Creationists to open UK school

[FurthurBB]

Are you a nazi? You sure sound like one.

You want evolution to be taught in every school (world wide) this is already the case though. Then you moan when one school wants to teach a different theory? We are talking here about 1 school out of millions.

Narrow minded to the max, you have put yourself in a box.

Remember the theory of origins is not a scientific theory. We were not there. Both creationism and evolution fall outside the scientic method they are both based on faith.

Creationism is not a theory it is a belief.

[Copasetic]

LOL! This reminds me of something my husband always tells people. If people ask what I am doing he always says I am living out my dream of being a career student. What can I say, I love to learn.

Now if I could only just hit the lottery and pay to go to school f-o-r-e-v-e-r

[aquatus1]

No it doesnt have a name. You are just making stuff up now.

It really is that inconceivable to you that you are wrong about what you think evolution is, isn't it?

You have admitted darwinism is obsolete.. nothing else needs to be said. evolution is a fairytale, all your posts just prove that.

You keep repeating your mantra over and over again...are you trying to convince others, or yourself?

If darwinism is obsolete why is it still taught in schools?

It is one of the biggest finds in the history of science. Why wouldn't it be taught in schools?

why is this new theory not taught like you say it is?

Well, 98% of the posters here seem to have been taught it. You are the only one here who is stuck back in the days of Darwin.

and dont lie, becuase 4 months ago in college i was taught evolution and darwinism was the only thing which was taught, we learnt about darwins theory of mutations and natural selection creating new species. there was no mention of this new mechanism you talk of.

What sort of crappy college taught you this? What book are you using?

i know this is reverse psychology but i do not mind you saying this. i am actually not a creationist. i am not a creationist or evolutionist i follow a different theory (most of it was already explained in my other thread).

You are a creationist. You don't know it, but you are.

[Copasetic]

Tell me padawan, why is Newtonian mechanics still taught in schools? We know they aren't the actual description of behaviors in our universe, only a very close approximation. I'll even go out on a limb here and guessed you only learned about Newtonian mechanics in your school physics class. Maybe a short 10 minute quip on Einstein.

Yes, we understand this to be your claim Forest. The problem is, you are walking and talking like a duck. Ergo, we are going to describe you as.....You guessed it, a duck.

Here we go, I am going to give you a clue before you even respond;

"Think pyramids", "Think knowledge and pyramids".

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, Chuga-chuga-chuga-choo-chooooooo!!!!!

[Copasetic]

What sort of crappy college taught you this? What book are you using?

I got $2.57 the book he lists is the first book text book GoogleBing pulls up (Which would probably be really nonsensical because it would just disprove what he claims).

Or, and there is an or here, they don't actually use books because its a 3rd world community college (do they have CC's in the 3rd world?)

[FurthurBB]

i have no idea whats going on. your denying mutations and natural selection basicially i was not expecting this i thought this is what you all believe in (this is what is taught in the classroom as darwinism).. im very confused (are you all now acting as secret creationists) on this website?

if random mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution then what does? darwinism is based on these two mechanisms and as explained they do not prove evolution, so why do people still believe in darwinian evolution? The other user said darwinism is obsolete, so we are all agreeing here darwinism is a fairyale. You have actually boosted me here, now you have admitted darwinism is a fairytale and that mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution, lets just be fully honest here, none of you really believe in evolution do you? i dont believe in any type of evolution . i know none of you do either just admit it, you admit darwin was wrong you know deep down the whole theory of evolution is a fairytale lets just forget this now. evolution fails. Support Creationism it has more evidence im sure you all secretly support it anyway, im glad i got the truth out of some of you, atleast you admit darwinism has been flawed. evolution is a fairytale. no point in debating this any further you are even agreeing with me now.

Who teaches Darwinism? I have been through many years of school, came out with 5 degrees in biological fields and have never once had anyone teach me anything called Darwinism.

[forests]

None of you are biologists and an evolutionist biologist answers the question here do species exist?

http://tiger_spot.mapache.org/Biology/species.html

The answer is yes. (this is a fundamentalist evolution website)

The trolling stops now please. Post something serious and factual, no more jokes and lies.

Edited February 6, 2011 by forests

[Copasetic]

Who teaches Darwinism? I have been through many years of school, came out with 5 degrees in biological fields and have never once had anyone teach me anything called Darwinism.

Its just more Creabation ranting. Notice, he can't provide the book he learned this in?

By the way FBB, you like that term "Creabation", trying to start an internet trend with it. It just popped in my head a minute ago, probably divinely inspired by God.

Gonna start using it over at Pharyngula and see if all those grad-students and phylogenetics-monkeys like it

[Copasetic]

None of you are biologists and an evolutionist biologist answers the question here do species exist?

http://tiger_spot.mapache.org/Biology/species.html

The answer is yes. (this is a fundamentalist evolution website)

The trolling stops now please. Post something serious and factual, no more jokes and lies.

Uhh;

This is my website. It is small and pointless, but hopes one day to grow and become big and pointless. Here you can:

Browse my quote file,

Look at my rats,

Learn some biology,

Read about my family's trip to Germany and our houseboat vacation,

Or e-mail me at tiger_spot@mapache.org.

This hardly makes it an authority on biology....

And regardless, it doesn't disagree with anything I've said. Species don't really exist.

Here read her answer again. I'd like you stop right here;

There are three main definitions of a species.

What do you suppose she means by that?

[forests]

For the most part, these definitions will all get you the same results -- a population of interbreeding organisms that all descended from a common ancestor and look more or less the same. However, there are some issues with each definition. I'll save the biological species concept until last, since that's kind of the big one and I want to go into more detail. The big problem with the morphological species concept is subjectivity. It's a bit arbitrary to say "okay, all the black-and-white ducks with tufts on their heads are Species X, and all the black-and-white ducks without tufts are Species Y," so this definition is usually used in concert with one of the other definitions. Once you've determined that, say, the ducks with tufts interbreed with each other but not with the tuftless ducks, it's more reasonable to go to a pond in the next county and assume the ducks there that look just like the two species you already know are those same species.

So, to sum up: Yes, species do exist in nature, although they can be a little fuzzy around the edges, what with mutations and things. What scientists *think* are species may not quite match up with what's really going on, so as different sorts of evidence come in, species and subspecies may be lumped together or divided in a variety of different ways.

The article refutes what you say, species do exist, how old are you anyway? What degrees do you have? I think you have some serious problems you are claiming to be a world class biologist when you have no credentials and you are argueing on here with me on some dingy forum where mostly people talk about aliens and the belief in fairies and ufos (probably stuff you yourself have no interest in).

I got a message from 2 people today saying people come here to attack anything non mainstream you obviously saw my threads and that i don't believe in evolution and now your do anything to troll and cause an arguement. I feel very sorry for you

[Copasetic]

The article refutes what you say, species do exist, how old are you anyway? What degrees do you have? I think you have some serious problems you are claiming to be a world class biologist when you have no credentials and you are argueing on here with me on some dingy forum where mostly people talk about aliens and the belief in fairies and ufos (probably stuff you yourself have no interest in).

You're close!!! It actually doesn't refute what I say. Here read this part you quoted again;

For the most part, these definitions will all get you the same results -- a population of interbreeding organisms that all descended from a common ancestor and look more or less the same. However, there are some issues with each definition. I'll save the biological species concept until last, since that's kind of the big one and I want to go into more detail. The big problem with the morphological species concept is subjectivity. It's a bit arbitrary to say "okay, all the black-and-white ducks with tufts on their heads are Species X, and all the black-and-white ducks without tufts are Species Y," so this definition is usually used in concert with one of the other definitions. Once you've determined that, say, the ducks with tufts interbreed with each other but not with the tuftless ducks, it's more reasonable to go to a pond in the next county and assume the ducks there that look just like the two species you already know are those same species.

Think about that I underlined, there. Really try and think about what it means.

I got a message from 2 people today saying people come here to attack anything non mainstream you obviously saw my threads and that i don't believe in evolution and now your do anything to troll and cause an arguement. I feel very sorry for you

Lol okay Forest. I guess if that is the world you want to live in, meh *shrugs*. For the record I've never claimed to be a world class biologist. Or even a biologist for that matter.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

Forest, would you like to do an experiment on species with me? One we can do right now over the internets.

I promise it will enrich your understanding of just what a "species" is.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Copasetic

[Odin11]

No it doesnt have a name. You are just making stuff up now.

You have admitted darwinism is obsolete.. nothing else needs to be said. evolution is a fairytale, all your posts just prove that. If darwinism is obsolete why is it still taught in schools? why is this new theory not taught like you say it is? and dont lie, becuase 4 months ago in college i was taught evolution and darwinism was the only thing which was taught, we learnt about darwins theory of mutations and natural selection creating new species. there was no mention of this new mechanism you talk of.

i know this is reverse psychology but i do not mind you saying this. i am actually not a creationist. i am not a creationist or evolutionist i follow a different theory (most of it was already explained in my other thread).

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown

[Rlyeh]

You want evolution to be taught in every school (world wide) this is already the case though. Then you moan when one school wants to teach a different theory? We are talking here about 1 school out of millions.

Creationism isn't a theory, its not even a hypothesis.

[Rlyeh]

I am not a creationist. I bet half of the users are just pretending to believe in evolution for an arguement here you probably don't even believe in it deep down. According to polls less than 40% of America and the UK believe in evolution.

And over 50% of Americans believed Saddam was supporting the Al-Qaeda, even after it was officially stated no such links were found.

http://everything2.com/title/57%2525+of+Americans+think+that+Saddam+Hussein+had+links+to+Al-Qaeda

[Queen in the North]

Are you a nazi? You sure sound like one.

You want evolution to be taught in every school (world wide) this is already the case though. Then you moan when one school wants to teach a different theory? We are talking here about 1 school out of millions.

Narrow minded to the max, you have put yourself in a box.

Remember the theory of origins is not a scientific theory. We were not there. Both creationism and evolution fall outside the scientic method they are both based on faith.

Ahaha, I don't agree with you, so I'm a Nazi. Right, ok. And I'm the one who's still technically a child

Creationism falls outside the scientific method, just as much as me saying "Actually the world was created because my cat farted!" does, evolution on the other hand does not.

There are people on here with a much more thorough education on the matter than me (Copasetic, I love you ) who can teach you about evolution, I seriously suggest you listen to them.

Edited February 6, 2011 by queen.overthink

[+Link of Hyrule]

I'm not a scientist in any way, and most of the discussion in this thread has blown completely over me head, so it's possible that this post is going to have the effect of firmly sticking my foot in my mouth. If so, please correct me.

From my limited understanding of things, Darwin never actually stated a "theory of Evolution". From what I have read he only ever suggested a "survival of the fittest" theory. As with many pioneers in their fields, some of Darwin's views have been validated, while many other of his views have been rejected, either outrightly removed or somehow adapted to fit new knowledge in. From what I understood, evolution in schools is not taught as "Darwinian" in nature, just that he was one of the key figures in the evolution of evolutionary science (if that makes sense).

As I said, I could easily be wrong since this is not in any way my area of expertise. Any further thoughts from those in the know would be most appreciated about this

[Queen in the North]

I'm not a scientist in any way, and most of the discussion in this thread has blown completely over me head, so it's possible that this post is going to have the effect of firmly sticking my foot in my mouth. If so, please correct me.

From my limited understanding of things, Darwin never actually stated a "theory of Evolution". From what I have read he only ever suggested a "survival of the fittest" theory. As with many pioneers in their fields, some of Darwin's views have been validated, while many other of his views have been rejected, either outrightly removed or somehow adapted to fit new knowledge in. From what I understood, evolution in schools is not taught as "Darwinian" in nature, just that he was one of the key figures in the evolution of evolutionary science (if that makes sense).

As I said, I could easily be wrong since this is not in any way my area of expertise. Any further thoughts from those in the know would be most appreciated about this

Yup. This is what I learnt in school (only last year, hence I am definitely not an expert!) Obviously it's very simplified compared to the discussions going on here, the previous pages of that include natural selection, but we DID learn two different theories - Darwin's theory AND Lamarck's theory. And then why Lamarck's theory was discredited. I fail to see how evolution being taught 'as fact' this way is wrong. Also, why we studied that topic we discussed Creationism, so no one can say it wasn't even given a chance!

[Copasetic]

I'm not a scientist in any way, and most of the discussion in this thread has blown completely over me head, so it's possible that this post is going to have the effect of firmly sticking my foot in my mouth. If so, please correct me.

From my limited understanding of things, Darwin never actually stated a "theory of Evolution". From what I have read he only ever suggested a "survival of the fittest" theory. As with many pioneers in their fields, some of Darwin's views have been validated, while many other of his views have been rejected, either outrightly removed or somehow adapted to fit new knowledge in. From what I understood, evolution in schools is not taught as "Darwinian" in nature, just that he was one of the key figures in the evolution of evolutionary science (if that makes sense).

As I said, I could easily be wrong since this is not in any way my area of expertise. Any further thoughts from those in the know would be most appreciated about this

Charlie's book was misunderstood in both name and contents. Firstly its title is "Origin of species". Darwin didn't actually ever explain those origin's, only suggested (as with man's evolution) that light should be shed on the topic in the future. People often assume (without reading then) that what Charlie discovered was how species originate, but that really isn't the case.

What he did was 2 fold.

1. He established the biological fact of evolution. You have to remember that in Charlie's day, they didn't DNA assays, centrifuges, protein ladders etc. At the time Darwin wrote his book, people believed that "species" were static groups and there were "idealized forms" of those species.

For example, I say; "Bear". You can't help it can you? A picture of what you think a bear should look like pops in your head. Its like when someone says "breathing"--You can't help it, now your thinking about your respiration huh? Anyway, the point is, people in Darwin's day believed that there was an archetypal "bear" or "wolf" or "lion" etc, and that species were static things.

What Darwin showed, beyond a doubt, was really the first observation of the biological fact of evolution; that "species" change over time, namely from generation to generation. Of course it wouldn't be until genetics and evolutionary biology were married that we really understood what the biological fact of evolution was (that is the observation that it is allele frequencies which change across generations).

2. Darwin put forward a hypothesis to explain his observations of change. What he put forward was Natural selection and what Darwin really explained was adaptation. The book really should have been called "On the origin of adaptations", but lacking an understanding of mechanisms of inheritance and reproduction; Darwin didn't really understand the context of his idea.

NS; is an explanation of a specific type of evolutionary change (recall; allele frequencies changing across generations). This really doesn't explain the biodiversity of life on earth, nor the origin of new "species" (better branching lineages).

So in this regard "Darwinism" is really just the explanation for how adaptation happens, in fact the greatest irony in all this is that is what most creationists accept about evolution

Aquatus (nor I) were joking when we said, Darwinism isn't the explanation for evolution (referring here to the fact of evolution). The fact of evolution (changing allele frequencies) happens (again we have a observation of nature) because variation is introduced into populations, this happens in two ways; Sex (everyone's favorite) and mutation.

So to explain the biodiversity of life on earth, it wouldn't be for another 50 or 60 years till after Darwin died that biologists were able to do so. It took some other greats like Mayr, Simpson, etc. These gentlemen came along and put forth another hypothesis called "reproductive isolation"--Which says the reason "species have origins" (or better lineages split) is because evolution is really about populations and those populations are really a "virtual pool of genes" (a gene pool) and when that virtual pool divides, a lineage is split forever.

You are certainly correct however, Darwin did get a lot of stuff wrong. So if "Darwinism" refers to all the ideas Darwin put forward then "Darwinism" was discarded by biology over a hundred years ago. Back to the problem of sex and inheritance then; Darwin and his contemporaries (aside from Mendel) couldn't understand how inheritance happened.

They knew through observation that is must happen (ie; "You have your mothers eyes"). Darwin actually came really close to understand Mendel's observations himself (written into Origins) but failed to go the last little bit. This was ultimately what led him astray and why "Darwinism" was discarded by biology. Their proposal was that areas of your body, or traits, sent "granules" onto your reproductive tract which would be passed onto your progeny. Huh? Of course for anyone who's taking a 6th grade life-science class, we know that isn't the case. We know that its a sperm and egg's union, each carrying half a genetic compliment, who's fusion is why you get "your mother's eyes".

Of course, it wasn't limited to that either. There were many other things Charlie got wrong, and never had a chance of getting right because of the understandings of his day. It was the two things he got right though that are his lasting legacy and the foundation of modern evolutionary theory (ie; the modern synthesis, that allusive theory which some people believe doesn't exist). Furthermore, his greater contribution of the two was NS (why is another good question, but one I have no time to answer at the moment).

[+Link of Hyrule]

Charlie's book was misunderstood in both name and contents. Firstly its title is "Origin of species". Darwin didn't actually ever explain those origin's, only suggested (as with man's evolution) that light should be shed on the topic in the future. People often assume (without reading then) that what Charlie discovered was how species originate, but that really isn't the case.

What he did was 2 fold.

1. He established the biological fact of evolution. You have to remember that in Charlie's day, they didn't DNA assays, centrifuges, protein ladders etc. At the time Darwin wrote his book, people believed that "species" were static groups and there were "idealized forms" of those species.

For example, I say; "Bear". You can't help it can you? A picture of what you think a bear should look like pops in your head. Its like when someone says "breathing"--You can't help it, now your thinking about your respiration huh? Anyway, the point is, people in Darwin's day believed that there was an archetypal "bear" or "wolf" or "lion" etc, and that species were static things.

This reminds me of one of the very first university lectures I attended way back when. The lecturer was talking about semiotics. The example he used was "tree", and yes - you can't help it, a picture of what you think is a tree pops in your head. But a person's view of "tree" in a place where trees are scarce will be different to a person who's primary contact with trees has been vast forests. It also leaves in question what happens when someone says the word "baum", and how this word resonates with a German-speaking person who sees this word as the German word for "tree".

Sorry, this wasn't really the intention you had in making your post, but it's the first thing that jumped into my head as I read what you wrote

What Darwin showed, beyond a doubt, was really the first observation of the biological fact of evolution; that "species" change over time, namely from generation to generation. Of course it wouldn't be until genetics and evolutionary biology were married that we really understood what the biological fact of evolution was (that is the observation that it is allele frequencies which change across generations).

2. Darwin put forward a hypothesis to explain his observations of change. What he put forward was Natural selection and what Darwin really explained was adaptation. The book really should have been called "On the origin of adaptations", but lacking an understanding of mechanisms of inheritance and reproduction; Darwin didn't really understand the context of his idea.

NS; is an explanation of a specific type of evolutionary change (recall; allele frequencies changing across generations). This really doesn't explain the biodiversity of life on earth, nor the origin of new "species" (better branching lineages).

So in this regard "Darwinism" is really just the explanation for how adaptation happens, in fact the greatest irony in all this is that is what most creationists accept about evolution

Aquatus (nor I) were joking when we said, Darwinism isn't the explanation for evolution (referring here to the fact of evolution). The fact of evolution (changing allele frequencies) happens (again we have a observation of nature) because variation is introduced into populations, this happens in two ways; Sex (everyone's favorite) and mutation.

So to explain the biodiversity of life on earth, it wouldn't be for another 50 or 60 years till after Darwin died that biologists were able to do so. It took some other greats like Mayr, Simpson, etc. These gentlemen came along and put forth another hypothesis called "reproductive isolation"--Which says the reason "species have origins" (or better lineages split) is because evolution is really about populations and those populations are really a "virtual pool of genes" (a gene pool) and when that virtual pool divides, a lineage is split forever.

You are certainly correct however, Darwin did get a lot of stuff wrong. So if "Darwinism" refers to all the ideas Darwin put forward then "Darwinism" was discarded by biology over a hundred years ago. Back to the problem of sex and inheritance then; Darwin and his contemporaries (aside from Mendel) couldn't understand how inheritance happened.

They knew through observation that is must happen (ie; "You have your mothers eyes"). Darwin actually came really close to understand Mendel's observations himself (written into Origins) but failed to go the last little bit. This was ultimately what led him astray and why "Darwinism" was discarded by biology. Their proposal was that areas of your body, or traits, sent "granules" onto your reproductive tract which would be passed onto your progeny. Huh? Of course for anyone who's taking a 6th grade life-science class, we know that isn't the case. We know that its a sperm and egg's union, each carrying half a genetic compliment, who's fusion is why you get "your mother's eyes".

Of course, it wasn't limited to that either. There were many other things Charlie got wrong, and never had a chance of getting right because of the understandings of his day. It was the two things he got right though that are his lasting legacy and the foundation of modern evolutionary theory (ie; the modern synthesis, that allusive theory which some people believe doesn't exist). Furthermore, his greater contribution of the two was NS (why is another good question, but one I have no time to answer at the moment).

Thanks for that clarification. If you don't mind answering, where does "survival of the fittest" fit into Darwin's understanding of natural selection? As said,I had always thought Darwin's references were more to do with SOTF than with NS. Thanks for any clarification you can offer

~ PA

[FurthurBB]

I'm not a scientist in any way, and most of the discussion in this thread has blown completely over me head, so it's possible that this post is going to have the effect of firmly sticking my foot in my mouth. If so, please correct me.

From my limited understanding of things, Darwin never actually stated a "theory of Evolution". From what I have read he only ever suggested a "survival of the fittest" theory. As with many pioneers in their fields, some of Darwin's views have been validated, while many other of his views have been rejected, either outrightly removed or somehow adapted to fit new knowledge in. From what I understood, evolution in schools is not taught as "Darwinian" in nature, just that he was one of the key figures in the evolution of evolutionary science (if that makes sense).

As I said, I could easily be wrong since this is not in any way my area of expertise. Any further thoughts from those in the know would be most appreciated about this

You seem to be following quite well to me.

[Copasetic]

Thanks for that clarification. If you don't mind answering, where does "survival of the fittest" fit into Darwin's understanding of natural selection? As said,I had always thought Darwin's references were more to do with SOTF than with NS. Thanks for any clarification you can offer

~ PA

Right, so I'll continue and not leave ya hanging.

Let's go back to what I was saying earlier for a moment. That most creationists actually accept "Darwinism" (what they really want to say they reject, but I gather very few have heard of is; reproductive isolation). So I said, that this thing even creationists accept was Darwin's greater of his two contributions to biology, why?

First let's look at what Darwin said about natural selection (don't worry I'll get us to the SOTF eventually ). What Darwin postulated, was an explanation for the fact of evolution (those changing species). What he noticed was really 4, almost unremarkable things;

1. There's variation in populations. All he means by this is that children, aren't replicas of their parents. Pretty straightforward.

2. Some of the variation is passed on. Again, straightforward, mankind has realized this for centuries--It's the basis breeding animals. You want to breed the "biggest bull" the "fastest horse" etc.

3. There is only a limited amount of resources in a given environment. One of those things so obvious, that no one had really thought of its implications before. In fact, there is room to doubt that Darwin really put the importance of this together himself. He likely understood the basis of resource capacity from the work of Thomas Malthus.

Malthus was part of the landed gentry of his day, and his concern was the poor, weak and wretched were using all the resources up that rightly belonged to noble and rich. A pretty disgusting sounding fellow, to be sure. But, it wasn't Malthus bigotry that Darwin was interested in. What Malthus showed mathematically was that in an "environment" a population has a carrying capacity. Which means that a population cannot go on growing exponentially, it reaches a "wall" so to speak. What Darwin gathered from this then, is that there would be competition between the individuals of that population for those same resources--What Malthus recognized as a threat to his way of life, Darwin realized applied to all of nature.

So far so good still, nothing unremarkable about Darwin's work.

The fourth piece of the puzzle came to Darwin not through thought of life, rather thought of death--Thought of extinction. Why are there all these forms, fossils and such, who didn't survive? Why had they died out? And why did they so closely resemble the extant (currently living) flora and fauna of the areas? This was the real enigma to be solved.

The answer is, what we sum up as "differential survival and reproduction" (DSR). Taken in light of the above 3 stipulations; variation, heritable variation, competition between individuals, DSR means that only certain individuals will pass on their traits to the future generations. What determines which individuals will pass the traits on? That "environment" the individuals were competing in. Because individuals are variable, some of them will inevitably be better at acquiring those resources, at surviving, at feeding their families, at raising their families and at ensuring survival into the next generation.

Follow me so far? We're coming to your question shortly.

So what Darwin saw of life is one of an individualcentric view--Forms and variants in battle against other forms and variants of the same kind. Competition between individuals. Those which were better at surviving and reproducing we describe in biology as "more fit".

But this battle of individuals, doesn't really explain how new branches get added to the family tree--Or in layspeak; how one "kind" changes to "another". What it explains is a driving principle of how within a "kind" forms (because of the selection from the environment) become "more fit" in their environment. How they prosper, how their descendants prosper and how their descendant's descendants prosper. This milieu that individuals exist in then, determines changes in future individuals which will best "fit" for their environment, by ensuring the "successful's traits" are passed on. And this is what we call an adaptation, not a goal of evolutionary change--Just a byproduct of the individual competition.

The implication of this, scared the bejebus out of some of those landed gentry. Because to them it means, those who reproduce more successfully (the poor) are those who "shall inherit the earth". In fact, people from all walks of life started to draw comparisons to "Darwinism"; business models, social models, economic models etc. The problem for them was of course, they aren't biological systems so they could only ever be an analogy to NS--They couldn't experience NS. But that didn't stop people from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Herbert Spencer; economist, political theorist, sociologist and many other "ists" tried to adapt "Darwinism" to all these other walks of life and the basis of this principle he saw in Darwin's work was "survival of the fittest".

But this is not a correct characterization of Darwinism, because Darwin didn't say that only the most fit survive, indeed they often die as well--Through chance, through unlucky circumstance or through a really, no good, terrible, rotten day. And indeed many organisms who are "less fit" will survive and reproduce also. So really what Darwin was on about was not the "most fit", rather the "fit enough". That is, the "fit enough" are the "direction shappers" of the future.

But think on all I have said and ponder how that answers the question; why species? Why branches in a family tree?

The answer is it doesn't. Darwin only ever got the view of individuals of a "species", never beyond that. He never "saw the forest for the trees" so to say, but knowing what he knew of heritability I can't really blame him. To answer those questions you need the next piece of the modern synthetic puzzle. Another theory of evolutionary change; reproductive isolation.

So why then is "Darwinism" the main thing taught in school? Because learning is a process which requires "higher knowledge" be built upon a solid foundation. "Darwinism" is the foundation of the modern synthesis and you can't understand the other theories of evolutionary change without the torch of Darwinism to light the way. Its no different than learning algebra before you endeavor to learn calculus. Foundations upon foundations, a pyramid if you will (what I suggested to the artist formally known as Forests). Learning "above" Darwinism requires a wider base and more knowledge than high schools really have time to delve into, you need foundations in genetics, math, population biology, systems biology etc.

Anyway, that is enough rambling for now, back to studying. If you are ever perusing medical schools and they wax eloquently on the fun of "integrated classes" (such as combining gross anatomy, physiology and microantomy into a 1 day, 6 hour lecture with only an hour break), run. Run fast and be afraid. I won't leave you hanging though PA, I know you are just foaming at the mouth to hear the "rest of the story" (you know the answer to that most important question) and I will return when I find some time to ramble on some more

Edited February 6, 2011 by Copasetic

[Beckys_Mom]

Kind like a PracticalProdigy or NeoSavant.......Maybe even a WalkingWithFire, lol remember that guy?

Yup just like those...well at least two of those ..I don't recall PracticalProdigy much.....

When you think of people who really want to push out creationists info to spread it... they aren't too concerned with forums like these, they mainly focus on religious forums and making on line blogs....a forum based on unexplained mysteries, to each person the sec they look at it, instantly can tell this forum is aimed more so at - UFO, Paranormal activity, Aliens ect...its not a religious forum....so like I was saying, for those religious out there who are seriously keen on spreading the word and promoting evolution, they would aim more so for pure religious forums and on line blogs..............

[Beckys_Mom]

Tell the truth...you were sent here by the Academy of Science to make creationist look bad, weren't you?

Classic one liner...I am taking this one lol

[+Sherapy]

Right, so I'll continue and not leave ya hanging.

Let's go back to what I was saying earlier for a moment. That most creationists actually accept "Darwinism" (what they really want to say they reject, but I gather very few have heard of is; reproductive isolation). So I said, that this thing even creationists accept was Darwin's greater of his two contributions to biology, why?

First let's look at what Darwin said about natural selection (don't worry I'll get us to the SOTF eventually ). What Darwin postulated, was an explanation for the fact of evolution (those changing species). What he noticed was really 4, almost unremarkable things;

1. There's variation in populations. All he means by this is that children, aren't replicas of their parents. Pretty straightforward.

2. Some of the variation is passed on. Again, straightforward, mankind has realized this for centuries--It's the basis breeding animals. You want to breed the "biggest bull" the "fastest horse" etc.

3. There is only a limited amount of resources in a given environment. One of those things so obvious, that no one had really thought of its implications before. In fact, there is room to doubt that Darwin really put the importance of this together himself. He likely understood the basis of resource capacity from the work of Thomas Malthus.

Malthus was part of the landed gentry of his day, and his concern was the poor, weak and wretched were using all the resources up that rightly belonged to noble and rich. A pretty disgusting sounding fellow, to be sure. But, it wasn't Malthus bigotry that Darwin was interested in. What Malthus showed mathematically was that in an "environment" a population has a carrying capacity. Which means that a population cannot go on growing exponentially, it reaches a "wall" so to speak. What Darwin gathered from this then, is that there would be competition between the individuals of that population for those same resources--What Malthus recognized as a threat to his way of life, Darwin realized applied to all of nature.

So far so good still, nothing unremarkable about Darwin's work.

The fourth piece of the puzzle came to Darwin not through thought of life, rather thought of death--Thought of extinction. Why are there all these forms, fossils and such, who didn't survive? Why had they died out? And why did they so closely resemble the extant (currently living) flora and fauna of the areas? This was the real enigma to be solved.

The answer is, what we sum up as "differential survival and reproduction" (DSR). Taken in light of the above 3 stipulations; variation, heritable variation, competition between individuals, DSR means that only certain individuals will pass on their traits to the future generations. What determines which individuals will pass the traits on? That "environment" the individuals were competing in. Because individuals are variable, some of them will inevitably be better at acquiring those resources, at surviving, at feeding their families, at raising their families and at ensuring survival into the next generation.

Follow me so far? We're coming to your question shortly.

So what Darwin saw of life is one of an individualcentric view--Forms and variants in battle against other forms and variants of the same kind. Competition between individuals. Those which were better at surviving and reproducing we describe in biology as "more fit".

But this battle of individuals, doesn't really explain how new branches get added to the family tree--Or in layspeak; how one "kind" changes to "another". What it explains is a driving principle of how within a "kind" forms (because of the selection from the environment) become "more fit" in their environment. How they prosper, how their descendants prosper and how their descendant's descendants prosper. This milieu that individuals exist in then, determines changes in future individuals which will best "fit" for their environment, by ensuring the "successful's traits" are passed on. And this is what we call an adaptation, not a goal of evolutionary change--Just a byproduct of the individual competition.

The implication of this, scared the bejebus out of some of those landed gentry. Because to them it means, those who reproduce more successfully (the poor) are those who "shall inherit the earth". In fact, people from all walks of life started to draw comparisons to "Darwinism"; business models, social models, economic models etc. The problem for them was of course, they aren't biological systems so they could only ever be an analogy to NS--They couldn't experience NS. But that didn't stop people from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Herbert Spencer; economist, political theorist, sociologist and many other "ists" tried to adapt "Darwinism" to all these other walks of life and the basis of this principle he saw in Darwin's work was "survival of the fittest".

But this is not a correct characterization of Darwinism, because Darwin didn't say that only the most fit survive, indeed they often die as well--Through chance, through unlucky circumstance or through a really, no good, terrible, rotten day. And indeed many organisms who are "less fit" will survive and reproduce also. So really what Darwin was on about was not the "most fit", rather the "fit enough". That is, the "fit enough" are the "direction shappers" of the future.

But think on all I have said and ponder how that answers the question; why species? Why branches in a family tree?

The answer is it doesn't. Darwin only ever got the view of individuals of a "species", never beyond that. He never "saw the forest for the trees" so to say, but knowing what he knew of heritability I can't really blame him. To answer those questions you need the next piece of the modern synthetic puzzle. Another theory of evolutionary change; reproductive isolation.

So why then is "Darwinism" the main thing taught in school? Because learning is a process which requires "higher knowledge" be built upon a solid foundation. "Darwinism" is the foundation of the modern synthesis and you can't understand the other theories of evolutionary change without the torch of Darwinism to light the way. Its no different than learning algebra before you endeavor to learn calculus. Foundations upon foundations, a pyramid if you will (what I suggested to the artist formally known as Forests). Learning "above" Darwinism requires a wider base and more knowledge than high schools really have time to delve into, you need foundations in genetics, math, population biology, systems biology etc.

Anyway, that is enough rambling for now, back to studying. If you are ever perusing medical schools and they wax eloquently on the fun of "integrated classes" (such as combining gross anatomy, physiology and microantomy into a 1 day, 6 hour lecture with only an hour break), run. Run fast and be afraid. I won't leave you hanging though PA, I know you are just foaming at the mouth to hear the "rest of the story" (you know the answer to that most important question) and I will return when I find some time to ramble on some more

This explains a lot and helps me so much, thank you for taking the time to post. You are an amazing teacher and quite frankly you should write books. I'm serious.

Read about Joy Hakim.