Ban evolution in schools

[roboempath (deleted)]

Here's a good conversation starter -

What if we were to ban the teaching of evolution in schools - but do so in order to save Science from the corruptiong influence of this bogus pseudo-theory.

Lets face it - the original theory - that fossil bones *prove* genetic mutation - is compeltely and thoroughly discredited. Put the bones of a chihuahua next to abeagle next to a labrador next to a great dane. Oh look - a fossil record of evolution - except that they are all the same species!

It is going to be 50-100 years before there exists a real and feasible theory of what genes changed in what ways due to what causes to produce the fossil record.

In the mean time, we have a situation where we are telling children a HORRENDOUS ERROR in thinking - that the mere existence of an unexplained phenomenon PROVES any theory I care to state as the cause for that phenomenon, regardless of the existence of any experimental validation of that theory. In esence , the lack of disproof is held to PROVE the theory of evolution.

This is leading kids to believe in psychics, UFOs, bigfoot, and astrology because of a few unexplained phenomena, and the lack of any disproof of the assertion. And they think this is SCIENCE, because they have been so terribly misled by the proponents of the pseudo-science of evolution.

It's time for the scientific community to grow a spine, show some integrity, and tell the evolution proponents to come back in 50 years when they have a REAL theory (with eperimental proof)

[inslumnational (deleted)]

On the one hand, you've got me a bit worried: If you're right, then I've been brainwashed to believe that evolution is a scientifically valid theory, to the extent that I can't see how evolution wouldn't 'work.' But at the same time, I don't believe in "psychics, UFOs, bigfoot, and astrology," and generally, all my acquaintances are in the same boat on that one.

Can you be a bit more specific (perhaps with sources to back you up)? For one thing, the theory evolution is not wholly based on fossil records: I mean, heritable variation and natural selection, for instance, are, as far as I'm aware, observable facts, which the theory of evolution explains without needing to reference fossil records.

Now that I think about it, when I learnt about evolution in school, they didn't bother to mention fossils at all... Am I missing your point? Are you in fact saying that the teaching of evolution should not be based on fossil records but instead on other observable phenomena? But then, you suggest evolution should be banned from schools as it is a pseudo-science... I still have trouble getting my head round that one.

It might be worth noting that speciation has been directly observed in plants and animals, at least according to the claims found at this link: (removed) More support for evolution based on direct observations not related to fossils.

I'm really only writing as I read up on the subject; when I first read your post I only knew the basics of natural selection and genetic inheritance. I don't know if I've countered your claims in any way, but I hope at least I've contributed a little to what might become a full and interesting discussion.

[blkraven (deleted)]

Im going to be real.....frankly i think people should hear both and make up their mind...but i personally believe evolution to be CRAP.
my reasoning: Lab test to create a primordial soup have proved inconclusive
We still have apes and animals...so why didnt all of them evolve?
the proablity of all this coming by chance is equal to be putting the componet of a phone is a jar shaking it for years and it coming out right ( it isnt going to happen so stop shaking)
There are too many differences between species to have evolved considering the amount of time given by sciencetist.
And if this is true..WHERE ARE THE ALIENS!

Im off my soapbox. But as far as teaching them is schools. creation is hard to teach because different religion believe differnt thins. On the other hand they say creation shouldnt be taught because it cant be experimented on...but their efforts to experienment with evolution have proved futile also.

Beside with scientifict experimentation...SOMEONE IS DOING THE WORK. an intelligent mind is crossing the genes and observing the results. someone is putting the elements in a pool and causing the electrical currents to flow...so why couldnt the same thing happen in the beginning.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

blkraven wrote: Im going to be real.....frankly i think people should hear both and make up their mind...but i personally believe evolution to be CRAP.
my reasoning: Lab test to create a primordial soup have proved inconclusive

???

One doesn't follow from another.

blkraven wrote: We still have apes and animals...so why didnt all of them evolve?

"Never use 'higher and lower' when referring to organisms." --
roughly paraphrased from Darwin's letters.

I think your post is a perfect example of how poorly evolution is
currently being taught.

The theory that the current species on the earth are the result of
evolution involves the idea that these species share a common
ancestor, NOT the idea that the current version of apes and other
animals were around ages ago and that human evolved from them.
Apes and chimps and lions and tigers and bears -- all have evolved
in the years since speciation from whatever common ancestor
may have been (if the theory is correct).

Some species seem to evolve more quickly than others, for
reasons that are not at all understood. But nowhere in the theory
of evolution does it say that modern day humans evolved from modern
day apes.

blkraven wrote: the proablity of all this coming by chance is equal to be putting the componet of a phone is a jar shaking it for years and it coming out right ( it isnt going to happen so stop shaking)

This is not a valid parallel at all. The phone could not exist until
the technology had been created to form the materials and all the
components; it took years and years of trial and error and things
not going right before it could be developed and created. You're
actually arguing for the side you are opposing. How
the phone, the mousetrap, etc. came to be -- the long
process is more akin to all the little steps and jumps ahead and
jumps back entailed by evolutionary theory.

blkraven wrote: There are too many differences between species to have evolved considering the amount of time given by sciencetist.
And if this is true..WHERE ARE THE ALIENS!

Come on! If you were an intelligent alien race, would you waste
your time coming to our solar system, or would you quarantine
it? After all, they could still get all the good TV shows because the
signals get broadcast into space. All they're really missing out on
is the chocolate.

blkraven wrote: Im off my soapbox. But as far as teaching them is schools. creation is hard to teach because different religion believe differnt thins. On the other hand they say creation shouldnt be taught because it cant be experimented on...but their efforts to experienment with evolution have proved futile also.

Okay, here's a little evolution 101:

Evolution is the heritable change in allele frequency over time in
a population. It doesn't say anything about how that change
originates or occurs.

"Natural selection" is one process, amongst others, believed to
play a role in evolution. There are other things that come into play
as well, such as founder effect, etc.

You can see evolution happen in a test tube in a lab, as well as in the
world around you.

Without evolution, there would not be antibiotic resistant bacteria,
and we would have no need to be concerned about a possible
bird flu pandemic (because it wouldn't "change" and be able to
infect humans).

Evolution as a process is not in question; it is observable and
proven.

That everything we see today is the result of billions of years of
evolution is a theory, and not one that we can prove. All data
currently supports this theory, but other ideas are also valid.
God may have created the universe several thousand years
ago as many people believe, but if so, then She also planted the
evidence that the world is older than several thousand years.
Not hard to do for an omnipotent being. That's another non-falsifiable
theory.

blkraven wrote: Beside with scientifict experimentation...SOMEONE IS DOING THE WORK. an intelligent mind is crossing the genes and observing the results. someone is putting the elements in a pool and causing the electrical currents to flow...so why couldnt the same thing happen in the beginning.

Er...actually, in science sometimes there are directed experiments
as you describe, but a lot of times there is just observation. Yeah,
you can argue that observation itself is intrusive and affects the
results of an experiments, Schrodinger's cat, whatever, but not
all data collected is the result of scientists futzing about.

You ask why couldn't the same thing happen in the beginning?
As in "evolution by intelligent design" rather than by "natural
selection"? Well, obviously that's another potential theory that
hasn't been discounted.

There are scholars who argue for and against intelligent design,
creationism, etc.

I am not posting to try to convince you one way or the other, but
just attempting to get you to discuss the terms properly rather
than using sloppy jargon. I think you could make
some very compelling arguments, blkraven, but to be taken
seriously, you can't be misusing terms.

[zephron_PREV (deleted)]

[quote="blkraven"]Im going to be real.....frankly i think people should hear both and make up their mind...but i personally believe evolution to be CRAP.
my reasoning: Lab test to create a primordial soup have proved inconclusive

OK, any chance of you providing data for this piece of information?


..WHERE ARE THE ALIENS!

And "are you pissed" (pissed means drunk in the uk.)
This bodes well for discusions, talk of aliens, hmmm, where they mentioned in the bible, or where you on about the fossil remains of these aliens to prove/disprove evolution?

quote]

"release the hounds"

[ygolo]

Here are some obsrevable, reproducable facts that back up evolution (variation, and natural selection)

I think even creationists are forced to admit "micro" evolution (variation, and natural selection). I think the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is arbritrary.

1. The existance of DNA. The fact that variations in DNA explaining variation among species, genus, phylum, etc. Granted not every phenotypical trait has been explained, but there is still the possibility of that. There are even high-schools that genetically engineer fruit flies. It will be hard to convince people who go to such high-schools that the variation part of evolution is not true.

2. Even withouth DNA--plant grafting, animal husbandry and breeding to create variations in traits have gone on for many years. The fundamental working theory behind this was evolution (variation, and natural selection). Just like how clock makers, and ancient engineers made use of principles of Newton's Laws even before Newton codified them. Evolution (variation, and natural selection) was used by breeders as a working theory for many years. If you've heard of the potato famine, it's hard to imagine a way you cannot believe that natural selection exists.

3. I call this out as seperate from 1., because of its dramatic nature, the existence of Homeobox (Hox) genes.
(removed)
These genes, as I understand them, control the transcription of other genes. I have a computer background, so this is out of my depth, but by analogy, I have had Genetic Algorithms produce punctuated equilibrium, when genes are allowed to effect how other genes are modified.

However, there are still open questions in my mind. Even though I have no doubt that there is some form of evolution going on, I don't know if it accounts for everything we see. Perhaps God uses a guided evolution to make the species.

Still, I think the statistical arguments "proving" devine intervention are not compelling. Read up on designoids for another explanation, that introduces fewer entities (that aren't derived from pre-existing accepted science).

Frankly, I am not sure what it is that creationists believe, so I can't really test it as a theory.

What would be the age of the Earth, the milky way, the universe, etc. according to creationism? When did the dinosours roam the Earth, and why did they become extinct?

If anyone could enlighten me on what the creation theory says in a testable way, I may pay more heed to it.

[sweetsunrise]

As a parent I can tell you I would object strongly to anyone teaching anything other than current scientific theory of the origins of life on this planet. I want her to learn creation stories of as many religions as possible but NOT in science class!

[solaris888]

Unless you can disprove evolution(using logical scientific data), I'm going to have to say no thanks. What would be the benefit of removing evolution from the education system other than to hide possible truths from the new generations.

I'm going to assume you are a religious person so I'll remind you that trying to hide science from the populus is the reason the church is struggling today.

_________________________________________

Tell me what you need; I'll tell you how to live without it.

[slimtheinventor]

[deleted]

[freakingducks (deleted)]

`My dear friends, you've just witnessed the closest thing to a peer-reviewed journal that creationism has! A few people getting together on an insulated forum and talking about how "stupid" evolution is. I dare say, bald assertions do not count as evidence. Also, the more fervently you speak, does not imply more validity to what you say. The level of deception that goes into ID and Creationism should be evidence enough of what evolution denial is really about.

[slimtheinventor]

`I take it the author of this thread wasn't much of a biology fan... This is the best the science forum section has to offer? A stale argument with creationists and evolutionists bashing each other? Passions? Maybe. Nerdy?... Not so much. Could go anywhere on the Internet to hear this kind of a re-hash.

[bronnblackwater]

`I like the idea of banning evolution in schools; that is, if anyone in school is evolving, or at the very least exhibiting signs of mutation, we put them on suspension until we can be sure they're still human and not some threat to the rest of the school populace.

[neurotic]

`It's apparent with all these comments that there are some gigantic holes in your science education. Now, some of these may or may not have been explained by members posting before me, and if they have I acknowledge that and give them full credit.

In regards to 'If evolution is true why are there still monkeys?'. Because we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor who is no longer around because it has evolved into other species.

As for the fossil record. Even if we had no fossils at all we would still know that evolution happened. It is just an added bonus and we're incredibly lucky to have the amount of fossils we do have, cause them occurring is a rarity.

I could say a lot more about the subject, but I wouldn't know where to begin, so I'm open for questions. :)

[trurlx (deleted)]

`Don't argue with fools - it does not make them smarter, but it might make you dumber

Every time I see that old evolution debate come up I cringe inwardly. I guess this is the modern equivalent of witch-burning and I guess I should be glad that these days the Inquisition does not hunt me down (I would be a prime target, I guess what with all the science degrees and all) but still, this stuff makes me a sad panda.

-Trurlx

[nerdlovingdork]

If someone doesn't understand a subject, yet discusses it as if they thoroughly understand it, that makes them a fool or a liar, right?

Like, I don't know... saying evolution is based on fossil records, or we haven't created the pre-cursors to life in laboratories, or that apes shouldn't be around if we evolved from them.

I don't talk about things I don't understand because I don't want to look like a fool. I guess I'm just weird like that...