education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
this is the topic i got to write about in english, which is great because i talk about daily. i just wanted to post this and see what everyone's opinion here is on evolution being taught in school but not creationism.

Teach creationism in religion or literature class and teach evolution in biology class ... and tell the students that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and that Genesis is an account of how the relationship was/is/should be between God, the creator, and his creatures.


The theory of evolution is not theology but biology and the Book of Genesis is theology and not biology.

The whole controverse which should be a scientific one has become an ideological and political one, in which both sides try to prove the impossible, namely whether God exists or not. Absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know that is the theory, we can see small changes but nothing on
the scale we were talking about.
Kelly

So it sounds to me like Kelly has accepted that complex systems can arise without design since he has now dropped that argument and bought in the 'you can't prove large changes from small ones' idea.

Presumably the offer of fractals and weather systems have swayed him, though I'm sure we could come up with other examples if pressed.

If I am putting words into your mouth Kelly, I apologise but it does seem to me that when you change direction like that it is because you realise your argument has been refuted and you want to divert attention from the fact.

If you don't now accept that complex systems can arise without an intelligent designer, please say why . I'd like to nail that one on the head before we move on.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know that is the theory, we can see small changes but nothing on
the scale we were talking about.
Kelly

If you assume that a 1 unit of change is what you call a 'small change' and then lets say you took 1 million 1 units of change, then that would give you 1 million units of change. If you go through in sequence and do the sum, 1+1+1+1+1... I think you'll find the number changes by a small amount (1) each time. But when you finish, you'll find a large difference between your starting number and your ending number. Prehaps its not too hard to concieve of a lot of small changes producing change 'on the scale we are talking about.'

Originally posted by darthmix
No, see, they're pretty much all small changes. But a lot of small changes, over millions of years, can become pretty significant. What part of that is so hard to understand?

No, that is not true and that is my point, you don't know if those
types of changes however small over time can in that manner produce
the type of results we see today, your whole process is bases upon
this assumption.

Small random changes can do it is an assumption, a great deal is
assumed, and you treat your assumptions as if those were observable
data points that have clearly been established! All you are really
doing is stating a belief small changes can do it, and that puts your
notion on how it happened on par with God did it, a belief system.
Kelly

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Our perception is limited by the timescale involved. Combining DNA evidence and fossil evidence we can say that evolution most probably occured. DNA analysis shows us how related we are related to other animals and allows us to build up species trees. These give an idea of when speices diverged from one another.

Think about a small change. A very la ...[text shortened]... But it isn't to hard to see that the addition of small steps could have resulted in speciation.

I have to spend more time on your post than I have, I'll come back
to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The whole controverse which should be a scientific one has become an ideological and political one, in which both sides try to prove the impossible, namely whether God exists or not. Absolutely ridiculous.

1. There is no scientific controversy.
2. The 'side' which supports the Theory of Evolution does not try to prove that God does not exist (as you imply) because the vast majority of them are theists. Only a small minority of the non-theists might try to prove the non-existence of God and would not normally do so in relation to the Theory of evolution.
3. I very much doubt that even the creationists are stupid enough to try to prove the existence of God based on 'the controverse', though some have tried to do it using ID.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, that is not true and that is my point, you don't know if those
types of changes however small over time can in that manner produce
the type of results we see today, your whole process is bases upon
this assumption.

Small random changes can do it is an assumption, a great deal is
assumed, and you treat your assumptions as if those were observable ...[text shortened]... , and that puts your
notion on how it happened on par with God did it, a belief system.
Kelly

This shows the power of small, incremental changes over many generations:



In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem:

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters, assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28 characters will be random. The number of possible combinations in this random sequence is 2728, or about 1040. The probability that the monkey will produce any given sequence is extremely low; conversely, the probability that the monkey will produce at least one of these possible sequences is very high. Any particular sequence can be selected as a "target" phrase, all equally as probable as Dawkins's chosen target, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins's hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms "randomly" combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable. (See: Fred Hoyle)

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins's words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 1: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 2: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

Originally posted by darthmix
No, see, they're pretty much all small changes. But a lot of small changes, over millions of years, can become pretty significant. What part of that is so hard to understand?

except that it seems now that it doesn't take those "millions of years" after all. which tends to supporrt a far younger earth (and universe). And believe me, as the class Christian Evolutionist, that is making it hard for me to continue waving the banner for an earth with a birthday 4.5 billion years ago, much less a 15 billion-year old universe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, that is not true and that is my point, you don't know if those
types of changes however small over time can in that manner produce
the type of results we see today, your whole process is bases upon
this assumption.

You are using a strawman. You are refuting something that the poster has not (as yet) claimed.

Do you accept or deny his actual post:
But a lot of small changes, over millions of years, can become pretty significant.

Do you deny that small changes can become significant? If so, present an argument.(not a strawman).
If you do agree with it, but maintain your stance that they cannot be as significant as those suggested by the Theory of Evolution then please present an argument, specifying exactly how significant a change is possible and how significant a change is not possible and what the barrier is.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
except that it seems now that it doesn't take those "millions of years" after all. which tends to supporrt a far younger earth (and universe). And believe me, as the class Christian Evolutionist, that is making it hard for me to continue waving the banner for an earth with a birthday 4.5 billion years ago, much less a 15 billion-year old universe.

Please elaborate. Why does it not take millions of years and why would that support a far younger earth and especially why would it have anything to do with the age of the universe?

Originally posted by Green Paladin
This shows the power of small, incremental changes over many generations:



In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem:

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter ...[text shortened]... so far existed.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

It has been a while since I read his book but didn't he also compare
life to a combination lock? Than he went into great detail on how after
time you'd hit the right number to open the lock? That of course
assumes the lock can be opened, and there really was a way to
randomly create life from non life over time changing from one
creature to another.

What is being suggested is that with small changes over time you can
get compete systems that work in unison with other systems within
a living creature. Considering the pain and suffering you'd have to
go through to do such a thing balancing energy and resources I
surprised people actually think that can happen through random
chance and the natural laws of the universe even with natural
selection.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It has been a while since I read his book but didn't he also compare
life to a combination lock? Than he went into great detail on how after
time you'd hit the right number to open the lock? That of course
assumes the lock can be opened, and there really was a way to
randomly create life from non life over time changing from one
creature to another.
...[text shortened]... ough random
chance and the natural laws of the universe even with natural
selection.
Kelly

Dawkins' analogy of a combination lock is a premise in a longer argument. If you're interested it can be found here:

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,7

Your doubt regarding the primordial ooze:

The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.

Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.
The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

I don't understand your point about pain and suffering being some sort of evolutionary deterrent. In fact, pain and suffering (death) accelerate evolutionary forces.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Dawkins' analogy of a combination lock is a premise in a longer argument. If you're interested it can be found here:

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,7

Your doubt regarding the primordial ooze:

The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and ...[text shortened]... f evolutionary deterrent. In fact, pain and suffering (death) accelerate evolutionary forces.

From Dawkins book

"The combination lock on my bicycle has 4,096 different positions. Every one of these is equally 'improbable' in the sense that, if you spin the wheels at random, every one of the 4,096 positions is equally unlikely to turn up. I can spin the wheels at random, look at whatever number is displayed and exclaim with hindsight: 'How amazing. The odds against that number appearing are 4,096:1. A minor miracle!' That is equivalent to regarding the particular arrangement of rocks in a mountain, or of bits of metal in a scrap-heap, as 'complex'. But one of those 4,096 wheel positions really is interestingly unique: the combination 1207 is the only one that opens the lock. The uniqueness of 1207 has nothing to do with hindsight: it is specified in advance by the manufacturer. If you spun the wheels at random and happened to hit 1207 first time, you would be able to steal the bike, and it would seem a minor miracle. If you struck lucky on one of those multi-dialled combination locks on bank safes, it would seem a very major miracle, for the odds against it are many millions to one, and you would be able to steal a fortune. "


My point being again you are assuming for one there is a good
combination that can be hit by random chance. With all of this there
are several things that must occur, you must have the right material,
in the right quantities, put together properly with the right timing,
and so on, and all of this done in a place that not only allows for
the proper combination but also allow it to flourish too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point being again you are assuming for one there is a good
combination that can be hit by random chance. With all of this there
are several things that must occur, you must have the right material,
in the right quantities, put together properly with the right timing,
and so on, and all of this done in a place that not only allows for
the proper combination but also allow it to flourish too.
Kelly

But remember - not only do we have an enormous amount of chances to find the correct combination - not only here, but however many unfathomable number of planets there are out there - but we also don't know how many correct combinations there are. We found one. There could be many others.

Originally posted by mtthw
But remember - not only do we have an enormous amount of chances to find the correct combination - not only here, but however many unfathomable number of planets there are out there - but we also don't know how many correct combinations there are. We found one. There could be many others.

You found one? I don't think so, you may say there is life here, but
beyond that the question is how did it get here.
Kelly