Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, about as useful as all the different interpretations of evolution in a debate....

Sorry, what "different interpretations"? The only ones guilty of that sin tend to be creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Why is evolution taught in our schools?"

Because its the current state sponsored religion. Homeschool your kids. Public education is nothing more than indoctrination.

No, no, no. Because it is the only viewpoint supported by reliable, repeatable evidence. It is not a religion, and by trying to denigrate it by calling it is a religion you only insult your own religious beliefs. You show that you know your religious beliefs are unsupported by reliable evidence. Not a wise debating technique.

 

[Ancient of Days]

No, no, no. Because it is the only viewpoint supported by reliable, repeatable evidence. It is not a religion, and by trying to denigrate it by calling it is a religion you only insult your own religious beliefs. You show that you know your religious beliefs are unsupported by reliable evidence. Not a wise debating technique.

Prove its not a religion. Its illogical for you to expect anyone to believe you because "You said so." Circular reasoning is not a wise debating technique but you chose that path. Tell me, does an atheist believe there is no God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove its not a religion. Its illogical for you to expect anyone to believe you because "You said so." Circular reasoning is not a wise debating technique but you chose that path. Tell me, does an atheist believe there is no God?

It is easy to "prove" that it is not a religion, though the burden of proof is really upon you when you make such a remark that only tells us of a lack of understanding on your part. Concepts in evolution are not accepted without evidence and massive confirmation. It is evidence based which is the opposite of religious beliefs which are faith based. Faith is the accepting of a concept without evidence.

And please, don't complain about circular reasoning when that is all that you have.

I can give you peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper that list their evidence, how they gathered it, what methodology they used and their conclusions from that evidence. That is not "faith based". I never go by "because I say so". That again is a creationist sin.

 

[Ancient of Days]

It is easy to "prove" that it is not a religion, though the burden of proof is really upon you when you make such a remark that only tells us of a lack of understanding on your part. Concepts in evolution are not accepted without evidence and massive confirmation. It is evidence based which is the opposite of religious beliefs which are faith based. Faith is the accepting of a concept without evidence.

And please, don't complain about circular reasoning when that is all that you have.

I can give you peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper that list their evidence, how they gathered it, what methodology they used and their conclusions from that evidence. That is not "faith based". I never go by "because I say so". That again is a creationist sin.

"I can give you peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper that list their evidence"

Ok, lets see it.

"That again is a creationist sin"
What is sin?

How does the burden of proof fall on me when you claimed "its not a religion"?
That's called shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I can give you peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper that list their evidence"

Ok, lets see it.

"That again is a creationist sin"
What is sin?

Just one of five million:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00391.x

And you do not even understand rudimentary English? In the context used a sin is any wrong doing. You can do better than this.

 

[Ancient of Days]

So do you admit that sin exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you admit that sin exists?

Not in the biblical sense. That is an example of what you were complaining about earlier. It is "because I said so" sin.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not in the biblical sense. That is an example of what you were complaining about earlier. It is "because I said so" sin.

So it is ok to kill people, because it is only against the law because people said so????

 

[Ancient of Days]

Studies of spatial variation in the environment have primarily focused on how genetic variation can be maintained. Many one‐locus genetic models have addressed this issue, but, for several reasons, these models are not directly applicable to quantitative (polygenic) traits. One reason is that for continuously varying characters, the evolution of the mean phenotype expressed in different environments (the norm of reaction) is also of interest. Our quantitative genetic models describe the evolution of phenotypic response to the environment, also known as phenotypic plasticity (Gause, 1947), and illustrate how the norm of reaction (Schmalhausen, 1949) can be shaped by selection. These models utilize the statistical relationship which exists between genotype‐environment interaction and genetic correlation to describe evolution of the mean phenotype under soft and hard selection in coarse‐grained environments. Just as genetic correlations among characters within a single environment can constrain the response to simultaneous selection, so can a genetic correlation between states of a character which are expressed in two environments. Unless the genetic correlation across environments is ± 1, polygenic variation is exhausted, or there is a cost to plasticity, panmictic populations under a bivariate fitness function will eventually attain the optimum mean phenotype for a given character in each environment. However, very high positive or negative correlations can substantially slow the rate of evolution and may produce temporary maladaptation in one environment before the optimum joint phenotype is finally attained.

Evolutionary trajectories under hard and soft selection can differ: in hard selection, the environments with the highest initial mean fitness contribute most individuals to the mating pool. In both hard and soft selection, evolution toward the optimum in a rare environment is much slower than it is in a common one.

A subdivided population model reveals that migration restriction can facilitate local adaptation. However, unless there is no migration or one of the special cases discussed for panmictic populations holds, no geographical variation in the norm of reaction will be maintained at equilibrium. Implications of these results for the interpretation of spatial patterns of phenotypic variation in natural populations are discussed.

I fail to see anything in this article that proves evolution to be factual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is ok to kill people, because it is only against the law because people said so????

Oh my, another person that fails at logical thinking.

Tell me, would you like it if someone killed you or people dear to you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh my, another person that fails at logical thinking.

Tell me, would you like it if someone killed you or people dear to you?

What does me liking it or not have to do with animals????

Animals don't complain when one kills another of its own kind.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does me liking it or not have to do with animals????

Animals don't complain when one kills another of its own kind.....

You can't understand basic morality? Oh my.

 

[Ancient of Days]

You can't understand basic morality? Oh my.

Where does morality and logic come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can't understand basic morality? Oh my.

Sure "I" can, but then I am not descended from animals and therefore an animal......

Basic morality, like locking up our cousins in cages and experimenting on them????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where does morality and logic come from?

He's just trying to dodge the implication of my post by pretending he couldn't understand what was meant....

It's his standard avoidance tactic, suddenly unable to comprehend anything......

 

[Ancient of Days]

He's just trying to dodge the implication of my post by pretending he couldn't understand what was meant....

It's his standard avoidance tactic, suddenly unable to comprehend anything......

Agreed. They stand on and use biblical principals such as morality and logic but then deny it in the next breath.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Agreed. They stand on and use biblical principals such as morality and logic but then deny it in the next breath.

And fail to "see" their own contradictions......

Fail to understand it was knowing God was a God of Law and order that started people down the path of science, because they believed a God of order would create a universe of order that could be explained by laws......

in reality evolutionists should never expect to find order in their random worldview....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I posted in another post, the design is so obvious they have to do everything they can to explain it away:

There is evidence of design everywhere. So much so that in order to escape the logical conclusion Dawkin's had to propose Aliens designed humans..... but of course the aliens were not designed..... sigh.....

"University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote: “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added). He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.)."

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

But don't believe your lying eyes people.... Instead believe the lies that the design you see is just an illusion.....

"The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!"

it would appear designed, exactly as it appears to be......

The Bible speaks of people who see evidence that God created but still reject the designer/creator: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:20-22)

Michel Behe reminds us: “…it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.” {Design for Living By Michael J. Behe Published: February 7, 2005, New York Times Op Ed.}

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure "I" can, but then I am not descended from animals and therefore an animal......

Basic morality, like locking up our cousins in cages and experimenting on them????

Your question tells us that you do not understand basic morality.

And you are both descended from animals and you are an animal. Your false beliefs do not make your statement miraculously true.

The morality of experimenting on other animals is debatable and another subject.