fashion hinder the function of the antibiotic. While this is indeed a mutation followed by natural selection, it is simply no evidence for molecules-to-man evolution since nothing is added, only lost.

 

Horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism that is already built into the genome, so it offers no ability to improve the genome beyond the transfers that are already programmed.

I disagree. (BTW: Let's not pretend that anyone believes that man evolved from chimps.) If bones of a modern human were found dating back 4 million years to the time of australopithecus or before, this would be strong evidence that man did not evolve from australopithecus. Or, if man's DNA were found to resemble fish more than apes, that would be yet more evidence tending to falsify the theory. Or, if there were no examples of mutations and genetic recombination leading to new structures, that would be evidence against evoluation. If the different finches from the Galapagos islands were found to more closely resemble different finches from the South American mainland than to resemble each other and this trend proved true around the world, that would put a big hole in the theory of evolution. I could really go on and on with ways to falsify evolution. Come to think of it, the fact is, the theory of evolution HAS been falsified, resulting in changes to the theory. The name has remained, but the theory has changed and adapted to fit our current knowledge.

 

I think it is a misunderstanding of any theory to state that it is fact or TRUTH. A scientific theory is nothing more than a discription of nature. When science is at its best, the accepted theory is our best description based upon simplicity of falsifiability. Newton's laws (like his law of gravity and motion) are not fact. THey are, in most circumstances, reasonably good descriptions. Evolution is the same.

So please allow me to summarize the unfortunately state of the scientific community:

 

- We are guided by an overriding principal known as "methodological naturalism" which requires us to ignore any possible explanation of the world around us that goes beyond the natural laws which man has created to explain the universe.

- All life on Earth is composed of immensely complex and intricate machinery which is coded in a system which is much more eloquent and powerful than any system which man has devised. We observe that NO coding system has ever arisen out of nature, but rather are always the product of intelligent actors.

- Regardless of the above, our adherence to "methodological naturalism" has caused us to reject, out of hand, the obvious conclusion that life is the product of some being which is immensely more intelligent and powerful than we ourselves. We also used this excuse as our reason to ban the teaching of the more logical explanation based on a supreme being to our children. In fact we have banned these discussions from all of our public institutions.

- Instead we have devised a naturalistic theory 150 years ago in an attempt to explain the life around us. Unfortunately, this theory has been repeatedly shown to be impotent to explain ANY of the life found on Earth nor the diversity therein. But because we have vowed to avoid any supernatural explanations for life, we will continue to tweak this theory without any hope of bringing it to the point where it can explain the life that we observe around us.

 

The bottom line here is that the study of evolution is an IMMENSE waste of resources and mindpower. This is in stark contrast to the statements posted here that claim how valuable evolution is to science. Unfortunately, pouring resources into a never-ending study that has no chance to ever bear fruit cannot be a productive enterprise.

 

I'm sorry, but this is the way I see things. It's extremely unfortunate that the only way evolutionism can be defended is by silencing the clearly-superior alternative explanation that exists and using many logical fallacies to try to prop up the corpse of Darwin's theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. This would be an example of new information added to a genome by a mutation. However, one can hardly argue that that Sickle Cell Anemia offers a functional advantage, so it is not likely to survive many generations.

 

Well, Sickle Cell Anemia is a recessive disease. In order to get Sickle Cell Anemia, you need to have received the mutation from both parents. That is not a functional advantage.

 

But one copy of the Sickle Cell mutation protects against malaria. And that is a huge functional advantage in certain places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, one can hardly argue that that Sickle Cell Anemia offers a functional advantage, so it is not likely to survive many generations.

 

As a matter of fact, one can indeed argue. It is well-known that in Africa, where malaria is endemic, there is a survival value in having the heterozygous form of the sickle cell anemia gene (that is, in having one sickle cell gene and one normal blood cell gene). People with one copy of the sickle-cell gene are far more likely to survive malaria. Having both copies is disadvantageous, but having only one copy is SO advantageous that the gene survives nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But one copy of the Sickle Cell mutation protects against malaria. And that is a huge functional advantage in certain places.
As a matter of fact, one can indeed argue. It is well-known that in Africa, where malaria is endemic, there is a survival value in having the heterozygous form of the sickle cell anemia gene (that is, in having one sickle cell gene and one normal blood cell gene). People with one copy of the sickle-cell gene are far more likely to survive malaria. Having both copies is disadvantageous, but having only one copy is SO advantageous that the gene survives nonetheless.
Interesting! Obviously I did not know this! Now I do! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my, that has become so much more complicated since I was a child. I remember when Lucy was discovered and the human line was pretty much considered a single line of descent. I lost track sometime back when they decided that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. It looks like a lot more has happened since then.

 

That's one of the hardest things about teaching science, keeping up! It is also a great boost for kids who want to grow up to be scientists... they can discover, and contribute to a field that is so vast that, literally, there are new discoveries every day. It is exciting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fascinating topic. I'm mostly posting just so I can follow along:tongue_smilie:

 

I used to believe in evolution--in fact, I worked in the Anthropology department at the university. I never even questioned its truth, most likely because no one ever presented all the holes in the theory. Now I'm an unashamed creationist. I present both to my oldest daughter (and will with the tots, too!) Truth is truth, and will prove itself out so I'm not particularly worried over the debate, in itself.

 

The design of the universe is so utterly brilliant, I'm certain none of us will have the full answers in this lifetime. Still, I love the conversation.

 

Recently I found "Living Fossils, Evolution: The Grand Experiment" (Vol 1 & 2)--great books, excellent photos, written for lay people by a former staunch evolutionist, who was challenged to prove the theory. It's his lifelong pursuit, and he's found some interesting things along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...