• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which should be taught in school science classes?

Which should be taught in school science classes?

  • Total voters
    84
friday said:
When one of those seagulls becomes a chicken, give me a call. One type of seagulls mating with another doesn't convince me that evolution is true.
Click to expand...
You said "Give me an example of a complete chain between two different species." and I did.
 
friday said:
Maggie, what happened on earth anywhere from tens of thousands of years to billions of years ago is purely speculative. However, I would argue that the fossil record represents a more pure form of survival of the fittest than the round peg fit in a square hole version of survival of the fittest incorporated into Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest defeats generational evolution. Evolution would necessarily have to be a very fast process in order for intermediate species to survive.
Click to expand...
Could you rephrase your post please? This just reads like gibberish to me.
 
@ Friday -- I've been trying to think of an example of evolution that we've seen -- and that would have to be bacteria. Because we've used so many antibiotics, many strains of bacteria have evolved into resistant strains. And that's just in our lifetime, which is a split second on the evolutionary timeline.
 
friday said:
You could probably get someone to read it to you.
Click to expand...

Charming. How about you expand on one of your statements e.g. "Survival of the fittest defeats generational evolution." Shouldn't that be "Survival of the fittest drives generational evolution."
 
MaggieD said:
@ Friday -- I've been trying to think of an example of evolution that we've seen -- and that would have to be bacteria. Because we've used so many antibiotics, many strains of bacteria have evolved into resistant strains. And that's just in our lifetime, which is a split second on the evolutionary timeline.
Click to expand...

Maggie, but it's still bacteria. I'm not arguing against micro-evolution. I believe in micro-evolution.
 
friday said:
Maggie, but it's still bacteria. I'm not arguing against micro-evolution. I believe in micro-evolution.
Click to expand...

lots of micro evolutions make macro evolution.

Just like lots of micro aging turns a baby into an old man.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
Charming. How about you expand on one of your statements e.g. "Survival of the fittest defeats generational evolution." Shouldn't that be "Survival of the fittest drives generational evolution."
Click to expand...

Ok, explain how survival of the fittest would drive generational evolution. How does a species that is in the evolutionary process survive? Or is evolution a superfast process where one species up and gives birth to another? Which one is it?
 
marduc said:
lots of micro evolutions make macro evolution.

Just like lots of micro aging turns a baby into an old man.
Click to expand...

Explain to me what the baby (or it's ancestor) looked like before its heart (or intestines, or lymphnodes, or stomach, or sex organs, or kidneys, or brains) microevolved.
 
Before we go any further will you:
1 Admit your moon calculation was incorrect.
2 Admit that Darwin said the fossil record should be very incomplete.
3 Admit that two gulls can be different species.
 
friday said:
Explain to me what the baby (or it's ancestor) looked like before its heart (or intestines, or lymphnodes, or stomach, or sex organs, or kidneys, or brains) microevolved.
Click to expand...

When you are done explaining that, tell me how both male and female human sex organs micro evolved through tiny variations at the exact same time. Then explain how that same process happened with every single species throughout evolutionary history. If you want to know why that might be a problem, go have sex with a monkey and see if you can produce offspring. Hence why survival of the fittest defeats, not drives, generational evolution.
 
friday said:
Explain to me what the baby (or it's ancestor) looked like before its heart (or intestines, or lymphnodes, or stomach, or sex organs, or kidneys, or brains) microevolved.
Click to expand...

I already told you you could play your goalpost moving games with someone else (and you have) I am going to defer here as well and not let you play the red herring game to set me up for more goalpost moving (ohh and the straw man game, you threw one of those my way a few pages ago).
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
Before we go any further will you:
1 Admit your moon calculation was incorrect.
2 Admit that Darwin said the fossil record should be very incomplete.
3 Admit that two gulls can be different species.
Click to expand...

Yes, the moon calculation was incorrect. I realized that in the shower this morning. I was doing most of those calculations by hand last night and trying to respond to the handful of people I was debating on my own. Thank you for correcting it for me.

Two gulls can have different latin names given to them by evolutionary scientists, you are correct. They are still gulls.
 
marduc said:
I already told you you could play your goalpost moving games with someone else (and you have) I am going to defer here as well and not let you play the red herring game to set me up for more goalpost moving (ohh and the straw man game, you threw one of those my way a few pages ago).
Click to expand...

You are the one who brought up the common fallacy that enough microevolution will result in a bacteria turning into a human.
 
friday said:
You are the one who brought up the common fallacy that enough microevolution will result in a bacteria turning into a human.
Click to expand...

look a new strawman
 
friday said:
Yes, the moon calculation was incorrect. I realized that in the shower this morning. I was doing most of those calculations by hand last night and trying to respond to the handful of people I was debating on my own. Thank you for correcting it for me.

Two gulls can have different latin names given to them by evolutionary scientists, you are correct. They are still gulls.
Click to expand...
Scientists determine whether or not two gulls are separate species, they don't just willy nilly decide that "this is a new species because I say so". You still have #2 left.
 
friday said:
You could probably get someone to read it to you.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
You can probably knock crap like this off or be removed from this thread. Talk about the topic, don't make insulting comments to others
 
save your breath guys, no use in arguing with ignorance.
 
roguenuke said:
Now I actually believe somewhat in intelligent design, but also recognize that it is a belief without evidence to support it. Of course, my own beliefs on ID probably differ greatly on how most believe in ID. In fact, I probably would describe my beliefs as a hybrid between ID and Natural Selection.

I think that we should only teach evidence-supported science to students and allow them to decide for themselves if they accept that evidence, completely reject it, or develop their own ideas and theories based on that evidence and/or their own beliefs.
Click to expand...

That's about where I am on it, although I think the discussions about the birth of the universe and origin of man tend to be more philosophical in nature rather than scientific.
 
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
You can probably knock crap like this off or be removed from this thread. Talk about the topic, don't make insulting comments to others
Click to expand...

Amazing, and no response to Anarcho's "This just reads like gibberish to me." attack on my post?
 
friday said:
Did you, or did you not say that a lot of microevolutions become macroevolution?
Click to expand...

Did I say humans evolved from bacteria? there is your straw man, This is an argument I did not make, nor would have since we did not evolve from bacteria which is a prokaryotic when we are eukaryotic.

when the changes in 2 lines of decent reach the point where they can no longer produce viable fertile offspring you have speciation and macroevolution. This usually requires numerous cumulative changes, or instances of micro evolution - which is change below the species level.

Go revisit and read the ring species article Anarcho provided you, these are prime examples of when micro evolution adds up to become macro. Populations on either end can no longer interbreed, this is macroevolution as a sum total of cumulative changes below the species level (microevolution).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom