[_ Old Earth _] Should evolution be allowed in the text books?

[Barbarian]

When someone says that evolution is fact they are saying that 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that the humans as we know them today evolved from apes.

Rather, that we are apes. Just evolved in a particular direction. But there's a deeper misconception here. Most of the facts we know are not logically certain, but facts for which we have so much evidence that it's foolish to deny them. The light in the east each morning, for example. That's how it is with evolution. You can't prove the sun will come up each day. But don't bet against it.

That is how it is presented. We think that is what happened but have not been able to put together all of the pieces of the puzzle to outright proove it.

We know it happened. What we are doing now, is working out the details. One of the reasons we can be so sure, is that as time goes on, the details tend to confirm earlier findings to a rather impressive degree of accuracy, and predictions made on past findings have been so frequently confirmed by subsequent evidence that it would be rather difficult to explain any other way.

It is not fact.

If "The sun appears in the east in the morning" is a fact, it is.

Gravity is fact because we see it in action right now.

Evolution is observed in undergraduate labs every year.

I can drop a quarter and it will fall to the floor. I can see right now that gravity is real.

Oh, you mean microgravity. Everyone knows that microgravity is true. But macrogravity, the concept that it is responsible for the formation of stars and the movement of galaxies, that's never been observed to happen. ;)

I cannot however see that evolution for humans actually happened.

You can't observe a giant redwood growing from a seed to maturity, either. But you have abundant evidence to conclude it is true. So it is with evolution.

[quote[I cannot proove it with absolute 100% certainty. That is why it is still a theory.[/quote]

In science, nothing is proven. Gravity is still a theory, because "theory" is the highest level of certainty in science. Evolution is somewhat more established than gravity, because we aren't yet sure why gravity works.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

When someone says that evolution is fact they are saying that 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that the humans as we know them today evolved from apes.

Rather, that we are apes. Just evolved in a particular direction. But there's a deeper misconception here. Most of the facts we know are not logically certain, but facts for which we have so much evidence that it's foolish to deny them. The light in the east each morning, for example. That's how it is with evolution. You can't prove the sun will come up each day. But don't bet against it.

[quote:37qxaqwe]That is how it is presented. We think that is what happened but have not been able to put together all of the pieces of the puzzle to outright proove it.

We know it happened. What we are doing now, is working out the details. One of the reasons we can be so sure, is that as time goes on, the details tend to confirm earlier findings to a rather impressive degree of accuracy, and predictions made on past findings have been so frequently confirmed by subsequent evidence that it would be rather difficult to explain any other way.

It is not fact.

If "The sun appears in the east in the morning" is a fact, it is.

Gravity is fact because we see it in action right now.

Evolution is observed in undergraduate labs every year.

I can drop a quarter and it will fall to the floor. I can see right now that gravity is real.

Oh, you mean microgravity. Everyone knows that microgravity is true. But macrogravity, the concept that it is responsible for the formation of stars and the movement of galaxies, that's never been observed to happen. ;)

I cannot however see that evolution for humans actually happened.

You can't observe a giant redwood growing from a seed to maturity, either. But you have abundant evidence to conclude it is true. So it is with evolution.

[quote[I cannot proove it with absolute 100% certainty. That is why it is still a theory.[/quote:37qxaqwe]

In science, nothing is proven. Gravity is still a theory, because "theory" is the highest level of certainty in science. Evolution is somewhat more established than gravity, because we aren't yet sure why gravity works.[/quote]

Obviously, this issue is controversial. Some feel Evolution while others in teh scientific community see it as a theory. I would argue that we have confirmed micro evolution occurs since we can see that occurring. Macro evolution is another concept all together that we have not confirmed and as a result is not scientific fact.

 

[Barbarian]

Obviously, this issue is controversial.

To some unfamiliar with the evidence, it is. Using the "scientists who doubt Darwin" data from the IDers, and "Project Steve", one finds about 0.3% of people with doctorates in Biology or related disciplines, don't accept evolutionary theory as it is today. And so far, every one I've found is for a religious objection.

Some feel Evolution while others in teh scientific community see it as a theory.

All scientists who are worth anything see it as a fact (the phenomenon seen in nature) and a theory (the explanation for it). It is far too well documented to be anything but a theory.

I would argue that we have confirmed micro evolution occurs since we can see that occurring.

Just like microgravity. It turns out that microgravity and microevolution are just short-term examples of ordinary gravity and evolution.

Macro evolution is another concept all together

Nope. Works exactly the same way.

that we have not confirmed

Even bigger misconception, there. It's like claiming a man can walk 100 yards, but he can't walk a mile because you've never seen someone walk a mile.

and as a result is not scientific fact.

It might be useful for you to read up a little on the methodology of science and learn why we can understand things, even if we weren't there when they happened.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Obviously, this issue is controversial.

To some unfamiliar with the evidence, it is. Using the "scientists who doubt Darwin" data from the IDers, and "Project Steve", one finds about 0.3% of people with doctorates in Biology or related disciplines, don't accept evolutionary theory as it is today. And so far, every one I've found is for a religious objection.

[quote:2ggodpdj]Some feel Evolution while others in teh scientific community see it as a theory.

All scientists who are worth anything see it as a fact (the phenomenon seen in nature) and a theory (the explanation for it). It is far too well documented to be anything but a theory.

I would argue that we have confirmed micro evolution occurs since we can see that occurring.

Just like microgravity. It turns out that microgravity and microevolution are just short-term examples of ordinary gravity and evolution.

Macro evolution is another concept all together

Nope. Works exactly the same way.

that we have not confirmed

Even bigger misconception, there. It's like claiming a man can walk 100 yards, but he can't walk a mile because you've never seen someone walk a mile.

and as a result is not scientific fact.

It might be useful for you to read up a little on the methodology of science and learn why we can understand things, even if we weren't there when they happened.[/quote:2ggodpdj]

So, we have evidence that a species evolved into another species all together? Like say, a lizard into a bird?

Like I stated before, I think the theory of evolution should be taught from a scientific perspective and the definitions, terms, etc. used in those discussions. I do not think that Creationism should be allowed as it is not science. I will also go on record to say I believe that Evolution is likely but not certain. How can we say, without any examples discovered, that humans are descended from apes? We have no direct proof in my mind. We may have induced the conclusions but have no complete links of specimens 100% proving we came from apes.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian reassures:
Ei se mitään.

:shocked Is this microevolution at work in the forums?

Bu bolidu

 

[Barbarian]

So, we have evidence that a species evolved into another species all together?

Yes, that's been directly observed. Indeed, many YE creationist organizations have admitted speciation is fact. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, has endorsed Woodmorappe's "Ark Feasibility Study", in which he argues that new species, genera, and even families of organisms evolved after they left the Ark.

Like say, a lizard into a bird?

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in a lot of trouble. The theory doesn't allow for such a jump. And, of course, lizards are too distant relatives of dinosaurs and birds for such a change to be plausible.

Like I stated before, I think the theory of evolution should be taught from a scientific perspective and the definitions, terms, etc. used in those discussions.

Which is what almost all state standards have now.

I do not think that Creationism should be allowed as it is not science. I will also go on record to say I believe that Evolution is likely but not certain.

"Certain" is a relative thing. It's somewhat more certain than gravity.

How can we say, without any examples discovered, that humans are descended from apes?

The first tip-off came from a creationist (Linnaeus, the guy who invented binomial classification). He said that he couldn't find any way to anatomically distinguish humans from apes, and probably should have put them together. Next, was detailed anatomical studies. Huxley used Owen's own data to show him that there was no known structure in humans that could not be found in a chimp, and vice versa.

Then came DNA studies that showed humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to any other apes.

Then the clincher. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes. Scientists investigated and found that one human chromosome is almost identical to two chimp chromosomes, right down to remains of a centromere and telomeres, right where they'd be if a chromosome fusion had taken place.

And, of course, there's all those introns (various mistakes, like old viral remnants) that are found in the same place in humans and chimps. These happened before humans and chimps diverged; it would be an astoundingly unlikely series of events for all of them to just happen to occur in the same place in the same fashion.

And then, there are the many transitional hominins in the fossil record, with a very gradual change over time, toward human features.

Keep in mind, many of these facts were predicted before they were discovered. And that, too, is powerful evidence.

We have no direct proof in my mind.

Hard to think of anything better established.

We may have induced the conclusions but have no complete links of specimens 100% proving we came from apes.

Sun might not come up tomorrow, either. But that's where the smart money is.

 

[Nick]

I think this is straying a little off-topic here. The OP was about "should the teaching of evolution be allowed in school text books?". I don't mind this getting a little into evolution, but this is turning into an evolution/gravity debate. Can we please return to topic. Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Should gravity be allowed in the text books? Um, sorry...

The problem comes down to "should science be what scientists do and learn about?"

If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books. I don't know any other standard to use.

Does anyone else?

 

[Crying Rock]

"...If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books..."

I note that you've sandwiched a humanities topic between two hard sciences. Anthropology does not equal physics.

 

[Nick]

Should gravity be allowed in the text books? Um, sorry...

The problem comes down to "should science be what scientists do and learn about?"

If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books. I don't know any other standard to use.

Does anyone else?

It seems we agree, Barabarian. .

 

[kenmaynard]

"...If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books..."

I note that you've sandwiched a humanities topic between two hard sciences. Anthropology does not equal physics.

Evolution is biology not anthropology.

 

[jasoncran]

"...If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books..."

I note that you've sandwiched a humanities topic between two hard sciences. Anthropology does not equal physics.

Evolution is biology not anthropology.

paleontology is part of the feild of biology? i recall differently.

 

[Crying Rock]

"...If so, then gravity and evolution, and physics should be in science text books..."

I note that you've sandwiched a humanities topic between two hard sciences. Anthropology does not equal physics.

Evolution is biology not anthropology.

As far as human evolution goes, anthropology is very much involved with human evolution:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

 

[kenmaynard]

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html[/url][/quote:gkvro87y]


Evolution is biology, and botany since plants evolved too.

 

[Barbarian]

Hard to imagine anyone conflating a hard science like biology with humanities. Physical anthropology is also a science, although cultural anthropology might be more reasonably thought of as a non-science. Still, linguists and geneticists are pretty well connected. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza seems as comfortable with cultural studies as with the flow of genes.

 

[Crying Rock]

Human evolution doesn't fall under anthropology, as far as direct evidence goes?

How many schools are you aware of that award a BS versus a BA for anthropology?

 

[Barbarian]

Human evolution doesn't fall under anthropology, as far as direct evidence goes?

Biology and paleontology. Of course, physical anthropology is part of biology. Cultural anthropology is closer to sociology.

Biological anthropology, or physical anthropology is a branch of anthropology that studies the mechanisms of biological evolution, genetic inheritance, human adaptability and variation, primatology, primate morphology, and the fossil record of human evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_anthropology

Cultural anthropologists study cultural variation among humans, collect observations, usually through participant observation called fieldwork and examine the impact of global economic and political processes on local cultural realities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_anthropology

How many schools are you aware of that award a oopsie versus as a BA for anthropology?

Hmmm... I'd be a little concerned if I did all the necessary coursework for physical anthropology, and got a bachelor of arts degree.

 

[Crying Rock]

Name some of the schools and let's compare the course requirements.

 

[Crying Rock]

ttt

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Since it's an abominable lie, then no it should not. But one can't expect much from science textbooks in the secular world since scientists are in a search for the truth because they don't already know it.

Claiming scientists are mistaken is one thing, but claiming that they know it's false and are outright lying is another. In fact it's almost the most stupid thing I've ever heard, do you realize how many millions of dollars and prizes any scientist could claim if he/she disproved the theory? And you want to tell me that in 150 years no one has?

Science isn't like politics or religion; scientists are happy when their hypotheses are disproved. Science is amazingly self-critical. When Einstein completed special relativity and had tested it to find no fault whatsoever he later said "I had created a thing of beauty, that worked perfectly in theory, but if it couldn't predict the orbit of Mars in practice then I would have gladly thrown it out and started again" [Paraphrase]

Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

I once read about some stickers they were placing on books in some Conservative state that said "Evolution is just a theory, students should keep an open mind concerning it and be skeptical of it's claims". It made me laugh so hard, because that's what you should do with ALL science, not just the parts that conflict with your book. You're not meant so accept anything on faith or assume it's correct. That's one of the founding principles of the scientific method.

Yes, it is a theory, but not in the vernacular. In common speech a theory is something that we're unsure of or just a random guess. In science a theory is a hypothesis that has passed the peer review process and has been accepted as a consensus by the scientific community after millions of independent skeptical investigations of the evidence. Gravity, Atomic Theory, Cell Theory and Relativity are ALL theories. A Theory doesn't graduate into a law, fact or any other category, a theory is the most important and reliable status any hypothesis can be afforded. If you wanted to convert theory into colloquial language it would roughly translate to fact (All the above theories, including Evolution are as close to fact as we will ever get)

Evolution should be taught like Cell Theory or Atomic Theory, if you think it's false then write a paper in a peer-reviewed journal disproving it and demote it from a theory. That's the good thing about Science, if you shout loud enough no one can stop the truth becoming accepted.


That said, I'm not really here to debate evolution lol, I just thought some very basic misconceptions needed to be exposed.

Thanks for my 2 cents