the Theory of Evolution as Taught in Schools

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Thomas-

      Let me ask you this,as far as you know......and lets use elementary school as this is when it all begins(I believe it is around 4th or 5th grade when children are taught about evolution?)

       Are the schools curriculum the same in Europe as it is in the USA?I don't know anything at all about the public school system here in America,let alone Europe!!!(lol)It never even occurred to me that our children are only taught one side of the coin,seems to me Brother Paul is quite accurate in saying our children are being brainwashed.....Thomas,whether we believe in creationism or evolution & neither "theory"could be substantiated by evidence to support the claim to be undeniable,irrefutable "fact"-wouldn't you agree that both should be taught in schools ?I mean we are not talking about bringing religion into the schools by  considering the universe has a design & therefore there must be a designer,are we?...it is a logical standpoint or do I only see through the eyes of the believer...what is your take on all of this?

     By the way,I do like the way you have presented this topic(not so much the way it started to go left field-lol)I always enjoy discussions with you because we always agree that we can disagree

 

                                                                                                      With love,in Christ-Kwik

[thomas t]

Blessings Thomas-

      Let me ask you this,as far as you know......and lets use elementary school as this is when it all begins(I believe it is around 4th or 5th grade when children are taught about evolution?)

       Are the schools curriculum the same in Europe as it is in the USA?I don't know anything at all about the public school system here in America,let alone Europe!!!(lol)It never even occurred to me that our children are only taught one side of the coin,seems to me Brother Paul is quite accurate in saying our children are being brainwashed.....[....]

     By the way,I do like the way you have presented this topic(not so much the way it started to go left field-lol)I always enjoy discussions with you because we always agree that we can disagree

 

                                                                                                      With love,in Christ-Kwik

Thanks Kwik, I also enjoy disussions with you.

Sorry, I don't know how it is taught here in Europe (I just don't recall my biology classes very well). 

 

 

Thomas,whether we believe in creationism or evolution & neither "theory"could be substantiated by evidence to support the claim to be undeniable,irrefutable "fact"-wouldn't you agree that both should be taught in schools ?I mean we are not talking about bringing religion into the schools by  considering the universe has a design & therefore there must be a designer,are we?...it is a logical standpoint or do I only see through the eyes of the believer...what is your take on all of this?

                                                                                                     With love,in Christ-Kwik

To make ot clear right from the start, I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. I just think, it is more scientific than what creationists have to offer now.

I totally agree with you that what is taught as science in class should be substanciated by evidence. The problem here is, the Theory of Evolution does have evidence. They do present some fossils when it could have been different. They have the similarities in DNA between the animals, when at least theoretically it could have been different.

This counts es evidence already, to my knowledge, as weak as it may be. But at least they have some.

Creationists today, as I seems to me, don't offer a clear scientific frame in their theory indicating which tenets out of theirs are falsifiable and which ones are not. They don't draw a clear line, as I see it, between what they consider as a God given fact no matter what, and what is to be tested against the data.

 

The ToE being falsifiable, and creationist theories apparently lacking anything falsifiable, the score is 1:0 for evolution, I think. *

 

And then creationists seem (I wrote "seem", Paul) to circumvent science as no rejection letter from scientific journals can be found on internet - neither any presentation of theirs within one of the main scientific journals.

 

So the score is 2:0 for evolution, as I count it.

 

Thomas

 

* edit: Addai wrote something about at least partially falsifiable. However, his works resort to the use of the term "miracle" for the rise of life, and I find this unscientific... Moreover, Ross is an astrophysicist and not a biologist.

Edited October 16, 2013 by thomas t

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Thomas,

     This conversation is bringing me back to the university and its been so long since I have really been"in the books)...now if memory serves me did this issue not go before Supreme Court in the early 80s' by the infamous nuclear physicist,Robert Gentry for the defense(I say that jokingly because he hailed from Florida-lol)....all kidding aside I do recall the geologists & other physicists attacking his character because they really could not  present any case or scientific evidence against his Polonium Halos,proving creation  by fiat....very strong scientific theory wherein he presented many facts showing how radiohalos was the "key" in determining the age of earth and supporting"the flood".....I will give each side two for two(lol)...so now we are back to square one

     Thomas I hardly remember the details of what happened but I know it was all about equal time for the study of science creation as given to the study of science evolution and was ruled "unconstitutional",I think this was in the State of Alabama or perhaps it was Arkansaw?I don't remember....

      So you remember about as much as I do about elementary school?I know when ever this topic is discussed I hear so many people raised in Christian homes were very confused & shocked when presented by the theory of evolution & I always wondered why I didn't remember it that way until I realized that having gone to Catholic school probably had all to do with it...and I went on to major in science,so equal time seems right to me

                                                                            With love 'in Christ-Kwik 

 

I didn't know Ross was a astrophysicist.....I can certainly understand that it is quite difficult to refrain from giving God the Glory in all things but it certainly does not go over well with the majority of the science community...I don't care...we do not seek the approval of man....praise Jesus & to God be all Glory,Praise & Honor!!!!

[Enoch2021]

Evolution underlies modern medicine. For myself, I would think twice about going to a physician I knew rejected it. It would probably be alright, insofar as evolution provides a model by which medical knowledge is advanced and a practitioner could probably do fine with incorrect understanding, but it would still make me uneasy. For instance, if you want to understand and anticipate MRSA, as well as come up with the most effective ways to combat it, you are explicitly going to have to talk about evolution. I suppose you could replace the word with something else (as some do with the term 'adaptation' or 'microevolution') but it is physically the same thing as evolution occurring on a 'macro' scale over millions of years.

 

This is clearly not the case.....

 

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

Marc Kirschner  (Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School) The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005

 

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences)

 

'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.'

Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

 

"Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science."

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

"The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.  Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory."

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

Bacterial Resistance.....

 

‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess.

Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787.

 

Bacteria can become resistant as a result of mutations, but all of those studied so far are loss mutations. Probably the classic example is streptomycin and other mycin drugs that have been rendered ineffective by ribosome point mutations.

Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226–233, 1971.

Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203–234, 1972.

 

This is also quite intersesting.....

 

Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.

Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990

 

 

As for the "Micro" and "Macro" equivocation, it's like saying; (2 + 2 =4) is the same as (2 + 16 = 4) if you add Millions/billions of years:

 

Be sure WHAT your definition of evolution is.  Because to discredit the Holy Bible, you have to show change from Family Taxonomic Group or higher. To be clear....

Biblical "Kind" was coined 6000 years before the term "Species" and are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERMS.

Biblical "Kind"-- is defined from:  (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Do you see the Family Taxonomic Group in the above passage?

"Species"-- A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. (This is 1 of 3 current definitions and around the 30th in the past 50 years)

This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT:

1. "Micro"-evolution:  Biblical "KIND"

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation =  Biblical "Kind", This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!

This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO).

2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....

 

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years =  darwinian evolution

If evolution is TRUE, then show 1 PROOF of this!  You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account.

And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True.  These two equations are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist).

 

It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique.  Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in an attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter.  There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!

 

“Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution.

The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.

 

Therefore.....For neo darwinian evolution ("Macro"),  you need millions of beneficial mutations over thousands of generations that also need to become fixated in the mean time overwhelming all the deleterious ones. You need NEW INFORMATION----- leading to unequivocal New Traits, Organs, and Organisms.  The notion with Mutations of this nature and magnitude is preposterous, genetically speaking.

 

 

Alpha, Hope you find this helpful in your quest for the TRUTH.

 

Praise The LORD!!

[alphaparticle]

I've given examples on one of these threads about researchers actually using evolutionary phylogenetic trees to make predictions that guided the creation of medicine and medical knowledge. That's the sort of thing I have in mind. Evolution isn't just an abstraction or guessing, specific predictions about the world are made.

 

I've stated this elsewhere, but there are no 'kinds' in biology. There's genetic material, there's the expression of the genetic material in an organism. What people seem to intuit when they talk about kinds like this isn't even something like 'can't mate with one another' because if that were so, I could show examples of some ring species and be done. People seem to have in mind gross, visible morphological changes, and those really do take a very long time on evolution to occur, for several reasons.

[Enoch2021]

@alpha

 

Sorry I don't yet know how to pull short quotes out of a reponse yet...and I don't want to pull your whole post.

 

"make predictions that guided the creation of medicine and medical knowledge."

 

Sir, I just provided direct refutation of evolution and medical science above.

 

"I've stated this elsewhere, but there are no 'kinds' in biology."

 

Of course not.  And the whole Taxonomic Classification System is a man-made construct.  But comparing the assertions of evolution in relation to the WORD of GOD... don't you have to look and understand the Standard you're measuring against? I think the Scripture below is pretty clear and most closely Identifies with the Family Taxonomic Group.  No? ....

 

(1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

 

Speciation isn't a question here and as I said is a Scientific Fact.  It is also "Micro" evolution:

 

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical Kind or a Family Group.

 

You're not getting "Macro" or changes from one Family to another from this equation.

 

"People seem to have in mind gross, visible morphological changes, and those really do take a very long time on evolution to occur, for several reasons."

 

I disagree and is borne out in the "Lack" of evidence as in NONE.  The only way to confim this is the fossil evidence......

 

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."
(Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of natural History) The Myths of Human Evolution  (1982)  p.45-46

 

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."  
Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time  (2001)  p. 32 

[alphaparticle]

I don't think you refuted 'evolution in medicine' insofar as I have direct examples of phylogenetic trees being used used to make predictions that in turn led to concrete medicine. That a line of bacteria could show resistance to some of our antibiotics is of course is interesting but  not shocking, and does not refute the notion that bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics-- out of the simple fact that antibiotics that worked against a *specific strain* will stop working with time in response to the use of specific antibiotics.

 

Well yes, no one really talks about 'links' anymore, as that suggests an old outdated mode of thinking about evolution which involves ladders. The thinking now is about transitional forms, common ancestry and the like, and even at nodes in phylogenetic trees it's questioned there is going to be some specific individual specimen. The vast  majority of species that have walked the earth were evolutionary dead ends.

[Enoch2021]

I don't think you refuted 'evolution in medicine' insofar as I have direct examples of phylogenetic trees being used used to make predictions that in turn led to concrete medicine. That a line of bacteria could show resistance to some of our antibiotics is of course is interesting but  not shocking, and does not refute the notion that bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics-- out of the simple fact that antibiotics that worked against a *specific strain* will stop working with time in response to the use of specific antibiotics.

 

Well yes, no one really talks about 'links' anymore, as that suggests an old outdated mode of thinking about evolution which involves ladders. The thinking now is about transitional forms, common ancestry and the like, and even at nodes in phylogenetic trees it's questioned there is going to be some specific individual specimen. The vast  majority of species that have walked the earth were evolutionary dead ends.

 

Again I disagree.... from the plain language from Dr. Kirschner and Dr. Skell.  I don't know how you can reach any other conclusion.

 

"and does not refute the notion that bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics--"

 

Well that goes back to the definition of "evolved" and using it as "Change" way too ambiguous, scientifically speaking.  Evolution clearly needs to show NEW INFORMATION, leading to Unequivocal New Organs and Organisms.  ALL cases of Bacterial Resistance is either genetic variation and in some cases Mutations.  But ALL that have been studied are LOSS of Information when it comes to Mutations, as I cited earlier.

 

"Links" are "transitional forms",  and I agree that's a dead end.

[alphaparticle]

There's no reason to think there has to be 'loss of information' if the information comes from genetic material, and mutations can proliferate genetic material. Then in principle, it is possible, and whether or not evolution is true you'd expect that, based on statistics alone, to happen once in a rare while.

[Enoch2021]

There's no reason to think there has to be 'loss of information' if the information comes from genetic material, and mutations can proliferate genetic material. Then in principle, it is possible, and whether or not evolution is true you'd expect that, based on statistics alone, to happen once in a rare while.

 

Well you have to understand What Mutations Are; and I disagree and here's why......

 

 

‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

 

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.   

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.  

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253