Another Brilliant Idea.

Intolerance

Diabloii.Net Member
We all know how the world started- a talking snake in a tree. Get out of my face with theories and facts, you darn scientists.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Evolution is often inferred as meaning man descended from apes, when it really means changes in the gene pool over time.

dictionary.com said:
Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Perhaps they want to teach more of the science behind evolution and make sure the students know exactly what they are learning. It really doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Although, I don't think the word should be banned altogether, just de-emphasized.
 

cougar

Diabloii.Net Member
evolution is just like any other religion.. it requires faith in theories. So why is it any more viable?

To be taught in school's i think it should be more stressed that it is.. in fact, a theory... a theory that is yet to be proven true. I remember when i was in high school it was passed off as fact, and i dont agree with that.
 

toader

Banned
I hear there are talks of removing the word "sex" from sex education classes. It is being put to public vote which phrase to replace it with:

  • Boning
  • Making Sweet Love
 

cryist

Diabloii.Net Member
That is just the start, ommiting a a word or changing the name because a group of conserativities dosen't like the word. The next thing you know the same group will want to start burning books again becuase of there content.
 

tarnok

Diabloii.Net Member
toader said:
I hear there are talks of removing the word "sex" from sex education classes. It is being put to public vote which phrase to replace it with:

  • Boning
  • Making Sweet Love
3. Making the beast with two backs

Call it a write-in.
 

dantose

Diabloii.Net Member
cougar said:
evolution is just like any other religion.. it requires faith in theories. So why is it any more viable?

To be taught in school's i think it should be more stressed that it is.. in fact, a theory... a theory that is yet to be proven true. I remember when i was in high school it was passed off as fact, and i dont agree with that.
well, depends on your definition of evolution. "genetic change over time resulting in a new species has been proven in creaturess like bacteria, domestic roses (though we introduced the biological stress on them) and other plants.
 

publius

Diabloii.Net Member
cougar said:
evolution is just like any other religion.. it requires faith in theories. So why is it any more viable?

To be taught in school's i think it should be more stressed that it is.. in fact, a theory... a theory that is yet to be proven true. I remember when i was in high school it was passed off as fact, and i dont agree with that.
Actually those are the two main misconceptions. First of all, evolution, like all science, is based on observations and evidence, of which there is many. It doesn't require one to take a leap of faith, nor is it a finished project. There are constant improvements being made to it (the most famous recent one that comes to mind is the punctuated equilibrium model).

Second, you are using the popular definition of the term "theory", not the scientific one. The popular one states that a theory is just a conjecture, an idea not proven yet. The equivalent in the scientific world is the hypothesis. The scientific definition of a theory is an explanation of why something happens, something that can be easily tested.

That is often considered the difference between theories and religious doctrines. The first is based on observations and can be tested, the second requires one to take a "leap of faith."
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
If they taught evolution without ever saying the word evolution, I think a lot of people would get a much better understanding of it. And Christian fundamentalists would not be so opposed to it, once they learned more about it. They hear the word "evolution" and immdediately throw up a wall.
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
toader said:
I hear there are talks of removing the word "sex" from sex education classes. It is being put to public vote which phrase to replace it with:

  • Boning
  • Making Sweet Love
Harr! :lol:

tarnok said:
3. Making the beast with two backs

Call it a write-in.
Double HARR! LOL.

As to the evolution topic, here's my two bits. Since I'm a religious fellow, I am against teaching the theory of evolution as an explanation of where man came from. I have NO objection to teaching evolution as something that happens in nature everyday. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. It's "The Theory of Evolution" as an explanation of man's origin I have a problem with.

If banning that phrase and teaching the science behind evolution as a natural part of nature and not as an explanation of man's origin, makes religous folks less objected to it and gives the kids a better understanding of how evolution works, I think it's a good idea.
 

LunarSolaris

Diabloii.Net Member
dantose said:
well, depends on your definition of evolution. "genetic change over time resulting in a new species has been proven in creaturess like bacteria, domestic roses (though we introduced the biological stress on them) and other plants.
So a bacteria became a virus and a rose bush became a Rhododendron?

I'd be interested in seeing a link to this study or one similar to it to see the conclusions that there was a jump from one species to another.

I have no problems believing in changes within a species over the course of time (i.e. modifications... alterations, etc.) - but I am yet to be convinced of leaps from one species to another via the evolutionary process. Perhaps it is just my scientific ignorance, but in my opinion (on this subject particularly), the scientific community is guilty of passing evolution (as a whole) off as fact when it truly still is theory. While there is some evidence to support from what I understand, I'm not aware of any definitive proof of it.

I am neither religious nor a fundamentalist. However, I have a strong religious background... and I suppose I could very well be guilty of holding onto a lot of notions from that previous life.
 

cougar

Diabloii.Net Member
That's what i've been trying to say in a few threads, but i keep getting bashed for some reason.

Microevolution exists... such as self-defense mechanism's and such.. but i've yet to see an intermediate species, i dont see any monkey men walking around. If we did come from apes or whatever.. it's not like they were all in one big pack and all the
sudden decided to evolve. They'd evolve at different times and different rates.

but.. go ahead and tear this post apart too, even tho im staking no claim to either side.. just saying that's it's still a theory, and there really isn't empirical evidence to date to prove either or.
 

BartXeno

Diabloii.Net Member
LunarSolaris said:
I have no problems believing in changes within a species over the course of time (i.e. modifications... alterations, etc.) - but I am yet to be convinced of leaps from one species to another via the evolutionary process. Perhaps it is just my scientific ignorance, but in my opinion (on this subject particularly), the scientific community is guilty of passing evolution (as a whole) off as fact when it truly still is theory. While there is some evidence to support from what I understand, I'm not aware of any definitive proof of it.
Well, the fossil record is a pretty good set of facts. Of course one could just say the devil stacked the rocks like that to fool us. :xrollseye

Then there's mutation, which is also observable (and reproducible in the lab) and can account for the radical (not so radical when the amount of time involved is considered) changes seen in the timeline recorded in stone.

Even a casual observer can see relationships beyond species to genus to family to order and so on. One need not be a scientist, just an owner of common sense, to see the tips of the branches leading back toward the roots.

The evidence for evolution is pretty clear and definately better than any world-by-magic explanation. It always strikes me as odd when someone believes, unquestionably (and with zero evidence or logic), in magic but demands proof in stone of something discovered by scientific method (and doesn't even accept the proof in stone!).
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
I have posted this website before and shall do so again. If you really want to know what science says about this subject, then this site is the place to go.


A few excerpts from their FAQ page:

I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?



Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.


Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?



No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.


If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?


Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.


No one has ever directly observed evolutin happening, so how do you know it's true?

Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.


Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.


Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?


No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.


According to evolution, the diversity of likfe is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?

Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance.


Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQs and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.
See this and much more @
http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
Evolution, or the aspect of it known as natural selection, does indeed exist. Many species existing today are easily traceable through fossil records (you know, the fossil records planted by The One as a test of our faith?) as having changed over time to the forms they now possess. Also, it is a word used to describe a scientific hypothesis, theory, what have you. Since it is a word, with a specific definition, I cannot understand why a superintendent of schools would get involved with trying to change it to something else.
Gee ... I don't like the word 'geology' any more. I'd like to change it to 'tectonology' so people who own Geo's won't get upset.
What a waste of time and newspaper space.
 
Top