Well, since certain "experts" insist on turning the homeschooling thread from a discussion of whether parents are qualified to teach science into whether evolution is correct, here's a nice clean thread for them to argue about it in. I will begin:


1) Evolution is a fact. Gene frequencies in gene pools change over time, producing changes in the phenotypic characteristics of the populations they produce. This is indisputable fact, backed up by vast amounts of empirical evidence from both the fossil record and direct observation and experiment.


2) The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanism that produces these changes. It is a spectacularly successful theory, with massive explanatory power. It generates extremely accurate predictions, and those predictions have been tested experimentally with complete success. There is absoutely no counter-evidence to disprove the theory. The theory is accepted by over 99% of biologists, and is the fundamental principle of all of modern biology. The "controversy" over evolution is exactly the same as the "controversy" over the theory that bacteria cause disease.



You may now embarass yourselves disagreeing. Please post exactly why the Theory of Evolution fails to explain the available evidence. And please keep in mind the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. Any replacement you propose must contest the theory on scientific grounds, and must be a better scientific theory.

Besides being against the forum rules, religion is completely irrelevant to this debate. The Theory of Evolution neither attacks nor supports any religious belief, other than those religions that explicitly include "evolution is false" in their beliefs (often due to political reasons rather than theology). Many religious people accept the theory without compromising their religious beliefs, and plenty of atheists do not accept the theory. So keep religion out of it.

Also, please keep in mind that as much as you may hate me, I know this material very well. Unless you really want to embarass yourselves, I suggest taking the time to study the subject very carefully and be absolutely sure of your claims before posting them. Please understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution says, and just as importantly, what it does NOT say. Please also understand the concepts "fact", "theory", "hypothesis", and "law", and the requirements for each of those categories.

You have not made any specific claims. Anyone could say, "Evolution is right because the experts say it is." this does not make it true. Arguing about such a general topic will not work. Why don't you back up you claims with some specific evidence?

I don't count your first point because everyone would agree that mutations occur in nature.

You want specific evidence? Buy a damn biology textbook, I am not your biology teacher. You made the claim that the currently accepted Theory of Evolution is false. Anyone who wishes to can take a few minutes with google and find everything they want to know about the existing theory.

Though fine, if you want specific evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/ . Rather than posting thousands of pages of evidence, I'll let you read it yourself.




Fine, I accept your concession.


This is exactly why I said "understand what the theory says and what it does not say". If you concede mutations, you essentially concede the whole debate. There are exactly two things you need to have evolution:

1) A self-replicating entity.

2) A small error rate in its copying method(s).

If you concede mutations, you grant me both of these requirements. Everything else about evolution follows inevitably from those two points.

I'm not gonna argue with you about about the validity of evolution, but since you're ignoring the fact that that's not the only thing anyone can learn, I will hound you until you see that your claims are disproved. If we forget about everything else (math, english, art, phys ed, social studies, the whole bit), and strictly concentrate on teaching the theory of evolution, what would we have? Single-minded robots who know nothing about anything else other than where we came from (or not, if the theory of evolution is indeed proven false - not saying it will be, but there is always the possibility).

This is just unbelievably stupid. Do you even know what a strawman is? Please tell me exactly (I want to see a direct quote) where I have ever said that the only thing we should teach is evolution.

When you fail to find a quote, I expect to see your apology. Until then, take your hijack out of my thread.

I can link sites too, watch:Answers in Genesis.

Read that.

As for your second point, there is no reason to conclude that just because small mutations occur in nature they would lead to the huge change we have seen.

Thank you. I hoped you'd make it this easy for me. From their own site:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

...
The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on.


Answers in Genesis (if you somehow couldn't figure it out from the title) is a religious group making religious arguments. I asked for scientific evidence, not theology. Please do not bring up AIG again, as religious debates are against forum rules.




This is exactly what I meant about "understand the theory". If you actually understood the math behind cumulative selection, you would not say something like this.

Sorry about that, I was distracted when I linked that. You're right.



Perhaps you could explain it to me, oh Great Wise One? My understanding has always been that there is no evidence to support the HUGE leap between simple mutations and evolution.

Edit: I just got a great idea. Why don't we start with the Big Bang?

Evolution is just the sum of lots of small mutations, over a long period of time. Natural selection makes this a non-random process, keeping the ones that work, and removing the ones that fail. So the beneficial mutations will accumulate at a rate MUCH higher than blind chance.



Christmas comes early this year.... you really are making this easy for me. Allow me to quote myself:

Please understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution says, and just as importantly, what it does NOT say.

The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang (or any other theory about the origin of the universe). The Theory of Evolution deals with changing frequencies of genes in gene pools (and their phenotypic effects on the populations they produce), nothing more. Please do not attempt to argue against some strawman of evolution.

All right, I have to go to bed, but I will say one thing: The Big Bang theory is relevant to this discussion because by disproving it I would prove that at least the world was created by a designer. As you have pointed out, this does not disprove the theory of evolution, but it does help my case for creationism.

No you would not. This is a textbook false dillema fallacy. We do not have to pick between the Big Bang Theory and some kind of designer. It is perfectly possible for the Big Bang Theory to be replaced with a different scientific theory. Not that it is very likely that it will be replaced, the parts of it dealing with the universe after it formed are pretty solid. All that's left is that initial origin, and that would only add to it, not replace it.



No it does not. Even if you manage to provide a different explanation for the origin of the universe itself, you have done absolutely nothing to disprove evolution. The evidence supporting a universe/earth old enough for evolution to happen is staggeringly vast. Any theory that attempts to claim a young earth would involve overturning all of biology, and substantial parts of physics and chemistry. Really, you're more likely to prove that the earth is flat than you are to prove that the earth is too young for evolution to happen. And there is no other possible consequence of finding an alternate origin of the universe that could even attempt to any impact on evolution, the two things are completely independent.

This is why I told you to actually take the time to understand the theory you are arguing against.


(Fun with coordinate systems: it is not only possible to prove that the earth is flat, it is indisputable fact that the earth is flat. It is also indisputable fact that the earth (as well as the entire universe) revolves around me. Disagree at your own risk.)

Yes, I do know what a strawman is, and no, I'm not doing anything of the sort.

EDIT: And I wish I could take my post out of this thread, but I don't have mod privileges.

Dear god... are you honestly this stupid? Please tell me you are just trolling here. Salvage at least some of my faith in humanity, please.

It should be very obvious that what that sentence means is "of all of the possible explanations for life (including those proposed in this thread), evolution is the only appropriate one to teach". There is absolutely no way you can honestly believe I was trying to suggest we teach nothing but 12 years of evolution, excluding all other subjects. How the hell would you even understand evolution if you didn't learn math, reading, general science, chemistry, etc? This is such a blatant strawman of my position, I have no idea how you could think you'd get away with it.


Now you owe me a second apology, for trying to cut quote fragments out of context and using them to support absurd strawmen of my real argument. Once you fail to find a legitimate, in-context quote, you can give me both of them.

Very well - I apologize, in the most sincerest way I can. Yes, I admit to trolling your thread, yes, I admit I don't like you, and yes, I admit to trying to strawman you. I expect to be punished for my actions, and if it means being banned from Nexus, I am ready to accept my sentence. I apologize for taking your quote out of context, and I apologize for being a complete and belligerent ass. I am not thinking. I hardly ever do.

As a thought, Dusky, one doesn't call it "hijacking" when the director and pilot takes it there himself. Anyhow...

Yes I have much to add on this topic, with a huge amount of factual data to back me up. But before I bother digging it all out, (unlike you, I don't just link to external sources. I actually researched it myself) I need to hear an honest admittance to being entirely open to another view. If you are not open to being wrong, I wont bother.
Perhaps someday you'll learn that the best way to learn is to be open minded.

Misconception about evolution: (at least I had this misconception)
There is a one in a million (or is it 1 in 10 million? - don't worry- I'll get my facts straight a little later where it counts) chance of a mutation during cell division. What I understood by this was that a million people copulate and one mutated individual results- who is weeded out by natural selection or becomes a hunk and mates and procreates. This was a mind boggling concept for me- so many people copulating for so little- evolution must take billions of years- as every little minor teeny weeny detail needs to evolve- and there are billions in a human- and the universe has existed only 13.7 billion years and the earth only 4 or so. Fortunately this is wrong.

The true picture:
There are 6 billion bases in a DNA. 1 in (10) million means that every time a cell divides there are 60 mutations. Implications:
1. Mutations are uncomfortably common.
2. You have 60 mutations (as compared to your parents). The reason you are alive is that the 2500 genes essential for survival make up less than 1% of your DNA. Most of the mutations take place in the 99% "junk" DNA. (called junk as scientist are too stupid to figure out what it is for).
3. There is a time bomb in all of us. Slowly dividing cells in our body will retain their genetic code for a while- but rapidly dividing cells will screw up the code pretty soon- as daughter cells will have countless mutations after a few years. For example the skin regenerates every few weeks- we would all have skin cancer if it had not been for some very slowly dividing cells in the deeper layers of skin- that ensure that the genetic code stays decent. But these cells divide too- and eventually (60+60+60+60....) one of those mutations is going to screw up a vital area of DNA- and a few such mutations and BOMB.
4. The process that evolves, ensures that we do not live long- pretty strange...

Due to these 60 mutations in every human being- evolution becomes a reality, possible in these 4 billion years. Even though the mind refuses to accept this fact as study of the human body reveals extreme attention to intricate detail- which at times reeks of the hand of God. But there is no evidence in the genetic code of any external manipulation. Genetic changes can now be traced to a point in history, pretty far back and evolution appears to be a fact- with no evidence of tinkering at any stage- from unicellular organisms to humans.

I am aware that a number of people believe that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago - for them coming to terms with the concept of evolution is difficult. There are others who feel that God made everything and the evolutionary process was not required- or Divine intervention was necessary at key intervals during evolution. Others feel that God planned everything and just did the big bang- everything else followed according to plan, without intervention. It does not really matter. The fact that you exist is all that matters- and you need to figure out how to best spend your brief time here- and if you want to abuse each other over evolution- well so be it.

In all these thousands of years there has been no scientific evidence of God- and there never will be- because if there really is a God He has made sure there is no evidence- as He is God- and He does not want to give evidence- as belief without evidence, from the heart and not the mind, is required for spiritual development.

There is sound scientific evidence for evolution- which is unlikely to be refuted (though I am open to this and would love for this to happen in my lifetime).

I am not defending or debating with any specific person, this is just a reply to the subject.

I watched a documentary about dogs recently (yes, science channel freak) and one of the hour-long episodes discussed the w's on how dogs became dogs, friends of people. They talked about where dogs originated from (where the first wolf came to a human as a tamed animal) and they said somewhere in northeastern Asia. From there they asked, "well, then how long did it take for this wolf species to tame up?"

In a fox farm in Russia, one man did a 10 year experiment. I thought this was so cool. Now, foxes aren't originally tame animals, and they had cages and cages of these wild foxes breed for fur. This scientist decided to sort the foxes for breeding; when he stuck his hand in the cage, if the fox growled and cowered, he left them be. If the fox showed any sort of curiosity, he took it for breeding. Eventually he got a new generation started from this group of curious foxes. As is, with regulated handling and exposure to humans, the generation became tame. By the end of the ten years of breeding, the final generation had already

1) changed their fur type and texture. According to the documentary, chemicals like adrenaline can affect fur color/texture, so less adrenaline production in the moms meant that the kids would have different fur characteristics.
2) they were tamer, and lived in the local village the same way as domestic dogs did.
3) They began barking like dogs. This wasn't a learned behavior, they simply did this by nature, simply from taming.
4) They answered to their names and had personalities.

So, people say that evolution takes millions of years to occur, but according to this study, evolution could occur in 10 years. Who's to say that the wolf that came out of the wild in Asia created the species of dog in the blink of evolution's eye?

Personally, I believe that evolution is a scientific way of determining how creatures came to be, but I believe that on the subject of humans, I believe in creationism. We are a special species.

Correction, it wasn't science channel. As I recall the program was on PBS, and here's the link the what I think was the program I saw. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wolves/

Why does "scientific theory" mean that no God or "Intelligent Designer" is involved? Im curious because it has always fascinated me that many many of the great Scientists I learned about in school were devout religious persons ... whether christian, muslim or jew .... which made sense since it wasnt until basically modern times that non-religious people could work at jobs that allowed them the time necessary to sit and stare at stuff and write down what changed. But barring , say the last 100 years ... most of the great Scientific Discoveries and ideas that have made modern science possible, included God as part of the 'given' of the discovery and or idea .... Newton always comes to mind, who is said to have been driven by his faith in developing his ideas. He was looking to see how God made it work.

It just bugs me to no end how foolishly people treat scientific thought as being incompatible with religious or spiritual thinking ...just because it doesn't fit into their own schema of thoughts.

to quote shakespeare, "The Lady doth protest too much." ... in this case referring to the vowing over and over that Science precludes God, as if to make it so by act of repetition.

I find if very narrow minded to say that Science, ie, Human knowledge, should limit it self to what we can ONLY directly interact with with our senses.

oh.. kids are done with their researching... back to class

Mmm, while I do agree that domestication can change an animal's behaviour and outward appearance (somewhat), it doesn't quite mean it's because of evolution. I agree with you about evolution (I will say however that we too also fall into this boat as well - only my opinion), and I certainly agree with creationism/intelligent design. (Although again I will say that it may not have occurred in the manner described in the Good Book, I do know everything has to have a creator, and I mean EVERYTHING. The Big Bang did not just occur on its own. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, that doesn't mean God doesn't exists or not. I won't hijack this thread, so disregard my statements and carry on - these are things which I believe.)

I really wanted to leave religion out of this but I think I have no choice. In my personal opinion I believe that God creates all creatures. He chooses how he wants them to look, behave, etc. Now, with non-human creatures, I believe that evolution exists, provided of course that only God determines what mutations are made and what can cause a species to move on or die out. Evolution in this sense has to work, or else one would say that all creatures were created and put on Earth at the same time, which we know isn't true. That would mean that we'd have dinosaurs and mastodons and saber-tooth tigers and future species living right here, right now, at the same time.

However, God created us special however long ago that scientists think humans first walked the earth, and put the first humans on earth. Though we may look like apes or whatnot, we aren't related. If we were, you'd think that perhaps scientists would have found the missing link already.

Also, may I stress the fact that God is in total control here. If he wants, he can make the same modern day species live on forever, unchanged, or He could cause a mass extinction tomorrow, whatever.

This is my personal opinion, please respect it, and I'm sorry I've spoken religiously, but that's unavoidable whenever someone is going to bring up the subject of evolution.

Haven't read all the thread and simply skimmed certain lines but I can guess, from 6 years of similar threads, what the content involves. Going to stick a padlock on this one.