• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part one:

Abiotic Production of Organic Molecules
The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.

Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.The Beginnings of Life on Earth

Others have made similar experiments. A group at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego, exposed sulfur-bearing molecules like those thought to have been present before the Earth formed to low levels of light. The presence of the light was enough to generate organic compounds - molecules containing carbon, which form the chemical basis of life as we know it. Meteorite Reveals Life Not Difficult to Make.

If indeed....you wish to know more about the timeline and likely evolution of RNA from these compounds...I can provide it here. I do not wish to spend the time unless there is actual interest though....as I have argued this in the past and been....dissapointed.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Because is the only working hypothesis (besides God), amino acids have been produced from organic material, and God remains a staggering improbability.

But the questions are:

1.) What causes those amino acids to form into higher chains?

2.) Where does organic material come from?
 
Too abstract and inapplicable? Taking into consideration that we have been able to observe many things being 'created' if you will (buildings, bridges, vehicles, computer, ect), and not been able to see one thing evolve into a higher form... but yet the things that we have been able to observe being created are *much* simpler in design than the most elementry form of life (which we have not yet been able to observe the origin of)... we develop a theory that states that the most complex of things happened by chance.
So, simple thing must be meticuously designed, and complex things are theorised to come about by chance. Hmm.... I would tend to think that to be more abstract and inapplicable than to theorise that what we observe in one instance would have happened in another.

no.. the theory doesnt say that the most complex stuff happened by chance. This the first biggest misunderstanding of evolution. it says that the beginnings of life MAY have happened my chance, while life as we know it today, complex and ever changing is the process of natural selection. Hardly chance.

Secondly, evolution is applied in research almost constantly. Why choose proteins from one animal over another in our study of humans? Why choose to study the processes in a bacterial cell and then apply it the cells of a human. How can we predict the behaviours of a new/rare species with knowledge of only other species. There are a lot more detailed/complex conclusions that evolution allows scientists to draw which I would not go into. These involve research on various micro-processes in the body, analyzing genetic processes etc. The applications and the understanding evolution has given us is unbelievable.

Example please? The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the platipus (a mamal that lays eggs, evolved from what exactly?), the animals that have creatures inside their digestive system and help to digest their food (neither can survive without the other, which evolved first?).
I am not questioning micro-evolution. I fully agree that that is a perfectly accceptable and commen phenomenon.

examples...genetics is the study of how traits are passed down through dna and such. biology is the study of life-systems, the many processes that drive lifeforms, behaviours of lifeforms. Evolution gave us an understanding of how these two studies together created and drive life and formation of species. It consequently helps guide researchers to make accurate hypothesis and predictions in their research of creatures, ecosystems, microbiology, etc. Ask any medical researcher or biolgoical researcher, and they'd tell you that evolution is essential to understanding the experiments and predicting accurate outcomes.

The platypus is believed to be an offshoot of early mammals. A lot of early fossils suggest that they are a surviving descendent of early transitional mammals that sprung from birds and reptiles. Of course this was deemed by many as subjective and inconclusive. HOwever, in 2004, scientists studying the sex chromosomes of the platypus discovered an amazing link between the chromosomes of the platypus, and the chromosome systems of mammals and birds. This gives almost undeniable and suggestive evidence that platypus' are indeed an evolutionary link between mammals and birds.

Lesson of the story: Evolution is a theory. There are still many unanswered questions. However, everyday scientists are answering these questions. The more questions answered, the more supported this theory becomes. Just because there are unanswered questions doesn't mean its wrong. There are many unanswered questions in physics. does that mean physics is wrong?
 
But the questions are:

1.) What causes those amino acids to form into higher chains?

2.) Where does organic material come from?

1) as far I know I think that it requires some kind of living organism?

2) Organic material comes from living things, and would have to be made some other way for life to start out.

I didn't say it as very likely, but it's what we got, and over billions of years by chance it seems possible. (I believe that God created life, but I try to keep my scholar and religious claims seperate, or something like that)
 
-Demosthenes- said:
1) as far I know I think that it requires some kind of living organism?

2) Organic material comes from living things, and would have to be made some other way for life to start out.

I didn't say it as very likely, but it's what we got, and over billions of years by chance it seems possible. (I believe that God created life, but I try to keep my scholar and religious claims seperate, or something like that)

Sorry I meant the INorganic material, lol
 
part Two:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/simulating_titan_l_ab.html

Also of note is the likely similarity between Titan (a saturnian moon) and the early Earth. As with all scientific theory, these data are conjecture, and merely act as a possible way to give credence to interpretation....in short, they are pieces of a puzzle designed to lead one to a conclusion. As such they are merely my opinion.
 
Titan may have an atmosphere and water, but the atmosphere is has no great about of carbon dioxide or oxygen (90% nitrogen 10% argon) and has a surface temperature of 94K (apx negative 180 degrees Celsius!).
 
Sorry I meant the INorganic material, lol
Oh, inorganic material is any material not organic :D
 
The Titan example was meant as a way to show how inorganics "Can" become organic....as is believed by many to have occured on Earth, setting the stage for Rna molecules which may have formed the foundations for life. The similarities between the two worlds have allowed some scientists to test theoretical stipulations that might shed light on the process.
As stated...this is but a piece of the puzzle, and the jigsaw is not yet complete.
 
Unquestionably, evolution should be taught in schools. Intelligent design is a whole different ballgame. I could see how that could be offered in a classroom setting in public schools, but it should not be a requirement.

What the heck is the matter with people? If they are so confident that God created all men/women, then learning about evolution should not affect their opinion. I think the religious right worries that the more people know, the more they will question whether God exists. JMO
 
...but it should not be a requirement.
Or it shouldn't be taught under science curriculum, possibly because sheer number of believers it could be taught as an idea under some kind of religions or related class.
 
Intelligent design is a whole different ballgame. I could see how that could be offered in a classroom setting in public schools, but it should not be a requirement.

I disagree completely. I think that the street corner philosophical musings of intelligent design have absolutly no place in the school. I would be more comfortable with Creationism being taught in science class. At least people don't try and disguise what Creationism really is.
 
Intelligent Design should be briefly covered in biology courses for the sheer hilarity of showing what is and is not a proper theory.
 
I disagree completely. I think that the street corner philosophical musings of intelligent design have absolutly no place in the school.

Creationism is part of millions of Christian cultures, and still an intimate part of our culture today. You would have cultures not be taught in school, unless they were strict secular cultures?

Would you have people ignore Catholicism's influence in the development of Europe? The Effect John Calvin had on Separatist Britains? Or any other religious influence?

If we only each about cultures we agree with then we will have an ignorant generation who only know pieces of history. That's just as bad as teaching creationism as a scientific theory.
 
I think that Evolution AND Intelligent Design should be taught in school. Then the students can make up their own minds of what they think to be true and what is hogwash. That would settle the argument.

The Evolutionists that say Intelligent Design can't be proven are simpletons! Because how the Hell did all organisms form into the stuff they are just from a puddle of soup? One site I reccomend is www.genesispark.com It tells how the Universe began, how dinosaurs fit into the big Biblical picture, and where you can find scientific evidence in the Bible!

But the Creationists who say that Evolution can't be proven are simpletons as well. There is some evolution; like how creatures evolve to live in different habitats. Like pigeons, cities like NY didn't exist all through history, so pigeons had to evolve in order for their lungs to be able to inhale the pollution 24/7.

So, just teach both. Who can it hurt?
 
Donkey said:
The Evolutionists that say Intelligent Design can't be proven are simpletons!
It can't be proven or even supported. There is no scientific basis what so ever. It should not be taught as science but as part of culture.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Both should still be taught anyways. And go to www.genesispark.com Intelligent Design can be proven. As can parts of Darwinism.


most of that is total bs....the proof just doesn't work. Secondly, who should I believe, Harvard, MIT, and nobel-prize winning scientists that have made today's techonology possible? Or some "scientist" who got his degree from some shittty southern baptist "science academy"...

again intelligent design has no bearing in science. Tell me, lets assume intelligent design were taught. How would scientists be able to use this theory in furtehr research and in making predictions/conclusions. what understanding would intelligent design give about genetic variances in population, the effects of genetic mutations, the similarities between mammalian and reptilian systems etc.

All intelligent design claims is that evolution is bullshit, and that there instead was an intelligent designer who created all life. Any speculation further than that is deemed a phenomena of god...where is the understanding in that.
 
Apparently some of you people just don't have an open mind. I believe in Intelligent Design and some Evolution (which is about as open as you can be). So is what some of you are saying is that God is too stupid to create a system as complicated as the eye? And yes, the eye is complicated, cuz once it's broken, you can't repair it (like if the eye was crushed or if the optic nerve was severed). The brain cannot be repaired (EX. Terry Shiavo). And it's easy for a scientist to say what ever they want because the ones with money are always on top and can pull strings to have what ever they want written in text books. And if anyone disagrees with them, then that person is automatically a crackpot! Modern science is bias. And most of what we know about the Universe wouldn't have been figured out if it wasn't for scientists mixing religion with science. Look at the Greek Scientists and Philosophers. Look around you! The Bible, Koran, and Tora aren't the only things that proove God's existance! How did a woodpecker know to use its beak to peck holes in a tree to get food? Is that just natural instinct? And if so, who programed it in there? Joe Blow? Come on, open your minds people, this is Elementary stuff.
 
Donkey said:
I believe in Intelligent Design and some Evolution (which is about as open as you can be).
Yes, you believe, which takes faith. Evolution requires no faith, it's science.

We've explained it all in previous posts.
 
Donkey1499 said:
I believe in Intelligent Design and some Evolution ... Come on, open your minds people, this is Elementary stuff.

Dude you are so awesome, and I agree that both should be taught as theories in school...

I don't have as much time to debate as I would like... but suffice it to say that evolution, intelligent design and creation are three distinct theories... each w/ their own scientific evidence... and that still doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive.

Think critically, do some research and open your mind. Then come to you're own logical conclusion... don't just follow the crowd because "the majority is always right."
 
thatgirl said:
I don't have as much time to debate as I would like... but suffice it to say that evolution, intelligent design and creation are three distinct theories... each w/ their own scientific evidence... and that still doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive.
Show me evidence for creationalism or intelligent design then.

thatgirl said:
Think critically, do some research and open your mind. Then come to you're own logical conclusion... don't just follow the crowd because "the majority is always right."
Yes, please do research. This will be easy to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
 
Think critically, do some research and open your mind. Then come to you're own logical conclusion... don't just follow the crowd because "the majority is always right."

HAHAHAHA, I'm sorry, but are you trying to convert us to ID with a "conformist" guilt trip? :rofl the irony of this post is killing me.

ThatGirl83, I salute you. :cheers:
 
I look forward to a debate with you thatgirl :D
 
The Evolutionists that say Intelligent Design can't be proven are simpletons! Because how the Hell did all organisms form into the stuff they are just from a puddle of soup? One site I reccomend is www.genesispark.com It tells how the Universe began, how dinosaurs fit into the big Biblical picture, and where you can find scientific evidence in the Bible!

IIRC that's the stupid website that tries to say Dinosaurs were all vegetarians prior to the fall of Adam =D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom