Evolutionary Theory being taught.

Evolution should be taught, even though it may have occured of it all millions of years ago, if evolution exists it is still occurring now, but it takes millions of years to change noticeably, so it has to do with the future aswell as the past, and the past is important aswell, just like why we have history classes.

 

i personally think it should be taught but i do not believe in it, but yet what binds schools usually is the mix-in of different religions and different beliefs. so say you have someone raised up on Hebrew religions or atheism you would go against THERE rights to believe what they want or believe what they have been taught there whole lives and that could bring in a hefty lawsuit which most people or school boards don't want. but i personally am a atheist, yet that doesn't mean that i don't want people believing what they think is right or what they have been brought up upon.

 

well romber, what can i say......way to go comparing me to a Nazi.

talking about the differences between humans in different parts of the globe is not being Nazi , i made no remarks whatsoever about some groups of humans being "superior" to others, i am merely exclaiming the facts that humans in different parts of the world adapted to their surroundings, and it is clearly visible.

although i hold no grudge, creationists stop at nothing to portray evolution as evil, they go so far that they have the nerve to compare it to Nazism

as for your other points-

show me 1 place in the bible where it mentions micro-evolution occuring in nature.

dont play naive, when charles Darwin first publicized his theory of evolution, religious institutions (the incarnation of ignorance, in my opinion) mocked the entire idea, and did not mention any sort of "micro-evolution" being "Ok".

only in recent years have creationists realized that they have to accept that some evolution does eoccure, so they made the artificial seperation between "micro" and "macro"

"Name a beneficial mutation that adds to the genetic information of an organism that could possibly give it the ability to change into other organisms. (this is the general premise you are trying to tell people)"

ignorant statement. there are plenty of these beneficial mutations, easiest example is Bacteria immunizing itself to antibiotics, i can dig up more but im a Lazy bum.

also, evolution is not about an organism changing into another, it is about that same organism evolving into something more complex.

 

A universal law is one that applies everywhere. In the case of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, all closed systems will end up heading towards entropy.

On Earth, entropy is generally reversing itself due to a massive in-flow of energy. Clearly, you can see that a patch of fertile soil, given enough sunlight, will be overrun in plants in no time at all (complexity increasing, entropy decreasing). Without the sun, this would not happen.

Now, if you want to view the sun-Earth system as one system, then yes, overall, entropy is increasing (mainly in the sun).

To isolate a system, all you need to do is remove outside sources of energy. This we have succeeded in doing.

Sunlight allows a plant to create carbohydrates. The very small rate of cellular damage from UV rays pales in comparison to the enormous benefit of being able to feed oneself.

Not to worry, it's a common error that most creationists make.

Certainly, I can discuss the origins of life if you like.

Talkorigins is quite a wonderful site, yes.

Right, and my cleaning the room is the input of energy that it requires. If you take away that energy source, the room slowly begins to delay, but if I am there, constantly cleaning, its organization level can be maintained at my expense.

Macroevolution is the compilation of steps taken in microevolution. I would doubt that there are too many single, drastic changes in evolution, given that it would reproductively isolate the individual, leaving them unable to pass their genes along.

Actually, macroevolution could be falsified by, as J.B.S. Haldane said, "Fossil rabbits in the precambrian".

Whales?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

Actually, they mean a lot. Ancient whales with vestigal legs would seem to imply that they used to be land-borne.

It's only a bit of side-evidence - Africa has lions and giraffes, South America has cougars and llamas.

Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

I've done quite a bit of research into Creationism, and I have never encountered such empirical evidence. I'd love to see it.

Well, how long have we been monitoring the genetic structure of animals? Do you really expect to see any large number of beneficial muations?

Now that I mention it, there have been some beneficial mutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

In any case, I'd say that evolution is mostly based upon natural variation in offspring.

Teaching science in science class is not violating their right to believe it.

 

It's a science class, teach evolution, as it's definitely something very important that should be learned in that class.

Leave creation for a religion class.

 

If you reply, Icy Dude, then quote what you are talking about. It is to confusing to work with what you have said if it's not in quotes. If you don't, I will not respond.

How to quote

You don't need to. It was implied. If groups are different than others, then they must be better in certain areas than the other groups, or they wouldn't be different. And whatever group had better "differences" would be the more favorable group.

I thought Evolution was the idea that the better species would survive and reproduce, making stronger and stronger species. Sounds like the Aryan race to me.

Remember, the Bible did not have the term "micro-evolution" so it has a different way of explaining the same. A example verse:

Genesis 1:20
"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (verse 21) So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Verse 22) God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Also, let it be known, that micro evolution does not conflict what so ever with the biblical account of creation. Macro evolution does.

Yes, I would like to see where you are getting this. Chances are, the church objected to Macro evolution, not micro evolution, which does NOT support evolution.

Lol Microevolution does not equal Macroevolution

Because bacteria being immune to our medicines helps humans out in surviving. Far from beneficial. Also, as you have missed the point behind the actual question, the mutations within the bacteria, even after 'billions' of years will still render the bacteria, simply bacteria. It will never change into something higher order as it is LOSING genetic information with mutations

When I read this, I knew I was talking to a fool. You need to learn more about what you hold so dearly before you come here again. FYI fish->amphibian is organism to organism.

Exactly

You just said it applied everywhere....(and we both know thermodynamics is a universal law)

Not only you need to remove outside energy, but you also need to remove everything with in the isolated system to make it completely isolated. This is impossible to do and this is why we have never fully tested an isolated system, and everything has been an open system

Yes, for plants, sunlight is quite helpful (as it has numerous mechanisms converting the sunlight) however sunlight is not as helpful for other organisms. Thus the need for constant skin protection in the summer, as the sunlight can cause cancer (mutated cells). Everything is affected by the sun, not just plants.

When you talk about evolution, you inherently must assume an origin, or you are believing something on blind faith. Regardless if you don't believe they are the same(in terms of discussion), evolution is impossible without the other.

yes, you would always have to input energy to keep it clean. Even if you are constantly there to clean it. This is what I originally said....

However, they are not equal. macroevolution relies heavily on microevolution, but they are NOT equal. If they were, we wouldn't have two different terms.

Or the countless living fossils we have found, which have not changed at all since the 'millions' of years of their extinction.

Most of those whales lack even complete skeletons, and much was "interpreted" (of course with an evolutionary bias)

Example is the Ambulocetus

The bottom skeleton is the bones actually found with the red bones being found 5 meters above the rest.

There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. We don't know what it's purpose is, but with further research, the answer will be figured out. Ex. Appendix.

As to the actual question, similar designs hold no evidence showing we have evolved. It simply shows, at best, that the two organisms in question have similar designs. Another point is the need for evolutionists to explain the underlying common factors between organisms as a reason for evolution. It is simply unsupported reasoning.

I think we might be getting somewhere. Evolution relies quite heavily on organisms evolving due to chance beneficial mutations occurring, even though they are drowned out by thousands of negative mutations before the organism reaches the one beneficial mutation (and even if the mutation is considered beneficial, it really is not as it often causes much more problems elsewhere.)

Ok, anything in particular you would like to see? This is kind of broad. Keep in mind you will have a biased when viewing the evidence, so it will not be such 'evidence' to you, but none-the-less I can still show you.

It's a waste of time. Actually, there isn't even enough time.

"But 5 billion years is only about 10^17 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10^80 atoms. So even by the wildest “guesstimates,” the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 10^3,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse."

Laughable.

 

You seem to be taking the Bible as an axiom, as a self-evident truth that always holds precedence over whatever the evidence might seem to demonstrate. Why?

An isolated system is not the same thing as an empty system. "Isolated" means alone, set apart, separate from, so an isolated system can still have matter within it.

Well, seeing as we're very dependent upon plants for sustaining the entire food chain, I'd say that sunlight is very helpful for us.

Also, humans produce vitamin D in skin that is exposed to sunlight.

Clearly there was an origin, or else we would not be here to discuss this. However, the origin is separate from the process of evolution. Even if one does not know how life originated, one can still see that it evolved.

Right, so a system with a source of energy can be kept from falling into decay.

A living fossil is not a refutation of macroevolution, it is an example of a species that is so successful that it does not really need to change.

"the original specimen’s locality was not completely excavated due to safety concerns when the original paper1 of Ambulocetus by “Hans” Thewissen et. al. was published in 1994. In 1996 a great deal more of the skeleton was found. The bones found in 1996 include much of the spine and the pelvis.2 The web site for an exhibit of a reconstructed skeleton of this fossil notes that it is “missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones.” In other words it is remarkably complete. (Keep in mind if one has the limb bone from left side, one knows what the equivalent limb bone on the right side looks like.)"

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html

Here is what we now have:

The appendix has been hypothesized to be a source of bacteria for the human digestive system, true. I would say that most vestigal organs/parts have some secondary function, but it's very difficult to see that there is absolutely no connection at all between the hipbone of a whale (or a snake) and previous ancestors.

Similar designs certain do imply a shared ancestor. If two ancient tribes, a thousand miles apart with no trade routs between them, worship gods with very similar names, festivals, and traditions, it's not unreasonable to believe that this points to one large tribe splitting many years ago.

I would argue that the majority of evolutionary changes, at least from the time that multi-cellular organisms began to emerge, comes from natural variation in the offspring of organisms.

Your best example would be great, as long as it is direct empirical evidence of a creator, not an example of a biological structure that "cannot possibly" have evolved.

That calculation of evolution relies upon the assumption that cells took one giant leap straight to horses, with absolutely no intermediate stages, and no "breaking down" of the probability. It's a false number.

 

of course it should be taught in school, evolution happens all the time and will continue to happen as long as we have the many species and the assortment of ecosystems in the world....things have to adapt to their new environment

 

Godwin's law at work. In a debate, the chance of a comparison to a Nazi (or some other character that invokes the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy) approaches 1. So, the longer it lasts the higher the chance a "Nazi" or "Baby Killer" comment will be made until it happens (Chance = 1) or (from some miraculous turn of events) the argument ends (Chance = 0).


In my opinion, yes, it should be taught. It's the only theory out there that can still be considered "controversial" (to the scientifically uneducated) while still having mountains of evidence and experiments!


http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

To dispel the "Only a Theory" crowd, read this: http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
You'll probably say it's wrong. You're right, it is. Just know, that's how the rest of us view the "Only a Theory" crowd.

 

Oh, so they call it a theory because they are too lazy to change the name?

No, there isn't enough evidence to prove it or it, therefore, wouldn't be a theory.

 

I personnally think it should be taught in schools to Juniors and Seniors and they should be given the choice if they want to listen or not.

 

You sir, need to do your homework.

Definitions of the word "theory" on the web:

Do I need to keep going? The theory of evolution has evidence supporting it. Creationism, however, does not.

 

All theories should be taught in school. From religious to Evolution. This way, students can decide by themselves, which one to believe in.

 

I believe that evolutionism should be taught as theory and not complete fact

How come the common ancestor that man and ape both share as so far eluded discovery, when the ancestor has most likely come from a time period relatively close to our own, for example, no more than 10 million years ago.
Dinosaurs on the other had which have existed over 200 million years ago have had their remains found

 

Evolution is science, religion is not.

The common ancestor of humans and apes existed in a very small part of Africa, for a very short amount of time. Dinosaurs were an extremely broad group, living all over the world for hundreds of millions of years. Your comparison isn't valid.

 

Really, theres no legitamate scientific evidence to back it up. As an example, there is the lack of transitional forms. If mutations occured, there would be fossils in the stage of mutating, and there have been found none of these. There are also other reasons why the world cant be millions of years old. I could go deep into this, but im bored.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Do a bit of research.