Evolution in public schools

[drago_lark]

Alexander Grahm Bell!

[Nadril]

The problem is that I don't see why they can't teach both. One theory is just as good as another.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-[wagon] or anything but can someone show me some cold hard facts that prove evolution is a fact.

 

 

 

I don't have the time, look it up on these forums somewhere.

 

 

 

And did you just ignore everyone who posted on the first page? Creationism in no way can be proved and is based off of faith, not truth and facts.

[warri0r45]

The problem is that I don't see why they can't teach both. One theory is just as good as another.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-[wagon] or anything but can someone show me some cold hard facts that prove evolution is a fact.

 

 

 

Coming right up. Watch this space.

 

 

 

Amazing what you can learn when you look at data.

 

 

 

This link takes some time to get through and comprehend correctly. It shows molecular vestiges of sorts which are neutral in effect and have conspicuously exact locations when lined up with a chimp genome.

 

 

 

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.

 

The above is in reference to the DNA sequence coding for an amino acid protien chain. Seeing as the genetic code is redundant (i.e. differences in DNA sequences can still result in the same protien being produced) one would expect a similar DNA sequence for the gene mentioned if common descent were correct. Turns out, the DNA sequence is conspicuously similar between us and chimps when there could have been any number of different gene sequence arrangements to yield the exact same result.

 

As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.

 

 

 

The combined effects of DNA coding redundancy and protein sequence redundancy make DNA sequence comparisons doubly redundant; DNA sequences of ubiquitous proteins are completely uncorrelated with phenotypic differences between species, but they are strongly causally correlated with heredity. This is why DNA sequence phylogenies are considered so robust.

 

 

A little more on the previously mentioned.

 

A common class of transposon is the SINE retroelement (Li 1997, pp. 349-352). One important SINE transposon is the 300 bp Alu element. All mammals contain many Alu elements, including humans where they constitute 10% of the human genome (i.e. 60 million bases of repetitive DNA) (Smit 1996; Li 1997, pp. 354, 357). Very recent human Alu transpositions have been used to elucidate historic and prehistoric human migrations, since some individuals have newer Alu insertions that other individuals lack (Novick et al. 1993; Novick et al. 1995). In fact, common Alu transpositions have been demonstrated to be reliable markers of common descent in paternity cases and in criminal forensics (Novick et al. 1993; Novick et al. 1995; Roy-Engel et al. 2001). Most importantly, in the human ÃÆýÃâñ-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations (Sawada et al. 1985).

 

 

 

More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997).

 

 

Here we go; SINES. They have no demonstrable function and skip about freely through the genome. Conspicuously enough, us and chimps share 7 Alu elements (an important SINE making up 10% of your genome) all in the same locations in a particular gene cluster.

 

There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ÃÆÃ

[Guest]

Creationism isn't science though. Science studies natural theories and evolution fits that, whereas Creationism is a supernatural theory. Teach creationism in religion/philosophy class and keep evolution in the science classroom.

 

 

 

Agreed. As long as they state clearly that evolution and other theories such as the big bang are infact theories, which has happened in all my high school science classes.

 

 

 

Creationism has no part in a science class, and it would only get watered down regardless in a science class, from athiest teachers etc. who are not interested in such supernatural theories.

[drago_lark]

Sorry if it looks like I'm ignoring someone but I'm not used to being involved in a topic this hot. By the time I make a post there's three more.

[kelem_ryu]

The problem is that I don't see why they can't teach both. One theory is just as good as another.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-[wagon] or anything but can someone show me some cold hard facts that prove evolution is a fact.

 

 

 

Coming right up. Watch this space.

 

 

 

What are you going to put here? Evolution definitely isn't a fact. There's some evidence supporting the theory, but a fact is something else. Evolution isn't that convincing imo. (nor is creatism for that matter).

 

 

 

btw... there where other theories on that subject before the theory of evolution. Namely the ones of Carl von Linn̮̩̉̉ and of Lamarck.

[justin_m23]

I'd give you some evidence of evolution, but it would be a waste of time. If you listened to your teacher you would of heard enough evidence to support the theory. But obviously not, so i don't believe bombarding you with facts is going to help.

[Rebdragon]

Sorry if it looks like I'm ignoring someone but I'm not used to being involved in a topic this hot. By the time I make a post there's three more.

 

Well, this is Tip.it, and this is religious/science topic.

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone in the OT continually mentions how much they hate these threads, how much they proliferate endlessly and repetitively, how useless they are, but when it comes to posts-per-minute, this type of thread always grows the fastest :-w .

 

 

 

And this is why... *sigh*.

 

 

 

The problem is that I don't see why they can't teach both. One theory is just as good as another.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-[wagon] or anything but can someone show me some cold hard facts that prove evolution is a fact.

 

 

 

Coming right up. Watch this space.

 

 

 

What are you going to put here? Evolution definitely isn't a fact. There's some evidence supporting the theory, but a fact is something else. Evolution isn't that convincing imo. (nor is creatism for that matter).

 

Evolution is a Fact and Theory

 

 

 

btw... there where other theories on that subject before the theory of evolution. Namely the ones of Carl von Linn̮̩̉̉ and of Lamarck.

 

Ya, and they were proven wrong :-s .

[Tbfgraphx14]

How can we ever be so sure about anything unless we personally experience it? :-s

 

 

 

You can be told anything and you can belive it, or you can choose to not.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it is a conclusion, just something to think about.

 

 

 

Like for the dinosaurs, we didn't have to be there but you might not be sure unless you saw the evidence for yourself.

[drago_lark]

I'd give you some evidence of evolution, but it would be a waste of time. If you listened to your teacher you would of heard enough evidence to support the theory. But obviously not, so i don't believe bombarding you with facts is going to help.

 

 

 

I do listen. In fact, Science/Biology is my best subject.

[dsk803]

well first of all evolution is not just a theory ,it is also a religion to many people so i think in all fairness they shouldnt teach evolution at all in school because they dont teach any other religions ,get my point?

[Nadril]

How can we ever be so sure about anything unless we personally experience it? :-s

 

 

 

You can be told anything and you can belive it, or you can choose to not.

 

 

 

Thats a pretty poor conclusion. Are you saying that the dinosaurs never existed because we never experienced it? Or, perhaps, the holocaust or other events in the past don't/didn't exist because we weren't there?

 

 

 

well first of all evolution is not just a theory ,it is also a religion to many people so i think in all fairness they shouldnt teach evolution at all in school because they dont teach any other religions ,get my point?

 

 

 

Where in the world are you getting its a religion from? :shock:

[justin_m23]

I'd give you some evidence of evolution, but it would be a waste of time. If you listened to your teacher you would of heard enough evidence to support the theory. But obviously not, so i don't believe bombarding you with facts is going to help.

 

 

 

I do listen. In fact, Science/Biology is my best subject.

 

 

 

So how can you not believe it, with all the supporting evidence in front of you everyday?

 

 

 

EDIT: Lol, I worship Darwin.

[trianglefull]

This is a matter of religious debate... besides... it is made quite clear that it is indeed an unproven theory.

[drago_lark]

I'd give you some evidence of evolution, but it would be a waste of time. If you listened to your teacher you would of heard enough evidence to support the theory. But obviously not, so i don't believe bombarding you with facts is going to help.

 

 

 

I do listen. In fact, Science/Biology is my best subject.

 

 

 

So how can you not believe it, with all the supporting evidence in front of you everyday?

 

 

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

[kelem_ryu]

btw... there where other theories on that subject before the theory of evolution. Namely the ones of Carl von Linn̮̩̉̉ and of Lamarck.

 

Ya, and they were proven wrong :-s .

 

 

 

I know. Theory of evolution might be proven wrong someday to.

 

 

 

EDIT: Why is this always "evolution vs. creationism"? There are other thinkable scenarios to i'm sure.

[Nadril]

This is a matter of religious debate... besides... it is made quite clear that it is indeed an unproven theory.

 

 

 

so would you say that the cell theory is unproven simply because it is a theory?

 

 

 

 

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Mind telling me all this large supporting evidence for religion? Even big religious buffs will tell you that it is based off of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

n scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory

 

 

 

The definition of scientific theory

[Rebdragon]

This is a matter of religious debate... besides... it is made quite clear that it is indeed an unproven theory.

 

Dear God.

 

 

 

Is Evolution "Just a Theory?"

[justin_m23]

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Twice a week, actually :P

 

 

 

I guess you can believe what you wish. Evolution vs creationism discussions get no where.

 

 

 

As for being taught in school, doesn't your school have a religious study elective program?

[drago_lark]

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Mind telling me all this large supporting evidence for religion? Even big religious buffs will tell you that it is based off of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Genesis?

[Craiglowery]

Inherit the Wind all over again!

[Nadril]

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Mind telling me all this large supporting evidence for religion? Even big religious buffs will tell you that it is based off of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Genesis?

 

 

 

I'm more of looking for some actual quotes right now. I don't really have the time (nor want to) read the entire book of genesis.

[Rebdragon]

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Mind telling me all this large supporting evidence for religion? Even big religious buffs will tell you that it is based off of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Genesis?

 

I will now commence to quote Satenza:

 

 

 

THAT'S CIRCULAR LOGIC.

[yomom1919]

The Book of Genesis?

 

 

 

Show me the sources that give creditability to the book of genesis? Anyone can write a book that says anything, but without sources or solid proof its all cabbage.

 

 

 

Inherit the Wind all over again!

 

 

 

:lol: We did that play 2 years ago at our school.

[drago_lark]

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Twice a week, actually :P

 

 

 

I guess you can believe what you wish. Evolution vs creationism discussions get no where.

 

 

 

As for being taught in school, doesn't your school have a religious study elective program?

 

 

 

Not that I've been made aware of but I'll look into it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find just as much evidence in a Bible, Koran, or whatever as I do in a text book.

 

 

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

 

 

Mind telling me all this large supporting evidence for religion? Even big religious buffs will tell you that it is based off of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Genesis?

 

 

 

I'm more of looking for some actual quotes right now. I don't really have the time (nor want to) read the entire book of genesis.

 

 

 

I'll have to get back to you on that as I can't find my Bible.