Evolutionary Theory being taught.

[Romber]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that a closed system not in equilibrium must approach entropy. So, if the entire Earth were a closed system, this might work. Oh, if only we evolutionists had a large source of energy relatively near to the Earth. Preferably something hot and bright. That would solve all of our problems.

Just because you have the sun does not mean you are exempt from the law of thermodynamics. In fact, pure sunlight shining onto Earth causes more entropy than order.

Take for example a dead tree branch and living one from the same tree. Why won't the dead tree branch begin to grow again even though it is bathed in sunlight? It's simple, it has no teleonomy. Where did the original teleonomy originate? Well it's impossible unless there was a designer who put it in place.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics is a universal law. Thus it applies to all systems, closed or not. Hence the universal part. This means even Earth is affected.

Microevolution can be directly observed

Microevolution does nothing to support evolution. However, it supports theories of natural selection, and evolution uses processes of said theory.

macroevolution can be indirectly observed.

Such as? A bit of detail on what you mean by indirectly observed would be great.

 

[darth rave]

In my holy opinion, I think they should teach both Creationism and Atheism. Both will most likely contradict each other, but, they should let the students choose what they want to believe, not the people in charge. Also if they ever put theism back in schools (some still have it) I would rather them have it be the students choice and not the admins forcing it on them.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Just because you have the sun does not mean you are exempt from the law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth because it is an open system with a huge source of free energy.

In fact, pure sunlight shining onto Earth causes more entropy than order.

How so?

Take for example a dead tree branch and living one from the same tree. Why won't the dead tree branch begin to grow again even though it is bathed in sunlight? It's simple, it has no teleonomy. Where did the original teleonomy originate? Well it's impossible unless there was a designer who put it in place.

The issue of the origin of life is separate from the issue of the evolution of life.

Sunlight does not constantly transform non-living matter into life. It's a source of energy to be utilized by that which is already living - pouring gasoline on a broken-down truck will do it no good.

You might recall from a basic biology class that the sun drives 99% of the Earth's ecosystem (geothermal vents/chemical energy provide isolated niches for certain hardy lifeforms). The plants produce energy by photosynthesis, the herbivores eat the plants, the carnivores eat the herbivores, etc.

It is possible that sunlight was a part of the origin of life.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics is a universal law. Thus it applies to all systems, closed or not. Hence the universal part. This means even Earth is affected.

No, it does not:

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

By your logic, my bedroom should continually decay into disorganization, even with my constant input of energy to keep it orderly.

Microevolution does nothing to support evolution. However, it supports theories of natural selection, and evolution uses processes of said theory.

Macroevolution is a compilation of tiny steps taken in microevolution.

Such as? A bit of detail on what you mean by indirectly observed would be great.

The fossils, the genetic similarities, the anatomical similarities, and the geographic distribution of species.

In my holy opinion, I think they should teach both Creationism and Atheism. Both will most likely contradict each other, but, they should let the students choose what they want to believe, not the people in charge. Also if they ever put theism back in schools (some still have it) I would rather them have it be the students choice and not the admins forcing it on them.

If you're teaching religious myths, you should make sure you're including all of them.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

If you're teaching religious myths, you should make sure you're including all of them.

Better yet, if you're teaching anything, you should make sure you have all the info on both sides, and present it accordingly.

 

[theghetto8]

To be honest I don't think they should teach religions in public schools. Evolution is the subject that should be taught in science classes for several reason.

• It actually deals with science.
• Not only can it explain how humans formed but it also explains how organisms mutate.
• There is more proof that evolution is how humans got here. You could go outside and notice evolution right now.

Those are a few reasons why public schools should teach evolution and not religion in their science class. Talking about evolution won't make somebody change their religion if they are as "religious" as some claim to be. And besides, would you rather them learn about myths that have no evidence to back them up or learn about how organisms change and mutate constantly for survival and have evidence to back it up?

Private schools are a different topic though. Because those are privately owned and payed for by the student's/parent's/anybody willing to donate money I think they should be able to teach what they want because the student's that go there are going there by choice.

 

[Best in the world]

I don't believe it should.

This post received an infraction for spam.

 

[nitro91]

i go to a christian school
so something like this will be taught and discussed more
but yeh learnt more of it in science, mainly discussing the views and aspects of it
not so much that it was right but just to have knowledge of it

i think in public government schools it would be ok to teach, but different story if they were saying that it was the actual way, but just having knowledge in it is fine

 

[Shredderbeam]

Better yet, if you're teaching anything, you should make sure you have all the info on both sides, and present it accordingly.

It depends on the class that's being taught. If it's a science class, then you teach science, and not mythology.

 

[antchak]

Evolution is not proven among human beings, but it has been proven time and time again amongst other species. Species have adapted to conditions, and whether or not this is true for humans, it should still, in my opinion, be shown to high-school level students. The theory of evolution should be presented, but not necessarily taught as gospel. It is prudent to have an understanding of all theories when learning about hypothetical subjects.

 

[IcyDude]

antchak, evolution is clarly visible in humans, as you can see various "kinds" of humans in different parts of the globe who have adapted to their surroundings.

 

[Tilex]

Evolutionary theory. As long as the subjects are aware that it is theory being taught, and what theory is, there is no problem. Creationism on the other hand is technically unconstitutional.

 

[antchak]

antchak, evolution is clarly visible in humans, as you can see various "kinds" of humans in different parts of the globe who have adapted to their surroundings.

Ah but that is adaptive evolution, which is not what we are discussing. Humans are the same everywhere, with minor changes based on their environment. You are correct, however, minor evolution is evident amongst humans, but again this is more minor adaption, similar to the way you get a tan. That is evolution, but the human race is hardly considered to be evolving just because you got a tan.

 

[IcyDude]

i am not only referring to skin colour, i also mean other body characteristics.

the seperation between micro evolution and macro evolution is artificial and encouraged by creationists (because they can no longer deny micro evolution) and unfortunately many people also seperate by these categories.

these small, minor, adaptive changes, in the long run, is what evolution is all about- minor changes created by mutations and variations that are filtered by natural selection. in the long run this process can create an enormous variety [=

 

[antchak]

i am not only referring to skin colour, i also mean other body characteristics.

the seperation between micro evolution and macro evolution is artificial and encouraged by creationists (because they can no longer deny micro evolution) and unfortunately many people also seperate by these categories.

these small, minor, adaptive changes, in the long run, is what evolution is all about- minor changes created by mutations and variations that are filtered by natural selection. in the long run this process can create an enormous variety [=

Obviously, except unless the Earth's climate drastically changes we will no longer continue to adapt, as we have already adapted. There is really no proof evolution took place, although I am inclined to believe that it did. The real question is, what did we evolve from, and what did they evolve from, and where did the thing they evolve from come from, and so on and so forth. I often think of these questions at night out on my veranda, for, in my opinion, there are very few things more intriguing in life than trying to solve unsolvable mysteries, and trying to answer questions that have no answer.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Evolution is not proven among human beings, but it has been proven time and time again amongst other species. Species have adapted to conditions, and whether or not this is true for humans, it should still, in my opinion, be shown to high-school level students. The theory of evolution should be presented, but not necessarily taught as gospel. It is prudent to have an understanding of all theories when learning about hypothetical subjects.

There is a fair degree of evidence showing that humans are descended from an ape-like creature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

Evolutionary theory. As long as the subjects are aware that it is theory being taught, and what theory is, there is no problem. Creationism on the other hand is technically unconstitutional.

A theory is different from an educated guess.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Obviously, except unless the Earth's climate drastically changes we will no longer continue to adapt, as we have already adapted. There is really no proof evolution took place, although I am inclined to believe that it did. The real question is, what did we evolve from, and what did they evolve from, and where did the thing they evolve from come from, and so on and so forth. I often think of these questions at night out on my veranda, for, in my opinion, there are very few things more intriguing in life than trying to solve unsolvable mysteries, and trying to answer questions that have no answer.

There's quite a bit, actually:

- Fossil records
- Genetic similarities
- Anatomical similarities
- Distribution of species

 

[antchak]

There is a fair degree of evidence showing that humans are descended from an ape-like creature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

There is but it remains unproven. You are correct though.

There's quite a bit, actually:

- Fossil records
- Genetic similarities
- Anatomical similarities
- Distribution of species

I would call that pieces of the puzzle, not proof. Again I agree that evolution was probably what took place but it remains theoretic.

 

[Shredderbeam]

There is but it remains unproven. You are correct though.

All of science is theoretical. You're never going to get full and complete proof.

I would call that pieces of the puzzle, not proof. Again I agree that evolution was probably what took place but it remains theoretic.

I'm understating the enormous amount of this evidence - it comes as close to absolute proof as you might reasonably expect.

 

[antchak]

All of science is theoretical. You're never going to get full and complete proof.

Untrue. It is possible to get proof that is irrefutable.

I'm understating the enormous amount of this evidence - it comes as close to absolute proof as you might reasonably expect.

Reasonably expect being the operator. This is just like the "do you believe in a God thread?" No will can ever prove evolution correct but it is a viable theory. I realize the amount of proof, I studied evolution (Darwin's Theory) for several months in my first year of university. Humans existence may have began with evolution, but then again, where did monkeys come from? If they evolved, what from? And what did that evolve from? Something was created from nothing along the line (I do not believe in the religious rubbish about Adam though) Interesting questions....

 

[Shredderbeam]

Untrue. It is possible to get proof that is irrefutable.

In logic and mathematics, yes, but with regard to science, which is empirical, there is no such thing as an absolute, 100% correct proof.

Reasonably expect being the operator. This is just like the "do you believe in a God thread?" No will can ever prove evolution correct but it is a viable theory. I realize the amount of proof, I studied evolution (Darwin's Theory) for several months in my first year of university. Humans existence may have began with evolution, but then again, where did monkeys come from? If they evolved, what from? And what did that evolve from? Something was created from nothing along the line (I do not believe in the religious rubbish about Adam though) Interesting questions....

When I say "it comes as close to absolute proof as you might reasonably expect", I mean that the evidence is obviously not going to show every single step of the way with no gaps. The evidence that is available is enough to claim with reasonable certainty that evolution is a fact, just as one might claim the same about the current laws of chemistry.

The origin of life is a separate issue from evolution - though it's still studied. The field is known as abiogenesis, and it isn't that all improbable.

 

[Romber]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth because it is an open system with a huge source of free energy.

It's not that hard, really, it's not. A universal law affects, well, the universe. The universal law has never had an exception...ever. Quit insisting just because there is an open system it is not effected. It is very naive.

By the way, we have never ever tested the second law in a complete isolated system (as there will always be outside influences in whatever is isolated due to human error/lack of technology). It has always been identified in a system with outside influences included.

How so?

Oh, come on. Sunlight accelerates mutation rates in cells. And mutations are NOT beneficial.

The issue of the origin of life is separate from the issue of the evolution of life.

yes, the typical side step technique most evolutionists take. Forget about talking about origins (however I see you like to cite talkorigins.com quite a bit)

By your logic, my bedroom should continually decay into disorganization, even with my constant input of energy to keep it orderly.

Uhm...yes. You can clean it to perfection, give it 5 hours, walk back in, and there will be dust.

Actually, to quote Sir Issac Asimov: "...We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily..."

Macroevolution is a compilation of tiny steps taken in microevolution.

Microevolution=Natural Selection(within a species)=observable, testable, falsifiable.
Macroevolution=Transition of species from one to another=unobservable, untestable, unfalsifiable

The fossils, the genetic similarities, the anatomical similarities, and the geographic distribution of species.

The fossil record that lacks any transitional fossils, anatomical similarities means nothing for evolution, and distribution has absolutely nothing to help evolution

It actually deals with science.

Well, yes. Natural Selection, which Creation science uses quite well too. Any other examples that Evolution uses that's purely science and Creationism doesn't?

Not only can it explain how humans formed but it also explains how organisms mutate.

Creationists explain how humans, the world, and in fact, the universe was created. It was quite simple. Btw, mutations only affect genetic makeup already present and are harmful 99% of the time with a ratio of about 1000 bad mutations to a single good one

There is more proof that evolution is how humans got here.

Because you look at the world with an indoctrinated mind bent only on seeing the world through a uniformtarian/ evolutionistic

And besides, would you rather them learn about myths that have no evidence to back them up or learn about how organisms change and mutate constantly for survival and have evidence to back it up?

Have you actually even looked into Creationism at all? There is quite solid evidence of a creator, that is quite empirical too.

but it has been proven time and time again amongst other species.

Can you please cite where you are getting these "time and time again proven evidence"

evolution is clarly visible in humans, as you can see various "kinds" of humans in different parts of the globe who have adapted to their surroundings.

All humans are the same. However different genes are expressed. There is nothing supporting different colored people are evolved forms, or in other words more "advanced" forms. Also, speaking of evolution in terms of people will get you into trouble. (cough, Nazism, cough)

(because they can no longer deny micro evolution)

Lol, this is ignorant statement of the year. You clearly have no idea what Creationism is about. Btw, the bible in fact teaches, within the scripture, of microevolution or natural selection

minor changes created by mutations and variations that are filtered by natural selection.

one question. 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)