Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[Dimensio]

Is science capable of answer everything?

I could question the meaning of this question, but I will assume that you meant "answering" to spare everyone here a lecture.

No.

[plain talk]

overwhelming evidence for macro evolution and proof that man descended from other animals.

[MacDorcha]

Ok, so science is not capable of answering everything.

Is man capable of answering then? (Not in our lifetimes, I would assume, but eventually)

[From many - one.]

If I refused to believe any topic where I had a bad teacher I'd be pretty ignorant.

I can't teach why "man has determined creatures belong in certain categories" without evolution at the root.

Colored roses???? In high school biology?? The rest of your suggestions are equally inappropriate for varying reasons, except for an introduction to the mechanisms forthe heart pumping.

[narby]

In all this back and forth you've yet to produce a single shred of evidence for macro evolution.

Been there. Done that. It's not worth the trouble.

If you actually cared then look up some of the previous crevo threads. There have been some wonderful posts.

I think there are some good links on Patrick Henry's page as well.

If you actually care, it's there for you to see.

[From many - one.]

Do you put the micro/macro boundary at 10% fertility, 1%, .01% or what?

[narby]

Global warming is overwheming accepted by academia as is evolution.

So the MSM would have you believe. But check out surveys of climatologists on the issue. GW is hardly a solid science as evolution is.

[From many - one.]

I will re-phrase:

What evidence would convince you?

[Dimensio]

Ok, so science is not capable of answering everything.

That is correct. For example, science cannot answer the question "what is your favourite colour?".

Is man capable of answering then?

That depends on the question.

[plain talk]

nope. Nothing on macro evolution.

[Junior]

What mechanism keeps micro evolution from shading over to macro evolution?

[plain talk]

Variances within species (micro) vs evolution of small organisms into man (macro) or evolution of one animal into another (macro).

[MacDorcha]

"That depends on the question."

Good, you are working in the correct direction.

---

If I asked "How" would it be answered by Man? Likely, yes.

What about "Why" (if this trips you up, just ask "What reason?")

If you answer "There is no reason" Then you are left with "How" and "Why" to explain. ad infinitum.

If it is NOT "no reason" then you start from here.

[plain talk]

Pick up a Scientific American.

[plain talk]

Wrong question. What mechanism enables macro evolution? What evidence is there that man descended from single celled creatures? None.

[MacDorcha]

That question is the basis for several people I know (and I don't dispute it) who argue that this is evidence for ID.

The "mechanism" that prevents macro-evolution is "upper limits"

(ie, you can't cross breed 600lb gorillas to get a larger breed to the point of getting a 3000 lb gorilla.)

[Junior]

But, if the environment favors it, you do get larger and larger creatures. For instance, the first dinosaurs from about 225 million years ago were fairly small, ranging in size from chickens to horses. Less than 100 million years later you have the big sauropods topping the scales at, in some cases, 100+ tonnes. In these cases the upper limits were set by engineering, not biology.

A more recent example would be whales, who massed maybe 50 kg when they were still land dwellers, but now in many cases mass 30+ tonnes.

As for your gorilla example, given enough time and the right pressures, a 1500 kg ape might not be out of the question.

[From many - one.]

That is not even remotely an answer to the question of where you put the boundary between micro and macro.

Perhaps the question is not clear.
A species has variablity. You call that micro-evolution.

It keeps on changing over space and time and those changes pile up. This is a given...if there is variablity then some changes must pile up on others.

Are we together so far?

[Junior]

No, it was the right question. You accept micro evolution, but you don't say what keeps all those tiny little changes within a population from adding up to really big changes. Nice try in deflecting the question, though.

[Dimensio]

What about "Why"

Actually, "why" can often be explained in terms of causality; ie, the reason why babies are born is because people keep making them and people keep making them because 1) they want them and 2) the process for making them is quite fun.

If it is NOT "no reason" then you start from here.

And where do you go from there? Be specific. And explain how this relates to evolution.