Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

[-Demosthenes-]

Excuse me Demosthenes and pardon me for going off subject, but did you take your name fromt the book "Ender's Game"?

I'm sry, I somehow missed your post three pages back. Duke's post on the 58th page made me review the thread. Yeah, it is from Ender's Game, Peter was both Demosthenes and Loche at one time (he had Valentine write for Demosthenes, but he dictate what she wrote mostly) then when Valentine left Earth she wrote her own stuff under the name Demosthenes and Peter kept his identity Loche for a while, and was nominated for Hegemon so he revealed his identity (I'm pretty sure).

A fetus is a kind of tumor.

Medically, I don't think that it is a tumor, but technically I think it's considered a "growth," but that seems irrelevant.

 

[alphieb]

They are just deliberately trying to annoy you I think alphieb. A fetus is obviously not a tumor

To all,

Of course I know mutations occur I am a nurse. Viruses and bacteria are ever changing/mutating. That is why the flu effects people so harshly. Our T cells have no memory of new strains. This is why HIV/AIDS is so detrimental to ones health.

This is also why bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, microscopic germs are simple in complex and rely on a host. Complex organisms by the way are a different story. This is in regards to macromutations. Like I have said before mutations in humans occur as well, but result in cancer or benign tumors.

As far as theory, if something is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered as fact. Evolution is not supported with that much evidence. Evolution needs much more study and clarification.

Somebody mentioned Newtons law, however it was overtaken by Einsteins theory of relativity. There are theory tossed around everywhere about this or that. Whether I choose to buy them is my opinion. By the way, none of you are Einsteins, Newtons or Darwins. You cannot formulate your own opinions and take anything you hear as gospel.

 

[OnionCollection]

People can get resistance to things too via mutation

 

[-Demosthenes-]

As far as theory, if something is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered as fact. Evolution is not supported with that much evidence. Evolution needs much more study and clarification.

It's directly observable in the fossil record.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Hey rember the FSM site I gave you? Found another cool one: http://www.deathtocreationism.com/

 

[alphieb]

It's directly observable in the fossil record.

fossil provide no DNA evidence. Just imprints of species. Big Deal. I know there have been several homo species. What happened to them? Why did they become extinct? Or did homosapiens breed with them.....evidence suggest not. I personally think we wiped out the Neanderthals. These are questions no one has answers to.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

fossil provide no DNA evidence. Just imprints of species. Big Deal.

Why do you need DNA evidence? You seem to grossly underestimate how important these "imprints" are.

I know there have been several homo species. What happened to them? Why did they become extinct? Or did homosapiens breed with them.....evidence suggest not.

What evidence? Would that be fossil evidence?:spin:

Why did they go extinct? They occupied the same niche... only one species comes will ultimately survive when two occupy the same niche.

I personally think we wiped out the Neanderthals. These are questions no one has answers to.

What is blind speculation relevant to evolution?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13059

Very good thread form ScienceForums.net.

Edit:
Found some good links. Please read before you decide that Evolution is an "abominaion."

Go through this (click next on the bottom right of the page to get to the next page):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

For people who don't know what evoluiton is (be honest):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Very good, read it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Please, before you start talking about something that you know nothing about, read something about it. (Wikipedia is very good too).

 

[bandaidwoman]

To all,

Of course I know mutations occur I am a nurse. Viruses and bacteria are ever changing/mutating. That is why the flu effects people so harshly. Our T cells have no memory of new strains. This is why HIV/AIDS is so detrimental to ones health.

This is also why bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, microscopic germs are simple in complex and rely on a host. Complex organisms by the way are a different story. This is in regards to macromutations. Like I have said before mutations in humans occur as well, but result in cancer or benign tumors.

As far as theory, if something is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered as fact. Evolution is not supported with that much evidence. Evolution needs much more study and clarification.

Somebody mentioned Newtons law, however it was overtaken by Einsteins theory of relativity. There are theory tossed around everywhere about this or that. Whether I choose to buy them is my opinion. By the way, none of you are Einsteins, Newtons or Darwins. You cannot formulate your own opinions and take anything you hear as gospel.

So microevolution can occur but not macroevolution?
Does that make sense?
Seems to me the laws of Darwinism once again supported by microbiology and antibiotic restance etc., show me one and I mean one evidence that disproves evolution (and offering gaps in the theory is not the same thing.)

Otherwise every field is science is null and void and until we come up with the grand unification theory , quantum theory, general and special relativity, Newtonian physics, the theory of electrmagnetism etc. are just as fallacious as the theory of evolution according to your line of reasoning.

Opinions about the validity of general relativity are substantiated by rigorous emperical data so I'm not just "buying" it like it's some kind of gospel and it does not supplant Newtonian physics which is still valid in many circumstances

 

[-Demosthenes-]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13059

Very good thread form ScienceForums.net.

Edit:
Found some good links. Please read before you decide that Evolution is an "abominaion."

Go through this (click next on the bottom right of the page to get to the next page):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

For people who don't know what evoluiton is (be honest):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Very good, read it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Please, before you start talking about something that you know nothing about, read something about it. (Wikipedia is very good too).

I think that I messed up the links...
the first one should be:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

The second:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

And I thinkthat the third one is right...

 

[bandaidwoman]

As far as theory, if something is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered as fact. Evolution is not supported with that much evidence. Evolution needs much more study and clarification.

.

Once again, you are butchering the "theory" definition again. The common usage of the word as you are using it states "theory" refers to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer to bodies of ideas that make specific predictions. To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a body of ideas that allows a scientist to explain why the apple fell and make predictions about other falling objects.

So stop with this line of irrational reasoning, (using the colloquial defination of theory) it's argueing semantics, not science.

 

[Duke]

To all,

Of course I know mutations occur I am a nurse. Viruses and bacteria are ever changing/mutating. That is why the flu effects people so harshly. Our T cells have no memory of new strains. This is why HIV/AIDS is so detrimental to ones health.

This is also why bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, microscopic germs are simple in complex and rely on a host. Complex organisms by the way are a different story. This is in regards to macromutations. Like I have said before mutations in humans occur as well, but result in cancer or benign tumors.

As far as theory, if something is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered as fact. Evolution is not supported with that much evidence. Evolution needs much more study and clarification.

Mutations do not always result in tumors or cancer.

Evolution can be considered as fact, for it is supported with mountains of undeniable facts.
How do you explain the development of creatures found in the fossil record? That is one of many such examples of facts supporting evolution.


Duke

 

[Duke]

Hey rember the FSM site I gave you? Found another cool one: http://www.deathtocreationism.com/

Did I tell you that a now worship the ground you step on since you showed me the One Truth of the First United Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That is a funny website, by the way.

May You Forever Be Touched By His Noodly Appendage,
Duke

 

[alphieb]

So microevolution can occur but not macroevolution?
Does that make sense?
Seems to me the laws of Darwinism once again supported by microbiology and antibiotic restance etc., show me one and I mean one evidence that disproves evolution (and offering gaps in the theory is not the same thing.)

Otherwise every field is science is null and void and until we come up with the grand unification theory , quantum theory, general and special relativity, Newtonian physics, the theory of electrmagnetism etc. are just as fallacious as the theory of evolution according to your line of reasoning.

Opinions about the validity of general relativity are substantiated by rigorous emperical data so I'm not just "buying" it like it's some kind of gospel and it does not supplant Newtonian physics which is still valid in many circumstances

You tell me that the production of a new species has been observed. That is absurd. Mutations harm species not improve them. Mutations are flawed cells that continue to replicate and function incorrectly with adverse effects to our bodies. Are you really a doctor? Shouldn't you know that. I wouldn't allow you to care for my dog. You cannot compare a simple virus (RNA) strain to a complex organism. Microorganisms go unaffected by the mutations. Fossils are also probably hoaxes.

 

[alphieb]

Plus, microorganisms change at times based on our DNA (host). Now you tell me ONE FACTUAL THING THAT PROVES EVOLUTION.......and good luck, because it has never been proven or shall I say even backed up with tremendous evidence. I bet in years to come our kin shall see a purple horse walking on two legs and eating at a dinner table, driving cars etc.....maybe the loch ness monster existed....huh What a bunch of bullshit.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Did everyone else see my links? Becuase it would clear a lot of stuff if you would just read them... We're not gona prove frick if you won't at least read what the theory is (which by your posts you have little knowledge).

Edit: How do explain the fossil record then?

 

[alphieb]

Mutations do not always result in tumors or cancer.

Evolution can be considered as fact, for it is supported with mountains of undeniable facts.
How do you explain the development of creatures found in the fossil record? That is one of many such examples of facts supporting evolution.


Duke

facts my ass

 

[alphieb]

Why do you need DNA evidence? You seem to grossly underestimate how important these "imprints" are.

What evidence? Would that be fossil evidence?:spin:

Why did they go extinct? They occupied the same niche... only one species comes will ultimately survive when two occupy the same niche.

What is blind speculation relevant to evolution?

fossils are hoaxes

 

[Duke]

I think that I messed up the links...
the first one should be:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

The second:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

And I thinkthat the third one is right...

Only further proof that Berkleyians are geniuses, and I can say that, I am one.


Duke

 

[alphieb]

I'm sry, I somehow missed your post three pages back. Duke's post on the 58th page made me review the thread. Yeah, it is from Ender's Game, Peter was both Demosthenes and Loche at one time (he had Valentine write for Demosthenes, but he dictate what she wrote mostly) then when Valentine left Earth she wrote her own stuff under the name Demosthenes and Peter kept his identity Loche for a while, and was nominated for Hegemon so he revealed his identity (I'm pretty sure).


Medically, I don't think that it is a tumor, but technically I think it's considered a "growth," but that seems irrelevant.

shut up...you are irrelevant

 

[Duke]

facts my ass

Oh, I am sorry, did I strike a nerve there? Are the facts getting to you, perchance?


Duke

 

[Duke]

shut up...you are irrelevant

Someone is pissed. We really must have struck a nerve, then.


Duke

 

[alphieb]

Did everyone else see my links? Becuase it would clear a lot of stuff if you would just read them... We're not gona prove frick if you won't at least read what the theory is (which by your posts you have little knowledge).

Edit: How do explain the fossil record then?

Who cares, I'm not interested in your link it is just another bogus bullshit

 

[Duke]

fossils are hoaxes

Of course!!! Why did I not think of that??? It is clearly a huge conspiracy, put in place by people who hate Alphieb! It is so obvious that someone placed millions of faked fossils deep into the ground, all over the world! These conspirators must be immensly powerful! HIDE, Alphieb, HIDE!!!!


Duke

 

[alphieb]

Only further proof that Berkleyians are geniuses, and I can say that, I am one.


Duke

Only an idiot would portray themself as a genious.....try to be alittle humbel