This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Confused about evolution

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by tibor75, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. tibor75

    tibor75 Banned

    I am always amused whenever these wackos running school boards in Kansas or the South try to get evolution out of the textbooks and creationism taught instead. first of all, are the two concepts by definition not compatible? Couldn't you argue that God put man and animals on the planet and then he let them fight it out amongst themselves without any intervention (i.e. survival of the fittest).

    Second, I believe that Darwin believed that man descended from the apes. but does this really have anything to do with the theory of evolution? From what I remember, evolution basically details the interactions of animals with the environment - and how the environment "selects" out those characteristics that favor survival and allows those animals with those characteristics to have kids and multiply. This explains why African Americans have a much much higher incidence of sickle cell disease - having the sickle cell trait protects you from malaria, which is life saving in Africa, but useless if you're a white person in Europe. And, hasn't evolution been basically "proven" to be true? I mean, you can never really "prove" a law of nature, but scientists seem to agree that it's the best model we have as to how animals change over time the way that they do. I wish I had discussions like this in high school.
     
  2. buckiprof

    buckiprof 21st Century Buckeye Man Staff Member

    Isn't Ohio on the list now too?

    I thought that it wasn't so much that animals change over time but that some mutation at the genetic level produces a trait that allows the "mutant" to adapt to the environment better. The "mutant" survives and passes the mutation to the offspring etc and we have the "survival of the fittest". (It has been a while since I studied/discussed this, so my recollections may be off. But I will surely ask my biology colleagues about it.)
     
  3. DiHard

    DiHard Guest

    tibor....one....opinion on this....
    http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1139

    two: where do you go from the south as a group....to including kansas....? dont you know that god created everything in its current form???

    ive always said that...if you believe in god....dont you think he would stay one step ahead of us by way of learning about life and the meaning of life.....like we could ever even begin to understand gods methods....
     
  4. tibor75

    tibor75 Banned

    I thought that it wasn't so much that animals change over time but that some mutation at the genetic level produces a trait that allows the "mutant" to adapt to the environment better

    yes, this is what I meant.

    I'm pretty sure I remember Kansas as the one state where creationism wackos were particularly prominent. but there are probably other states as well.
     
  5. DiHard

    DiHard Guest

    you mean like the first creature that was amphibious (or maybe it is ambidextrious)...that started the chain towards man???

    before man became the 20th century version of itself.....i think mutation was a greater factor....but in this day and age....man controls too much too allow mutation at a species level....

    now....bacteria...viruses...etc...are a different story.....or to steal from a pretty good robin cook novel....a self-introduced entity from space exploration.....


    edit: think about it....we bring back this crap from another planet....what type of thing could be present that we have zero defense for...whether its a virus...bacteria...or something we cant even detect.....just a thought...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2004
  6. Hubbard

    Hubbard Administrator's Staff Member Bookie

    Not to go on a tangent (ok maybe TO go on a tangent), but my girlfriend and I were discussing this last night and she said that where she teaches has a thing against evolution (In Ohio near me area). Which is crazy to me. How can you not teach something that is backed up with facts??? I really don't think Evolution and creatism go along with eacj other, b/c you can actually see the evolution of man.
     
  7. BuckeyeSoldier

    BuckeyeSoldier 2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion

    you guys have it pretty much nailed down on evolution.. personally as a genetics major im a pretty big supporter :tongue2:

    but here is the basic lay out

    mutation occurs in one, and if it helps out survival then that trait should slowly be spread throughout the species, or in some cases creating new species entirely if the breading stays local.

    darwin did believe we came from apes, and that is part of evolution but that isnt evolution itself. evolution has been proven to take place(some species such as bacteria and virus' can do it in a single generation) it just hasnt been proven that we evolved from apes or are evolving at all because our life spans are so long.

    in most cases evolution is random, ie a creature randomly mutates and if that mutation helps survival that creature will become prominent, in some cases its a form of adaptation. ill give a few examples in humans.

    male pattern baldness is one of the most recent ones that appears to be taking place in men. it is theorized that we lost the rest of our hair as it is no longer needed and our body is taking up less resources by doing away with it, only places we really have hair now are areas that loose the most heat.

    and on the random side, a recent study is suggesting that a random defect in the muscles in our jaws that actually made them weaker may have allowed for our brains to grow larger than our ape counter-parts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22408-2004Mar24.html

    oh by the way ive been gone for a couple years and was disturbed by ohio trying to do the whole lets teach creationism thing, whatever came of that?

    think that sums it up?
     
  8. The KSB

    The KSB 4-4-11/11-5-11

    I'm by no means a doctorb, but I have taken a few biology courses. When I think about the millions upon millions of chemical reactions that need to take place in absolute balance in the human body at all times, as well as the homeostatic systems in the body I just can't imagine life being accidental. However, to think something like fossils are creations of satan put there to test our faith is utter nonsense. So no, the two theories aren't mutually exclusive.
     
  9. DEBuckeye

    DEBuckeye It ain't easy, bein' cheesy.

    The thing that annoys me about these stories (putting the debate aside for a moment) is the way these groups who are calling for one school of thought or the other seem to think that they know what's right for everyone.

    The religious freaks want to teach creationism, because that's what God says, and "that's the right way for everyone to live their lives". Same sort of feelings on the evolution side- facts are facts and there's no other way to explain it.

    I guess I've got two opinions on this:
    First, it's a "church and state" issue. How can the government, represented by the school board, require that kids learn about a religious issue in public schools? You think people are bitching now because the Pledge of Allegiance uses the words "under God"? Wait until this starts.

    Second, both of these theories are widely accepted in different circles. Both have merit. If you're going to teach one, you should also teach the other. Present them both as different explanations and let the kids debate it and sort it out. You're not doing anyone a favor by telling only one side of the story.

    As for the debate itself, I guess I agree with whoever said that the two theories could co-exist. Evolution makes sense, but it had to start somewhere. Something had to kick-start it. Couldn't God have been the one who set it in motion, maybe guided it along the way? KentStBuck has a good point- there are too many intricate details, all fitting together perfectly, that makes up the system, for it to be accidental.

    Where do Adam and Eve fit in? I guess that depends on how literally you take the Bible. Many of the stories in the Bible are just that- stories to explain something or make a point. Besides, God didn't create Adam and Eve first, they came later, after the earth and many animals were already created. Couldn't evolution fit in there somewhere?
     
  10. FKAGobucks877

    FKAGobucks877 The Most Power-Drunk

    DEBuckeye: "I guess I've got two opinions on this:
    First, it's a "church and state" issue. How can the government, represented by the school board, require that kids learn about a religious issue in public schools? You think people are bitching now because the Pledge of Allegiance uses the words "under God"? Wait until this starts."

    Valid point. What bothers me about this is that our current society and government have misconstrued the spirit of this statement. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in an attempt to keep the government out of the church, NOT keep the church out of the government. The whole reason the "Separatists" came to America was to escape RELIGIOUS persecution from their former government. They wanted the FREEDOM to teach what they chose, without government interference. Seems to me the government is trying to impose on what can and can't be taught, which is simply starting the whole cycle all over again. To me, both are sound theories, and both have merit. Which leads me into...

    DEBuckeye: "Second, both of these theories are widely accepted in different circles. Both have merit. If you're going to teach one, you should also teach the other. Present them both as different explanations and let the kids debate it and sort it out. You're not doing anyone a favor by telling only one side of the story."

    Again, excellent point. This time I agree wholeheartedly.

    The other thing DEB hit on the head was with the origination. Evolution supporters argue that millions of years of evolution lead us to where we are. Creationism supports the supposition that God created earth and man, and usually everythingin between. Obviously, there are some overlapping arguments. But I do not see these arguments as being mutually exclusive. Support evolution all you want, but I would really like to hear a rational explanation of how anything, anyone, any creature, any (fill in the blank) first existed. The very first thing/person/place ever. To me, it takes a HELL of a lot more faith to believe in "spontaneous combustion" than it does Creation.
     
  11. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    That is just completely false. Catholics, Quakers and Puritans all came over to escape persecution by the "Church of England." You can't keep the government out of the church, UNLESS you keep the church out of the government.

    As for evolution vs. creationism in schools, one would think that it is a no brainer - most christian denominations accept evolution as correct - Even the Pope endorsed it. The two ideas are, in fact, compatible at face value, but Creationism/Intelligent design is not properly classified as a "scientific theory." It should not be taught in science class.
     
  12. Oh8ch

    Oh8ch Cognoscente of Omphaloskepsis Staff Member

    To me teaching creationism on an equal footing with evolution is like teaching that 2+2 just might be 5 because the Bible says it is five.

    As soldier said, evolution is a proven fact. It can be directly observed in lower forms of life. It can be observerd in over 300,000 species of beetle. It has been well documented by folks like Stephen Jay Gould who has spent his life studying more species of snails than would fit on the ark. The real issue for most folks - even though it is rarely stated as such - is whether man evolved from apes. The evidence here may not be as overwhelming, but it is convincing for those who are open to being convinced.

    An more interesting issue for the upcoming generation is the work on heredity and brain structure that is tracking personality traits and individual thinking processes back to specific genes and internal brain activity. We may be on the verge of seeing both God and Free Will defined out of exsitence.

    Traditional religion can survive evolution by pointing to the idea of a 'process' that was begun by a creator. But if you take that process to the point that the decision on which shirt you are going to wear is purely a result of hard-wiring and environment, it becomes difficult to defend an argument that folks should burn for eternity because they did not 'choose' to accept Jesus as their personal savior (particularly if they were raised a Buddhist).

    Religious conservatives can see this coming and they are not going to take it quietly. Let the battles begin - with the initial front centered around evolution.

    (Now, do I really want to press the submit button on this one?)
     
  13. tibor75

    tibor75 Banned

    "Second, both of these theories are widely accepted in different circles. Both have merit. If you're going to teach one, you should also teach the other. Present them both as different explanations and let the kids debate it and sort it out. You're not doing anyone a favor by telling only one side of the story."

    I am unaware of any facts or scientific evidence detailing how creationism has any merit. If I have children, they will never set foot in a school where sham science like this is taught.
     
  14. BuckeyeSoldier

    BuckeyeSoldier 2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion

    wow am i glad someone else chimed in here.. after reading a few of those posts i was about to blow a fuse... for all 3 of you that said it, please give me ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM, this can NOT be taught in schools!


    yes, it is a theory, but it is one with no backing in science so how can you rightfully teach it in science class? so unless you want to implement a "faith" class i dunno where you are gonna put it.
    i mean good lord i can just as easily say that none of you even exist and no one can prove me wrong.. maybe we are all just one "brain" imagining ourselves? these ARE REAL THEORIES, but also have no scientific backing..
    so id be careful when you suggest we start teaching kids theories based on nothing, you might not like what you end up with.

    and oh9ch.. im a little bit worried about what you just mentioned, ive almost come to that same conclusion about freewill myself after a few philosophy and psychology classes.. even as an atheist this is VERY disturbing.. i am not sure how anyone is gonna break it to the population that they dont have free will. im betting you might see a giant jump in religious and spiritual belief as well as suicide after that. people arent going to want to believe that.. i dont want to believe that
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2004
  15. Yeah there is always a push for it every couple years or so, not as big of a deal as it used to be.
     

Share This Page