Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[Dan4reason]

I agree the terms evolutionists use, including "species", and "evolution" itself, are subjective and often misused. Of course, I disagree that no alternate explanation can compete scientifically, as do scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds. The competing possibility of direct creation has not been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data. Direct creation is not even considered by "objective" scientists who base their interpretations of data on the presupposition that evolution is true.

I understand your point of view. However we have evidence of speciation and that evidence is contained in the fossil record. For example we have found species such as homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, and homo neanderthal that are transitory between humans and apes and lived earlier than humans.

 

[Falvlun]

I've never understood the "I believe in microevolution but macroevolution is impossible!" argument. Where do you draw the line between micro and macro? How does nature know when to stop evolving? Does it say to itself: "Hey! If I make one more mutation I'm gonna cross that line and macro evolution ain't allowed to occur, so I better not!"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It always makes me wonder...

Honest question, for those who believe in a SCIENCE class we should be teaching creationism as equally/validly as evolution, what are your opinions on gravity?

Question Gravity: Arguments Against Gravity

 

[johnhanks]

And if there were no biological or genetic reason such boundaries could not be transgressed, it would have been so demonstrated long ago...

So if biologists have not positively demonstrated the absence of a barrier, we have to assume a barrier exists?

Biologists have not positively demonstrated the absence of telepathy in hamsters either. Best be careful what you're thinking when you go near the cage...

 

[Me Myself]

I've never understood the "I believe in microevolution but macroevolution is impossible!" argument. Where do you draw the line between micro and macro? How does nature know when to stop evolving? Does it say to itself: "Hey! If I make one more mutation I'm gonna cross that line and macro evolution ain't allowed to occur, so I better not!"

I was thinknig likewise.

If changing "a little" is possible through time, then with enough time, "little" by "little" it ends up being " a lot"

I made an equation:

Micro evolution= Micro change = a little

A little+ A little = two littles

A little x many times = Many littles!

Many littles= one whole lot

One whole lot = macro evolution

There is it! that simple!

 

[johnhanks]

I made an equation:

Micro evolution= Micro change = a little

A little+ A little = two littles

A little x many times = Many littles!

Many littles= one whole lot

One whole lot = macro evolution

There is it! that simple!

This nicely encapsulates the fundamental difference between the way creationists view evolution, and the way biologically informed people see it. For a creationist, "macroevolution" is qualitative change (literally, a change of "kind"), and in his view of nature that is not allowed. People who understand evolution realise it is really quantitative change - change in number and distribution of A,T,C,G bases in a population's gene pool over many generations. Once you have admitted the possibility of small changes in genome sequence between one generation and the next, any amount of change becomes possible - all you need is enough time.

 

[apophenia]

Honest question, for those who believe in a SCIENCE class we should be teaching creationism as equally/validly as evolution, what are your opinions on gravity?http://questiongravity.blogspot.com.au/p/arguments-against-gravity.html

The gravy I make has evolved. Originally, i just stirred some cornflour into the meat fat in the pan and then added water.

Now I boil and reduce potatoes to a liquid which I add to the meat fat, plus spices and herbs, and get a much better taste and texture.

This is culinary intelligent design which has evolved. The elements of a meal just don't hang together without gravy, and potatoes are my Higgs Boson.

I can't understand any objection to this being taught in schools.

 

[rusra02]

Can you name one single non religious biologist alive today that rejects evolution?

Just one.




Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because something hasnt been evidenced against doesnt mean it exists.

You cant evidence that I am not a green superevolved extraterrestrial penguin typing this from a different mars in another galaxy with technology far beyond that which you could understand.

OMG!

Translation: We don't have evidence but you should believe ToE anyway.
As to scientists who believe the scientific evidence proves an intelligent Designer who then choose to not believe what the evidence shows, I.e. not to believe in God. That's what you are asking for?

 

[Father Heathen]

The theory of macro evolution is not science, but baseless speculation falsely called science.

Science isn't restrained to your extremely limited ability to grasp and understand.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It always makes me wonder...

Honest question, for those who believe in a SCIENCE class we should be teaching creationism as equally/validly as evolution, what are your opinions on gravity?

Question Gravity: Arguments Against Gravity

Yeah, that's hilarious.

Dogma is seriously potent, isn't it? It's why we have the Flat Earth Society, people who believe in a geocentric model of the solar system, and people who really don't understand what exactly merits a scientific theory. That a scientific theory is kinda, like, well, a simple guess.

And therefore dogma, doctrine, "Truth", strength in truth vs. weakness in uncertainty.....these perspectives cause us to either look the other way when observations tell us a different answer, or we deny the observation and prefer faith in the unseen or unobserved.

I dunno. Humans are funny. And I need more coffee. I'm rambling.

 

[Revoltingest]

The gravity controversy has been brewing for a few years.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's gotta be hard to be an 'evangelical scientist' right? How do you come up with a valid hypothesis when you already know the answer?

 

[johnhanks]

Translation: We don't have evidence but you should believe ToE anyway.

Oh rusra you scamp, you know very well that the evidence for evolution could (and does) fill many libraries. Your determination not to look at it doesn't make it go away.

As to scientists who believe the scientific evidence proves an intelligent Designer who then choose to not believe what the evidence shows, I.e. not to believe in God. That's what you are asking for?

No, I think what he's asking for is someone who concluded that evolution is false from scientific evidence alone, without a prior commitment to a religious alternative.

 

[rusra02]

But the tiny dog there was once a wolf. That's pretty darn far apart for a change which occurred over
only a few thousand years. Give hundreds of millions of years, & the difference would be far greater.

That is unsubstantiated speculation.

 

[rusra02]

I've never understood the "I believe in microevolution but macroevolution is impossible!" argument. Where do you draw the line between micro and macro? How does nature know when to stop evolving? Does it say to itself: "Hey! If I make one more mutation I'm gonna cross that line and macro evolution ain't allowed to occur, so I better not!"

My understanding is that micro evolution refers to changes such as eye color, wing size, etc. Calling these "evolution" is misleading, IMO. They are variations within kinds. As to limits on reproduction, the Creator sets these limits by "kinds", not blind forces of nature. In short, the same intelligent Designer that created life established the mechanisms to control boundaries between life forms.

 

[rusra02]

It always makes me wonder...

Honest question, for those who believe in a SCIENCE class we should be teaching creationism as equally/validly as evolution, what are your opinions on gravity?

Question Gravity: Arguments Against Gravity

There's that smarmy word again "creationism". ID is not equivalent to YEC, at least not to me. And ID has far more scientific evidence to support it then evolution.

 

[Reptillian]

It's gotta be hard to be an 'evangelical scientist' right? How do you come up with a valid hypothesis when you already know the answer?

It's simple, first you throw Occam's Razor out the window, then you make your hypothesis more convoluted by adding in unfounded and fundamentally untestable assumptions. If an observation disagrees with your hypothesis, no problem, just make it more complicated....remember that whatever you add HAS to be untestable, otherwise you may accidentally do some actual science.

 

[rusra02]

So if biologists have not positively demonstrated the absence of a barrier, we have to assume a barrier exists?

Biologists have not positively demonstrated the absence of telepathy in hamsters either. Best be careful what you're thinking when you go near the cage...

Scientists have not spent decades and millions of dollars trying to verify telepathy in hamsters.

 

[rusra02]

The gravy I make has evolved. Originally, i just stirred some cornflour into the meat fat in the pan and then added water.

Now I boil and reduce potatoes to a liquid which I add to the meat fat, plus spices and herbs, and get a much better taste and texture.

This is culinary intelligent design which has evolved. The elements of a meal just don't hang together without gravy, and potatoes are my Higgs Boson.

I can't understand any objection to this being taught in schools.

These changes to your gravy were the product of intelligent design, not evolution.

 

[johnhanks]

Scientists have not spent decades and millions of dollars trying to verify telepathy in hamsters.

We have, on the other hand, spent decades accumulating data on the variation generated by errors in DNA replication. Neither theoretical considerations nor empirical observation offer any indication that there is a limit to how far that variation may go.