Teaching creationism in schools

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

 

 

 

We didn't evolve from Apes. we share a common ancestor with Apes that is somewhere between Nakalipithecus nakayamai and the first species of homo genealogy.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Also we have create life

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

 

Also, viruses are evidence of evolution.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Two things, Osprey, since your post deserves a much longer response than I have the energy for tonight and will try to get to it tomorrow afternoon after I land in Tampa, but I did want to address two quick points before I pass out tonight.

 

1. Where are the quoted sections you put in coming from?

 

2. Every time someone mentions the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an argument against evolution, I die a little inside. It requires such a woeful misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what that law actually states, that I can't help but wonder who this person is that's making that argument and why they're such a liar/how they were failed so badly by their science teachers.

 

I freely admit that if you aren't familiar with the idea of entropic decay in a closed thermodynamic system, it sounds compelling, but the fact that no species of anything that has ever existed on Earth has ever been in a closed system smaller than "The Universe", the law doesn't remotely apply in the way that ID proponents act like it does.

 

The second a molecule has an external source showering it with heat, light, or vector force in any direction, the system is no longer entropic because the system is no longer closed.

[GhostAnime 50]

First of all, I didn't give you negetive rep. I couldn't give a ***** less about that stupid crap.

 

If you know what the Cambrian Explosion is, then its very easy to see what it has to do with common ancestry. Millions of species appear in the fossil record seemingly out of nowhere, and include all of the species we see on Earth today. Where did they come from? Where are the fossils leading up to this explosion?

I see. I don't have too much knowledge in this area unfortunately. I'll give you this one.

 

First of all, you admit yourself that nothing is concrete.

Hardly anything in science is concrete; even gravity. It's called a theory under the same light. As is the germ theory which is the theory that germs make us sick. When I say 'nothing is concrete' i meant the pathways, but there is strong evidence that we all have a common ancestor.

 

Secondly, the "Tree of Life" is nothing more than a picture of pathways that scientists assume life followed. They have no idea, they are pseudo-theorizing in their own right because they can't test their hypotheses.

Again, we spoke about this before sometime. "Testing" isn't necessarily a guy in a lab coat using an hourglass. Testing and experimenting is as simple as checking evidence that matches up with other things. Embryology is a "test" because we can predict the growth of cells and it matches the exact way life has evolved over time. Vestigial organs is "testing" because we can predict why an animal has a useless structure and having a common ancestor is the only reason it would.

 

Then where is that species on Earth that all whales evolved from?

 

 

If you're instead asking why it's not alive, then it's as simple as saying it died out.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090203-pregnant-whale-fossil.html

 

Here's an article that says early whales gave birth on land. On land!

 

Where do you get that there are no transitional fossils? All you have to do is look.

 

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

 

For example, here's a collection of transitional human skulls

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

 

I know it's wiki, but if you want a better list you can try talkorigins. They aren't really that hard to look up.

 

We are in fact NOT the same, because of a little thing called DNA. Cells are the simplest form of life, true, but the true architect is the DNA. DNA is actually a great tool that ID'ers use in their argument.

That's funny, because DNA is a strong argument for common ancestry.

 

More recent common ancestors have more DNA similarities than those that aren't so close. This, again, is really basically taught in textbooks. We share more with apes than we do with rats for example.

 

What other evidence do we have? Eye witness accounts? lab tests? have we recreated life?

Try looking at my last post.

 

Science does not need eyewitness accounts to say there's strong evidence for common ancestry. Just about every area of science points to all animals having a common ancestor. Again, if you think fossils is all there is, you are sadly mistaken and I highly suggest you read more in-depth on what actually proves Evolution. Those 'pathways" are based on so many things that it would take a library to fill it.

 

And second law of thermodynamics? .. Really?

 

Since I have free time, I'll give you an example of a "test" or "experiment".

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

 

Fossilized intermediates should appear in the correct general chronological order based on the standard tree. Any phylogenetic tree predicts a relative chronological order of the evolution of hypothetical common ancestors and intermediates between these ancestors. For instance, in our current example, the reptile-mammal common ancestor (B) and intermediates should be older than the reptile-bird common ancestor (A) and intermediates.

 

This is an example of an 'experiment' or 'test'. They are used to predict.

 

Imagine there's a crime. Someone was murdered and there are no eyewitnesses. How do you prove someone did it? You look at possible leftover evidence. DNA? I predict there's a strong possibility that man did the crime if his DNA matches because DNA is unique. What else could we "test"? I predict the guy was absent from work that day. If he was absent from work at the exact same time of the murder, that's another "test" someone could do.

 

Try to open your mind on what an "experiment" or "test" actually is. The scientific method can easily be applied to every day life and not just in a laboratory and common ancestry is no different.

 

Edit: That reminds me, didn't the last time we debate about this, you actually didn't believe in Evolution at all? Well, I'm glad you've made strides. That's more than what most non-believers could have said.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Are you trying to argue why the religious haven't attacked gravity? Because no one knows what causes gravity. Scientist hypothesize that gravitons emit gravitational fields, but the math doesn't add up.

 

The religious have left gravity alone because there isn't a zealous group of people using it to show God doesn't exist like they use Darwin's Theory to.

 

At least with gravity we can prove it exists, even if we can't prove what causes it.

 

Our understanding of gravity is such that the best we can say about it is "gravity happens, but we have no idea how or why, nor do we have any evidence that supports any particular theory about how and why gravity happens."

 

We can observe the effects of gravity on Earth and test them. But can we really prove that gravity is what keeps planets in their orbits? They teach that in school. They teach students about black holes, which haven't been shown to exist at all outside of theory. These are things about gravity that we don't fully understand and can't prove, but we still teach this is schools.

 

We can say so much more about how and why evolution happens, and we have evidence to support it. But we accept the scientific consensus about gravity and don't consider it controversial to teach our children, while simultaneously holding a better understood principle to much higher standards.

 

If the objection to evolution really is based on the science, then we should expect to see that same skepticism and demand for proof applied to all areas of science, not just those that may violate personal beliefs. Since we don't, I have to conclude that the science itself is not the issue, but simply a method used to discredit something that violates a personal belief.

[Osprey 199]

A lot to address here.

 

First off, Jackie, there is no scientific consensus on the origin of life or species like there is with gravity. There is a thing called the gravitational constant (G) that has been proven mathematically to exist. It's found in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einsteins general theory of relativity. We don't know the cause of gravity, but we know it exists and we can test its effects. There is no evolutionary constant or a mathematical way to prove evolution, at least Darwin's form of it.

 

As far as viruses go, they are actually evidence against Darwinism and a paradox in general.

 

A virus is basically a free floating strand of DNA (or RNA for the most ancient varieties like the Filoviruses which cause Ebola) which invades a cell and takes over the cell`s control functions. The virus suddenly comes to life, reproducing at a prodigious rate. After exhausting the cell, the virus returns to it`s quiet slumber.

 

Now, the virus must predate the cellular organisms (due to it's simple nature), and yet there is no way a virus can reproduce without a host. We have no examples of self—replicating viruses, viruses which can exist on their own. What we see is reverse evolution; the virus is evolved to feed on the more complex organism.

 

It is possible that early viruses were able to exist without a host, and that the change in the Earth`s atmosphere killed them. Perhaps none of them could tolerate oxygen. One would still expect to find remnants of these ancient viral life forms in sheltered places. We don`t, and regular viruses require a host. The problem is that there doesn`t appear to be any way for these organisms to have flourished.

 

I'll address more when I get the chance. One thing I want you guys to know is that I am not arguing against evolution, just Darwinism.

[GhostAnime 50]

In all honesty Osprey Darwinism is such an old term that nobody really uses it anymore. Common ancestry pretty much is Evolution because that's the number 1 thing it confidently states. Look up any definition of the word anywhere (that is a valid source, of course!)

 

Darwinism just seems to be change through natural selection (after looking it up in a couple of quick searches; don't quote me on it).. which.. is actually true as well.

 

So even if we use that word, I'm not even sure what the problem still is.