Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Dyakovo]

So, you agree that theology is not a science then? In which case, it has no business being taught in a science class. Science lessons are about teaching scientific facts, theories and the scientific method. It has nothing to do with teaching "different viewpoints" or religion.

No, I don't agree with that. Like I said, it is the study of the bible. And you clearly misunderstand what I'm saying, so let me make it clear: Children in science classes should not be taught that the bible is *fact*. Children in science classes should - among other topics - deal with *claims* and attempt to prove or disprove them and thus learn to apply the scientific method. As such, I believe theological claims are as fit to be tested with the scientific method as biological ones. You're right, it has nothing to do with viewpoints - science is science, although I must point out that science is NOT limited to natural science.

Yes, you could establish requirements for private schools. That would be setting a curriculum, in which case the schools are not free to teach whatever they like, so really this discussion has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

They would be free to teach whatever they like beyond the curriculum. I see no problem with demanding something in return for funding.

It's nice to know that you're one of those people who likes to resort to insults instead of arguments. I can clearly see why you think you can make a compelling argument for creationism being taught in science.

You can't even clearly see what I'm writing.

And if you seriously think abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, then you clearly don't understand either of them. In which case come back when you've actually bothered to read up on them.

I don't think abiogenesis and evolution are the same, and I never stated I did. I said I considered them essentially the same, the essence being developement.

Children in science class shouldn't be taught anything at all about the bible.

[Turan Federasyonu]

Im from a non-christian country. We have studied it in the school as one possibility ands theory. It was taught in the biology classes, in the philosophy classes we studied the theory of the creation. I find this model siutable- all theories must be taught and you decide in what to believe. I personally dont believe in the evolution but I dont see a problem for teaching it in schools

You were taught bullshit then. Creationism (whether it is christian creationism or not) is bullshit. Evolution is proven fact and the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is the best available explanation for how it works.
If your teachers weren't fucking morons you'd know this.

1. It is not a proven fact.
2.The education carriculum is not defined by the teachers, there are norms and rules which are obligatory for all schools

[Individuality-ness]

We don't teach that because the science on that is muddled. We don't know what's the reason behind it. We don't know if it's genetic or not, thus teaching it before a scientific consensus is reached is not scientific nor rational.

We don't know even 1% of the key facts about how evolution works, and the science on it is more muddled than on anything, but we still teach it. So we don't know the reason - we could still teach it as a matter of fact. We don't.

Because that knowledge is potentially harmful. Education - at least mandatory education - is not about knowledge, it's about social stability and conformity.

Actually, we have a general idea on how evolution works. We have evidence proving how it works. We've seen it in action.

And yes, knowledge is dangerous... to the oppressors. Fact is a valuable weapon. And we want a knowledgeable populace, don't we now? After all, if our populace isn't able to discern truth from fiction and scientific fact from religious allegory, it won't be able to thrive in the modern age.

And why would we need a licence for breeding?

For the same reason we need a driving license and a Class III licence. Irresponsible breeding by underqualified individuals does more damage than not requiring either of these ever could.

And who would you consider unqualified?

[Absurd Ramblings]

If we were about teaching the truth, we would teach that Blacks are on the average inferior to Asians intellectually, but superior to all other races physically, rather than that all races are equal.

Not this Nazi shit again!

You just illustrated his point about conformity perfectly.

[New England and The Maritimes]

As you probably got from the opening post, I am AGAINST having evolution taught in schools, it is a religous belief and therefore, either all Government Operated Schools must teach all religous beliefs on how the Earth and Humans came to exist. However, I propose that in Government Owned Schools, no theory on how the Earth and Humans came about, it is the most neutral point of view.

Oh. You're one of these people. I'm quite glad I saved this then:
Evolution is not a religious belief, it's a scientific fact. Creationism is, in the scientific community, a joke. Nobody takes it seriously, and it is ABSOLUTELY NOT an alternative. Since you're clearly pretty ignorant about it, here's a post I made in the last creationism vs evolution thread I saw on NS.

First, some definitions:

Most importantly, what "Theory" means in Science: "a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena."

See that? Calling it a theory doesn't mean it isn't proven. In fact, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence for it. Not a single person in any scientific field will ever tell you that evolution is false because "it's just a theory".

Pruves et al (1996) defines evolution as ‘Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution, is any genetic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generations to generation’ and evolution biology as ‘The collective branches of biology that study evolutionary processes and their products’ e.g., the diversity and history of living things'.

I often hear people chucking around the terms micro evolution and macro evolution in these kinds of threads too, so here's the definitions for those:

Micro evolution – 'The processes of evolution that operate within the population – including directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection in response to natural selection (i.e. changes in allele frequencies)'.

Macro evolution - 'The patterns of evolution at and above the species level e.g., speciation, polygenetic relationship and species systematics'.

When you say "I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution", you are contradicting yourself. They are the same thing, but acting on different units of selection.

Charles Darwin published his theory in 1859 under the title "On the Origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.".

The previous theories were entirely based around religion, just like modern "competing theories".
These religious theories, however, relied on some very flawed assumptions. I'll just use Christianity as an example, since it's likely the one most people here are familiar with.

Christianity’s 'Great Chain of Being'

• Organisms were seen as IMMUTABLE (unaltered since creation).

• Assumed a very young Earth that was formed < 10,000 years ago.

• Catastrophes (e.g. the KT extinction) explained the extinct organisms found in the fossil record.

To clarify this right now, these are all wrong. I'll explain why in more detail later.

Okay, basics of evolution:
The theory of evolution pretty much revolves around natural selection. This is defined as 'The differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by genotypes belonging to the same population'.

Darwin knew that a similar process occurred in artificial selection, such as pigeon breeding, and argued that a similar process must exist in nature.

IMPORTANT!

Natural Selection is based on 3 key, INDISPUTABLE facts.

1. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
2. Individuals vary in their characteristics.
3. Many characteristics are inherited by offspring from their parents.

So, it follows logically that some individuals will be better suited to their environment; they will survive and reproduce more successfully than individuals without those characteristics. Because of this, future generations will thus contain more genes from better-suited individuals, and as a result, characteristics will evolve over time to resemble those of the better-suited ancestors.

With me so far? Good.

Darwin's theory was based on 3 major propositions.

1. Species are not immutable; they change over time.
2. Divergent species share a common ancestor.
3. The mechanism is natural selection.

Now, a quick side track:

Neo-Darwinism is the result of combining Darwin's original theory with a thing called Central Dogma, which was first proposed by Francis Crick in 1958. Central dogma essentially boils down to DNA leads to RNA which leads to proteins. What this essentially does it prove that genes are absolutely, definitely, linked to phenotype.

Experiments carried out by Maynard-Smith in 1998 have shown that RNA replicase makes errors at a constant rate (approximately once in every 10,000 bases). This is proof that an organisms genes change over time. In other words, they evolve. Using this knowledge, we can compare the DNA of two species and, by seeing how many differences there are, calculate how far back their last common ancestor was. This is useful for determining how closely related two species actually are.

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd in 1989 demonstrated that within 8 generations, speciation can occur, and that geographical separation is not always necessary. This is INDISPUTABLE evidence that new species can and do evolve, and that organisms are not immutable, thus disproving the first assumption of Christianity's 'Great chain of being'.

Okay. Evidence time. The evidence for evolution is split into three major categories:

A. Comparison of currently living species, either (1) by phenotypic traits or (2) by molecular analysis of DNA or proteins.
B. Rapidly evolving organisms (eg bacteria, parasites etc).
C. The fossil record.

Let's start with the fossil record.

To start off, there is a problem with studying fossilisation, and that is the rarity of fossilisation.

The fossilisation of an organism requires a very special set of circumstances:
-Almost immediate burial
-Geological stability to prevent mechanical destruction
-Bacterial decay at a particular rate
-Mineralising groundwater
-Progressive sedimentation and erosion to bring the fossil near to the surface, but not exposed and eroded itself.

Therefore, we can conclude that the observable fossil record must be very sparse compared to the actual diversity of life in the history of the planet. But it's complete enough to aptly demonstrate evolution, in particular through "link species" such as Archaeopteryx, Dimetrodon and Hylonomus.

While we're on the topic of fossils, I should mention that using Radiometric dating techniques, we can measure how old fossils are to see when that organism lived. As a side effect, we can also disprove the second assumption of the 'Great chain of being' - that is, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Radiometric dating is based on measuring radioisotope decay. For geological time periods the uranium-lead and potassium-argon decays can measure back beyond 3 Billion Years Ago, while carbon-14 can measure more recent remains to about 60,000 years ago.

Getting back to fossils. I'll use two major examples to demonstrate how a species can be seen to evolve through the fossil record.

First - Reptiles evolving into Mammals.

Modern mammals are Endothermic vertebrates, defined by unique features such as:
- Being insulated by hair
- Mammary glands and lactation
- Jaw structure + heterodony (teeth)
- Ear bones

Mammal-like reptiles first appear in the fossil record in the Carboniferous period – (360 million to 300 million years ago).
This early ancestor of mammals was termed a "Synapsid".
Synapsida are easily separated from other amniotes by the opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each, accounting for their name. They are also distinguished from other amniotes by having a single opening (temporal fenestra) in their skull behind each eye.

Synapsids evolved into mammals over hundreds of millions of years, from the Carboniferous to the late Triassic. This progression can be seen by looking at the evolution from Pelycosauria (primitive), to Therapsida (more advanced), to Cynodont (Pretty much a mammal) and finally onto proto-mammals such as Sinoconodon.

The closest known relative to modern mammals is called Hadrocodium wui, which evolved about 195 million years ago. Looking at the large brain cavity and the middle ear bones that have separated from the jaw, it's quite clearly a mammal. This all pretty aptly demonstrates that mammals evolved from reptiles. You can literally see it happening in the fossils.

Second- Human evolution (Because I'm sick of ignorant people saying "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?")
Homo Sapiens are of the order primates (this is another of those indisputable facts).

The common features of primates are:
-Enlarged brain, two unique creases
-Big forward facing eyes
-Distinct middle ear structure
-Collar bone
-Separate radius and ulna
-Separate tibia and fibula
-Five flexible digits per limb
-Fully opposable thumb
-Distinctive heel bone
-Usually nails not claws on digits

A simple tree of Primate taxonomy would go like this (further down the list = more closely related):

Lemurs, Lorises and Pottos
Tarsiers
New world monkeys
Old world monkeys
Gibbons
Orangutans
Gorillas
Chimpanzees and Bonobos
Humans

The reason monkeys are still around is because we aren't descended directly from them. We're descended from a common ancestor.

Homo Sapiens, like all species, also have a Family, called Hominids.
Our ancestors can be traced back almost 4 million years to a species called Australopithicus afarensis (3.8 to 3.4 million years ago). Fossilised remains of this species were found in Ethiopia in 1974. A similar species from 4.4 million years ago, Australopithecus Ramidus is thought to be the 'missing link' between humans and apes.

The evolution of man becomes really clear when you look at the 'Transitional Hominids', starting with Homo habilis. This species existed 2.0 to 1.4 million years ago in east and southern Africa. Some typical characteristics of Homo habilis were:

-Brain 25-40% bigger than closest past relative
-Tool user
-Increased speech/complex behaviour
-Smaller jaws, molars
-Truncal erectness
-Fully bipedal
-No sexual dimorphism



Next came Homo erectus, around 1.8 to 1.6 million years ago. He displayed characteristics even more similar to us:

Taller (1.7m), modern man body proportions
Pelvic similar
Large cranial capacity (700- 1225ml)
No chin, heavy facial architecture
Teeth and Jaws smaller than habilis



Then we also have our dear friends the Neanderthals, 400,000 to 300,000 years ago. They persisted until about 27,000 years before the present, and lived alongside Homo sapiens for 10,000 years before being driven to extinction. They displayed characteristics such as:

-Large nasal openings
-Large cranial cavity
-Rounded top and back of head
-Heavily built, muscular
-Low population density
-Use of tools, blades, decorated objects



And then finally there's Homo sapiens, more commonly known as us. We evolved about 200,000 years ago.
Modern man can trace it's routes back to a recent relative (a species of Homo sapiens) 45,000 to 50,000 years ago from east Africa.



Basically, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans were not created instantly by god at the dawn of time.

Right, now, the other evidence sources.

A - Comparison of currently living species, either (1) by phenotypic traits or (2) by molecular analysis of DNA or proteins.
I think (1) is pretty well covered in the fossils, to be honest, so I'll go straight onto (2).

The major molecular techniques used to provide evidence for evolution are comparing proteins and comparing the actual DNA of different species. At the protein level, they use techniques such as Gel electrophoresis, Amino acid sequencing and Antibody reactivity, and at the DNA level they use Base sequencing, Hybridisation, Restriction enzyme maps, chromosome maps and linkage disequilibrium.

Without going into too much detail, they can compare how much of your DNA you share in common with another species, and therefore how closely related you are. For example, at the Order level, our closest ancestors are Chimpanzees, and we share 96% of our DNA with them. 96% out of 3 billion nucleotides. That's quite a similarity.

Finally, B - Rapidly evolving organisms (eg bacteria, parasites etc).
The best example of this is Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This not only visibly shows evolution occurring at the Species level, but it also proves that the mechanism is definitely natural selection.

Bacterial evolution is 'the process whereby cells develop to exploit new environmental niches and to develop a tolerance (or resistance) to selection pressures'.
Due to random gene mutations, some bacteria will always have a natural resistance to specific antibiotics. This is usually because it does not possess the ‘target’ for antibiotic action. For example, some bacteria do not have cell walls and so are unaffected by agents which act on this particular target. These bacteria always have been and always will be resistant.

So lets say there's a colony of Staphylococcus aureus sat inside you, happily dividing away. Then you go to the doctors and get some antibiotics. The antibiotics start to kill off the colony, until most of them are gone. Obviously, the resistant bacteria will cling on for the longest and be the last to go. If you stop taking the antibiotic before the last few bacteria have been killed, most likely because the symptoms are gone and you feel better, those few surviving bacteria which are resistant to that antibiotic are going to start dividing again. And bacteria divide fast. Before you know it, the colony is back to it's original size, except this time, all of the bacteria are resistant because they all got their genes from those few bacteria that survived. And thus MRSA was born.

These conditions can be easily replicated in a lab, and you can actually see evolution taking place. All those of you who deny 'Macro evolution', evolution on the species level, you are wrong. You can literally sit and watch the emergence of a new species through natural selection.

There are also other ways for bacteria to 'evolve' and develop resistance, such as transduction and conjugation, but I won't go into that.

You there! You're correct! This thread ended on the first page, and everybody who has been arguing against this post is wrong and should feel bad about themselves.

[Dyakovo]

You were taught bullshit then. Creationism (whether it is christian creationism or not) is bullshit. Evolution is proven fact and the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is the best available explanation for how it works.
If your teachers weren't fucking morons you'd know this.

1. It is not a proven fact.
2.The education carriculum is not defined by the teachers, there are norms and rules which are obligatory for all schools

1: Yes, it is.
2: Then your entire school system is filled with morons. You were taught bullshit. There is zero evidence for creationism.

[Varijnland]

Except, it's not subjective by definition because it's scientific which relies on objective empirical evidence.

But what we teach is not about what is scientific.

If we were about teaching the truth, we would teach that Blacks are on the average inferior to Asians intellectually, but superior to all other races physically, rather than that all races are equal.

Thats not the truth, thats just false stereotypes

[Milks Empire]

And who would you consider unqualified?

Based on a past post of his, dem dam niggarz, for one.

[The United Nations of the Earth]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

[Individuality-ness]

And who would you consider unqualified?

Based on a past post of his, dem dam niggarz, for one.

*rolls eyes* I have a general idea on who would be included... people such as myself, for example, because I have autism. Those in special education classes. Those with physical birth defects. Et cetera.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

Why should evolution not be taught in school?

[Turan Federasyonu]

1. It is not a proven fact.
2.The education carriculum is not defined by the teachers, there are norms and rules which are obligatory for all schools

1: Yes, it is.
2: Then your entire school system is filled with morons. You were taught bullshit. There is zero evidence for creationism.

Everybody decides in what to believe, and in what not. It is also a matter of self-respect. If yopu have some self-respect you wont believe in the theory of the evolution so fast

[New England and The Maritimes]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

Bullshit.

I could go around disputing that humans breathe air, and arguing it at every opportunity. That wouldn't mean children should not be taught that they breathe air.

[Turan Federasyonu]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

The opposite- all of them should be taught

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

If yopu have some self-respect you wont believe in the theory of the evolution so fast

Care to justify that statement?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Evolution is a scientific theory, and a rather well backed one at that. Of course it should be taught in schools.

And no, Atheism is not a religious belief. Don't be ridiculous.

[Turan Federasyonu]

If yopu have some self-respect you wont believe in the theory of the evolution so fast

Care to justify that statement?

A peson who respects himself wont accept that he originates from a monkey

[Individuality-ness]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

No, we should teach evolution in science class. We should teach creationism where it belongs: Bible Studies.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I almost want to be a teacher, just for this. I'd open my first lesson on evolution with "Some people will dispute this. They are stupid, and that is why I am the one teaching you."

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Care to justify that statement?

A peson who respects himself wont accept that he originates from a monkey

That's not evolution, evolution states that we have the same common ancestors as a monkey but that we have since evolved to be more intelligent and sophisticated than either the common ancestor or the monkey. Recognising that your species is probably the most intelligent ever to have inhabited this earth entails a degree of self-respect, I would have thought.

[Individuality-ness]

Care to justify that statement?

A peson who respects himself wont accept that he originates from a monkey

Even though we are primates by taxonomy classification? I wouldn't mind.

[Mavorpen]

We don't know even 1% of the key facts about how evolution works, and the science on it is more muddled than on anything, but we still teach it. So we don't know the reason - we could still teach it as a matter of fact. We don't.

Source for any of this obvious bullshit? We know much more than 1%. How is it more muddled than anything? We know what causes most of evolution, that being Natural Selection. That argument has been laid to rest. You can then argue over specific numbers, but we know for a fact that Natural Selection is responsible for most of Evolution. So yes, we know the reason why evolution occurs, and hell Darwin also proposed Sexual Selection as well.

Because that knowledge is potentially harmful. Education - at least mandatory education - is not about knowledge, it's about social stability and conformity.

No, because it's downright bullshit. Go ahead, where are the peer reviewed papers saying that there are genetic differences between races causing differences in intelligence? Is there also a scientific consensus that IQ tests aren't complete bullshit?

For the same reason we need a driving license and a Class III licence. Irresponsible breeding by underqualified individuals does more damage than not requiring either of these ever could.

No it doesn't. If it really was that bad, the world wouldn't be more peaceful than it ever has been.

[Dyakovo]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

Creationism and 'Intelligent' Design are the same thing.
There is no valid dispute over the validity of the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. Anyone who thinks there is, is horribly misinformed.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Care to justify that statement?

A peson who respects himself wont accept that he originates from a monkey

People like you make me want to kill everybody in the world.

[Turan Federasyonu]

neither evolution, creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public schools. this topic is entertaining, but not educational. there are plenty of other topics to study that are not so highly disputed and much more interesting and educational.

No, we should teach evolution in science class. We should teach creationism where it belongs: Bible Studies.

I dont know what are these bible classes at us there is not such a thing, however, yes, the evolution is a biological matter, the creationism is a spiritual/philosophical one and they should be in different classes