education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ok, if I misunderstood that then I apologise.

But, for the sake of clarity, you accept that big changes (like a whole new organs appearing de novo) don't happen - only small ones.

You also seem to accept that small steps (like in a marathon) can lead to a big change over time.

Thus, I'm not seeing your problem here.

Apologies accepted. Will pick up the rest later, and thank you
by the way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about two different things here, the start of life from
non-life and evolution.

For the start of life from non-life the amount of time is important,
but it does not start even counting until all the conditions are in place.
If for example the universe as is, is so harsh life can not only not
start much less be maintained it does not ma ...[text shortened]... as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly

Yes, we are talking about two different things, and evolution is the one we were talking about.

Let's look at your family. Do you have any brothers or sisters who have no children? Or uncles or aunts in that position?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
evolution is where there is a change in the genes in the population, in response to the natural environment. Is this simple enough?

Just to correct that a bit. It is the change in the genes in the population, in response to their environment. Domesticated animals and crops are evolving too even when the direction of their evolution is more or less controlled by man.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just to correct that a bit. It is the change in the genes in the population, in response to their environment. Domesticated animals and crops are evolving too even when the direction of their evolution is more or less controlled by man.

lol. I posted, and thought, I should have left out 'natural' since all environment has an effect, but surely KJ would not pick up on that....

Originally posted by snowinscotland
lol. I posted, and thought, I should have left out 'natural' since all environment has an effect, but surely KJ would not pick up on that....

It is, in my opinion, an important point. It is quite common for creationists to deny that evolution takes place, yet they have to admit that man is perfectly capable of breeding new crops and animals - and does so frequently - and that we actually depend on this for our civilization.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. I'm merely sensible. Your camp is the one making extravagant claims about some magic man in spite of a complex lack of evidence for your position and a huge amount of contrary evidence.

Sensible is not the right word for your position, given everything we know. If I have a camp, it is certainly not one prone to making extravagant claims about any magic man. Given the mathematical probabilities of how evolution acounts for life, it is safe to say the Bible's rendition of the same is far less extravagant.

What solidfies those in your camp, however, has been questioned by reasonable people since its origins in the late 1800's yet accepted wholesale by others since that same time--- without the slightest shred of convincing evidence. How do you account for such immediate acceptance of (what remains to this day) a theory without demonstrable proof?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How do you account for such immediate acceptance of (what remains to this day) a theory without demonstrable proof?

Maybe you can answer your own question. How do you account for the fact that so many people accept Einsteins Theory of Relativity?

My guesses include:
1. For a significant number of people it is either taught in school that it is a fact, or they hear it from their parents or other source that they trust.
2. For most scientists - especially those who do some elementary physics - it makes obvious sense and is borne out by confirmation from those scientists who do the relevant experiments etc.
3. Much of the worlds modern technology is totally dependent on it being accurate and many people know this.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
-- without the slightest shred of convincing evidence.

Well that is obviously relative. It may not have convinced you, but it has, as you fully admit, convinced the majority of the worlds scientists in that field and a significant number of others to boot.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Yes, we are talking about two different things, and evolution is the one we were talking about.

Let's look at your family. Do you have any brothers or sisters who have no children? Or uncles or aunts in that position?

Yes a brother.
Just so you know now that we when we start acknowledging that
evolution, and the start of life for evolution are two different things
we are now talking about apples and oranges here, which is to
say two different subjects. One is strickly a process that could
be true under both sets of conditions creation or the forming of
life from non-life. Seeing change does not mean you know
which was at the beginning of the process.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ok, if I misunderstood that then I apologise.

But, for the sake of clarity, you accept that big changes (like a whole new organs appearing de novo) don't happen - only small ones.

You also seem to accept that small steps (like in a marathon) can lead to a big change over time.

Thus, I'm not seeing your problem here.

Forming all the systems in a life form simultaneously would be a
grand undertaking; however, with the building of computers though
some of the various parts are built independently by various and
sundry corporations. With next generation computers it isn’t done
without cooperation among those companies, standards are set, next
generation parts are loaned out for testing so software and other
hardware are run with them, tests are done, so that bugs can be
found and fixed all before the first system is ever sold. Building a
single system one at a time may sound easier; however, I don’t agree
with you that it would be, since with random mutation there isn’t any
cooperation being done to get all the various systems to act in
harmony. I understand you might insert the term natural selection
here to make the claim that would solve all the issues, but natural
selection is an after the mutation as occurred filter, it isn’t a designer
causing just the right mutation to occur at the right time to make sure
all the work properly.

Does getting the mutations to create single systems one at a time,
do away with the fact we still need all the systems to work in
harmony? Though it may seem easier saying building them
one at a time gets us past that I don’t think that is really true. Putting
different systems together so they work in harmony is still something
you don't just get to say would have happened if they were built
separately instead of simultaneously. We would still run into the same
issues in addition to other problems as well so it becomes more
problematic. With human inventions we have human cooperation like
we do with building a next generation computer, random mutation
doesn’t have meetings and discuss issues before and after they are
encountered so problem solving occurs within life forms, random
mutation doesn’t get to see an issue and set out to fix it.

Those are just issues with getting systems to work together, building
a single system without plan or purpose all by itself has as many
issues all by itself that seem to get passed over with the use of time
and natural selection too being the problem solver. Not to mention
what systems are required or needed to sustain a life form, you think
it is just good natural selection that the ones required to make it all
work, are the ones we have without even worrying about how they all
work together?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe you can answer your own question. How do you account for the fact that so many people accept Einsteins Theory of Relativity?

My guesses include:
1. For a significant number of people it is either taught in school that it is a fact, or they hear it from their parents or other source that they trust.
2. For most scientists - especially those who ...[text shortened]... he worlds modern technology is totally dependent on it being accurate and many people know this.

That's a sound theory, but it doesn't answer the question asked. The question asked concerns the cause for such immediate acceptance by more than a few, without any experimentation or other substantiation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that is obviously relative. It may not have convinced you, but it has, as you fully admit, convinced the majority of the worlds scientists in that field and a significant number of others to boot.

History teaches us that truth is often times at odds with popular opinion (don't think we haven't seen that video of you doing the Macarena). That notwithstanding, more and more of the scientists and workers in related fields have gone beyond merely questioning the tenets of the evolution faith; one cannot look very far into the discussion without finding wholesale rejection by a growing number of experts.

I am not unconvinced due to contradictory personal beliefs. I am unconvinced because of the math.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes a brother.
Just so you know now that we when we start acknowledging that
evolution, and the start of life for evolution are two different things
we are now talking about apples and oranges here, which is to
say two different subjects. One is strickly a process that could
be true under both sets of conditions creation or the forming of
life from non-life. Seeing change does not mean you know
which was at the beginning of the process.
Kelly

Absolutely agree with you. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and we are only talking about evolution.

If you think about what is happening in your generational line. There are several sets of genes in your line, related presumeably with the same mother and father. Now you and your brother have very similar genes, but for whatever reason; he has not had children. It is presumeably not too late for that to happen, but there may be other reasons why he has not, I don't know. Let us assume that he has no children. The next generation is deprived of his unique genes. The gene pool, the total of all possibilities for forthcoming generations, has your genes in it (through your children), but does not have his. Do you wonder what that means, or do you know what that entails?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Before it "should be" taught in schools, it "oughta be" proven true. Owing to the lack of the latter, the former "should (not) be" occuring... 'your' subject, or not.

Evolution has been proven true. That's the thing about science--it's repeatable and reproducible by anyone with the will and equipment. In this case, all you need is a Petri dish, some bacteria, and a mild toxin and you can witness evolution yourself.

Evolution theory is the scientific theory based on the fact of evolution. Don't confuse the two. And evolution theory is a validated scientific theory, as strong and defensible as any other scientific theory. So why shouldn't it be taught in schools? If it meets the standard of a scientific theory, it meets the standard. How would it make sense to cherrypick this one and leave it out?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't have an issue one with small changes if that is what you
think evolution is fine, but when you promote those small changes
can do more than just small changes that is another level of change
all together. With respect to having life pop up from nothing that really
isn't evolution, but a designless view of life requires it come from
non-living material with nothing but the laws of the universe to
make it happen.
Kelly

You're using loaded words in your response. What is a "small" change to you?

There is a single mutation that occurs in some people that increases their risk of colon cancer to a 70-80% likelihood they'll be afflicted with the disease at some point in their lives. Is this a "small" change? If it's small to you, is it small to me?

More to the point, does it matter what you happen to think is small and what isn't? Lots of drastic effects can result from fairly minor genetic alterations. Similarly, major genetic changes can manifest no apparent (or real) changes at all.

The point I'm making here is that you are committing a common error by assuming large phenotypical changes must be the result of large genetic changes. So, if you're being sensible, you *must* accept that genetic changes of any size (regardless of whether you happen to feel they are small or not) can manifest large or small phenotypical changes.