Evolution?

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

Many parents are trying to get it so that they don't teach it in some of the school's because America is based upon "religious" virtues as Christianity, and not evolution, so they don't like them filling there kids heads with 'lies' about Evolution

but that's all I know, Don't really want to put this in the debate but if ya wanna go ahead,
I'm just here answering questions that I know

Kovu

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Many parents are trying to get it so that they don't teach it in some of the school's because America is based upon "religious" virtues as Christianity, and not evolution, so they don't like them filling there kids heads with 'lies' about Evolution

Hahaha, oh wow.

That's one of the best things I've heard all day. =]

Thanks MoS, that's what I was thinking of.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

Lucky me, I got to go to both private and public schools.
In the public school, I was taught the theory of evolution - note how I said "theory", because that's how it was taught to us. It wasn't taught to me with a "this is how things happened and anyone who doesn't believe it is wrong" attitude.

It was a different story when I went to one private school. There, they only taught me the Christian Creationism myth/story/whatever and their entire spiel was that the Book of Genesis was law. LAW I SAY! The entire concept of evolution is a lie, the Christian story is the only correct one, blah blah blah.
*dons a nun's habit and brandishes a ruler*

I didn't stay in that school long.


In yet another private school, I was taught both, once again in a "this is what some people believe - you're free to make up your own mind" attitude.

So I suppose it varies from school to school. Personally, for various reasons, I'd rather Creationism stay out of public schools, that is if it's just going to focus on the traditional Christian idea of Creationism.
Most of the time, when people speak of Creationism, it seems they're only referring to the entire Genesis belief/myth/whatever, when there are actually many different kinds. I imagine it could take a while to go through all of them -
If public schools are going to teach that kind of thing, they'd probably be better off offering an optional elective philosophy/theology class as opposed to attempting to teach it in a science class...

[Melody of Scar]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Hahaha, oh wow.

That's one of the best things I've heard all day. =]

Thanks MoS, that's what I was thinking of.

*dips a bow* Anytime. 'Tis why I'm here.

My ex-girlfriend is taught evolution in her private school. I guess Wicked is right in saying it varies - even my sister's old private school taught evolution.

Maybe it's more of a religious-based vs. non religious-based sort of thing? That's a huge generalization, I s'pose, but it may be the underlying difference between evolution and creationism.

I personally lean towards evolution - the study of ancient beasties and how they became what they are today/failed to adapt and died out interests me. I just don't think things appeared out of thin air... Something happened.

[Only-now]

Well..then you don't believe in evolution. I don't think that many people even looked at the link I left...but that is because everyone still feels comfortable that evolution is correct..when they don't even understand how many flaws are in the idea of it.

~Kiva

[Azerane]

In my school, which was a private school, we had Christian Living/Religion classes, though we weren't really taught what to accept, we just taught things and if we wanted to accept them then I guess we could. And then, in Biology, my teacher put it well. She said that you may have christian(or other) beliefs about the creation or evolution of life, but in biology, if you write about those, it's incorrect. You have to believe or at least accept evolution as a theory in biology class. ...soemthing like that anyway

And I believe Hasira made a good point on the last page... where was it...?..

There are fossils that show the gradual shift from one form to another, horses for example. There are also cetacean fossils that show this steady change. The reason that it appears that there was no life and then, boom, every species is because the first life forms were single celled and had a slimmer chance of becoming fossilized. Finally, the chance than an organism will die in a situation favourable to fossilization is unlikely. We're lucky we have the fossils that we do have.

We were learning about that the other week in class, our lecturer said that the reason it seems like life just suddenly appears is because before then, the forms of life that were there were not easily fossilised. He used the example that before there were forms of life with shells and things, like they were just soft matter... if that makes sense. It's the bones and shells and things that leave an imprint and are left fossilsed. Other things are not.

And Only_Now.. about what you were saying... you also made a good point how there are missing fossil links between evolution of species, which is right. So.. if that didn't occur and it wasn't creation... then do you have a theory for how species like modern humans and things came to be? i'm just interested to know another perspective.

[Only-now]

No..I can't say that I have a theory...that would take a lot of knowledge I don't have..and I don't really have any religious beliefs at the moment. My point here is to express that evolution is not that strongly supported as many think it is..and if anyone would look at the link..etc...you would see that I think.

That is my point though...the single celled organisms existed in the Precambrian age...but then suddenly..there was a burst or ALL the phyla we have at once..simultaneously. So how can evolution be supported by this when you have many different phyla appearing at exactly the same time..when evolution teaches (in the most common form) that everything came from a "soup" (the same common ancestor)? That should show that the organisms gradually changed into the various phyla over time and not all at once. So...we obviously have some evidence to support this claim. The Cambrian Explosion consisted of many multi-celled organisms and not single-celled. So the sudden explosion of multi-celled and all 26 phyla at the same time is some evidence against evoltution..or at least points out a flaw. Read the link and it can explain it better.

There aren't any fossils that show the transition between any one species to another etc.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
[B]Although many sources would lead you to believe that they have much proof of evolution, the truth is that there really isn't much. There isn't enough to say it happened..and there are certain things against it. Many of the pictures and things learned in school were actually lies and falsifications. There have been many fossils that have been faked to look as if they were a missing link,

Can you give specific examples? As far as I know, there are plenty of actual fossils out there that support the theory.

Everyone must also realize that evoltion and adaptation are two different things. Evolution refers to one species changing into a completely new one..NOT that animals adapt to their environments. That is just where it starts and is supposed to continue...but in fact animals will switch back and forth between desirable traits. If evolution did occur, you would expect to find many of the fossils of the species' that existed in between the first life and all the various ones we have today..yet that is NOT the case. There are hardly any, IF any that show this. Finally...geological records show that during the course of the Earth...we went from no life...to every species on earth at once..it wasn't gradual.

Evolution doesn't require a species to change into a new one, by definition. It just predicts that such a thing will happen occasionally.

And I was under the impression that despite the gaps, there are quite a few transitional fossils.

And...the geological record does show a rather gradual change, at least as gradual as is predicted by evolution.

I sort of believe both should be taught..as both can be looked at as theories and to a point...religions.

I'm fine with creationism being taught in a religion class, but not a science class, since it is not a science. Neither is intelligent design.

Cambrian Explosion: This a period in Earth's history in which ALL of the 26 phyla we now have suddenly appeared at once. During the Precambrian period, there was only single-celled organisms, but when the Cambrian Explosion occuerd we had all the phyla appear simultaneously..and they haven't changed at all in comparison to today.

Are you saying evolution just -stopped- after the Cambrian Explosion? Because that is entirely incorrect. The Cambrian Explosion is not evidence against evolution. The rapid evolution of a variety of organisms can be attributed to quite a number of things including climate change, increased atmospheric oxygen levels, genetic complexity having reached a level that allowed for more varied rapid change, etc.

Fossil Record: The fossil record of many animals and plants shows that in the various layers of Earth's surface..the organisms HAVE NOT become more complex over time. Examples are listed in the linked site...but it states that if you take a fossil from (for a number) 10 million years ago..and compare it to a newer layer of 7 million years ago (of the same creature) you won't see a change in complexity with the newer fossil being more complex than the older one.

Evolution does not mandate that organisms become more complex. This is a very common misconception and causes me to question this site's credibility if it is making that claim because it shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not about creating "more advanced" lifeforms. All evolution states is that organisms which are well adapted to their environment will survive, while organisms that are not will die out which may result in changes (not necessarily "advancements" by our standards) over time.

Transitional Fossils: Darwin himself said that this was the biggest argument against his theory..and to this day still is. There is a MAJOR lack of any fossils that show the change between not only human and whatever our previous form was...but also between other animals. It should also be noted that macro and micro evolution are NOT the same thing..and that small adaptations are not proof of evolution on a macro-scale. Here is a quote written by a paleontologist in a book supporting evolution. He wrote this in reply to a reader's comment on why he hadn't provided any transitional fossils: ?I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ?. I will lay it on the line ? there is not one fossil which one could make a watertight argument.?

I believe someone else already commented on the very obvious reasons for lack of transitional fossils. Fossil preservation is not necessarily a common occurence. I mean, look at the art history record. Human art has been around relatively recently in thr grand timeline, yet many pieces are recovered damaged and many pieces written about are never recovered at all (such as most of the Etruscan temples, for example).

And if you're arguing here that "macroevolution" (i.e. speciation) has never occured, you're wrong. It has and it has been observed.

Evolution has quite a lot of substantial proof behind it. Most doubt about it results in reluctancy to accept scientific evidence as valid, or simple lack of information/misunderstandings, as this site seems to suffer from a great deal, considering they don't really seem to understand what evolution even is.

There aren't any fossils that show the transition between any one species to another etc.

I'm not even sure how you can make this claim because it is -entirely- false. There are quite a few. Here's a long list of some of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[Only-now]

No..you are wrong on all those points actually. Have you looked at the site I listed at all yet?

1) I did give specific examples of certain lies and such that they had taught in textbookes. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, the ancient horse illustrations etc etc. In fact..most of what has been said as "fact" is not at all.

2) No...evolution DOES require a change. Stating that something like this will occur over time is exactly what I mean. Evolution is NOT adaptation, or organisms changing to fit their environment. The finches that Darwin observed grew longer beaks because it helped them with food consumption...but we have also figured out that as the seasons change there, the beaks will change back and forth from long to short (in terms of which birds survive and which die). Now..this is micro-evoltuion. Darwin would have theorized that those birds would change into a completely different species of birds and that the survival of the fittest was just a catalyst.

There are NO transitional bones. If you look it up, you will see so yourself. Not to mention I must point out the quote I listed in which a paleantologist who supported evolution stated that very thing.

The Cambrian explosion shows that 26 different phyla all appeared at the same time....with NO evolutionary ancestors. They also remained unchanged to this day. The other problem is that there are no new body plans in any layers of rock following the Cambrian. That means that there are no rapid changes that would have to occur in order for amoeba's to evolve into man. That IS what evolution teaches...everything came from the same "soup". So..the Cambrian explosion is evidence agianst evolution. How can only single-celled organisms simultaneously change into 26 DIFFERENT phyla..when evolution would have each one come from another? Also..I am saying that evolution must have stopped..because we haven't seen anything evolve in the whole time we have been studying this. It wouldn't be such an argument if this was an observable thing.


Evolution is NOT about adaptation. That is the most common misconception. adaptation is part of this theory..and no one even argues about that. It HAS been observed...we are arguing over macro evolution. Evolution DOES require that one creature change into a completely new one..not that it simply has small changes within its body structure that help it survive. Evolution does require that organisms become more complex by its very happening. Evolution would have us believe that a single cell was what created us all. Now...can you argue with me that humans are not the most complex creatures on Earth? Every change would show a change in body structure...and result in a new species that is more complex than the last one. That is how it is stated to have occured in evolution. I think many evolutionists would like to fall back on the whole "gradual small changes" but in fact..that is not what evolution is. They state this to be less radical and because then they can use other facts for proof of their theory. Evolution DOES require a change from one organism to another. Micro and macro are not the same things.

Why is it that every time one of these discussions comes up..and someone goes against evolution..the people supporting it always say "there must be a lack of understanding of evolution for you to make that claim" etc? No...maybe it is that there is a PROBLEM with the theory of evolution.

No..it isn't common...but one would think that if everything had evolved from one common ancestor..that there would be a much larger amount of bones and fossils than we currently have. Not to mention, did you also know that it is impossible to actually prove if one bone is related to another? You can make that assumption...but it isn't proven. What I mean is that I looked at parts of that list you have...and that is fine and dandy....but similarities in structure and small changes does not show evolution. I mean...that although there may be one fish fossil that looks one way..and then another fish fossil that has slightly different features..there is NO way to prove that the older one is related to the newer one. If you read the site that I posted...you might see what I mean. What the problems are with that type of assumption.

Macro evolution has NOT occured..otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing over this.

I really get tired of people saying that if one questions something such as evolution, they are just misinformed or stubborn. That is NOT the case whatsoever. It isn't about reluctancy to accept scientific fact..because it isn't a fact! It has so many holes and flaws in it. That site does not suffer from it at all..and I can bet you hadn't even read it when you said that. The more I discuss this, the more I see what my father was saying. If you try and argue with someone who believes in evolution...they will always say the same thing: "You must be a religious zealot who thinks the Earth is flat!". By that I mean, they will always criticize you as being too religious (although that hasn't happened because I stated I am not arguing for creationism) and they will say you are uniformed/don't understand/stubborn, etc etc.

Of course it is impossible to question a THEORY because you will always be ridiculed for it. Evolution is NOT a fact...and it does NOT have a lot of proof behind it. Now...notice how I even mentioned that it is not proven evolution is wrong...but that is not how the opponents view it. They believe they are RIGHT..COMPLETELY...that there is tons of evidence..and that there couldn't possibly be another way. Well..maybe if the world wasn't so saturated with the falsifications of evolution, and there were more well-informed people...we would have a chance...but instead we will continue to point out the flaws...and they will continue to hold it up as if it were true in the fullest.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

So, Kiva, why did you link to a site that in the first ten lines of its introduction manages to confuse biology with astronomy and geology?

[Only-now]

Maybe you are confused. Why don't you read more than just the introduction? Not to mention, you mentioning that does not refute the facts whatsoever.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

Not really confused, no. I'm pretty familiar with christian creationist lingo and how they like to invent terms that they pretend are scientific. But if you don't want to tell me why you didn't link to a site that keeps to the biology of it, I guess that's fine. *shrug*

[Only-now]

*sighs* See...the point here is you aren't refuting ANY of the scientific things listed. Not to mention, that he doesn't give one biblical reason as to why it is not to be trusted. All the reasons are scientific. Not to mention, once again we have a liberal who is pointing out that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution MUST be a Christian who can't POSSIBLY comprehend science like you all-knowing evolutionist.

Maybe when you can actually refute the facts instead of just insulting..we can get somewhere...but so far you are just playing "make-believe" that you know what is going on.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

I didn't post here to refute anything, actually. I was just curious. But obviously, you are in no mood to humour me, so I shall take my leave. See you 'round, Kiv.

[Only-now]

Please do...this is for discussion of evolution..and your statement that it does not stick to the biology of it IS true...it also uses physics, atronomy, geology, paleontology etc etc. It is a scientific site that uses facts to show flaws in evolution. It is not religious in the least bit. He believes in creationism..and that is fine. But..regardless of whether you do or don't...the evidence agianst evolution is still there. I don't see what you are talking about other than doing exactly what he stated in his intro: Evolutionists will always say that creationists are less scientific and not smart enough to understand the "science" of it. Which is what you said with the "...invent terms that they pretend are scientific."

There is evolution in the working! See..the evolutionists are the evolved form of the creationists/anyone-who-disagrees and are more complex. We lower life forms are simply incapable of understanding such "science".

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Um, I'm sorry, but everything you are saying to refute my comments is incorrect. I even provided you with a link that lists found transitional fossils yet you still claim there are none.

Do a little research online or in a science text or journal. You'll find everything I've mentioned.

What is your background in evolution, I must ask? Is it just this site? Because you're very confidently saying you know all of these things to be fact, such as the "fact" that speciation has not occured when I can provide you dozens of articles on observed instances of speciation.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are misinformed or lacking an understanding of it because you provide a single web page on the internet to back up your claims which conflicts with some of the basic definitions of evolution. And you claim things have never happened that actually have.

I'll come back to address specifics later, but you really would benefit from reading a few other sources besides this one site and looking at a scientific journal or two.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Only-now
Maybe you are confused. Why don't you read more than just the introduction? Not to mention, you mentioning that does not refute the facts whatsoever.

~Kiva

I think his point is that your source is unreliable.

[Only-now]

*sighs* Why would I benefit from reading those sites when it is my argument that those sites provide the WRONG information? You provided me a link to a site that lists fossils found and states out of pure speculation that those are related to one another. How does that prove anything..or help out? My argument is that ASSUMING that those are linked with very little evidence (which you can find in my article) is wrong..and is not valid.

What you are saying is that all the things that are supposed to be evidence for evolution are indeed correct..when it is my argument that those things...that very evidence is false..and the information to support that is found on the site which I have listed.

Also...the site you posted I have seen in many discussions..and it is even mentioned on the website I posted near the end. All those fossil transitions you listed are refuted in the article I stated. Not to mention I put out the TRUE FACT (which even evolutionists know)..that simply finding fossils that have similarities with one another with various changes..it is not possible to prove they are actually related to one another. Doesn't that make sense to you? That makes your page on transitional fossils obsolete because it cannot be proven that they actually are related and transitioned as so. Have you even looked at the site I listed at all? I mean..I at least looked at the list etc that you provided.

You say use a text or journal...but I am not arguing that people don't THINK there is proof. I am saying that the evidence that you think is fact...that is correct and that if I look at it will convince me is actually erroneous. Do you see what I am saying? It isn't that I am misinformed about the theory and that I am just assuming that it is wrong without reading the right material. If you look back..I said I actually used to think evolution is right...but I am saying that there is evidence AGAINST evolution...scientific facts that put holes in that theory. That is NOT misinformation..it is valid and should be looked into.

I doubt you would ask anyone who blatantly stated that evolution occured what their background was....because apparently that is something that is just a fact that some "less intelligent" or "misinformed" people don't understand. What you fail to realize is that it is NOT a fact that is misunderstood...it is a theory with very little proof behind it and if you actually look at the facts instead of what many would LIKE to believe you would see this. Why do I need a background? Are you a scientist? I think that reading up on various sides of the argument is just as trustworthy as you blindly believing that there are no errors with this theory simply because you want to and because the "scientists" said so. If YOU would go a little further..and read what that site has to say...maybe that would make you at least QUESTION whether it is correct or not. Instead however...this is treated like a religion. Although no one who believes it can see it, or has...and although there is very little proof...you put your full faith in it as if it were completely true.

What I believed has happened is that you are actually the misinformed one that believes evolution is one thing instead of another..and that one definition of it fits for all.

Well..if that is the case Neph than he is wrong...they site where everything comes from..including many books that are in support of evolution. That statement that something is being confused is wrong..and the fact that he didn't explain is even more questionable.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

You see, here is the fundamental difference between our opposing claims. Mine are backed by science journals and the scientific community. Mine have reputable sources cited. Mine are based on study and observation.

Basically, you believe an unsourced paper (the only sources I'm seeing in it are quotes taken out of context, which is a very poor way to support an argument) on the internet intended to give Christians arguments to use to refute evolution (many of the arguments brought up are some of the most-common misunderstandings about evolution out there), over the qualified scientific community. Over the encyclopdeia and dictionary even.

"In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (note it says "can" not "must")

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

So, I guess you and that website must be right, and the scientific community and the dictionary and the enclopedia are all wrong. Seeing as all of these things contradict the single source you provided and the arguments you are making.

I have actually taken a university-level class on evolution and done extensive reading on my own time. I've read all sides of the argument. So don't even try to say I need to do more reading on the subject because I am blindly believing it without bothering to look at all sides.

I ask again, what is your background? It does matter. You don't necessarily need to be a scientist. I am not. But if your background knowledge of evolution consists of "I learned about it in high school and then I read this article refuting it and I believed everything it said instantly," then I'm sorry, I have to question who is misinformed and immediately latching onto an opinion without bothering to look into it further.

Once again, I will get back to all your specific comments and the specific arguments of the article when I have more time. I was hoping that wouldn't be necessary because that's going to take a really long time for me to type up, so I was trying to persuade you to realize that looking at other sources may provide you with any of the answers I could give you. But apparently that's not going to happen since you are convinced this article must be right and refuse to look further into its claims.

So, please be patient and I'll return with a lengthy post going over all the major details as soon as I have some free time (which is not now because I have a project to finish for class and that takes priority over internet debates).

[Pnt]

Though I think that you should never start accepting a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law as fact and should always continue testing such things, even when they seem concrete, I do think that the mere fact that evolution is considered a Theory of Science has some weight towards its validity. Contrary to it's popular use, an official theory in science has been supported by evidence for at least around 15-20 years (sometimes much longer) without good, credible evidence disproving it. A theory of science is as close to fact as one can get without such theory becoming a scientific law. I guess what bothers me is all the people going around saying "It's just a theory", when a theory is in fact a very well supported claim. Evolution, not including abiogenesis*, was declared a scientific theory in the late 90's.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that non-organic chemicals can, over time, arrange themselves into organic substances or organisms.