Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr 360 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hamilcarr

  Could you please clarify a bit more as to what you are looking for (from theories about a past creation event/events) that should be of "immediate relevance for our daily lives"?

  Here's a part of this thread's opening article.

  The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I’m not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.

  For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)

  Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.

  Can the same be said about creationism?
• 

  yknot

  Microevolution occurs.

  Microevolution is taught in my state, most often in terms of mutations due to either enviromental shifts or human inducements.

  Macroevolution however causes heated debate. It is the macroevolution that most creationist think of when the hear the word evolution.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Microevolution occurs.

  Microevolution is taught in my state, most often in terms of mutations due to either enviromental shifts or human inducements.

  Macroevolution however causes heated debate. It is the macroevolution that most creationist think of when the hear the word evolution.

  This distinction is rarely made in contemporary biology. Macroevolution = microevolution + time. So, there's no reason to reject macroevolution if you accept microevolution unless you think time is a fiction.
• 

  yknot

  This distinction is rarely made in contemporary biology. Macroevolution = microevolution + time. So, there's no reason to reject macroevolution if you accept microevolution unless you think time is a fiction.

  Ham

  The distinction is made and more often then you want to admit.

  I could just as easily point out that if macroevolution was a fact, beyond any reasonable doubt.... then why aren't Jewish boys born without foreskin. The Jews have been circumcising on the 8th day for how many years? Why do I still have to shave/wax my legs, underarms and bikini?.....
• 

  funkyderek

  yknot:

  I could just as easily point out that if macroevolution was a fact, beyond any reasonable doubt.... then why aren't Jewish boys born without foreskin. The Jews have been circumcising on the 8th day for how many years? Why do I still have to shave/wax my legs, underarms and bikini?.....

  Are you sure you have a qualification in biology? At some point, wouldn't they at least have mentioned the difference between Lamarckism and Darwinism? Or were you sick that day?
• 

  hamilcarr

  I could just as easily point out that if macroevolution was a fact, beyond any reasonable doubt.... then why aren't Jewish boys born without foreskin. The Jews have been circumcising on the 8th day for how many years? Why do I still have to shave/wax my legs, underarms and bikini?.....

  Would men without a foreskin form a separate species?
• 

  yknot

  Derek

  Both theories have the same end result....change in lineage.

  BTW Darwin didn't discount Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory entirely either.
• 

  yknot

  Would men without a foreskin form a separate species?

  I wonder if it would be a dominate mutation or passive like facial hair in Native Americans & Asians.
• 

  funkyderek

  yknot:

  Both theories have the same end result....change in lineage.

  Right, but you must know - I mean, you absolutely must or you should just rip up your biology certificate right now - that Darwin never proposed that acquired characteristics could be inherited? His world-changing discovery was that random inborn variations could be inherited, and if they were useful would spread throughout the population. I mean, how dare you even get involved in this discussion if you don't know that? You don't have to believe it by any means but you should at least have the most basic understanding of what it is you don't believe.
• 

  yknot

  Right, but you must know - I mean, you absolutely must or you should just rip up your biology certificate right now - that Darwin never proposed that acquired characteristics could be inherited? His world-changing discovery was that random inborn variations could be inherited, and if they were useful would spread throughout the population. I mean, how dare you even get involved in this discussion if you don't know that? You don't have to believe it by any means but you should at least have the most basic understanding of what it is you don't believe

  Derek,

  You are going way beyond my remarks.