Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Jose]

I am only stating that beginning with a conlusion is not an intellectual exclusive to Christianity. The practice also exists at a high frequency in science. This is evident in your satement about a hypothesis, the classic model of Deductive Reasoning.

Your skepticism here is well justified, but misplaced. The way the Scientific Method and its hypothesis are usually presented, it sounds like scientists always at least claim to do science this way, and it sounds like scientists put their conclusions first. This is actually incorrect. The official Scientific Method is a pattern of logic that is used to check your understanding.

The idea is that you write down your understanding as a formal statement that you call your hypothesis. You could call it a model or an interpretation of prior data, and it would be just as good. Then, you write out a series of predictions that should be met if that hypothesis is actually true. Then, you do experiments or make observations to determine whether those predictions are borne out. The most clear-cut results are ones that show your predictions are not borne out, thereby proving that your hypothesis was wrong in one or more details. If you find that your predictions are met 100% of the time, then you gain confidence in your hypothesis. That is, you have some justification for thinking you might be getting closer to understanding how the system works.

Because the best design of an experiment to test an hypothesis is to try to disprove it, it becomes clear that the most effective science that uses this method actually does the opposite of what you've suggested. Rather than trying to find data to support a pre-defined conclusion, it's more a matter of trying to find data that destroy that conclusion. Sometimes, it's really hard to destroy the conclusion--that is, disprove the hypothesis. Of course, if the hypothesis is actually correct, it will be very hard indeed.

In a lab, experiments are prioritized completely by their ability to show what the researcher wanted to find.

Only in the sense that if you want to find out about X you do experiments about X, not about something completely different. Experiments are not prioritized according to their ability to support a pre-defined conclusion. They are prioritized according to their ability to find out about the subject under investigation. If the results happen to match your predictions because you actually understand something for once, well, that's not the same as defining your answer before you start the work.

[Daystar]

It is also an example of its particular species, and is also a representative of the genetic diversity within that species. These are the "criticisms" provided by creationists to say that transitional fossils cannot exist--that the fossils that do exist are species themselves, and simply show the diversity of that species. But, they are also transitional fossils.

[Day] Ok, if you want to call them transitionals within species, that sounds good to me. I think variation is a better word.

To be strictly correct, every fossil is a transitional fossil, representing the transition between the ancestors of that species and the descendents of that species.

[Day] So the many varieties of fish fossils are transitionals within the specie. Isn't this micro-evolution?

Similarly, every living thing today is a transitional life form, representing the transition between its ancestors and its yet-to-be born descendents.

[Day] I have no objection with this as long as the transitionals are within the species. But I still like variation better.

And these transitionals would have characteristics of the old specie as they acquire the characteristics of the new specie into which they are evolving.

Just as they do. Archy, for instance, has characteristics of the old species (teeth and claws) as well as characteristics of true birds (feathers, wings). It is also a species in its own right.

[Day] Are you saying that a series of mutations caused the formation of wings and feathers?

But you will never find an individual acquiring the characteristics of a new species into which it is evolving. It just doesn't work that way.

[Day] But isn't that what supposedly happened with Archy?

Individuals live, reproduce (or not), and die. They don't change. If their offspring inherit mutations, and if those mutations become common in later generations, then the later generations may display the effects of those mutations. The later generations may look different, and look like a different species. They could even be different enough from their ancestors of 100 generations ago that they would be unable to breed with them (if they could go back in time and try to do so), in which case they would be a "new" species. At the same time as they are a new species, they are also the true descendents of their ancestors.

[Day] Are you aware of any offspring that has inherited a mutation? How could we possibly know? How do we know the offspring was just born with it? You seem to be making a case for for the accumulative effect of mutations to produce new speciation, which Gould said does not happen. I still would like to know from observable, repeatable or testable evidence what creature has ever changed from one specie to another through mutation.

You might find it interesting to look here.

On mutations, there is still no evidence of them causing new speciation, as noted by Gould. There are so many scientists who still believe in evolution but are on record as stating that the fossil record is no friend to it. If evolution is true, the fossil record should abound with transitionals in plant life, insects, along with all other species and kinds of life. They are not there.

That's right (and it's also quote mining). Mutations do not cause speciation. Mutations are simply the essential source of genetic variation.

[Day] Yes, I like that word variation, but why do you assume that mutation is repsonsible for it? Couldn't it just be part of the limited gene pool within the specie?

To achieve speciation, selection is required to "choose" some variations to out-compete the others.

[Day] Out compete? Do you mean survival of the fittest?

We can say the same thing about the Boston Marathon. Contestants at the starting line don't win the race. This is true. They have to run the race, and have the fastest runner out-compete the others to win. Of course, with no contestants, there's no one to compete, so contestants are absolutely required to have a winner. But still, it is true to say that contestants don't win the race.

[Day] You make it sound as though species compete for survival.

Now, as you say, "if evolution is true, the fossil record should abound with transitionals..." It does. There are plenty of them.

[Day] Right, billions and billions of (transitional) variations within kind.

Only if you change the definition of "transitional" or imagine an incorrect mechanism of evolution, can you conclude that they do not exist.

[Day] Micro-transitional-evolution, YES; Macro-transitional-evolution, NO. How does that sound to you?

But in science classes, we aren't interested in alternate definitions or alternate mechanisms. We're talking about the specific mechanism that has been proposed by evolutionary scientists, that follows the known mechanisms of genetics. There's no point in inventing something else, just so we can knock it down.

[Day] Ok, bottom line as you see it: Different species were produced from original species through the accumulative effect of mutations?

On "chaos," you noted that homosexuality is a biological thing. Would you say the same about prostitution? Adultery? From the Biblical perspective, they are all immoral. If God intended for homosexuality to be a "biological" thing, then he would have to do the same for prostitution and adultery. IOW, he would have had to accomodate our genes with something that goes against his word.

This is off-topic, but...Prostitution and adultery? I can't say. There's adultery among some species of birds that set up "faithful" pair bondings (they're called "extra-pair matings").

[Day] Adultery is a people thing. Whatever the animal kingdom does is irrelevant. Or maybe you're thinking that adultery was passed down from the birds

They are often sought by the female. So, obviously, there are biological underpinnings. Prostitution? There are many instances of using sex to gain favors, so maybe there are biological underpinnings here, too.

However, these are things that de-stabilize society, for which we can justify a moral stand against them (even without divine recommendation).

[Day] Do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were stable societies? The Roman Empire? The Soviet Union? Why shouldn't society take a stand against immoral behavior? I'm not against homosexuals per se, but I don't think they should rewrite the moral laws of our nation. Like prostitutes and adulteres have rights, so should homosexuals. But all three should be classified as immoral. That's what Jesus did.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't a choice. Enough is known about neurobiology, brain differences between males and females, and the embryonic wiring of the brain to know that there are many ways that brain wiring can get mixed up.

[Day] What do you think happened to the neurobiology and brain wiring of those who have come out of the lifestyle? Just like the drunkard, prostitute, adulterer, drug addict, etc. can repent of their lifestyle, so can the homosexual repent of his. Of all the temptations that man faces, sex is the strongest, and it takes on several forms. Yet, he can choose to resist or repent of that which is immoral.

There can certainly be genetic effects, but I think it 's more common (based on insufficient data to make this a scientific conclusion) that we're up against environmental pollutants that act as "endocrine disruptors."

[Day] Homosexuality due to a polluted environment?

We know of many chemicals that interact with the receptors for the sex hormones--including the plasticizer in fingernail polish. If a fetus is exposed to some of these chemicals at one stage in development, the anatomy of their genitalia is altered--giving masculinized girls and feminized boys.

[Day] How do they know that it was an environmental pollutant that did it? And why would a physical defect alter the neurobiology or brain wiring. It all sounds very hypothetical.

Usually, these anomalies are "adjusted" surgically (as they were for the children I know who were born with such anomalies). If a fetus is exposed to the same chemicals at a later stage, when the wiring of the brain is being established, the male-wiring pattern can be disrupted, giving rise to a female-like pattern. Or, the female-wiring pattern can be disrupted, giving rise to a male-like pattern. What's the result? People who are male in appearance, but with a female-like brain, or people who are female in appearance, but with a male-like brain. Their sexual preference is determined by their brain, not their external appearance.

[Day] Are you aware of anyone who has experienced exposure to both a pre-natal pollution and a subsequent exposure to the same pollutant that resulted in his becoming a homosexual?

As I see it, these aspects of embryonic development are largely beyond our control. We might even have to say (especially if we were Christians) that they are under the control of God. Why would God expose some embryos to endocrine disruptors, so that the people become homosexuals?

[Day] Why would God give the gift of repentance if our natures can be changed by endocrine disruptors? I think science has come to some conclusions where the final chapters have yet to be written.

It must be part of his plan that we cannot fathom.

[Day] It's true there's much about God we can't fathom. But again, I would say that those final chapters have yet to be written and suggest that man's nature to disobey God is, in part, the "endocrine disruptor."

But, if this is the way God intends for certain people to be, why should we declare them to be sinners?

[Day] Because he has made that declaration: "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)

Why not accept God's decision, and treat these people fairly?

[Day] Obviously, you don't accept the Bible as God's word

.....Unless man comes to realize that he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, nothing will change and he will only grow colder to God and warmer to himself.

I'll turn this around, and present it as I see it. Unless man comes to realize that it is his own decisions that govern what happens in the world, and not some divine plan that is beyond his control, he will always be able to fall back on the excuse that "it's not my fault."

[Day] Our decisions do affect our lives. Unfortunately, we make the wrong ones. God has given us free will and will not force us to do his. If he did, we would all be robots. No, he wants us to know what his will is for our lives that we might propser and lead happy lives. His will for our lives is spelled out in scripture, but it is not our basic nature to want to adhere to it. Why do you think he sent his Son to the cross? Non-adherance = sin....Jesus died for sin.

"It's God's plan." "Satan made me do it." I say this is bunk.

[Day] Whatever God's plan is for anything, it's right. I accept that, but reject the latter. Satan can't make you do anything against your will.

Each of us should take responsibility for our own actions.

[Day] Yes and we should always be prepared for the consequences of them.

If we recognize that we are accountable to no one but ourselves, then the only way to explain the mess the world is in is to say that we did it to ourselves, and we have to clean it up.

[Day] The mess we have in the world today is because we have not done it God's way. Wouldn't you agree that his ways are best? We are reaping what we have sown. It's a spiritual law that is just as certain as any law of nature.

God's not going to step in and fix it.

[Day] Oh yeah he will "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will HEAL THEIR LAND." (2 Chron. 7:14)

He's not going to spirit us away at the last minute to some paradise. This is our only chance.[/quote]

[Day] As long as we have the breath of life, God is the God of the second chance, third, fourth, fifth...... Problem is, men don't have faith in anything but themselves.

I know we're off topic (my fault, nor yours).


God bless,
Day

[perfessor]

.... But all of the building begins with the theory. It is deduced by faith that evolution is the correct theory and evidence is choosen.(1) For instance, could you name me a Physical Scientist that would say that Carbon dating is accurate passed 70,000 years? None will. Becasue as a rule in statistics you can not accurately assess a sample after you have .1% of a sample size. This is why many dating techniques using half life rarely "prove" anything. Yet Evolutionary biologists will talk about half life data (even from carbon) to prove their theories.(2) Why? Becasue they begin with assumptions and deduce thier projected results. Evolutionary Biology, in my opinion, is the worst discipline in Science for this. It is the only discipline that is really concerned with the date of the earth as "proof" for it's theories.(3)

"Footnoting" added by me.
First of all, youngboorean, it's "perfessor, not professor. I'm strictly amatuer.
I think you have a very poor understanding of why scientists believe that evolutionary theory represents the most accurate naturalistic explanation for speciation.
1. Evolution is not a religion, there is no "faith", except in the scientific process. Evidence is NOT chosen - I don't know how to explain this in a way you will understand. Data is collected and examined, but contrary data is not just thrown out - that would be more typical of Creation "Science".
2. You should do some studying about radiometric methods. Carbon dating is accurate, and consistently accurate, within timescales of under 40,000 years. For longer timescales, other radioactive markers are used. Half-lives are calculated and tested, not assumed or guessed.
3. The age of the earth doesn't "prove" evolution - but I will accept that if anyone could prove that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, we would have to abandon evolution as a model. Actually, given that Darwin's theories had ample detractors in the early days, don't you think that the scientific "establishment" of the time could have squashed it like a bug?

In Science they build on assumptions that their predecessors were right.

Patently false. One of the requirements of a successful experiment is that it is repeatable. Results are constantly being re-tested, re-evaluated. If we took previous scientific assumptions "on faith", we would still be trying to figure out the epicycles of the planets, with a geocentic model for the solar system.

New data about the age of the earth didn't exist until after the theory had been established that the Earth must be old.

Umm - no, a hypothesis was developed that the earth might be a lot older than previously thought. This hypothesis was tested in numerous ways, and is now accepted as fact - not because it supports a theory, but because the preponderance of data supports an old earth.

I get the feeling that you and Daystar have bought into the "Evil Athiest Conspiracy" theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong - it goes something like this:
1. A group of scientists led by Darwin set out to come up with a non-theistic explanation for the origin of species.
2. Because they are looking for it, they find evidence supporting evolution, and ignore or hide the contrary evidence.
3. They realize that evolution takes too much time to fit into a "Young Earth" model. So...
4. They set out looking for evidence of an Old Earth.
5. Because they are looking only for "Old Earth" evidence, that's all they find.
6. Scientists from other disciplines all fall in line, and come up with corroborating evidence.
7. Now into the modern era, the scientists all close ranks and censor all contrary research and opinions. Then, they write all the textbooks.

Although you probably won't believe me, I assure you that this is all FALSE.

[bernee51]

... "Evil Athiest Conspiracy" theory.

You mean this Evil Atheist Conspiracy

It does not exist and if you mention it again we will come for you in the night.

You have been warned.

[youngborean]

I get the feeling that you and Daystar have bought into the "Evil Athiest Conspiracy" theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong - it goes something like this:

1. A group of scientists led by Darwin set out to come up with a non-theistic explanation for the origin of species.

No. I believe that Darwin's discoveries helped fuel society's humanist tendancies. I have nothing wrong with any scientific theory, but science has always moved according to society's demands. It still does today. The current phase of science will be dominated by coding genes. Some scientists, like Jim Watson, argued that coding genes by a machine wasn't science at all. But Bentor won the Nobel Prize because it is exciting.

2. Because they are looking for it, they find evidence supporting evolution, and ignore or hide the contrary evidence.

I do believe that people are attempting to find something they're looking for. And make assumptions in their model based on what they are looking for. However, I do not believe they are throwing out contrary evidence. I believe that they aren't looking for contrary evidence because society isn't demanding it.

3. They realize that evolution takes too much time to fit into a "Young Earth" model. So...
4. They set out looking for evidence of an Old Earth.
5. Because they are looking only for "Old Earth" evidence, that's all they find.

This would be fitting with the history of Evolutionary Biology, in my opinion. Take dating the Earth or finding Half-life data of elements. In these experiements it is necessary to choose constants for the extrapolation equations. So constants are chosen. But what are they based on? Assumptions. It is simple math. We make estimations. They could be correct, but they yet to be proven. Shouldn't it be up to the people who claim to believe this by reason and not faith to explain these complexities?

6. Scientists from other disciplines all fall in line, and come up with corroborating evidence.

This I don't really believe. The only scientists really concerned with Evolutionary Biology are Evolutionary Biologists or Scientist who fix evolution as part of their World View. Evolutionary biology has had very few cross-discipline innovations. Instead, it leeches off of other disciplines. Most good scientists in other fields would not be worried about what happened billions of years ago. Becasue they can't even get "perfect" results in their experiments in the present.

7. Now into the modern era, the scientists all close ranks and censor all contrary research and opinions. Then, they write all the textbooks.

Scientists absolutely close ranks. I don't think they censor, but they close the forum for contrary opinions to be published. Why do journals have committees? A theory is eventually accepted by consensus. It is trendy and people love it. Over time, theories that never got published are forgotten. I believe that Darwin and others after him challenged basic assumptions about life. That is truly exciting. There was already a social "enlightenment" happening, these theories fell right in line with society's tendencies.

[Jose]

Ok, if you want to call them transitionals within species, that sounds good to me. I think variation is a better word...So the many varieties of fish fossils are transitionals within the specie. Isn't this micro-evolution?

The transitionals are variations. That's how genetics works. And, yes, it imicroevolution, because that, too, is how it works.

This raises the point that creationists use macroevolution differently than evolutionary biologists do (at least the ones I know). I think creationists use "macroevolution" to refer to common descent among organisms. Evolutionary biologists use it to refer to changes in the morphological characteristics of organisms. A change in shape--even within a species--is macroevolution. It occurs by the mechanisms of microevolution: mutation, followed by selection for individuals that carry the mutation.

Are you saying that a series of mutations caused the formation of wings and feathers?

In the sense that changes in the DNA sequence were necessary, yes. Exactly analogous mutations occur in chickens today. Go to the county fair and look at the chickens (and pigeons). There are several varieties in which the scales of the legs have developed as feathers. In some breeds, they develop as down feathers; in others, they develop as flight feathers. These changes result from mutations. In this case, the breeders selected the mutant birds for their breeding program, which is why the mutations are now part of the genetic variation of those breeds of birds.

But you will never find an individual acquiring the characteristics of a new species into which it is evolving. It just doesn't work that way.

But isn't that what supposedly happened with Archy?

No. Archy is not, nor is anything, an individual caught in the process of evolving, or caught in the process of mutating. It just doesn't work that way. A mutation is no more, and no less, than a change in DNA sequence. The consequence of a mutation may be a change in the characteristics of an individual that carries the mutation. But "mutating" is NOT the process of an individual changing. It is only the process of DNA damage that is not repaired to the original sequence, resulting in a change in DNA sequence.

Archy is, or the several Archy fossils are, individuals of a species. Their particular characteristics are those of each of the individuals, as determined by the particular DNA sequences that they carried. Similarities between them represent characteristics of the species. Differences represent variation within the species. We would have to say that Archy carried mutations (compared to its maniraptor ancestors) that converted scales to feathers, and mutations that caused the front legs to develop as wings rather than arms, but did not carry mutations that eliminated teeth or claws. The mutations that give rise to all of the characteristics of a "descendent species" from an "ancestor species" don't all happen at the same time. They can't. Mutation doesn't work that way.

Are you aware of any offspring that has inherited a mutation? How could we possibly know? How do we know the offspring was just born with it?

The most famous example is Queen Victoria. She was the first carrier of hemophilia in her family. Many of her descendents showed the trait. She is the product of a new, spontaneous mutation in the clotting factor gene (an event which has been measured at one in 50,000 births).

Mutations do not cause speciation. Mutations are simply the essential source of genetic variation.

Yes, I like that word variation, but why do you assume that mutation is repsonsible for it? Couldn't it just be part of the limited gene pool within the specie?

Hmmm....where does "limited gene pool" comes from? The "gene pool" is all of the genetic variants of the genes in a population. Different versions of the same gene differ from each other by DNA sequence differences. How do these differences arise? By mutation. That's what mutations are. Once a mutation occurs and is inherited (as with hemophilia in Queen Victoria's case), the new version of the gene becomes just another variation in the gene pool.

To achieve speciation, selection is required to "choose" some variations to out-compete the others.

Out compete? Do you mean survival of the fittest?... You make it sound as though species compete for survival.

Actually, "survival of the fittest" is a snazzy phrase that doesn't describe the situation at all accurately. The bottom line, though, is yes--I do mean competition. It's not competition between species, though, since "a species" is a conceptual linkage of organisms as defined by humans. Competition occurs among individuals, or perhaps among populations of individuals. Competition can be between individuals of the same species (two males fighting over a female) or between individuals of different species (hyenas and vultures fighting over a carcass). This kind of thing happens all the time. The "Golden State" of California is covered in annual grasses (wild oats etc) that were brought over from Europe; these annuals out-competed the native bunch grasses (which were green).

So, individuals compete for food, resources, and yes, survival. If they are good competitors, they leave more offspring than the individuals they out-compete. Whatever mutations they have in their DNA are the mutations that become common in later generations. Whatever mutations were in the DNA of the individuals that were out-competed become rare. This is classic microevolution--change in allele frequencies.

Micro-transitional-evolution, YES; Macro-transitional-evolution, NO. How does that sound to you?

It sounds like the current YEC view. The old view was that microevolution was impossible. Now that incontrovertible data have shown it to be true, it has become acceptable to say that microevolution is OK. Macroevolution? In the sense that evolutionists use the word, meaning microevolution that affects genes that determine morphology, obviously that must be true as well. In another sense, meaning microevolution that results in changes in cell-surface proteins, with the result that two populations develop differences in the egg and sperm surface proteins, and can no longer interbreed, and are therefore different species even if they still look the same, well, macroevolution must still be true. In the sense that you mean it--the overall pattern of relationships of life on earth and the explanation that this relationship arose by microevolutionary changes over millions of years--well, I'd say we still have to conclude that it is true.

Ok, bottom line as you see it: Different species were produced from original species through the accumulative effect of mutations?

No. Simply accumulating mutations is not enough. It is also necessary to apply selection. This weeds out the "bad" mutations--which, as you have noted, is the majority of them. That is, a "sick mutant animal" dying at a young age is an example of natural selection acting against the mutation(s) carried by that individual animal. Still, this is not enough for speciation. This also requires selection for mutations that give advantages to the individuals that have them. Even that is not enough. It also requires selection for mutations that affect the ability of individuals of one population to mate with individuals of another population. Whether such mutations will happen is unpredictable. In dog breeding, we've created a lot of what I'd call macroevolution (changes in morphology) without any speciation. With Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans, speciation has occurred with very little macroevolution--the two species look nearly identical. BUT, without the mutations, no evolution would be possible (because there would be no way to create the variation in the gene pool).

Adultery is a people thing. Whatever the animal kingdom does is irrelevant. Or maybe you're thinking that adultery was passed down from the birds

The name is a people thing. The act is common. My experience, though, is that something else passes down from birds onto my shirt.

Do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were stable societies? The Roman Empire? The Soviet Union? Why shouldn't society take a stand against immoral behavior? I'm not against homosexuals per se, but I don't think they should rewrite the moral laws of our nation. Like prostitutes and adulteres have rights, so should homosexuals. But all three should be classified as immoral. That's what Jesus did.

There have been many unstable societies. In fact, most of them--since most have eventually succumbed. This is true even of the ones that began as extremely stable societies. It would be interesting to talk to the historians, and see what currrent thinking is for the reasons that they eventually broke down.

However, this still doesn't convince me to classify homosexuality as immoral, however repugnant certain behaviors might be to "straight" people. Only a hundred years ago, however, it might have been a logical thing to do. Then, and for all of time before that, no one knew why it happened. People assumed it was a lifestyle choice, because they didn't know what else it might be.

To find that some gays can "revert" isn't surprising, given that this trait is variable. If the extent of homosexuality is not too severe, then it is possible to use willpower to overcome it. If the extent is severe, we end up with simply masking it, or hiding it and pretending to live the kind of life that people expect.

Homosexuality due to a polluted environment?... How do they know that it was an environmental pollutant that did it? And why would a physical defect alter the neurobiology or brain wiring. It all sounds very hypothetical.

It would be extremely difficult to determine what chemical--if any--did it. The chemical would be gone. However, we know that such chemicals exist, and we know from case studies that some of them produce genital abnormalities. Thus, the principle is okay. However, brain wiring is much more complex. It occurs later in development (so, in answer to your other question, it's not a physical defect causing neurological changes. It's neurological changes that occur due to hormonal interference at a different stage of embryogenesis). At this point, all we can do is measure behaviors, and do brain scans, of different people and document that their brains are, in fact different.

As I said in my initial post on this topic, I'm proposing this explanation, and filling in some of "the chapters that have yet to be written." We don't know the specific details in humans. It's hard to measure homosexuality in animals--sex acts don't necessarily mean the same thing to them as they do to us. (Often, mounting others is a dominance display, not a sex act.) However, the parts of the puzzle are there. We know enough to answer the question in broad outlines, even if not in explicit detail.

But, if this is the way God intends for certain people to be, why should we declare them to be sinners?

Because he has made that declaration: "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)

Why not accept God's decision, and treat these people fairly?

Obviously, you don't accept the Bible as God's word

I accept the fact that the Bible is said by some people to be God's word. I accept the fact that, over the years, people have translated the Bible from archaic language to modern language--over and over. I accept that the first writings were carried out by humans. I accept that every tribe has its sacred stories, all said to be handed down from the first telling by God or a god-analog. It seems hard to imagine that all of these different sacred stories are God's word, even though their believers tell me they are. It seems hard to imagine that, in all of the translations of the Bible, no one made a mistake. It seems hard to imagine, also, that only the King James version is God's word, and the others aren't (as some people tell me most emphatically). So, I guess I don't--because to do so would mean I'd be accepting the word of one person, in contradiction to the word of another person, with no independent evidence to back it up.

That is: WE choose whether to call people sinners--based on writings that precede scientific understanding of their biology. WE choose to accept, or ignore, geological and biological data in accord with a story that preceded scientific understanding of geology and biology. I think we should look at the biology before we make up our minds.

[Daystar]

Ok, if you want to call them transitionals within species, that sounds good to me. I think variation is a better word...So the many varieties of fish fossils are transitionals within the specie. Isn't this micro-evolution?

The transitionals are variations. That's how genetics works. And, yes, it imicroevolution, because that, too, is how it works.

This raises the point that creationists use macroevolution differently than evolutionary biologists do (at least the ones I know). I think creationists use "macroevolution" to refer to common descent among organisms.

[Day] Yes.

Evolutionary biologists use it to refer to changes in the morphological characteristics of organisms. A change in shape--even within a species--is macroevolution.

[Day] No, creationists only apply micro-evolution to changes WITHIN THE SPECIES, that is, variation within them. Macro-evolution is changes BETWEEN species.

It occurs by the mechanisms of microevolution: mutation, followed by selection for individuals that carry the mutation.

[Day] Fine, just so long as the changes are within the species. Otherwise, it is macro-evolution. But I don't believe that mutations cause changes within the species, rather it is the reach of the gene pool of the specie that determines what characteristics the variation will have.

Are you saying that a series of mutations caused the formation of wings and feathers?

Jose wrote:
In the sense that changes in the DNA sequence were necessary, yes. Exactly analogous mutations occur in chickens today. Go to the county fair and look at the chickens (and pigeons). There are several varieties in which the scales of the legs have developed as feathers. In some breeds, they develop as down feathers; in others, they develop as flight feathers. These changes result from mutations. In this case, the breeders selected the mutant birds for their breeding program, which is why the mutations are now part of the genetic variation of those breeds of birds.

[Day] All you have said here is that there is variation within the specie, with which I agree, even if mutations are responsible

But you will never find an individual acquiring the characteristics of a new species into which it is evolving. It just doesn't work that way.

But isn't that what supposedly happened with Archy?

No. Archy is not, nor is anything, an individual caught in the process of evolving, or caught in the process of mutating. It just doesn't work that way. A mutation is no more, and no less, than a change in DNA sequence.

[Day] But wouldn't these DNA sequence changes be reflected in the fossil record? Take the original specie. Somewhere along the line, the DNA alters the bone structure, or organ, of a creature and begins to transform it into something different that will enable it to adapt to an environement that it was not originally adapted to.

The consequence of a mutation may be a change in the characteristics of an individual that carries the mutation. But "mutating" is NOT the process of an individual changing. It is only the process of DNA damage that is not repaired to the original sequence, resulting in a change in DNA sequence.

[Day] I don't believe there is empirical data to prove this and only contributes questionable evidence to the "theory."

Archy is, or the several Archy fossils are, individuals of a species. Their particular characteristics are those of each of the individuals, as determined by the particular DNA sequences that they carried. Similarities between them represent characteristics of the species. Differences represent variation within the species. We would have to say that Archy carried mutations (compared to its maniraptor ancestors) that converted scales to feathers,

[Day] Is there a single fossil showing a gradual or rapid change from scales to feathers? If millions of years characterizes the fossil record, there should be something, somewhere, that reflects this. As I see it, evolutionists like to hypothesize, yet lack the evidence to support it.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct funtional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistant and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
(Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace")

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."
(Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)

These are devastating statements to gradualism by a man who is respected by most evolutionists.

and mutations that caused the front legs to develop as wings rather than arms, but did not carry mutations that eliminated teeth or claws. The mutations that give rise to all of the characteristics of a "descendent species" from an "ancestor species" don't all happen at the same time. They can't. Mutation doesn't work that way.

[Day] Mutations don't do it at all You have to argue this with Gould.

Are you aware of any offspring that has inherited a mutation? How could we possibly know? How do we know the offspring was just born with it?

Jose wrote:
The most famous example is Queen Victoria. She was the first carrier of hemophilia in her family. Many of her descendents showed the trait. She is the product of a new, spontaneous mutation in the clotting factor gene (an event which has been measured at one in 50,000 births).

[Day] How do you know it was spontaneous? Perhaps it was a latent gene. Even so, this has nothing to so with macroevolution.

Mutations do not cause speciation. Mutations are simply the essential source of genetic variation.

Yes, I like that word variation, but why do you assume that mutation is repsonsible for it? Couldn't it just be part of the limited gene pool within the specie?

Hmmm....where does "limited gene pool" comes from?

[Day] Great question! The Creator built into the original KINDS a limited gene pool that would be fulfillled in the subsequent variations. When I look at butteflies, I am reminded of this. There was an original male and female butterfly which carried the limited gene pool for the thousands of varitations within the kind. The same applies to all species. God designed diversity and variation, within the kinds, through the limited gene pools.

The "gene pool" is all of the genetic variants of the genes in a population. Different versions of the same gene differ from each other by DNA sequence differences. How do these differences arise? By mutation. That's what mutations are. Once a mutation occurs and is inherited (as with hemophilia in Queen Victoria's case), the new version of the gene becomes just another variation in the gene pool.

[Day] OK, if you want to call it mutation, I can accept that only if you apply it to MUTATIONAL CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES.

To achieve speciation, selection is required to "choose" some variations to out-compete the others.

Out compete? Do you mean survival of the fittest?... You make it sound as though species compete for survival.

Actually, "survival of the fittest" is a snazzy phrase that doesn't describe the situation at all accurately. The bottom line, though, is yes--I do mean competition. It's not competition between species, though, since "a species" is a conceptual linkage of organisms as defined by humans. Competition occurs among individuals, or perhaps among populations of individuals. Competition can be between individuals of the same species (two males fighting over a female) or between individuals of different species (hyenas and vultures fighting over a carcass). This kind of thing happens all the time. The "Golden State" of California is covered in annual grasses (wild oats etc) that were brought over from Europe; these annuals out-competed the native bunch grasses (which were green).

[Day] Fine, but these grasses won't evolve into something different. They are only variations of the original kind of "grasses" or whatever it is categorize as.

So, individuals compete for food, resources, and yes, survival. If they are good competitors, they leave more offspring than the individuals they out-compete. Whatever mutations they have in their DNA are the mutations that become common in later generations. Whatever mutations were in the DNA of the individuals that were out-competed become rare. This is classic microevolution--change in allele frequencies.

[Day] Again, this is fine and does not bear on macroevolution. But I guess you are saying that enough "micro-evolutions" have resulted in macro-evolution. Is that basicallly what you're saying?

Micro-transitional-evolution, YES; Macro-transitional-evolution, NO. How does that sound to you?

Jose Wrote:
It sounds like the current YEC view. The old view was that microevolution was impossible.

[Day] Who ever said that?

Now that incontrovertible data have shown it to be true, it has become acceptable to say that microevolution is OK. Macroevolution? In the sense that evolutionists use the word, meaning microevolution that affects genes that determine morphology, obviously that must be true as well. In another sense, meaning microevolution that results in changes in cell-surface proteins, with the result that two populations develop differences in the egg and sperm surface proteins, and can no longer interbreed, and are therefore different species even if they still look the same, well, macroevolution must still be true. In the sense that you mean it--the overall pattern of relationships of life on earth and the explanation that this relationship arose by microevolutionary changes over millions of years--well, I'd say we still have to conclude that it is true.

[Day] I guess that answers my question

Ok, bottom line as you see it: Different species were produced from original species through the accumulative effect of mutations?

No. Simply accumulating mutations is not enough. It is also necessary to apply selection.

[Day] what does the selecting?

This weeds out the "bad" mutations--which, as you have noted, is the majority of them.

[Day] How does this work? Who has observed it to work. How do you know it's selection? It sounds like "selection" has intelligence. Isn't this really just theory?

That is, a "sick mutant animal" dying at a young age is an example of natural selection acting against the mutation(s) carried by that individual animal. Still, this is not enough for speciation.

[Day] Right

This also requires selection for mutations that give advantages to the individuals that have them.

[Day] What is this mechanism of selection? How does it function? Gould said that natural selection, along with mutations, don't cause change or new specitation.

Even that is not enough. It also requires selection for mutations that affect the ability of individuals of one population to mate with individuals of another population. Whether such mutations will happen is unpredictable. In dog breeding, we've created a lot of what I'd call macroevolution (changes in morphology) without any speciation.

[Day] So you are using macroevolution to apply to change WITHIN the specie. Is this the major view held in evolution?

With Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans, speciation has occurred with very little macroevolution--the two species look nearly identical. BUT, without the mutations, no evolution would be possible (because there would be no way to create the variation in the gene pool).

[Day] But there was no change in specie, only variation within. Why do you call it speciation?

Adultery is a people thing. Whatever the animal kingdom does is irrelevant. Or maybe you're thinking that adultery was passed down from the birds

The name is a people thing. The act is common. My experience, though, is that something else passes down from birds onto my shirt.

[Day]

Do you think Sodom and Gomorrah were stable societies? The Roman Empire? The Soviet Union? Why shouldn't society take a stand against immoral behavior? I'm not against homosexuals per se, but I don't think they should rewrite the moral laws of our nation. Like prostitutes and adulteres have rights, so should homosexuals. But all three should be classified as immoral. That's what Jesus did.

There have been many unstable societies. In fact, most of them--since most have eventually succumbed. This is true even of the ones that began as extremely stable societies. It would be interesting to talk to the historians, and see what currrent thinking is for the reasons that they eventually broke down.

[Day] That's easy - Corruption. Because man is corrupt, he corrupts most everything he touches.

However, this still doesn't convince me to classify homosexuality as immoral, however repugnant certain behaviors might be to "straight" people.

[Day] Does human nature not teach us that a man's body was not made for another man? Why didn't AIDS hit the heterosexual community the way it did the homosexual? Do you think anal sex is natural? Did the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah not teach us anything?

Only a hundred years ago, however, it might have been a logical thing to do. Then, and for all of time before that, no one knew why it happened.

[Day] It 's the same reason that explains any other type of immoral behavior: sin.

People assumed it was a lifestyle choice, because they didn't know what else it might be.

To find that some gays can "revert" isn't surprising, given that this trait is variable.

[Day] they will tell you that it wasn't a matter of "reversion," but repentance. Why do you think we aren't capable of turning from sin without attributing it to some biological or psychological factor?

If the extent of homosexuality is not too severe, then it is possible to use willpower to overcome it.

[Day] So then it's not gentetic or biological.

If the extent is severe, we end up with simply masking it, or hiding it and pretending to live the kind of life that people expect.

[Day] Well, these people who have "reverted" all say they are alot happier.

Homosexuality due to a polluted environment?... How do they know that it was an environmental pollutant that did it? And why would a physical defect alter the neurobiology or brain wiring. It all sounds very hypothetical.

It would be extremely difficult to determine what chemical--if any--did it. The chemical would be gone. However, we know that such chemicals exist, and we know from case studies that some of them produce genital abnormalities. Thus, the principle is okay. However, brain wiring is much more complex. It occurs later in development (so, in answer to your other question, it's not a physical defect causing neurological changes. It's neurological changes that occur due to hormonal interference at a different stage of embryogenesis). At this point, all we can do is measure behaviors, and do brain scans, of different people and document that their brains are, in fact different.

[Day] Sounds like the search for those elusive transitionals

As I said in my initial post on this topic, I'm proposing this explanation, and filling in some of "the chapters that have yet to be written." We don't know the specific details in humans. It's hard to measure homosexuality in animals--sex acts don't necessarily mean the same thing to them as they do to us. (Often, mounting others is a dominance display, not a sex act.) However, the parts of the puzzle are there. We know enough to answer the question in broad outlines, even if not in explicit detail.

[Day] It's like the geologic column which is supposed to outline the fossil record from the earliest life forms, but nowhere on earth has anyone ever the series of rock layers that comport with the drawing. It's all hypothesis.

But, if this is the way God intends for certain people to be, why should we declare them to be sinners?

Because he has made that declaration: "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)

Why not accept God's decision, and treat these people fairly?

Obviously, you don't accept the Bible as God's word

I accept the fact that the Bible is said by some people to be God's word.

[Day] Yes, even by many people. But that is not what convinces a non-believer to accept it as such. No one has ever accepted it as God's word until they came to the place in their life where they realized that they were guilty of sin. This is the "catalyst" that makes things happen.

I accept the fact that, over the years, people have translated the Bible from archaic language to modern language--over and over. I accept that the first writings were carried out by humans. I accept that every tribe has its sacred stories, all said to be handed down from the first telling by God or a god-analog. It seems hard to imagine that all of these different sacred stories are God's word, even though their believers tell me they are. It seems hard to imagine that, in all of the translations of the Bible, no one made a mistake. It seems hard to imagine, also, that only the King James version is God's word, and the others aren't (as some people tell me most emphatically). So, I guess I don't--because to do so would mean I'd be accepting the word of one person, in contradiction to the word of another person, with no independent evidence to back it up.

[Day] You present objections that are not uncommon, and ones that are definitely subjects of another thread. All I can say is that I carried those same objections but was able to deal with them once I came to the place in my life where I acknowledged my sin and subsequent need for the Savior. It all turns on Jesus Christ. If he is who he claimed to be, then, like E.F. Hutton, we should listen.

That is: WE choose whether to call people sinners--based on writings that precede scientific understanding of their biology. WE choose to accept, or ignore, geological and biological data in accord with a story that preceded scientific understanding of geology and biology. I think we should look at the biology before we make up our minds.

[Day] Well, you may not think there is any connection between sin and science, but I can show you scripturally that it's there. Our biology/psychology/emotions are all governed by that nature until it is regenerated.

Nice chattin with you

[perfessor]

This would be fitting with the history of Evolutionary Biology, in my opinion. Take dating the Earth or finding Half-life data of elements. In these experiements it is necessary to choose constants for the extrapolation equations. So constants are chosen. But what are they based on? Assumptions.

No, no, no! You keep referring to "assumptions" - but constants are not "chosen" - they are determined by experiment and calculation. The half-lives of radioactive elements can be determined - this is not guesswork.

It is simple math. We make estimations. They could be correct, but they yet to be proven.

I think you equate "estimation" with "guesswork". Let me give an example: suppose a scientist uses radiometric testing to determine the age of, say, a Native American burial site. He would come back with an answer like "These bones are 2,700 years old, with a margin of error of +- 300 years." (I'm making these numbers up, just as an illustration.) Does the "margin of error" make this estimate seem unreliable? Would you rather have an answer like "This individual died on August 3, 643 B.C." ?? Scientists are comfortable with a "margin of error" because the results are consistent, and the margin is small enough to make the result useful.. To call the result inaccurate, would be like telling a golfer that any shot that wasn't a hole-in-one was a bad shot.

Shouldn't it be up to the people who claim to believe this by reason and not faith to explain these complexities?

They have explained it, in great detail. You might need a college-level physics course to understand all the details, but you can find a good overview here.

The only scientists really concerned with Evolutionary Biology are Evolutionary Biologists or Scientist who fix evolution as part of their World View.

Where did you come up with that? I think that any scientist would be concerned about the quality of science research and education in this country.

Evolutionary biology has had very few cross-discipline innovations. Instead, it leeches off of other disciplines.

What in the world are you talking about? Even if it were true, it would show that a good scientist must not only know his/her field in detail, but also have expertise in other fields as well.

Most good scientists in other fields would not be worried about what happened billions of years ago.

Except perhaps astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. I think that maybe only the creation "scientists" are the ones who are unconcerned.

Becasue they can't even get "perfect" results in their experiments in the present.

But at least some of them can shoot a hole-in-one whenever they want.

[youngborean]

[youngborean]

No, no, no! You keep referring to "assumptions" - but constants are not "chosen" - they are determined by experiment and calculation. The half-lives of radioactive elements can be determined - this is not guesswork.

Absolutely constants are chosen. The experiment is a model. We make the model on our assumptions about the reality of the situation we are examining. All parameters in a physical experiment are based on are assumptions. The constant becomes effective in our assumed enviroment.