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

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

[bobdsmith]

Is the creation of a new species macro or microevolution?

Is this where you place the barrier, or do you place it higher than the species level? Exactly how much change do you think life is limited to.

Can a species of Ant evolve into another species of Ant?
Can a Wolf evolve into a Dog?
Can a Horse evolve into a Zebra?

Where do you think the trend of genetic diversity is blocked?

[plain talk]

Apparently it stops because there are creatures unchanged for millions of years. Why is that? You have more than faith in time. You have faith that small changes translate into large ones significant enough to change one animal into another. That's a huge difference from birds have different colored wings.

Narby - I've been reasonable in asking for real meat and potatoes and apparently you don't have it. I have an open mind. But I have no time for silly debate tactics. If you have any links to offer let's see them.

[Dimensio]

There's never absolute certainty in science. There's just strong reassurance of validity when predictions continue to bear out through testing and observation, or realisation of inaccuracy when observations contradict a theory.

[MacDorcha]

Ok, how about this:

Do you believe in evolution?

Have you witnessed evolution?

That "yes, no" response is known as "faith"

It is belief in something that cannot be validated by math or science alone. That is the religion of science.

[plain talk]

Rather than assuming that macro evolution occurs where is there evidence of one animal evolving into another?

[MacDorcha]

"There's never absolute certainty in science."

How do we know that?

[narby]

Apparently it stops because there are creatures unchanged for millions of years.

And there are creatures that are changed. What's your point?

I've been reasonable in asking for real meat and potatoes and apparently you don't have it. I have an open mind.

But what you apparently don't have is the ability to follow Patrick Henry's list-o-links that I told you about long ago.

[Dimensio]

Then why do WE have it?

It makes perfect sense in light of evolution. Of course, if you reject evolution, then you have to come up with another explanation. That, however, isn't my problem, because I don't reject evolution.

Properties that are not observable by conventional methods. (Hint, it's HIGHER than us. Metaphysically speaking)

If we can't observe them, then they're fundamentally meaningless as explanations. We'd be better off saying "I don't know", because at least that's more honest than making up external constructs out of perceived -- but not necessarily firmly established -- necessity.

I assume these properties are not observable (conventionally) because we have not yet observed them. What would you posit?

I would suggest that if something is not yet observed, it is not known. It might exist, but we cannot, with any degree of certainty, claim to "know" that it exists. Our best bet is to start with what we do know and explain phenomeona in relation to that. If we come across phenomena currently unexplainable with given knowledge, then the correct answer to the resulting questions is "we don't know", and then we start investigating to determine where, exactly, the deficiency in our knowledge lies rather than simply making up properties out of nowhere simply because we think that they're needed, completely rejecting the possibility that the real answer lies in missing some other fundamental property.

[From many - one.]

narby has, Dimensio has and I have.

Ball is in your court.

[bobdsmith]

"Rather than assuming that macro evolution occurs where is there evidence of one animal evolving into another?"

Off the top of my head:

-Wolves evolving into Dogs
-3000 species of Mosquito on Hawaii, many of which are indiginous. The island only formed recently, so odds are that they decended from an original immigrant species.

-various plant species that have actually been observed to have appeared.

[plain talk]

you never provided any links

[bobdsmith]

Oops I meant plants, not mosquitos (?!)

[narby]

you never provided any links

Don't know how to make a link. Too lazy to learn. And I guess you're too lazy to punch on Patrick Henry's home page.

[plain talk]

-Wolves evolving into Dogs -3000 species of Mosquito on Hawaii, many of which are indiginous. The island only formed recently, so odds are that they decended from an original immigrant species. -various plant species that have actually been observed to have appeared.

Thanks. That's more meat than anyone else has offered so far. Wolves into dogs. hmmm I'll study that. Different species of mosquitos? Not sure what that proves. thats micro. Plant species? sounds like more micro. OK so we have dogs from wolves supposedly. I'll check that out. Thanks - I guess. LOL

[From many - one.]

You are still ignoring ring species.

[plain talk]

Sorry. I don't know patrick henry or know his home page.

You don't know how to make a link and you sit here and preach to me about macro evolution? What a joke.

[narby]

-3000 species of Mosquito on Hawaii, many of which are indiginous.

Really!?!

I thought that there were no Mosquitos on Hawaii when Cook discovered the islands?

If I'm right on that, then the indiginous Mosquitos have evolved over just the last 300 years or so.

[plain talk]

OK. Tell me about ring species. Maybe that will convince me.

[narby]

You don't know how to make a link and you sit here and preach to me about macro evolution? What a joke.

Just too lazy. Not too dumb.

[JohnnyM]

you guys haven't "posted" links to Henry's stuff since plain talk has been posting on this thread. Would one of you be kind enough to do it.

JM