Why is evolution taught in our schools?

Dave-W said:

If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.

Click to expand...

Exactly Dave, but you have to remember when you’re dealing with TOE that it is really no more than a philosophy that has in many aspects only piggy-backed science. If you disagree with their philosophy, you are wrong. If you question the lack of scientific evidence, then you're ignorant.

YeshuaFan said:

The simple truth that the odds of there being any life ever forming from the universe on a just random basis is pretty much none!

Click to expand...

That is not evidence.
Dealing out a hand of 52 cards and having them come up in the order that they do has the probability of pretty much zero.

Subduction Zone said:

That is called an equivocation fallacy.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Take a look at this chart of the seven dispensations:



Now what if a theologian said, "Yes, we live in the dispensation of Grace today; but I don't believe the other six are part of dispensation theology."

That's what academians are doing.

Take a look at this chart:



Now what if an evolutionist said, "Yes, we believe in biological evolution; but we don't believe the other seven are part of cosmic evolution."

xianghua said:

actually the opposite is true: only creation can explain how all creatures appeared on earth and evolution cant.

Click to expand...

Ok, then EXPLAIN it.

Provide the step by step process in which the hyrax was created. Supported with evidence, of course.

YeshuaFan said:

Even though as darwin himself admitted, the fatal flaw in Evolution is the lackof any transistion fossil in the records?

Click to expand...

Citation please.

YeshuaFan said:

There is zero evidence for any species changing into another one over time!

Click to expand...

So, you are saying that ALL species, living and extinct, were on Noah's ark?

Are you sure that you want to plant your flag on that?

Dave-W said:

Of course. I am trained as a design engineer. And God is the ultimate engineer.

Click to expand...

But the subject is science, not engineering.

inquiring mind said:

Exactly Dave, but you have to remember when you’re dealing with TOE that it is really no more than a philosophy that has in many aspects only piggy-backed science. If you disagree with their philosophy, you are wrong. If you question the lack of scientific evidence, then you're ignorant.

Click to expand...

Errr no.

The subject of that conversation was science. Dave's talking about engineering.
Science and engineering, are not the same thing.

This is why we have different words for "engineers" and "scientists". Because they are not the same thing.

DogmaHunter said:

Errr no.

The subject of that conversation was science. Dave's talking about engineering.
Science and engineering, are not the same thing.

This is why we have different words for "engineers" and "scientists". Because they are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

There is no science involved in engineering?

Dave-W said:

Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.

Try repeating evolution.

Click to expand...

Is it your opinion that in science, repeatability refers to the events themselves?

Dave-W said:

Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.

We have never observed one species turn into another species.

Click to expand...

Have you observed a biological entity being created from dust?

I have not.

But that is where faith comes in.
Creation is a matter of faith, not scientific fact.

Dave-W said:

If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.

Click to expand...

Have you ever studied volcanoes?

How would a volcanologist REPEAT a volcanic eruption?

Dave-W said:

I have not.

But that is where faith comes in.
Creation is a matter of faith, not scientific fact.

Click to expand...

Believing something without evidence is foreign to me. Just as is rejecting something that has evidence in its support.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

tas8831 said:

Believing something without evidence is foreign to me. Just as is rejecting something that has evidence in its support.

Click to expand...

I can understand that, you being an atheist.

By the same token, demanding evidence or a scientific explanation for matters of faith is foreign to me.

tas8831 said:

t may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

As a design engineer, I often used the exact same design elements for similar machinery.

Dave-W said:

Absolutely.

As a design engineer, I often used the exact same design elements for similar machinery.

Click to expand...

Notice how your point about "Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species" was quickly deflected with volcanoes, something made from dust, and how faith doesn't pertain.

inquiring mind said:

Notice how your point about "Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species" was quickly deflected with volcanoes, something made from dust, and how faith doesn't pertain.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I noted all of that.

But until God opens their understanding ....

inquiring mind said:

There is no science involved in engineering?

Click to expand...

Not in that sense, no.

Dave-W said:

Absolutely.

As a design engineer, I often used the exact same design elements for similar machinery.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Ok....
As a design engineer, do you put the same errors in different designs?