1/8 US High School Biology Teachers Present Creationism as Scientific Alternative

[GePap]

Originally posted by MattBowron

Or, scientific theory of evolution is not so different from Genesis and thus can support Genesis as an allegory of modern scientific creation.

Not in the slightest. Genesis is clear about entire complex organisms being created whole. There is no progression.

Or, scientific evolution and creationism could be perhaps two different perspectives on the same story, with science taking a look at the process of how creation came about, while religion/Genesis takes a look at the purpose of why creation came about

Evolution of life does not explain the initial creation of life. If people what to cling to the idea that some greater being ignited the spark of life, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that would disprove them, but the actual story of Genesis in the Bible, or for that matter ANY creation myth, is not compatible with evolution.

[Ben Kenobi]

The theory of evolution has moved far beyond Darwin's groundbreaking and incredible work because we now KNOW what many of the mehcanism of adaptation are, given our knowledge of genetics, as well as knowing what can cause extinctions.

True, in favouring certain mutations over others, through selectiv pressure. However, we cannot predict whether or not say dogs will exist longer as a species then cats, or how a species will evolve in response to environmental pressures. Will the cat lose her tail? Grow bigger? Get thicker fur? We don't know. We say that is merely random chance arises mutations. That's not a scientific theory. If we were to uncover patterns of evolution that would change everything.

As for the evidence of speciation, that is more than amply provided by the fossil record and genetic testing.

Neither of which can be falsified. If I find a bone and I can say it definitely was the ancestor of something or other, when the truth may be that it was merely a dead end? Is it a precisely linear fashion? How can we tell where the breaks are? How can I tell if the sample is representative?

Maybe you forget that one of things that Darwin studied most intently was pigeon breeding, because human breeding of livestock and domesticated animals have provided us with some of the best evidence for the mechanics of evolution that we could ever have.

Indeed. He did an excellent job in showing how differentiation works. The whole purpose of breeding livestock is to encourage good traits to be favoured over bad ones, not to make entirely new species out of whole cloth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, in favouring certain mutations over others, through selectiv pressure. However, we cannot predict whether or not say dogs will exist longer as a species then cats, or how a species will evolve in response to environmental pressures.

And that is because we have no way of knowing what changes to the environment will occur, which is what drives evolution.

Will the cat lose her tail? Grow bigger? Get thicker fur? We don't know. We say that is merely random chance arises mutations. That's not a scientific theory. If we were to uncover patterns of evolution that would change everything.

What are you talking about? The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, and why. Given that what drives evolution is random environmental change, making predictions about what might happen to a species is tied completely to what changes would occur to the biosphere that species inhabit - they are inseperable. To ask which species would last longer, without laying out first what changes occurred is silly.

Neither of which can be falsified. If I find a bone and I can say it definitely was the ancestor of something or other, when the truth may be that it was merely a dead end? Is it a precisely linear fashion? How can we tell where the breaks are? How can I tell if the sample is representative?

Of course they can be falsified. There have been plenty of cases of mistakes in the fossil record being corrected, like for example the skull of the Apatasaurus (or Brontosaurus). The way you can see progression is by looking for a lot of samples, and examining common features on different specimens over time.

You need to be sequestered in a room with a Paleontologist for a few hours.

Indeed. He did an excellent job in showing how differentiation works. The whole purpose of breeding livestock is to encourage good traits to be favoured over bad ones, not to make entirely new species out of whole cloth.

What human breeding shows is how one single common ancestor can be taken and shapped simply by breeding. In less than 10,000 years selectivbe breeding has taken a wolf and created things as different as Chihuahuas and Great Danes. That makes it possible to imagine how in ten or a thousands times that time frame not fully random breeding could lead to the creation of very distinct creatures from a common ancestor. What we achieved in such a miniscule time frame shows just what is possible naturally over vast time spans.

In fact, that simple fact, of just how OLD the Earth is, is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution.

[SlowwHand]

Genesis descibes the creation. On what day were Adam and Eve created?

[Quoted]The Fifth Day
Great numbers of birds and sea creatures. 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." (Genesis 1:20-23)

The Sixth Day
Vast numbers of land animals. Man. From the man, woman(Genesis 1:24-31)[/Quote]

What is a day in eternal time? You know, 1 eternal day equals how many earth days?
If it took Him 6 days to get it done and rested on the 7th, it's different. He may have been jacking around, trying out different creatures, then Adam and Eve, over 1 eternal but how many equivalent earh days.
Just a thought.

[GePap]

Birds came after most land animals, and man has been around for a very small time span (100,000 years at most for Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

[SlowwHand]

Evidently not.

[Theben]

Ben's arguments provide an invaluable service to the cause of promoting atheism.

[Ben Kenobi]

And that is because we have no way of knowing what changes to the environment will occur, which is what drives evolution.

Which is a serious, serious problem with Darwinism. Anything fits. Absolutely anything goes.

Given that what drives evolution is random environmental change, making predictions about what might happen to a species is tied completely to what changes would occur to the biosphere that species inhabit - they are inseperable. To ask which species would last longer, without laying out first what changes occurred is silly.

No my point was something different. Mutations are said to happen randomly. If they had a pattern, one could predict the mutations that would occur and it wouldn't be just due to chance. Actually, I don't believe the mutations happen at random, and that there is a pattern that determines why they happen and when, much in the way that chemical reactions occur.

Of course they can be falsified. There have been plenty of cases of mistakes in the fossil record being corrected, like for example the skull of the Apatasaurus (or Brontosaurus). The way you can see progression is by looking for a lot of samples, and examining common features on different specimens over time.

Sure, that's true. The problem, is that darwin's theory cannot be proven wrong, ever. That mistake is in classification. For example, say they found a skull that was 65 million years old, but completely human. Would that change the current theories on evolution? For sure. Would that mean that evolution was disproven? No, not at all. Inconvenient results can be explained away as anomalies. There isn't a single paleontologist who would be swayed even by evidence to the contrary to believe that species themselves are immutable.

What human breeding shows is how one single common ancestor can be taken and shapped simply by breeding. In less than 10,000 years selective breeding has taken a wolf and created things as different as Chihuahuas and Great Danes.

And you say I need to brush up on my facts? 10 thousand years ago dogs and wolves were different from each other. That's why we picked dogs to domesticate, rather then wolves. Check your facts please.

In fact, that simple fact, of just how OLD the Earth is, is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution.

It's one of the best arguments against it. Unless there are patterns to the mutations, you don't have enough time to evolve intelligent life here on earth. You need new theories. Settling for the Darwinian theories of random mutations isn't good enough.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Which is a serious, serious problem with Darwinism. Anything fits. Absolutely anything goes.

THAT IS THE POINT!!!. The process by which change occurs can be explained, but the very chaotic nature of space and time makes it impossible to know how life will respond and change in accordance with what is a chaotic universe. A theory does not need to explain final ourcomes, only to explain those processes we see in action and explain the current shape of the natural world. Evolution does that, it does that marvelously.

No my point was something different. Mutations are said to happen randomly. If they had a pattern, one could predict the mutations that would occur and it wouldn't be just due to chance. Actually, I don't believe the mutations happen at random, and that there is a pattern that determines why they happen and when, much in the way that chemical reactions occur.

Except that there is no biological evidence whatsover to claim that mutations are anything but random. Can you present ANY evidence of mutations following some pattern???? Mutations are mistakes made in copying a vast and complex data set using physical means.

Sure, that's true. The problem, is that darwin's theory cannot be proven wrong, ever. That mistake is in classification. For example, say they found a skull that was 65 million years old, but completely human. Would that change the current theories on evolution? For sure. Would that mean that evolution was disproven? No, not at all. Inconvenient results can be explained away as anomalies. There isn't a single paleontologist who would be swayed even by evidence to the contrary to believe that species themselves are immutable.

How could the entire theory of evolution be disproven from just a single piece of evidence regarding one single species? There are ongoing arguements about the history of any number of specific species, yes, but what species came into existance when does not challenge the theory of evolution as a whole because that theory explains a process and it is not directly tied to any one product of that process. The only way for you to challenge evolution is to provide physical evidence that would show the existance of a species that could not be explained through evolutionary means. Even if you showed us a 65 million year old human skull (not that that is ever going to happen, given how much life we have found from 65 million years ago and nothing remotely man like has been found), how would you be able to argue that that skull had not evolved from earlier apes living say 70 million years ago?

And you say I need to brush up on my facts? 10 thousand years ago dogs and wolves were different from each other. That's why we picked dogs to domesticate, rather then wolves. Check your facts please.

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

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated subspecies of the wolf, a mammal of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora. The term encompasses both feral and pet varieties and is also sometimes used to describe wild canids of other subspecies or species. The domestic dog has been one of the most widely kept working and companion animals in human history, as well as being a food source in some cultures. There are estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world.[1]

Origins
Main article: Origin of the domestic dog
Based on DNA evidence, the wolf ancestors of modern dogs diverged from other wolves about 100,000 years ago,[7][8] and dogs were domesticated from those wolf ancestors about 15,000 years ago.[9] This date would make dogs the first species to be domesticated by humans.

Evidence suggests that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia, possibly China,[10] and some of the peoples who entered North America took dogs with them from Asia.[10]

As humans migrated around the planet a variety of dog forms migrated with them. The agricultural revolution and subsequent urban revolution led to an increase in the dog population and a demand for specialization. These circumstances would provide the opportunity for selective breeding to create specialized working dogs and pets.


Ancestry and history of domestication
Main article: Origin of the domestic dog

Molecular systematics indicate that the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) descends from one or more populations of wild wolves (Canis lupus). As reflected in the nomenclature, dogs are descended from the wolf and are able to interbreed with wolves.

Before asking people to check facts, it would be best for you to know them yourself, no? So you stand corrected, and I stand correct.

It's one of the best arguments against it. Unless there are patterns to the mutations, you don't have enough time to evolve intelligent life here on earth. You need new theories. Settling for the Darwinian theories of random mutations isn't good enough.

Do you realize Ben that you have no valid logical way to make the argument that there has not been "enough time to evolve intelligent life here on earth" as you claim, because you have no other example to argue with. Without you being able to point to any other example of intelligence in the universe, you don;t have a leg to stand on to claim that a Billion years of radom mutations is not enough time to get to intelligent life, specially if you have not even defined what intelligence is, and because we as a species are currently lost as to what specific genetic did give us sentience as opposed to our closest relatives the apes, or say other non-spae species.

[MattBowron]

apologies GePap if my ideas of what you call creation myth + science = bogus

my personal reason behind this is that I don't like there being conflict over the two topics of creationism and evolution. My attempt at comparing the two pointed to me at similarities between the two 'tales' if you want to look at it that way. Of course there are similarities between many 'tales', Christianity and Zoroastarism and Egyptianism, Genesis and Greek/Roman myths, for another example. But I guess what I find more intriguing is that there seem to be similarities between something that was written perhaps 3000 years ago and what we are finding out today in the world of science.

Maybe it goes back to the old quote from M. Night Shamalyan's film 'Signs', that there are two types of people in the world: 1) those that see things as just being coincidences and 2) those that see things as being signs of something more than coincidence

Oh to Sloww, in my analysis, 1 day for me equals 1 life of a star, because in the first day, the land has not appeared, I interpret this as the planet not being made yet. That the ocean engulfed in darkness moved by the Spirit, could be interpreted as the clouds of hydrogen after the big bang being moved by its echoes. As in the next sentence, "let there be light" scientists believe the echoes led to fusion of hydrogen, forming stars into existence. Note that since the land has not come into being here, I intepreted it as no planets, but if we interpret a day in this time period as when the earth turns away from the sun, how can that be if there is no earth at the time? Thus a day can also be interpreted as a period of sunlight, and thus this evening is when that sunlight goes away, ie, the star dies, either through collapse or a supernova. But it is from supernovae, that lead to gases being unleashed which collapse under gravity and through fusion give birth to new stars. Thus a new 'day' comes into being.

If interested read my thread as mentioned before in previous posts.

P.S: Apologies if my relating this thread to my thread makes me an advertising troll. I just thought that my thread 'Creation and Evolution, not v.s' was relevant to the topic of discussion.

P.P.S: For those of you who doubt god, do you think there's a possibility that this world could be a simulation, not in a world simulation as in Matrix, but a universal simulation. If there is the possibility of this, could not there be the possibility of the aim of that simulation to be similar to that of a plan by what would be called a god? As Arthur C Clarke RIP stated 'any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. Or is this merely philosophy?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It also applies to two very different phenomenons, one of speciation or macroevolution, and the second which is of differentiation, or microevolution.

Species isn't even closed to being a well-defined term in biology. (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem). In particular, the distinction you are trying to make can't even be defined.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The change happens slowly and consistantly.

Neither of these is a claim made by Neo-Darwinism.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The problem is that Darwinian evolution merely says that the organisms will 'adapt'. It doesn't say how. Nor does it state a rate of speciation, or exinction. Nor does it make predictions as to how these adaptations will occur. This is why it shouldn't be taught in science classes, because that's not science.

This is nothing short of laughable.

Le Chatelier's principle:
"If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change."

OMG, it only says it will shift, not how or the rate.
Le Chatelier's principle is not science, shouldn't be taught in science.


Second law of thermodynamics:
"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

OMG, it only says that the total entropy increases. It doesn't say how or at what rate. This is why it shouldn't be taught in science classes, because that's not science.

[Patroklos]

In less than 10,000 years selectivbe breeding has taken a wolf and created things as different as Chihuahuas and Great Danes.

Thats not what happened

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, we cannot predict whether or not say dogs will exist longer as a species then cats,

The fact that this is meaningless doesn't help.
By some common definitions, cats and dogs already are composed of different species.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi not to make entirely new species out of whole cloth.

An undefinable distinction.



There are also many other problems with some of your statements but this distinction that you keep trying to make is the most obvious one. There is no qualitative difference between macro or micro evolution. No definite line at which one becomes the other. There is just change, and then more change and then some more. That's it. If you accept some change over time, you have to accept more change over more time and etc...

If you accept that this change can bring "racial" differences, which it seems you do, you have to accept that it also brings "special" differences as there is no definite qualitative difference between races or subspecies and species.

[Arrian]

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/dogs.htm

Recent mitochondrial DNA studies suggest that wolves and dogs split into different species around 100,000 years ago; but whether humans had anything to do with that, no one really knows. Another recent study suggests that the entire population of dogs today are descended from three females near China about 15,000 years ago; these two competing articles probably represent a reworking of the genetic clock as we become more familiar with the process.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html

About 12,000 years ago hunter-gatherers in what is now Israel placed a body in a grave with its hand cradling a pup. Whether it was a dog or a wolf can’t be known. Either way, the burial is among the earliest fossil evidence of the dog’s domestication. Scientists know the process was under way by about 14,000 years ago but do not agree on why. Some argue that humans adopted wolf pups and that natural selection favored those less aggressive and better at begging for food. Others say dogs domesticated themselves by adapting to a new niche—human refuse dumps. Scavenging canids that were less likely to flee from people survived in this niche, and succeeding generations became increasingly tame. According to biologist Raymond Coppinger: “All that was selected for was that one trait—the ability to eat in proximity to people.”

At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical.

So basically we're not really sure how or when it started. We obviously know a lot about it in the past several centuries.

-Arrian