CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm talking about the missing links. There are various missing links that are filled with theories. And also the the link just before the evolution of man.
I know what you're talking about, I wished that you tell me between which species you find these glaring omissions and we can discuss them.
There are various missing links that are filled with theories.
No there are not, there is a well documented history of fossils, "missing links" is a term made in ignorance before genetic evidence and before a full understanding of what Natural Selection does, if tomorrow a species is discovered that say shows Panderichthys and Tiktaalik, were separated by another species, then to creationists and evolution deniers there would be two more gaps left to fill.
Dawkins' analogized an Imaginary line up of parent and child of one living species and following the line all the way back through evolutionary time to the dawn of life, each child would resemble their parent in most ways, but in the vastness of geological time (4.5 billion years) there would if one had the capability to live long enough to make the trip, be slight changes that would seem insignificant at the first viewing but over billions of individuals would accumulate into a serious change in form and function of individuals, passing from parent to offspring this would not be obvious, but passing from child to 900,000 greats grand parent there would be a much more noticeable difference.
With this in mind it is the fact that one species does not jump to another, Wolves did not just one day give birth to Dogs, it happens that two members of a species could be isolated from one another even over a short distance can change in time to the extent that they can not mate, then two new species are born and so on, these two would not be all that different to the originator but by the flimsy definition of species that exists are considered different.
Looking for gaps is unscientific and impedes progress, trying to understand what directed change is noble, this is where Natural Selection comes in.
And also the the link just before the evolution of man.
There is no missing link before the Homo family, we already know that Australopithecus precedes us and there are many more.
Before I comment any further, I want you know that my argument is only in the jest of learning more. I don't suppose I possess half the knowledge in this matter that you do.
It is explained quite well how oxygen originated paving way for life. It is also well explained of how from oxygen producers came the the producers of carbonic oxide. Though I'm always left confused by the various evolution scientists if it was the bacteria that came first or the life forms that did photosynthesis. But, the beginning of life itself is the most controversial from what I've learnt from around the non-believers. The beginning of the cell, it's composition seems to be distracting to me. Of how it happened. And there is no clue of what the earliest of cells were like.
Looking for gaps is unscientific and impedes progress, trying to understand what directed change is noble, this is where Natural Selection comes in.
It is also important for better understanding, to answer further questions. I emphasized previously that it isn't important to teach that evolution is correct. Evolution was developed as a theory. It is still a question to the deniers, The deniers, I will agree have reasons to ignore the facts and dispute over the unproven and every time there is a question, it has to be answered. Creationism must be read as a story in the Bible and the faith and choices must be left to what the kids will grow up to believe in..
I want you know that my argument is only in the jest of learning more.
Your argument was meant as a joke?
It is explained quite well how oxygen originated paving way for life.
No it is not, it is explained how an oxygenated atmosphere kick started aerobic life, life existed way before this in a much different atmosphere, anaerobic bacterial stromatolite fossils pre-date all life on this planet.
It is also well explained of how from oxygen producers came the the producers of carbonic oxide
Oxygen producers were early cyanobacteria or blue-green algae and it took a billion years or so for atmospheric oxygen to build up into the levels necessary to cause the mass extinction that it did. Over this gradual move to an oxygenated world, endosymbiosis of blue-green algae lead to plant like cells consuming Carbon dioxide. Endosymbiosis of aerobic bacteria into anaerobic larger Eukaryotes lead to the formation of us and the rest of our domain.
Though I'm always left confused by the various evolution scientists if it was the bacteria that came first or the life forms that did photosynthesis.
I hope I've already explained that it was early cyano-bacteria or blue-green algae, that started the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere and oxygen respiring life evolved to utilize this oxygen. The cyanobacteria and blue-green algae were photosynthetic life-forms, but by no means the first life.
But, the beginning of life itself is the most controversial from what I've learnt from around the non-believers
The beginning of life is not what evolution covers, for that you'll want to read abiogenesis. There are several ideas hotly debated but they do not bring into question the validity of evolution. By non-believers I assume you mean the faithful, on matters scientific faith is a hindrance.
The beginning of the cell, it's composition seems to be distracting to me. Of how it happened. And there is no clue of what the earliest of cells were like.
Well go read a University Biology or Biochemistry textbook, there is a great deal of knowledge in this area, but again this is abiogenesis.
It is also important for better understanding, to answer further questions.
What is, gaps or trying to understand?
I emphasized previously that it isn't important to teach that evolution is correct.
That is because you don't know anything about it.
Evolution was developed as a theory.
What else would you wish it to be developed as, the word theory means a very different thing to the scientific world than it does to the rest of the world.
It is still a question to the deniers,
Only a question of ignorance.
The deniers, I will agree have reasons to ignore the facts and dispute over the unproven and every time there is a question, it has to be answered.
Exactly, so in your opinion, because deniers exist and because they try their damned hardest to disprove a scientific fact that has more evidence than most accepted theories, evolution should not be taught as correct, it is correct, there is no other explanation for all the evidence.
Creationism must be read as a story in the Bible and the faith and choices must be left to what the kids will grow up to believe in..
And thus be kept out of the classroom and in the family home, where each man can indoctrinate his own children and that doesn't have to roll over into the mixed melting pot of identities that is a school environment, creationism is as taught a Christian biblical fable, it does not and should not take pride of place above the similar and multitudinous fairy tales that exist, and has no place challenging accepted, evidence based scientific empirical evidence.
NO... I meant that it must not be taken seriously. I have limited knowledge about this.
That is because you don't know anything about it.
I understand that very well. But, I just do not will, in accepting it an excuse that evolution must be taught in schools as right. There are a million reasons to why evolution is questioned. This has remained ever since the theory was written. This theory might be the best in it's essence. Has the best of it's proves. Why not teach just those evidences, the proves, the victorious debates rather than forcing will upon some of those who despite those proves would like to believe in Creationism.
What else would you wish it to be developed as, the word theory means a very different thing to the scientific world than it does to the rest of the world.
And hence must be taught as a theory alone. Let be what it means.
Okay... Since we have been talking about the disbelievers and I obviously do not match your knowledge to dispute the above explanations. (Though I would like to thank you for the detailed explanation. It has helped me understand better.) But, as an instance...
There is some amount of confusion when there are attempts to understand this theory better. Like, all that you have explained here has all been told differently in all the seminars that I've attended regarding Evolution. There seems to be a confusion in the propagators. This has led so many of to doubt the realism of Evolution.
life existed way before this in a much different atmosphere
I've learnt for the past eighteen years since I was born that the first life form was a single cellular organism. I don't say that you are wrong. I do not know what to believe.
it was early cyano-bacteria or blue-green algae, that started the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere
I was also told that Bacteria was the first life form.
There seems to be so many speculations that people are left doubtful. Maybe, this area should be seen with more regard.
there arent any significant holes, the holes that do exist have to do with the very infrequent absence of specific transitional forms, however, because the survivability of any given fossil is low, the probability of finding all of the transitional forms of all speciation paths is unrealistic. However, the continuity of the identified lines of speciation are so strong that it is unreasonable to reject the validity of evolution from this or any other minor evidence gap similar to what i have just described.
Micro evolution is ok. We can observe it in bacteria. Macro evolution, stellar evolution (Big Bang), NO. It's scientifically impossible and here are some reasons why. These are just a few and evolutionary scientists themselves have brought some of these up.
First of all, stellar evolution could not have happened. Why?
Gas is said to have flowed outward from the bang through the frictionless space then formed into galaxies. Inertia, an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal or greater force. Galaxies could not have formed as space is frictionless. Gas would have continued moving outward that its same speed as there would be no way to change the trajectory gasses and particles to cause them to clump together to form atoms.
Matter - By the laws of physics, the BB should have created equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, yet there are only small amounts of negative matter in the known universe.
Gasses - Gasses do not clump together, not even on earth, they actually push apart. So how in the BB and stellar evolutionary theory would they clump together to form atoms? Think about fog, fog is a gas, have you ever witnessed or heard of fog clumping together? No, it dissipates, pushes apart. This is a physical law.
Stars - Take the previous; how can stars form? They can't, the gas would have to stop moving outward, change direction an then begin moving in circles. If the BB blew everything outward from the BB, inertia would not allow for this in the vacuum of space.
Nuclear mass gaps - With the BB, it only produced hydrogen and helium. How did these gasses change into the other 90 heavier elements? The evolutionary theory is that early stars that that defied the laws of physics, repeatedly exploded to create them. This is a problem because the nuclear gaps at 5 and 8 make it impossible for helium and hydrogen to change into any other element. Neither hydrogen nor helium have ever jumped the gap at mass 5. This is because neither protons or neutrons can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Neither an atomic bomb nor a supernova has ever caused this jump. Look at a periodic table and observe the atomic masses; hydrogen (1.008), deuterum (a form of hydrogen) 2.016, then helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811) etc, etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.
These are just a few SCIENTIFIC reasons why the Big Bang could not account for the universe.
So teach was is proven fact and observable, not what is science fiction.
Evolution by natural selection is a biological theory, and doesn't try to explain the origins of the universe also as I stated to 92nida, neither does it cover the origins of life, abiogenesis covers this.
So as for you last comment evolution is observable and is not science fiction.
It all had to start somewhere, right? I was just taking evolution back to the beginning. That is where it all allegedly started, with the big bang. And no, what the evolutionary biologists call micro evolution is simply adaptation to the surroundings and climate. Call it what you want. I used the term that the biologists use for sake of argument.
If you want to talk evolution in animals I can dispute that too.
Early evolutionists claimed that species evolved into other species. That is the dumbed down version of evolution. As scientists found out, that is impossible. It is impossible for one species to evolve into another. There is a genetic barrier that prevents this. One species never, ever evolves into another. If you are learned on the subject of evolution and natural selection you are going to agree with that statement and reply that of course one species cannot evolve into another by random selection because the scientists have now realized that folly of past and moved on to claim that species mutate into other species.
A mutation is a species has never created a better species. As mutation manifests itself that particular subject/subjects dies off leaving the more pure genetic DNA. There are variations with in species, all the various breeds canines and felines are still canine and feline. One species has never mutated into another either. Evolutionary biologists have yet to produce evidence of one species "evolving" into another. All they have to show is fossils of subjects that have ceased to exist and therefore they claim that they are transitionary. Variations within species does not indicate evolution or natural selection. It is nothing more that a genetic difference.
And no, what the evolutionary biologists call micro evolution is simply adaptation to the surroundings and climate.
How else do you suppose natural selection works? HIV reactions to medications, or E coli's change to consumption of citrate?
Most of the rest of your post is obvious as your name clearly states. But for a few notable exceptions.
A mutation is a species has never created a better species.
And the aforementioned E coli adaptation is not beneficial?
Chlorella pyrenoidosa, evolved a colonial multi-cellular form in the presence of predation the Chlorella was being bred as food. Which went on to be classified as Coelosphaerium, which is a different family altogether from Chlorella.
Chlamydomonas, a photosynthesizing algae that can use acetate as a carbon source in times of little light as cultured by Graham bell over several hundred generations produced variants that can grow without any light at all.
There are variations with in species, all the various breeds canines and felines are still canine and feline
You are aware that dogs as they exist are in their present form due to artificial selection, how do you explain artificial selection? It is serious evidence for the ability of selection to change the form of a living entity, I'd also like to point out that geological time is vast, the time needed for changes to occur such as species change are so much greater than we can currently report on, when discussing large complex organisms.
Variations within species does not indicate evolution or natural selection. It is nothing more that a genetic difference.
How do you explain homologous forms? Why does a whale have vestigial hind limbs? Or snakes have a pelvis? Why do humans have a nictitating membrane? What about the overall unity of every living thing on this planet? Ubiquitous genes? Endogenous retroviruses? Identical Transposons existing in closely linked species? 99% genetic match between Human and Chimp?
So because the hind limbs of a whale are "vestigial" means that the organism has no use for them at anytime during its life? You are saying that because we do not know why it is there at this time it must be evidence of a distant ancestor down the evolutionary line? Do you realize how insane that sounds? Your thyroid was thought to be useless at one time, as was your endocrine (hormonal) glands.
Did you know that as recent as the 1960s scientists were claiming that the human body had over 200 vestigial organs in it? That number has significantly decreased as these same scientists learn the function of these once thought to be useless organs to include the thyroid gland, pineal gland, the bones in the 3rd, 4th and 5th toes. Today, all organs once thought to be vestigial are known to have a function at some time during the life of humans. That said, we cannot say the the hind limbs of the whale do not serve a function, nor the pelvic bone in a snake. What it boils down to is the fact that we don't understand the purpose of something at the present time so therefore it must be evolution. History shows us otherwise.
All the other "examples" you are showing are variations with in the species. Yes, species adapt to their surroundings, I'm not saying they don't what I am saying is that a species does not "evolve" into another, it is genetically impossible. The very theory of natural selection attempts to explain how one species evolved into another which doesn't happen as R.A. Fisher, a proponent of evolution discovered. There is a genetic barrier that prevents this.
So because the hind limbs of a whale are "vestigial" means that the organism has no use for them at anytime during its life?
There is no way that a detached pelvis with a fused femur can have any use to a whale, also the same can be said for a snakes pelvis. A pelvis is the girdle for the hind limbs something that a whale and snake has no use for, secondly there is ample fossil evidence in whale evolution that shows the detachment of the pelvis over various stages and the loss of the hind limbs.
You are saying that because we do not know why it is there at this time it must be evidence of a distant ancestor down the evolutionary line?
I'm saying we do know why it is there, it is a leftover vestigial limb that was used by the common ancestor and due to not being important is slowly being weeded out.
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
So accepted scientific knowledge is now insanity, I'd hate to see your version of sanity, are you a religious person?
Did you know that as recent as the 1960s scientists were claiming that the human body had over 200 vestigial organs in it?
Did you know that as recently as the 1940's the Catholic Church taught antisemitism. So what if knowledge of biology was rudimentary up until the sixties, the fact is that now they know so they don't claim it anymore, this is what science is about, discovery.
Today, all organs once thought to be vestigial are known to have a function at some time during the life of humans.
This is completely untrue, the plica semilunaris a vestigial nictitating membrane in the human eye, vestigial tails that grow from the coccyx, Goosebumps.
All the other "examples" you are showing are variations with in the species.
What are you talking about, retroviruses, Identical Genes and Transpossons point to genetic similarity, not variation.
The whole theory of evolution by natural selection is "science fiction". Sure, there are variations with in species but that is not evolution by natural selection. The evolution by natural selection theory makes an attempt to explain the vast array of species that are present on earth and scientists long ago discovered that one species cannot evolve into another. A chicken cannot lay an egg that hatches into another species just a primate cannot give birth to anything but a primate. There is a barrier of fixity of species that cannot be crossed. The variations within species is caused by some species having very large gene pools while others do not. It doesn't matter if it's a bull mastiff or a chihuahua it's still a dog.
...Gas would have continued moving outward that its same speed as there would be no way to change the trajectory gasses and particles to cause them to clump together to form atoms.
Have you heard of gravity?
By the laws of physics, the BB should have created equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, yet there are only small amounts of negative matter in the known universe.
What are you trying to prove, that the laws of physics are wrong?
Gasses - Gasses do not clump together, not even on earth, they actually push apart. So how in the BB and stellar evolutionary theory would they clump together to form atoms? Think about fog, fog is a gas, have you ever witnessed or heard of fog clumping together? No, it dissipates, pushes apart. This is a physical law.
Yes, certain gases dissipate at certain temperatures and pressures, the reverse is also true. What about in an environment with very low pressure and a temp of near 0K?
Have you really never heard of gravity or the nuclear forces?
Your argument was pretty pathetic, especially considering you did not once mention evolution via natural selection (As implied).
You are wrong at every point and also in how you describe matter - gasses dont make atoms for example, they are composed of them. I will address all of your points below...
Gass as frictionless in space - the emperically supported theory of how stars and galaxies formed after the big bang, is that for ~500 million to ~1 Billion years, the gasses interacted with one another via electrostatic and gravitational accretion and that this was the reason why stars and galaxies came to exist. This was a building up of mass from the first moment as the entire universe expanded and over time more and more mass come into closer and closer proximity in specific regions of space. Inertia played its part but if you understand that the big bang was not an explosion, but rather an inflation of space and time in which matter and energy were distributed, like rasins rising in a loaf of break, you will understand that your understanding, as you have described it, is not correct with regard to observed data and our understanding of cosmic processes.
The Big Bang creating equal amounts of matter and antimatter point - The issue is called Baryonic Asymetry and there are experiments and corresponding theories to investigate and explain how and why this happened. (be sure that you dont come to an esoteric topic such as baryonic asymetry without thoroughly researching the subject). Baryonic Asymetry is not an unaddressed issue and does not undermine the overall Big Bang Theory - it isnt even that big of a problem, it is more of an esoteric question, rather than a central problem.
Gasses do clump together point - The earth is a clump of gass and solids and liquids - this is a basic definition of what the earth is. ...Also, (and this is highly fundamental), gasses dont form atoms, gasses are composed of atoms and are often found in pairs - Hydrogen is usually found as two hydrogen atoms when they are not a part of a larger complex molecule. Fog is not really a gass , fog is suspended micro beads of water. insofar as things are clumped together we have a word for clumped together fog - fog bank - and cloud is a word to describe suspended micro beads of water that are suspened high in the air. In other words there is a lot of clumping going on. Nebulas which can be observed via telescope are a verifiable example of how gasses clump in intersteller space.
Stars not being able to form point - Stars definitely do form, we have seen the birth of stars in those gas nebulas i mentioned before. not much debate on this in the astronomical and physicist community
Nuclear mass Gaps? - The big bang resulted in three elements not two (Hydrogen (about ~75%) Helium (about ~25%) and Lithium (less than ~1%)). Nucleosynthesis is the process by which all the other elements formed, it is a fancy name for the combined processes of nuclear fusion and supernova events which caused lighter elements to fuse together and become all the elements we know of today in the proportions they exist in today. This has happened, is happening now, and will happen for the forseeable future so long stars burn. This is what stars do. they make heavier elements from lighter elements. You should learn more about nuclear physics before you spout your nonsense.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" ). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
I don't know wether im supporting you or disputing you, either way Im going to correct you lol. you don't know much about whats going on in are school huh, the majority of the country ALREADY teaches it as correct, almost no school doesn't. so when you say you think its ok the way it is, and then saying you don't think they should well you're contradicting yourself.
Just because a skeleton of what seems a humanoid is found. Doesn't mean it comes with a label of where it came from and how it lived. Man can only theorize on evolution.
the funny thing is that a theory, by definition, is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by a large scientific community. you couldn't call something like, for example, creationism as a theory; since it has little evidence and has not gone through the acceptance of the appropiate scientific communities.
No evolution should not be presented as fact in any circumstance. There are so many problems within the theory of evolution to even begin to present it as fact. If you look through the available evidence provided by scientists you can see that the plan of evolution is not possible. Proof of this comes very simply from the fact that as time progress the spiral galaxies begin to collapse in upon themselves. Looking at the current rate of collapse the galaxies would collapse upon itself within a matter of 1.3 million years and this alone disproves the time scope of evolution.
Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years.
The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.
The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics.
I am adding the argument for "No" not because I think evolution is wrong, but for the reason of saying that evolution is "correct". The term, "correct," implies absolution, and can be offensive to many who are seeking spiritual enlightenment. Evolution should be taught as a description of how life works, and not as a description as to how life began. I do not entertain any subjects that feel they should discredit religion.
So kids- people's brains haven't fully developed, who are frequently more emotional than logical, who don't have much experience, who haven't finished their education yet- these are the people who should determine the curriculum. Go all the way with that and nobody would be learning anything except sex ed...
Besides, kids are still free to make their choice. A significant portion of Americans are creationists, and a significant portion of Americans were taught about evolution in public school. Obviously it didn't effect them too much.
And I doubt there are any kids, no matter how they were brought up, who are not aware that some portion of the population believes God designed and created us. And the school isn't stopping them from going to church or Sunday School to get the other side of the story.
In a science class, kids are to be taught the most accurate and current theories and facts known to science. Evolution fits into that category. Creationism has persistently failed to be scientific.
Sure they do. And that right isn't being violated. They can believe whatever they want. Again, school isn't their entire lives. Again, many adult creationists were taught evolution, and chose not to believe in it anyway.
So many creationists misunderstand what proof is. Proof is defined as "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." I'm compelled by the evidence of evolution to say that it is true, and so should the rest of the world. Just watch any Great Ape species interact among a group open-minded, and I can assure you that you will observe striking similarities between them and us that evolution must be true. Meaning we must share a common ancestor with them.
Trying to discredit any theory as "not known for sure" is wrong for more than the reasons I mentioned above! You (assuming you are logical) would most certainly not say Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong without some legitimate position to oppose it. Creationists who oppose evolution cannot give any reason for doing so other than their argument that it clashes with their belief system. Well, this is the 21st century. It is time to throw away primitive beliefs and move on. The Universe is a vast place.
You can't just go round throwing immature insults in people's faces. really gives a good impression of people who believe in this theory right?! You are the one's who can't accept the concept of God. there is proof of him everywhere.
"Also, some animals are evolving right before our very eyes. For example, the rate of elephants being born without tusks has jumped from 2% to 38%. This is caused by the poaching of Elephants for their tusks to the point of species endangerment. " This is called ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. God has a brain. he created his earth so that as we mucked it up, we didn't make all animals extinct.
Besides, Evolution hasn't actually been proved as correct, so they shouldn't teach it as correct.
Also, that is discrimination to those who believe in God. People should be allowed to choose what they believe not have it forced upon them by their school.
"People should be allowed to choose what they believe not have it forced upon them by their school."
You are so right! Next class I have, I vow that I will not learn anything from anyone that I believe is wrong, although factually I may be incorrect. 2 + 2 = 5 I say, and blast all those confounded mathematicians saying otherwise!
"You are the one's who can't accept the concept of God. there is proof of him everywhere."
You cannot accept the fact that he does not believe in the concept of your God or a God in general therefore you are being just as immature. If you think that irrefutable proof of the existence of said God exists then that is great for you and I admire such faith, though I foresee that fervor only attracting trolls.
"This is called ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. God has a brain. he created his earth so that
as we mucked it up, we didn't make all animals extinct."
While I agree that this is adaption and not evolution in a sense adaption is a form of evolution. Just as roses grew thorns the elephants are losing their tusks it is a form of evolution for protection thus also adaption.
"Besides, Evolution hasn't actually been proved as correct, so they shouldn't teach it as correct."
The general census is that no it has not technically been proven though by the Scientific Community it is generally accepted as correct. Some nonbelievers and Christians alike believe in evolution some do not, at this time its correctness is a matter of opinion as neither side is irrefutable. "The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence." - Ebon Musings: Has Evolution Been Proven?
That is micro evolution. The elephant isn't changing into another animal. In fact, species cannot "mutate" into other species, there is a genetic barrier that cannot be bridged. R.A. Fisher, whose discoveries laid the foundation for modern genetics discovered this.
By your logic with the tusks, Jewish men should not have foreskin, yet they do. Jews have been circumcising for over 4000 years.
Your example of the elephants is called "Lamarckism", he is the biologist who put forth the idea of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics". This theory was disproved by August Weismann who cut off the tails of 901 mice for 19 successive generations. The last generation as did every other one, still had full length tails.
You would be amazed as to how many evolutionary theories have been found false but yet are still being taught.
To start with, if you're going to make wild claims like 'there is a genetic barrier that cannot be bridged' and this idea was supported by R.A. Fisher (a well-known proponent of evolution) you should, in the very least, cite a reliable source.
Secondly, you make a massively contradictory statement where you claim that the elephant case is an example of 'Lamarckism', but then go on to say that 'Lamarckism' is false? Both cannot be true, if 'Lamarckism' is false (which it is), then there must be another explanation for this phenomenon.
The elephant example is quite clearly natural selection. Male elephants BORN without tusks (which would normally put them at a biological disadvantage) are now more likely to pass on their genes as the males with tusks are being killed by poachers. In turn this produces more tusk less males (who will also be more likely to escape poachers and pass on their genes). It is not a case where animals who have had their tusks removed are passing on their genes and creating tusk less offspring (they have been killed by poachers after all).
I never said Fisher wasn't a proponent of evolution, in fact everyone I cited is a proponent of evolution and I cited them for a reason; because they are known to those who believe evolution and you are likely to discredit a non proponent of evolution as biased.
I never said that Lamarckism is true, I was stating that the example of the elephant is known as Lamarckism which was proven false by another proponent of evolution trying to prove that theory, Weismann.
Again, if the example of the tusks is natural selection then why is it that when Weismann cut of the tails of 901 mice (19 generations worth) the mice continued to grow tails? It's the same scenario.
So, if you are going to dispute me, A. quote me accurately and B. don't assume that I don't know my sources.
"I never said Fisher wasn't a proponent of evolution, in fact everyone I cited is a proponent of evolution and I cited them for a reason; because they are known to those who believe evolution and you are likely to discredit a non proponent of evolution as biased."
Missing the point. Show me a reliable source where I can read that Fisher says there is a 'genetic barrier' that prevents speciation. If you make a radical claim like that you need to back it up with evidence, otherwise I have every right to discredit it.
"I never said that Lamarckism is true, I was stating that the example of the elephant is known as Lamarckism which was proven false by another proponent of evolution trying to prove that theory, Weismann."
Thank you for clarifying your position, however you are wrong once again...the elephant example has nothing to do with Lamarckism, it is an example of Darwinism (as I have already stated).
"Again, if the example of the tusks is natural selection then why is it that when Weismann cut of the tails of 901 mice (19 generations worth) the mice continued to grow tails? It's the same scenario."
It is a wholly different scenario! The mice had their tails REMOVED, therefore they DID NOT pass this 'tailless' characteristic on to their offspring as they were originally BORN WITH tails.
The elephants were BORN WITHOUT tusks therefore they DID pass this characteristic on to their offspring. In a world with ivory poachers this characteristic is advantageous to survival and so it is becoming more prevelant.
The former disproves Lamarckism, the latter is an example of Darwinism. They are totally unconnected and do not belong in the same argument.
"So, if you are going to dispute me, A. quote me accurately and B. don't assume that I don't know my sources."
A. I hope this post meets your request?
B. What are your sources? Show me them! Give me a link, a book title, anything. Otherwise you are allowing me to draw whatever assumptions I want.
Evolution should be taught as correct until something with greater evidence is brought up. No religion has any more evidence than any other, and a holy book can not be self evident. So if we were going to teach Christian creationism we may as well teach all other religions ideas. So we must not waste tax payer money on an extended school curriculum and just teach whatever is most likely, witch happens to be evolution.
Supporting Evidence:
secularist party
(secularistparty.wordpress.com)
Absolutely evolution should be taught fully in school. It annoys me how little Science they teach in schools, especially in the younger grades, unless you choose to go to into Science at college.
And I don't understand why anyone has to think it's creation or evolution, not both. Yes there are some disagreements, but why couldn't God have put dinosaurs here first? And had the plan to have humans come from monkeys?
I personally don't, but I don't rule it out completely either.
As long as teachers aren't saying your Religion is wrong or just not real, I don't see the problem with teaching the actual facts that we've discovered.
Simply because someone disagrees and has a different opinion doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach it as correct. That's like saying if a large group of people didn't believe 2 + 2 = 4, and get very upset when you say it is correct; that we should not teach it as correct because of the large [sensitive] differing opinion.
Damn, all those woman are hot, this is obvious, they are competing in Miss USA 2011, yet some are dumber than a box of rocks.
It is important for them to know that evolution is a byproduct of their beauty. It is absurd to suggest that God picks and chooses who he wants to be beautiful or ugly.
of course evolution should be taught! sorry to break your comfort zones here, but science is based on pure facts of gathered evidence. and it proves that evolution is how the human race came to be. it's not a religion, its an educational subject.
Evolution is the best scientific explanation that we have for long and short term change in a population of organisms. It describes a physical process that explains how species change over time.
It should be taught in science because it is a theory based on empirical evidence which can be tested and justified - It is also accepted in the wider scientific community.
It may not be a complete explanation, but it's a heck of a lot better than a non-explanation such as "god did it". Such "explanations" do not explain; they provide no mechanism, no process that explains the diversity of species that we have today.
The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.
A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution -- and teaching it as science -- and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief.
yes, evolution is true as an observed fact about nature and the theory to describe the fact is the best approximation of current understanding about how this process occurs. As far as I know, there are no gaps or holes in the theory, I am well versed and intermediately knowledgeable about this subject from learning about it in an academic setting. It is also a hobby of mine. It is also the best understanding of how, which is the fundamental nature of science - to answer how. All other options do not focus on how, they focus on the idea of who caused life and who designed it - these ideas are thus not science, they are opinion (ie not related to or based on emperical data). Call me crazy but i think they should teach science in science class
Evolution is not just a theory; it is a fact and a theory. This is just like gravity. The theory of evolution explains how it works. It does not mean that it has not been proven. Evolution has been shown with fossil records and even goes on every day on a minute scale.
Yes, evolution is no different from any scientific theory. Just because it contradicts some religious theory doesn't make it exempt from being taught. Schools should help children make their own decisions on their beliefs. If you don't teach about evolution then you can't teach creationism either.
Yes, they should and they should explain why it is correct. As to teaching creationism in schools, only if the lesson is called "religion". They do that in my school.