I'm a little nervous now.

[Calvinball]

I was originally going to put this in the news thread but the story was written back in Nov.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225776.100-homeschooling-special-preach-your-children-well.html

I hope that worked. It's a long story so I'll apologize now for making people read alot.

My biggest complaint/worry is the total lack of standardization/certification.

[Grahamr]

I'm homeschooled...my program is supervised by the school district...my mom is a catholic, but she doesn't really bring her faith into my education.

[Pelor]

A lot of statistics have been gathered on homeschooling. They all say that children who are taught at home have a higher average scores than those in public schools. It probably has something to do with the parents being directly involved in the curriculum.

Students are also required to pass all the normal state exams (at least, here). NewScientist is building the mountain larger than it actually is. It's really a non-issue.

Edit: looking over the article again -- it doesn't provide any evidence. It does, however, say that one out of two people reject evolution, but there aren't that many home-schoolers. It's obvious that they're scapegoating.

[Thefremen]

A lot of statistics have been gathered on homeschooling. They all say that children who are taught at home have a higher average scores than those in public schools. It probably has something to do with the parents being directly involved in the curriculum.

Students are also required to pass all the normal state exams (at least, here). NewScientist is building the mountain larger than it actually is. It's really a non-issue.

Edit: looking over the article again -- it doesn't provide any evidence. It does, however, say that one out of two people reject evolution, but there aren't that many home-schoolers. It's obvious that they're scapegoating.

Yes, but to borrow a phrase from the Bush Administration: "Not all evolution deniers are homeschooled, but all homeschooled are evolution deniers...no wait a minute, what I meant to say was some homeschooled folks deny evolution. And the Holocaust. Waitaminute, why did I mention that? Look, never mind that...."

[Hannah]

I think it's ok when responsible parents homeschool their kids, but there are far too many examples of complete crazies just using it as a way to indoctrinate their children. The Prussian Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29) girls immediately come to mind.

If I ever have kids, I'll send them to a regular public school -- they'll be exposed to a wider variety of ideas that way, and they'll get to socialize a lot more freely than they would if they were fully under my control. School isn't just about passing exams, after all.

[steelcobra]

I think the biggest concern of the article is that these indoctrinated kids are disproportionately getting jobs in the administrative and legislative branches of government.

[bayushisan]

Wow. Just wow that's all I can say about this alarmist piece of tripe. One of the reasons people home school their kids is because the public school system blows. The educational standards are consistently lowered in favor of PC bullcrap centered on making the kids "feel good about themselve" or some whacked out indoctrination into a belief system or mindset that the parents wouldn't agree with.

As to the writer's concerns about science, well there are a number of Phd biologists, astrophysicists, archaeologists and the like who are also Creation believing Christians. Oh wait they don't count though.

Parents have the right to educate their children in the matter they feel is best suited to them. As for me, if I ever have kids they'll go into private school or be home schooled. Having been through the public school system I'd rather give them some better standards to live by.

[KN]

As to the writer's concerns about science, well there are a number of Phd biologists, astrophysicists, archaeologists and the like who are also Creation believing Christians. Oh wait they don't count though.


Do the nazi scientists that worked with the US after the war count as "good" nazis? Or does this logic only apply to creationists?

EDIT: in after godwin.

[Hannah]

Do the nazi scientists that worked with the US after the war count as "good" nazis? Or does this logic only apply to creationists?

EDIT: in after godwin.

Well, the Nazis weren't innately evil anyway. :p Sure, some of 'em were, but they were still human just like everyone else. Hell, even Oskar Schindler of Schindler's List fame was an official member of the Nazi party.

Perhaps a better comparison would be the 1% of neo-Nazis who are professors, business leaders, etc. vs. the 99% of neo-Nazis who are just inbred white trash. Personally, I'd rather have no neo-Nazis running around, no matter what skills/university degrees they might have ;)

[weatherlight]

I apologies for the length of this post, I was also in a bit of a rush when typing so Im sorry for any mistakes.

I found this article to bring up a number of rather disturbing arguments that are based on the bias that has been spread by public educators who are worried about the "standard" that they are trying to install on people.

The majority of home schoolers do not do it for religious reasons. The problem is that if you claim to be doing it for religios reasons, the state can no longer tell you what to do. Having been home schooled k-12, I can tell you that the amount of paperwork required for homeschooling for reasons other the religion are insane.

You have to submit lesson plans and school schedules for every grade of students. They then require you to subscribe your child to visit the local public school to take all national, state and county standardized tests, in addition some school districts require additional testing for home schoolers that no other person would have to take. To make sure your not being "brain washed" and you have "adequate social skills". Its insane. My family finally claimed religious reasons because the paperwork was just to much.

Next the education of the parents, this article infers that the parents are uneducated. When the fact is that teachers of unaccredited privet schools are not required to have any kind of teaching degree, as well as the large number of exceptions that are made by local school districts for unlicensed teachers to teach early grades. In addition, the state does not recognize the High school graduation of parents who went to one of the before mentioned privet schools. My parents are both very well educated, my father hold a bachelors in Electrical engineering, and a Masters in business technology, my mother holds a Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering along with a Wisconsin P.E. license and was one paper away from her doctorate. You know that thing that allows your computer to talk with other ones. You know that thing that Gore claimed he invented. Ya that what my parents worked on. My mother was also a college professor and taught at a privet High School, however she does not hold a teaching degree and would not have been allowed to home school for High school level courses without claiming religious reasons.

Next they claim that in some way home school students do not learn proper science or physics again pointing to religion and creationism. The thing is a large number of the home schoolers excel in the math and science but don't believe in the big bang and evolution. I hate to break it to you all, they are theories. Theories have been proved wrong in the past, life moves on.

The thing I see is people are afraid of home schoolers because they appear to be more qualified then your average student, and many excel years beyond their public school peers in specific areas. This makes especially teachers worried because these "under qualified" parents are doing a better job then them.

[Grahamr]

Wow. Just wow that's all I can say about this alarmist piece of tripe. One of the reasons people home school their kids is because the public school system blows. The educational standards are consistently lowered in favor of PC bullcrap centered on making the kids "feel good about themselve" or some whacked out indoctrination into a belief system or mindset that the parents wouldn't agree with.

As to the writer's concerns about science, well there are a number of Phd biologists, astrophysicists, archaeologists and the like who are also Creation believing Christians. Oh wait they don't count though.

Parents have the right to educate their children in the matter they feel is best suited to them. As for me, if I ever have kids they'll go into private school or be home schooled. Having been through the public school system I'd rather give them some better standards to live by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

This subject is not open to debate...it’s like trying to prove that the moon doesn’t exist.


I think it's ok when responsible parents homeschool their kids, but there are far too many examples of complete crazies just using it as a way to indoctrinate their children. The Prussian Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29) girls immediately come to mind.

If I ever have kids, I'll send them to a regular public school -- they'll be exposed to a wider variety of ideas that way, and they'll get to socialize a lot more freely than they would if they were fully under my control. School isn't just about passing exams, after all.

Ah, yes, the fabled Nazi Loli White Supremist Duo.

But Hannah, while i'm homeschooled, i do get lots of exposure to other people...I really love talking with people about politics and such. We even go to the park on fridays to meet with other kids in our group.

Well, the Nazis weren't innately evil anyway. :p Sure, some of 'em were, but they were still human just like everyone else. Hell, even Oskar Schindler of Schindler's List fame was an official member of the Nazi party.

Perhaps a better comparison would be the 1% of neo-Nazis who are professors, business leaders, etc. vs. the 99% of neo-Nazis who are just inbred white trash. Personally, I'd rather have no neo-Nazis running around, no matter what skills/university degrees they might have ;)

And thank god, if there were Panzer divisions rolling around nowadays, we would be ****ed.

[bayushisan]

I apologies for the length of this post, I was also in a bit of a rush when typing so Im sorry for any mistakes.

I found this article to bring up a number of rather disturbing arguments that are based on the bias that has been spread by public educators who are worried about the "standard" that they are trying to install on people.

The majority of home schoolers do not do it for religious reasons. The problem is that if you claim to be doing it for religios reasons, the state can no longer tell you what to do. Having been home schooled k-12, I can tell you that the amount of paperwork required for homeschooling for reasons other the religion are insane.

You have to submit lesson plans and school schedules for every grade of students. They then require you to subscribe your child to visit the local public school to take all national, state and county standardized tests, in addition some school districts require additional testing for home schoolers that no other person would have to take. To make sure your not being "brain washed" and you have "adequate social skills". Its insane. My family finally claimed religious reasons because the paperwork was just to much.

Next the education of the parents, this article infers that the parents are uneducated. When the fact is that teachers of unaccredited privet schools are not required to have any kind of teaching degree, as well as the large number of exceptions that are made by local school districts for unlicensed teachers to teach early grades. In addition, the state does not recognize the High school graduation of parents who went to one of the before mentioned privet schools. My parents are both very well educated, my father hold a bachelors in Electrical engineering, and a Masters in business technology, my mother holds a Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering along with a Wisconsin P.E. license and was one paper away from her doctorate. You know that thing that allows your computer to talk with other ones. You know that thing that Gore claimed he invented. Ya that what my parents worked on. My mother was also a college professor and taught at a privet High School, however she does not hold a teaching degree and would not have been allowed to home school for High school level courses without claiming religious reasons.

Next they claim that in some way home school students do not learn proper science or physics again pointing to religion and creationism. The thing is a large number of the home schoolers excel in the math and science but don't believe in the big bang and evolution. I hate to break it to you all, they are theories. Theories have been proved wrong in the past, life moves on.

The thing I see is people are afraid of home schoolers because they appear to be more qualified then your average student, and many excel years beyond their public school peers in specific areas. This makes especially teachers worried because these "under qualified" parents are doing a better job then them.

Well said. I'd have to agree on most of what you said, I know I did better on math when I was in private school than when I went to public school. Seemed like the teachers were more willing to help at the private school I went to.

[bayushisan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

This subject is not open to debate...it’s like trying to prove that the moon doesn’t exist.

Actually it is open to debate, that's why its a theory. However that is best left for another thread, not that anyone would listen anyway.

[Hannah]

But Hannah, while i'm homeschooled, i do get lots of exposure to other people...I really love talking with people about politics and such. We even go to the park on fridays to meet with other kids in our group.

Well, you evidently have responsible parents. Homeschooling would be great if all parents were like that, but the unfortunate reality is that... well... an awful lot of parents, whether they homeschool their kids or not, really aren't cut out for the job. When an irresponsible parent is given such an enormous amount of control over a child's life, very bad things can happen.

[Hannah]

Actually it is open to debate, that's why its a theory. However that is best left for another thread, not that anyone would listen anyway.

No, it's not open to debate... the theory merely covers how it happens. And yes, God may or may not be involved in one or more theories. Sorta like gravity. We know things fall (as much as we can know anything), but what's up for debate is why and how. Maybe space-time is curved as Hawking and others suggest, or maybe Yaweh/Allah/etc. just pushes or pulls on every item that He wants to fall at 9.8m/s^2.

See, this is part of the problem. Kids these days, homeschooled or not, simply aren't learning the basics of science. I'm not even talking about evolution here, I'm talking about the definition of the word "theory" and the workings of the scientific method. It's not complicated or anything... but somehow, a significant number of people aren't learning it, and I find that kinda sad.

[weatherlight]

Well said. I'd have to agree on most of what you said, I know I did better on math when I was in private school than when I went to public school. Seemed like the teachers were more willing to help at the private school I went to.
No, its just that public school math, especially pre-middle school math is ****ed up. I am studying Mechanical Engineering and have always excelled at math, and I could not help one of the students I was tutoring with their assignments. I took a copy to my Mathematics professor and he couldn't figure out the problem either, because it required you to use a method that was inaccurate for any math course past the 5th grade.

I wouldn't say that privet school teachers are more helpful then public school teachers, however public school teachers seem to be more interested in the norm then allowing students to excel.

[Hannah]

No, its just that public school math, especially pre-middle school math is ****ed up. I am studying Mechanical Engineering and have always excelled at math, and I could not help one of the students I was tutoring with their assignments. I took a copy to my Mathematics professor and he couldn't figure out the problem either, because it required you to use a method that was inaccurate for any math course past the 5th grade.

I wouldn't say that privet school teachers are more helpful then public school teachers, however public school teachers seem to be more interested in the norm then allowing students to excel.

Maybe you just had bad luck... I went to public school, and I had some truly excellent teachers. Of course, it probably helped that I was in the gifted program, but even so... I definitely didn't feel that I was at any sort of disadvantage.

[weatherlight]

No, it's not open to debate... the theory merely covers how it happens. And yes, God may or may not be involved in one or more theories. Sorta like gravity. We know things fall (as much as we can know anything), but what's up for debate is why and how. Maybe space-time is curved as Hawking and others suggest, or maybe Yaweh/Allah/etc. just pushes or pulls on every item that He wants to fall at 9.8m/s^2.

See, this is part of the problem. Kids these days, homeschooled or not, simply aren't learning the basics of science. I'm not even talking about evolution here, I'm talking about the definition of the word "theory" and the workings of the scientific method. It's not complicated or anything... but somehow, a significant number of people aren't learning it, and I find that kinda sad.
I beg to differ both theories and laws can be proved wrong and have been in the past, so they are open for debate. However they are the common assumptions that can be assumed to be correct.

I would like you to share with me the proof of your claim, because I would bet money that all of the home schoolers that I hung out with could tell you the difference, without giving it a second thought.

[bayushisan]

No, it's not open to debate... the theory merely covers how it happens. And yes, God may or may not be involved in one or more theories. Sorta like gravity. We know things fall (as much as we can know anything), but what's up for debate is why and how. Maybe space-time is curved as Hawking and others suggest, or maybe Yaweh/Allah/etc. just pushes or pulls on every item that He wants to fall at 9.8m/s^2.

See, this is part of the problem. Kids these days, homeschooled or not, simply aren't learning the basics of science. I'm not even talking about evolution here, I'm talking about the definition of the word "theory" and the workings of the scientific method. It's not complicated or anything... but somehow, a significant number of people aren't learning it, and I find that kinda sad.

There is a difference between a law, i.e. the law of gravity, and a theory. The physical laws that governs the interplay of energies and the physical realm are observable events. If I throw a rock into the air I know its going to fall to the ground, because it happens every time.

Other things like the theory of evolution are, by their very nature, not observable or testable. There are any number of holes in evolutionary theory, many of which I've brought up myself. The problem is that, while most Creationists are perfectly willing to debate the subject, many on the opposing side are not. If they were willing to debate then you wouldn't hear nonsensical statements like "your evidence doesn't count".

The fact remains that kids who are homeschooled are better educated and more prepared in terms of math and science, like weatherlight said. They just happen to have a different set of beliefs than you. Going back to what I said earlier, parents have the right to determine what they believe the best course of action is concerning their children's education.

[Hannah]

I beg to differ both theories and laws can be proved wrong and have been in the past, so they are open for debate. However they are the common assumptions that can be assumed to be correct.


I would like you to share with me the proof of your claim, because I would bet money that all of the home schoolers that I hung out with could tell you the difference, without giving it a second thought.

Erm... I was using those definitions. Yes, a law can technically be disproved or changed -- gravity could start working differently at any time, after all -- but it's unlikely. Evolution is not a law, but there's enough evidence that... well... unless some deity is actively meddling with both the fossil record AND data collected by scientists in the field, we can be pretty damn sure that species have changed over time. The exact mechanisms involved are still up for debate, but the change itself has been documented so many times that Yaweh's potential interference is pretty much the only other viable explanation.... and if he has been faking fossil records, that just means he's a total dick :p

[weatherlight]

Maybe you just had bad luck... I went to public school, and I had some truly excellent teachers. Of course, it probably helped that I was in the gifted program, but even so... I definitely didn't feel that I was at any sort of disadvantage.
Ya I had early childhood dyslexia, they also wanted to put me in the "gifted" program.

I'm not arguing that you cannot have excellent teachers at a public school, just that the basis of a public education is preservation of the norm and I have found a number of occasions where teachers blow off a student they felt was "good enough".

[Hannah]

There is a difference between a law, i.e. the law of gravity, and a theory. The physical laws that governs the interplay of energies and the physical realm are observable events. If I throw a rock into the air I know its going to fall to the ground, because it happens every time.

Other things like the theory of evolution are, by their very nature, not observable or testable. There are any number of holes in evolutionary theory, many of which I've brought up myself. The problem is that, while most Creationists are perfectly willing to debate the subject, many on the opposing side are not. If they were willing to debate then you wouldn't hear nonsensical statements like "your evidence doesn't count".

The fact remains that kids who are homeschooled are better educated and more prepared in terms of math and science, like weatherlight said. They just happen to have a different set of beliefs than you. Going back to what I said earlier, parents have the right to determine what they believe the best course of action is concerning their children's education.

Actually, evolution has been observed. The problem is that... well... y'know how in highschool biology you're taught things like how to tell if two species are actually separate? Once you get to the university level, you learn that it's nowhere near that simple. Living things just don't like to fit in tidy little categories, so you end up with situations like species A mating (successfully, with viable/fertile offspring, etc.) with species B, but not with species C, and species C also mating with species B and not with species A. Also, it's incredibly difficult to determine at what point speciation actually occurs. Scientists have documented a species dividing into two in the sense that the two populations stopped breeding (I believe it was due to physical or behavioural changes in one or both groups), but technically they were still capable of it. Via some definitions of species, that was a clear-cut example of evolution in action, but via others, they still have to wait until chromosome mutations or other genetic changes make mating impossible. Of course, most creationists would still discount such evidence because evolution isn't as physically obvious as we have seen in the fossil record -- we're never going to see a bacterium spontaneously evolve into a fish. We just don't have enough time. However, we can see a bacterium evolve into a different kind of bacterium, or a fish evolve into a different kind of fish. It's still enough to prove that evolution exists, and it's not that hard to imagine that given enough time, that little fish or bacterium is going to keep changing, at least if change is a viable option, and it will eventually look nothing like its original form. You should also keep in mind that a very small genetic change can often have a big effect. Experiments done on fruit flies (as I recall) proved that by tweaking only one gene, scientists could induce the flies to grow an extra pair of legs or wings. Speciation did not occur in that example, but given enough genetic tweaks, it would happen eventually.

[bayushisan]

Ya I had early childhood dyslexia, they also wanted to put me in the "gifted" program.

I'm not arguing that you cannot have excellent teachers at a public school, just that the basis of a public education is preservation of the norm and I have found a number of occasions where teachers blow off a student they felt was "good enough".

I was never in the gifted program myself. I almost always struggled in math once I got to geometry. I just couldn't wrap my head around why and how it worked. Whenever I'd ask about it the only answer I'd get was that I'd learn that later.

In things like english and art I usually did pretty well. Aced my debate classes too believe it or not.

[weatherlight]

Erm... I was using those definitions. Yes, a law can technically be disproved or changed -- gravity could start working differently at any time, after all -- but it's unlikely. Evolution is not a law, but there's enough evidence that... well... unless some deity is actively meddling with both the fossil record AND data collected by scientists in the field, we can be pretty damn sure that species have changed over time. The exact mechanisms involved are still up for debate, but the change itself has been documented so many times that Yaweh's potential interference is pretty much the only other viable explanation.... and if he has been faking fossil records, that just means he's a total dick :p
But does the theory of evolution just claim that living beings change over time, or does it try and claim that we "evolved" from nothing. Because I agree with the first one, but not the second. I think one of the largest problems with the theory of evolution is no-one can define exactly what the theory is and it differs greatly from one person to the next.

[Hannah]

But does the theory of evolution just claim that living beings change over time, or does it try and claim that we "evolved" from nothing. Because I agree with the first one, but not the second. I think one of the largest problems with the theory of evolution is no-one can define exactly what the theory is and it differs greatly from one person to the next.

The theory of evolution does not deal directly with where we came from... that's more of a physics/organic chemistry thing, I think. It literally only deals with the fact that species change over time, and every now and then, they change/branch into different species. It may imply, for example, that we evolved from primate ancestors, but it does not preclude the possibility that one or more gods started (or even planned!) the whole process.

[bayushisan]

Actually, evolution has been observed. The problem is that... well... y'know how in highschool biology you're taught things like how to tell if two species are actually separate? Once you get to the university level, you learn that it's nowhere near that simple. Living things just don't like to fit in tidy little categories, so you end up with situations like species A mating (successfully, with viable/fertile offspring, etc.) with species B, but not with species C, and species C also mating with species B and not with species A. Also, it's incredibly difficult to determine at what point speciation actually occurs. Scientists have documented a species dividing into two in the sense that the two populations stopped breeding (I believe it was due to physical or behavioural changes in one or both groups), but technically they were still capable of it. Via some definitions of species, that was a clear-cut example of evolution in action, but via others, they still have to wait until chromosome mutations or other genetic changes make mating impossible. Of course, most creationists would still discount such evidence because evolution isn't as physically obvious as we have seen in the fossil record -- we're never going to see a bacterium spontaneously evolve into a fish. We just don't have enough time. However, we can see a bacterium evolve into a different kind of bacterium, or a fish evolve into a different kind of fish. It's still enough to prove that evolution exists, and it's not that hard to imagine that given enough time, that little fish or bacterium is going to keep changing, at least if change is a viable option, and it will eventually look nothing like its original form. You should also keep in mind that a very small genetic change can often have a big effect. Experiments done on fruit flies (as I recall) proved that by tweaking only one gene, scientists could induce the flies to grow an extra pair of legs or wings. Speciation did not occur in that example, but given enough genetic tweaks, it would happen eventually.

here's the thing though. I've never denied micro-evolution, or one species developing different traits over time within the same species. (i.e. one group of fish developing traits that are different from other fish) What I, and other creationists deny is macro-evolution, or one species evolving into another.

A better explanation would be the liger. Its the result of a lion breeding with a tiger. They can do that because they're both part of the same species. You can't breed a lion with a wolf because they of seperate and distinct species that are not compatible with procreation.

[weatherlight]

I was never in the gifted program myself. I almost always struggled in math once I got to geometry. I just couldn't wrap my head around why and how it worked. Whenever I'd ask about it the only answer I'd get was that I'd learn that later.

In things like english and art I usually did pretty well. Aced my debate classes too believe it or not.
For me it was algebra, and I honestly have to say it did not make clear sense to me until I had a good number of physics and calculus courses.

The thing about me is I like like relating mathematical models to real life. I also like thing that fly through the air very fast and make a lot of noise, which caused me to severely abuse a chemistry set, and halted my chem and physics labs :(
P.S. Im not one of the Home schoolers who did advanced placement.

[weatherlight]

The theory of evolution does not deal directly with where we came from... that's more of a physics/organic chemistry thing, I think. It literally only deals with the fact that species change over time, and every now and then, they change/branch into different species. It may imply, for example, that we evolved from primate ancestors, but it does not preclude the possibility that one or more gods started (or even planned!) the whole process.
The problem is people try to tie evolution to the big bang in order to "prove" that there exists no God.

I personally don't agree with the theory of evolution which claims we evolved from a monkey. But rather I believe we evolved from a lesser man, more instinctual man.

[bayushisan]

I'm not sure how it works in other states but here in Michigan there are special outings where groups of homeschooled kids get together for field trips and the like.

[weatherlight]

The one main problem that arises with home schooling is lack of socialization, however that tends to not a be a problem since it can be picked up through non school related things.
The lack of socialization of home schoolers is a joke. People act like its a draw back, to not be forced into a room with people you dislike. Public school is not supposed to be the great social experiment that it has become. Like work, there are other places were you are supposed to socialize and in what moderation, school is not supposed to be the driving factor in your social life.

[Brokenscope]

dammit I thought I deleted that post because I messed up typing it.

[steelcobra]

Other things like the theory of evolution are, by their very nature, not observable or testable. There are any number of holes in evolutionary theory, many of which I've brought up myself. The problem is that, while most Creationists are perfectly willing to debate the subject, many on the opposing side are not. If they were willing to debate then you wouldn't hear nonsensical statements like "your evidence doesn't count".

ur doin it rong.

Just because the term theory is used, doesn't mean it's simply not known if it's real or not. The term Law can never be used in this case either, because physical laws are generally simple equations that can't be altered by actions of the experimenter. A free-falling object on earth will always accelerate at 9.8m/s/s regardless of the forces applied to it prior to the fall. Evolution, however, is much more complex and cannot be easily explained in simple terms. And evolution has been tested and observed. Just last year a new species of lobster was discovered.
As for your "holes":
Fossil record: Yes, there are transitional fossils. Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx), for example, has both dinosaur and bird features.

That scientists "doubt" evolution: No, they argue about parts of it. That's what scientists do about everything they study. Creationists (as they are oft to do) pull the bits that seem to support their view out of context.

That the complexity is irreducible: It is if you twist the numbers so it does, or don't know your scaled zoological biology. The eye is a common example, that it's too perfect at what it does. Yet flatworms have rudimentary light-sensing organ spots. And there is even evidence that the eye developed on it's own separately in multiple species.

Please tell me what other "holes" you think there are.

[Hannah]

here's the thing though. I've never denied micro-evolution, or one species developing different traits over time within the same species. (i.e. one group of fish developing traits that are different from other fish) What I, and other creationists deny is macro-evolution, or one species evolving into another.

A better explanation would be the liger. Its the result of a lion breeding with a tiger. They can do that because they're both part of the same species. You can't breed a lion with a wolf because they of seperate and distinct species that are not compatible with procreation.

Actually, the liger proves that they're different species... sort of. Y'see, only female ligers can breed, so that just makes them yet another example of what I was trying to get at when I said that things don't fit in nice tidy categories. There are indeed some separate species that can breed, but typically they don't produce viable young, or if they do, the young are infertile. Horses/donkeys are another example of such a pairing. Again, female mules are theoretically fertile, but the males are sterile. This is a side effect of horses and donkeys having a different number of chromosomes, which is typically a pretty clear indication of speciation.

As I was trying to say before, the cutoff between one species and another is REALLY blurry when you actually start looking at it beyond a highschool level. Here are some hypothetical situations and I want you to tell me where speciation has occurred:

1. The liger example: two animals from different populations can produce viable offspring, but male offspring are sterile and female offspring are fertile.

2. Two animals from different populations are able to mate, but the fetus is stillborn every time.

3. Two animals from different populations are able to mate, but the offspring is always infertile and/or dies before reaching maturity.

4. Two animals from different populations are physically incapable of mating -- penis too small, vagina the wrong shape, incorrect chemicals secreted during the mating dance, or some other insurmountable physical/chemical problem -- but in the lab, fertilization can occur and a viable/fertile fetus can develop.

5. I mentioned this before, but here you go again: population A can mate (with viable/fertile offspring) with population B. Population B can mate with population C. Population A CAN'T mate with population C.

It's not so easy, is it? Even if we ignore these tricky situations, what it comes down to is... all you need is the gene controlling the egg's cell membrane or the sperm's flagellum or something equally minuscule (this sounds like microevolution, doesn't it?) to change in one population and not another, and all of a sudden, you've got two separate species where you used to have one. Of course, this isn't going to happen often -- genetic mutations in the reproductive system usually lead directly to infertility -- but isolate two populations for long enough, and... well... if they can change fur colour, body shape, and all kinds of other characteristics (which yes, we have observed, controlled, etc. via breeding experiments), there's no reason why the naughty bits can't change too. Furthermore, once speciation has occurred, the population is isolated even further, which can lead to more and more changes if the environment permits.

[Hannah]

The problem is people try to tie evolution to the big bang in order to "prove" that there exists no God.

I personally don't agree with the theory of evolution which claims we evolved from a monkey. But rather I believe we evolved from a lesser man, more instinctual man.

Well, the theory already does kinda suggest that we did evolve from a "lesser" and "more instinctual man"... something kinda like Homo Erectus or Homo Neanderthalus, a cultured tool-user. Before that, you start getting into the monkeys, but even so... we're not talking about the little guys who run around these days and fling poo. They're more like distant cousins ;)

Also, it's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist via science. The scientific method simply does not allow it. Sure, scientists can come up with theories that don't require Yaweh/Allah/Odin's input, but there's no way to prove that they're not somehow involved.

[Calvinball]

Bayushisan,

Just so I'm clear. Since parents are best able to determine what's best for their children there's nothing wrong with the way those Prussian Blue girls are being raised. Just like if someone wanted to raise their children to believe that the constitution needs to be revoked, there would be nothing wrong with that either.

Neo-nazis have their own "science" to support their beliefs so there shouldn't be any problems right?

This is why in the opening post I said that the lack of consistancy bothers me. I don't care what "facts" you teach your kids I worry that the kids won't be able to think and analyse. It's like anything there are good and bad but without a benchmark it's hard to seperate the two.

[bayushisan]

Bayushisan,

Just so I'm clear. Since parents are best able to determine what's best for their children there's nothing wrong with the way those Prussian Blue girls are being raised. Just like if someone wanted to raise their children to believe that the constitution needs to be revoked, there would be nothing wrong with that either.

Neo-nazis have their own "science" to support their beliefs so there shouldn't be any problems right?

This is why in the opening post I said that the lack of consistancy bothers me. I don't care what "facts" you teach your kids I worry that the kids won't be able to think and analyse. It's like anything there are good and bad but without a benchmark it's hard to seperate the two.

From a strictly legal perspective, no there's nothing wrong with how they are being raised. Weatherlight had some good examples of why people use religion as a reason for home schooling. The amount of paperwork the state and fed governments require for anything else is just too staggering otherwise.

The article you posted was really nothing more than an alarmist attempt to skirt the issue of how poorly most public schools teach. If that article had been written as an attack on public schools I think that most people here would have denounced it imediately as alarmist tripe.

[weatherlight]

Bayushisan,

Just so I'm clear. Since parents are best able to determine what's best for their children there's nothing wrong with the way those Prussian Blue girls are being raised. Just like if someone wanted to raise their children to believe that the constitution needs to be revoked, there would be nothing wrong with that either.

Neo-nazis have their own "science" to support their beliefs so there shouldn't be any problems right?

This is why in the opening post I said that the lack of consistancy bothers me. I don't care what "facts" you teach your kids I worry that the kids won't be able to think and analyse. It's like anything there are good and bad but without a benchmark it's hard to seperate the two.
w00t flame bait.
It is not our business to micromanage someones parenting. If they want to teach their kids to be little Nazi's, thats their business. But until they act upon those teaching, you leave them alone. I may not agree with it, but its their right as parents.

My problem is everyone looks at the few extreme cases and instantly is up in arms about the whole issue. Next thing we know there is a series of laws being written, to prevent these extremists, which do not taking into consideration effect that they will have on normal everyday people. Our society has become a "Hurt the many to protect the few". Which I have got to say is counter productive as a species.

"Lacking constancy" Is this any different then public schools? Because from what I have seen the standards very greatly from one school to the next, teacher to teacher, even though they claim to be the same. The current public school system does not teach you how to think and analyze any better then a privet or home schooled student. I can tell you that from the large number of public school students who dropped out freshman year. Also note I took German language at the local public school for three years, it was horrible because I spent three years relearning the same material because the one teacher didn't agree with the way the other one had taught it. It was an absolute waste of my time.

Now who is to tell you right from wrong? Because what is right in ones mind can greatly differ from what is right to another. This happens between everyday people who have shared the same experiences and come from the same background. Your comment tells me that you are complaining about and afraid of people who are different. So much for your well rounded public school education teaching you to be tolerant of others and embrace diversity. I think that goes along the same lines as a religious person screaming "Kill the non-believers!!!", very hypocritical view at best.

The more the government has to step in, forcing others to be politically correct, enforcing a standard. The more racist and divided our society will become. Until eventually we become a stale society.
The article you posted was really nothing more than an alarmist attempt to skirt the issue of how poorly most public schools teach. If that article had been written as an attack on public schools I think that most people here would have denounced it imediately as alarmist tripe.
QFT!

[Calvinball]

Bayu,

Thanks I really only wanted to be clear on that.

If anyone took it as flame bait that's unfortunate.

Yes I'll be the first to admit that the article was biased. it WAS an opinion piece, and yes New Scientist does have a very obvious bias.

Your take on the real issue of the article is an interesting one Bayu. Personally I don't see it but after rereading I can see where you're coming from. I still think you're overreacting but we can differ there.

Now maby it's beacuse I'm in a different country but critical thinking was part of my curriculum, most of my teachers only wanted you to defend your positioin. That was what they were looking for.

[KN]

ITT circlejerk.

Again x.x

[John]

ITT circlejerk.

Again x.x

Did you bring the video camera this time?

[steelcobra]

Bayu decided to respond to me via PM, but I want this out in the open:
I'm answering here because I don't want the thread to degenerate into a flamewar, as it so often does when this subject comes up.

Alright here goes.

Scientists often point to the Miller Experiment as one source of evidence, despite knowing since the 1960's that he used the wrong atmosphere. The second experiment, also used as evidence, did indeed use the correct atmosphere and did create organic materials; however the materials created were formaldahyde and cyanide. Neither of which combine to create amino acides. They combine to create embalming fluid.
And that was done in the '60s with less knowledge and more primitive equipment than today. Not to mention that a week isn't really that long in geological terms.
Second the embryonic drawings. These drawings have been used for years to show evidence of evolution. The problem is that the creator of said drawing cherry picked until he found what he wanted and even then falsified some of the drawings. Biologists have known that since the 1860's yet you never hear mention of it in any text book.
Which ones? Provide some examples.

The arcaeopterix may indeed have feathers, but this does not necessarily indicate that it is a transitional form. It could very well have been an extinct form of reptile that had feathers for whatever purpose. The platypus is an example of a creature that makes no sense to human thinking, isn't in the realm of possibility that the archaeopterix is the same kind of animal?
Ok, how about another one if that's not enough: http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleId=25D2F86A-E7F2-99DF-3873E5C5CA34D5E8&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular
There are plenty of transitional fossils out there. It's just that you deny that they are, or want two further transitions whenever they are brought up.
If you care to read it you can also check out Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. He interviews several Creationists, most of whom have a Phd in some science or another and they do a much better job than I could of talking about the other flaws in evolutionary thought.
I tend to avoid books with a religious bias. Especially where reality is involved.
And "some science or another"? How many are actual paleontologists, molecular biologists, or evolutionary biologists?

[Thefremen]

Most of geology is also full of "Theories" as well, but I would rather have someone working for the USGS or Army Core of Engineers who believes that liquifaction occurs in San Fransisco because of the amount of water in the ground due to the fact that a lot of the town was built on what was once water, filled in with soil instead of someone who believes that the liquifaction in the ground beneath San Fransisco is due to the homosexuals and athiests there.

Or a train conductor who doesn't understand friction, automotive engineer who rejects the laws of motion, etc etc etc. When you start with the supposition that the universe is 6,000 years old because that's your interpretation of your holy book, your science is funamentally flawed since the whole idea is to observe, hypothesize and experiment.

[bayushisan]

Bayu decided to respond to me via PM, but I want this out in the open:

And that was done in the '60s with less knowledge and more primitive equipment than today. Not to mention that a week isn't really that long in geological terms.

Which ones? Provide some examples.


Ok, how about another one if that's not enough: http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleId=25D2F86A-E7F2-99DF-3873E5C5CA34D5E8&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular
There are plenty of transitional fossils out there. It's just that you deny that they are, or want two further transitions whenever they are brought up.

I tend to avoid books with a religious bias. Especially where reality is involved.
And "some science or another"? How many are actual paleontologists, molecular biologists, or evolutionary biologists?

So far you've mentioned two possibiliies for so called transitional fossils. I contend that' due to the history of misidentification of fossils, these fossils may in fact be species of animal that are extinct. I've given my own thoughts on the archaeopterix and this gigantoraptor could merely be an extinct type of flightless predatory bird. Possiblly a relation to the osterich and emu.

[steelcobra]

So far you've mentioned two possibiliies for so called transitional fossils.
Both of which have major characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs. Seems pretty solid to me.
I contend that' due to the history of misidentification of fossils, these fossils may in fact be species of animal that are extinct.
http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/335.jpg
Of course they're a species of extinct animals! We've found fossils, but no living examples! Please think before typing such a statement.
I've given my own thoughts on the archaeopterix and this gigantoraptor could merely be an extinct type of flightless predatory bird. Possiblly a relation to the osterich and emu.
Archeopteryx: Small oviraptor with full plumage and many bird-like skeletal features, but with raptorial claws at the ends of the "wings" and a reptilian mouth with carnivore teeth.
Gigantoraptor: over-large raptor with a beak and bird-like bone structures, but shares physical features with the Tyranosaurus genus.

[Thefremen]

Both of which have major characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs. Seems pretty solid to me.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/335.jpg
Of course they're a species of extinct animals! We've found fossils, but no living examples! Please think before typing such a statement.

Archeopteryx: Small oviraptor with full plumage and many bird-like skeletal features, but with raptorial claws at the ends of the "wings" and a reptilian mouth with carnivore teeth.
Gigantoraptor: over-large raptor with a beak and bird-like bone structures, but shares physical features with the Tyranosaurus genus.

WAIT A MINUTE! You mean to say that some species go extinct while some survive, logically the fittest?! Does anyone else know this?

[bayushisan]

There's no reason to be a jackass about the miswording of a sentance guys. Grow up a little for pete's sake.

[Thefremen]

There's no reason to be a jackass about the miswording of a sentance guys. Grow up a little for pete's sake.

How the hell did you misword it? Did you mean to say that Jesus once stated that any discovery of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds is heresy?

[Jabrwock]

WAIT A MINUTE! You mean to say that some species go extinct while some survive, logically the fittest?! Does anyone else know this?
Please don't pull that mistake. ;) It's survival of the best adapted to their current environment. "Fittest" is a relative term...

[Jabrwock]

Please don't pull that mistake. ;) It's survival of the best adapted to their current environment. "Fittest" is a relative term...
Before this gets any sillier, let me state that there is actually no such thing as a "transitional species". It's a term invented by Creationists to try to stump biologists.

EVERY species is a transitional species, because species evolve.

The best place to look for transitional species, is in insects, because there are millions more species of insects than any other kind of critter.

http://darwinblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/transitional-species-in-insect_24.html

Don't take this to mean that only insects are capable of exhibiting transitional species, but it's a lot easier to find transitional species when the numbers are on your side.

Also consider that fossils only form when the conditions are right (animal drops dead in water and gets immediately covered in silt), and you get an idea of why you only get a "snapshot" of life through fossils. Paleontologists know this. They don't believe that all extinct species all died out at once in a great flood, so they know that you'll only get fossils in riverbeds, localized floods, and tarpits. Compared the rest of the land, these are quite rare.

[Jabrwock]

But does the theory of evolution just claim that living beings change over time, or does it try and claim that we "evolved" from nothing. Because I agree with the first one, but not the second. I think one of the largest problems with the theory of evolution is no-one can define exactly what the theory is and it differs greatly from one person to the next.That's the creationists talking. Pretend there's great confusion amongst scientists.

Evolution as a concept is actually quite widely accepted. It's the fiddly details that has people divided. For example, some believe that evolution happens slowly over a long period of time, whereas others believe that it occurs rapidly during periods of change (change in weather, food supply, geography, and other influencing factors), with long periods of relative stability in between.

Evolution doesn't tell us anything about the biochemical process that led to developing life capable of reacting to the evolutionary process...

Bayu (I think) mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment, and how recent data has made the results questionable. There was a study that showed that oxygen was present in the atmosphere earlier than expected (200 million years earlier, a short time period compared to the age of the Earth actually). Oxygen screws with the experiment, but geological records indicate that the atmosphere wasn't oxygen-rich until after the first cells were formed (3.7 billion years ago) and had developed photosynthesis (of which oxygen is a toxic by-product).

The newest data has actually shown that the early (pre-oxygen-spike) Earth atmosphere likely contained more hydrogen than previously thought, and so it actually would have been easier to create amino acids than in Miller-Urey. The difference would be that it would occur in the upper atmosphere rather than in a primordial "soup" of chemicals, and so organic material would have "rained" down to earth.

Genetic sequencing of many species has found a common section of DNA, the "last universal ancestor", which contains the simplest of amino acids, ones which are quite easily created in Urey-Miller...

[weatherlight]

What is widely accepted about evolution? What form of evolution is accepted? My comment was about people that try and push their agenda that god does not exist using evolution as the proof. So please define what the "Theory of Evolution" really includes, because as I see it, to many people use it as an umbrella theory against the idea that god exists.

[Hannah]

What is widely accepted about evolution? What form of evolution is accepted? My comment was about people that try and push their agenda that god does not exist using evolution as the proof. So please define what the "Theory of Evolution" really includes, because as I see it, to many people use it as an umbrella theory against the idea that god exists.

Stuff changes.

Yeah, that pretty much summarizes it. If people are using it as proof that God doesn't exist, well... that's just stupid. Evolution is a good indication that Genesis might not be 100% literal truth, but the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that it's more of a metaphor anyway.... and disproving one part of a holy book, particularly a part that appears to be more of a cautionary tale/over-simplified explanation of how things came to be, certainly doesn't mean the rest is false.

The thing is, though... evolution does not necessarily require the presence of any given deity to work. Some view that as proof that God does not exist, but personally, I just view it as an absence of proof that he does. You literally can't prove that anything does NOT exist, no matter how far-fetched it may be. For all we know, maybe evolution is masterminded, one way or another, by one or more deities. Or maybe it's not. There's no way of knowing, and that's not really part of science in the first place. Evolutionary biologists are concerned with determining the mechanisms behind evolution, NOT the presence of absence of any given God.

Back to the gravity example: it's quite possible that gravity is or was created and controlled by one or more gods, but the average physicist simply doesn't care. When you're calculating the acceleration due to gravity to X number of decimal places, does it really matter whether Yahweh defined that constant when the universe began? Does it matter if he's personally pushing or pulling on every item that falls? No, of course not. That's for the philosophers and theologists to decide.

[Thefremen]

What is widely accepted about evolution? What form of evolution is accepted? My comment was about people that try and push their agenda that god does not exist using evolution as the proof. So please define what the "Theory of Evolution" really includes, because as I see it, to many people use it as an umbrella theory against the idea that god exists.

Survival of the fittest, genes are passed to future generations which determine all physical aspects and some mental aspects, those able to survive long enough to pass on those genes will do so while those not able to compete will not be able to procreate.

The people who say "Evolution is against God" are the types who believe everything in the translation of the Bible that they happen to own is literally the truth as far as they understand it. Obviously, those 6 days were 24 hour periods as humans experience them today, even though for at least 1 day there was no Earth or Sun so defining the length of that day would be rather tricky. Also, in thier view God is a magician who doesn't have a plan but instead whips things up as they're needed.

On the other hand you have Christians like me who realize that God wouldn't have given us brains if he didn't mean for us to use them in some capacity, and if he didn't want us to discover anything new he would have put all the laws of physics on stone tablets for Moses to carry as well.

[steelcobra]

Though "Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplification. In many cases it comes down to which group can acquire the resources for survival better. Or, like with the Dodo prior to contact with dogs, there simply is nothing for the species to struggle against.

[Thefremen]

Though "Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplification. In many cases it comes down to which group can acquire the resources for survival better. Or, like with the Dodo prior to contact with dogs, there simply is nothing for the species to struggle against.

Pandas are the new dodos. I'm sorry but they are only fertile for what, 1 day a year? AND they only eat plants even though their digestive system isn't quite that well adapted to it (see: cows for a good example).

[steelcobra]

And where they live is no longer where bamboo naturally grows.

[Hannah]

Though "Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplification. In many cases it comes down to which group can acquire the resources for survival better. Or, like with the Dodo prior to contact with dogs, there simply is nothing for the species to struggle against.

Actually, it has nothing to do with acquiring resources for survival, and everything to do with having lots of babies. Basically... no matter how stupid or weak or short-lived you are, if you manage to have lots and lots of kids before you die, you're more evolutionarily "fit" than someone who appears superior in human terms but reproduces less. This basically means that 400-pound uneducated crackwhores with 12 kids are more fit than all the successful businessmen, great thinkers, etc. who only have a max of one or two kids. Isn't evolution fun? :D

[steelcobra]

A good example is two species of Finches placed on an island. One is fast-breeding, but has a small beak. The other is slow-breeding, but has a larger beak so it can crack nuts more easily. So while the fast-breeders may initially gain the upper hand, the slow-breeders may claim it because they have access to a food source the fast-breeders don't have access to.

There are a lot of different factors. Predators, for example, can't afford to have a large number of offspring because they would deplete their prey herds to the point that they wouldn't have enough food. So it's not just about how many offspring, but how well the group maintains equilibrium with the environment.

[Hannah]

A good example is two species of Finches placed on an island. One is fast-breeding, but has a small beak. The other is slow-breeding, but has a larger beak so it can crack nuts more easily. So while the fast-breeders may initially gain the upper hand, the slow-breeders may claim it because they have access to a food source the fast-breeders don't have access to.

There are a lot of different factors. Predators, for example, can't afford to have a large number of offspring because they would deplete their prey herds to the point that they wouldn't have enough food. So it's not just about how many offspring, but how well the group maintains equilibrium with the environment.

Well, yes, I know there are K and R species, but still... over all, what matters is how many offspring are produced... and how many live long enough to breed themselves. Even in the bird example, if the large-beaked birds stopped breeding, they'd go extinct, no matter how many nuts they could crack. Similarly, predators need to breed as much as they can, and if they start to deplete their prey, that's something that will directly affect their ability to live long enough to breed, which results in less overall births and potentially the extinction of the species. From an evolutionary perspective, that's all that matters. Sure, we like to look at the big picture, but biological processes are extremely short-sighted.

[Thefremen]

Well, yes, I know there are K and R species, but still... over all, what matters is how many offspring are produced... and how many live long enough to breed themselves. Even in the bird example, if the large-beaked birds stopped breeding, they'd go extinct, no matter how many nuts they could crack. Similarly, predators need to breed as much as they can, and if they start to deplete their prey, that's something that will directly affect their ability to live long enough to breed, which results in less overall births and potentially the extinction of the species. From an evolutionary perspective, that's all that matters. Sure, we like to look at the big picture, but biological processes are extremely short-sighted.

Which is why that life cycle is a large part of what animals are fit to survive. Cockroaches have changed very very little over millions of years because they breed fast, breed quickly, are immune to many chemicals and radiation, and are otherwise very hearty.

[steelcobra]

Well, yes, I know there are K and R species, but still... over all, what matters is how many offspring are produced... and how many live long enough to breed themselves. Even in the bird example, if the large-beaked birds stopped breeding, they'd go extinct, no matter how many nuts they could crack. Similarly, predators need to breed as much as they can, and if they start to deplete their prey, that's something that will directly affect their ability to live long enough to breed, which results in less overall births and potentially the extinction of the species. From an evolutionary perspective, that's all that matters. Sure, we like to look at the big picture, but biological processes are extremely short-sighted.

Except that that's not exactly how the predator/prey relationship works. Both groups have to maintain a balance with each other in terms of birth rates or a feedback loop develops.

If too many of the prey herd are born, the predators will have extra food and start having more offspring. What generally happens then is the overabundant prey starts depleting their food supply while being culled by the enlarged predator group.

At this point either the predators kill off too many of the prey, and starve, or they have to expend more energy to take the healthy ones, and can't feed the weakest pack members as much.

And this is a constant fluctuating dynamic. Evolution is not simple. There are no basic, simple descriptions of how things happen, and there are more factors than just population. A good comparison is between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens at the end of the ice age. Neanderthals were bigger, tougher, and more cold resistant with a greater population. But, because Homo Sapiens was a better generalist with a more advanced social memory system, HS became the dominant species.

[Hannah]

Except that that's not exactly how the predator/prey relationship works. Both groups have to maintain a balance with each other in terms of birth rates or a feedback loop develops.

If too many of the prey herd are born, the predators will have extra food and start having more offspring. What generally happens then is the overabundant prey starts depleting their food supply while being culled by the enlarged predator group.

At this point either the predators kill off too many of the prey, and starve, or they have to expend more energy to take the healthy ones, and can't feed the weakest pack members as much.

And this is a constant fluctuating dynamic. Evolution is not simple. There are no basic, simple descriptions of how things happen, and there are more factors than just population. A good comparison is between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens at the end of the ice age. Neanderthals were bigger, tougher, and more cold resistant with a greater population. But, because Homo Sapiens was a better generalist with a more advanced social memory system, HS became the dominant species.

The thing is, if that delicate predator-prey balance doesn't form, the species just become extinct. We see this often, usually when a species is suddenly introduced, hunts some prey species to extinction, and then often dies off itself. Evolution does not have a compensating mechanism to avoid this occurring -- it functions very simply, in that individuals who have the most babies pass on the most genes. If they die of starvation before they have all those babies because their population has eaten all possible prey, then they obviously won't pass on their genes.... but it still has nothing to do with what predator-prey relationships have formed. This basically means that if you take a species and put it in an environment where high fecundity is rewarded (ie. most offspring live to reproductive age, starvation and space constraints don't limit reproduction, etc.) and then suddenly stick it in an environment where it can't afford to have as many offspring, it's not going to spontaneously change. The high breeders will still be the ones whose genes pervade the species, so they'll keep pumping out offspring until they either go extinct or some part of the population with lower fecundity gets an advantage and outlives the high fecundity section.

[steelcobra]

Either way it's far more complex than any catch-all phrase can accurately describe. Which is what leads to the misconception by creationists that there isn't evidence.

[Thefremen]

Either way it's far more complex than any catch-all phrase can accurately describe. Which is what leads to the misconception by creationists that there isn't evidence.

Which is why, if it is more complex than "A wizard did it" then they say it can't be God's work, since it is documented that the Lord does NOT work in mysterious ways, and humans can easily guess His motives and methods.

[Jabrwock]

What is widely accepted about evolution? What form of evolution is accepted?That it occured? What do you mean what form?

This is the definition that is widely accepted. As I mentioned, it's the fiddly details of HOW this happens, and at what pace, that is usually in dispute...

1) The change in life over time by adaptation, variation, over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. 2) Descent with modification.

It basically boils down to competition for resources. Darwin actually got the initial idea from the marketplace. Supply & Demand, and the adaptation of business to new and changing markets.

My comment was about people that try and push their agenda that god does not exist using evolution as the proof. So please define what the "Theory of Evolution" really includes, because as I see it, to many people use it as an umbrella theory against the idea that god exists.Note how the above definition makes no mention of God either way. So anyone who brings God into the equation, or uses the theory to disprove God, are both abusing the theory to their own ends. Doing so would be akin to using chemistry or physics to disprove God.

[Tollwutig]

But does the theory of evolution just claim that living beings change over time, or does it try and claim that we "evolved" from nothing. Because I agree with the first one, but not the second. I think one of the largest problems with the theory of evolution is no-one can define exactly what the theory is and it differs greatly from one person to the next.

That it occured? What do you mean what form?

This is the definition that is widely accepted. As I mentioned, it's the fiddly details of HOW this happens, and at what pace, that is usually in dispute...

1) The change in life over time by adaptation, variation, over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. 2) Descent with modification.

It basically boils down to competition for resources. Darwin actually got the initial idea from the marketplace. Supply & Demand, and the adaptation of business to new and changing markets.

Note how the above definition makes no mention of God either way. So anyone who brings God into the equation, or uses the theory to disprove God, are both abusing the theory to their own ends. Doing so would be akin to using chemistry or physics to disprove God.


The only way you can use Evolution to prove/disprove God would be if you were in fact to find the Babel Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_Fish). In fact many biologists despite popular claim do in fact believe in God, most of us just don't think he constantly tweaks the mechanics of life, or the fact that he made life all in a day and it was good. Personally I would rather meet a God that could set a system of life that was self sustaining and constantly changing rather than one who has to tweak things as he goes or just leave flawed things alone.

[Demontestament]

Ok no offense to anyone who was home schooled but every ****er I have come across that was home schooled was one of those Holier than though High horse riding looking down on all others pieces of ****. And the sad thing is they were dumb as dirt. Though I think this again falls on those who teach the children, if you are a moron who instructs your children in the way of the moron then they too will be morons. One guy comes to mind, the now husband of my used to be best friend(until he, his family and their trailor park put an end to it). Anyway the ****er was home schooled and tried at all times to sound smarter than anyone else in the room, if anyone would counter anything he said with the real facts he would talk down to them and then start quoting the bible saying that is why he was right. He was taught by his father, who in reality is a piece of trash who refuses to work so he doesn't have to pay child support to an ex-wife. Hell the man took the money his daughter won in a civil suit against a man who raped her and bought the trailor they live in now.

This guy would use words out of context and most of the time he would use them in a way it was the total opposite of their meaning. Anyone who went to public school he considered stupid and blind to the truth of his fathers teachings. I would get in constant arguements with him when he would spout out some false truth about history and he would insert his own beliefs into it. Then if I countered it with what really happened he would get flustered and start to turn red, it was actually quite funny. But it got to the point to where she was no longer allowed to see me because I wasn't home schooled and I didn't believe in his fathers words and since I was not christian I was the devil. Best part was when I showed up for their wedding, boy were him and his dad pissed but they couldnt touch me because she invited me. Though I did get a nice little threat about if I did anything demonic around him I would have the fear of god instilled on me. I couldn't resist and smirked at his dad and said "Please I have bigger fish to fry than the Church of the House on Wheels(the church was inside the trailor park, a place where you had to have this douche's approval to live there. If you were not christian enough you were not allowed to live in the park). Your son's special day is safe, you should be happy that his wife is also loved like a sister by me, who you so nicely refer to as Satan."

[ezacharyk]

I would like to state that I was home schooled and public schooled. I went to public school from K to 8. I was always shy and associated with few people outside my closest friends. I was home schooled from 9 to 12 and became more open and made friends easier. I am still a little shy, but come out of my shell much quicker than in early years.

I excelled at math, reading and english (I still make typos when I write, but that is where proof reading comes in handy). I never bothered with advanced courses but should hvae done them.

I am Christian. I was raised that way and will raise my kids that way. I enjoy science and physics as I like to learn how things work. I currently work in IT. As a Christian, I would like to say that not all of us are holier than thou and if the Bible does not say it it is not true. I may not believe in evolution, but I do not believe that the universe is only 6000 years old. I believe that matter has existed for eternity as far as we as humans with our finite thinking are concerned. I do not believe that the days reported in genesis are to be interpreted as 24 hours or 1000 years as Peter states, but just an unstated period of time that God used to finish that portion of the creation.

I also believe that God follows specific rules and just does not change things at random, but follows a plan that he devised from the beginning and has stuck to since. Nothing that has happened or will happen is outside the scope of his plan.

I also believe that he gave us a conscience and thinking mind to explore the workings of the universe he created. I would like to know how he created life, but he left that as a mystery for a reason. I do not despise evolution nor do I refute it. I merely feel that it is only one of a myriad of theories out there about how life came to be.

So I am here to merely show that many of the biases shown in this discussions are not as cut and dry especially reguarding home schooled children. As for the reason I was home schooled, my mom did not like the highschool I would have gone to as my older sister and two older brothers had very bad experiences there. She may have declared religous reasons to avoid paper work but that is not why.

[Tollwutig]

I do not despise evolution nor do I refute it. I merely feel that it is only one of a myriad of theories out there about how life came to be.

For the last freaking time THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ONLY COVERS HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME!

And people wonder why scientists constantly consider IDers & Creationists morons. They can't even get the theory they are arguing against correct.

If you are looking for the theories for how life began on earth the most common theories are

Creation
Abiogenesis

This is why I hate Homeschoolers as well as Public Schools we seem to have nothing but morons teaching morons.

[Jabrwock]

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ONLY COVERS HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME!Ow my freakin' ears. ;)

I find that naysayers link any scientific theory that could potentially challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis, lump them all together, and try to disprove the lot.

If you are looking for the theories for how life began on earth the most common theories are

Creation
Abiogenesis Heh, sounds like something out of Star Trek.

[bayushisan]

Guys you really need to chill out. Nothing's been said that should cause that kind of anger. This is one of those things we're going to disagree on and neither side is going to budge on the issue.

Besides I thought this whole thing was about homeschooling, not evolution. I realize that both are fairly contentious issues but come on, yelling at a guy doesn't solve a thing.

[Jabrwock]

Guys you really need to chill out. Nothing's been said that should cause that kind of anger. This is one of those things we're going to disagree on and neither side is going to budge on the issue.

Besides I thought this whole thing was about homeschooling, not evolution. I realize that both are fairly contentious issues but come on, yelling at a guy doesn't solve a thing.
Bayu, you know how frustrated you get when people misquote the bible when trying to argue with you? Toll is just tired of people misquoting scientific theories while trying to disprove them...

And yes, you are correct that this was about homeschooling and it's quality vs public education, and how Christians are turning to home-schooling to "shield" their kids from non-Christian teachings, such as evolution (and physics/geology/chemistry/astronomy/etc). Somehow that got equated with "homeschooled kids are usually bible thumpers", and here we are.

So, back on topic please people. The details of evolution, astrophysics, paleontology, geology, and abiogenesis can wait for another thread. ;) -Jabr

[ezacharyk]

For the last freaking time THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ONLY COVERS HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME!


I am sorry. I did not mean it that way. I understand your frustration. I was not trying to misquote but to express my beliefs.

AS for home schooling, I think the quality varies from parent to parent as does public schooling varies from teacher to teacher. It is all a matter of how dedicated the teacher is to giving the student the best education possible.

As for parents that use home schooling to force their beliefs onto their child that is their perogative, but similar things happen in school, but not to the same extent.

[Hannah]

I am sorry. I did not mean it that way. I understand your frustration. I was not trying to misquote but to express my beliefs.

AS for home schooling, I think the quality varies from parent to parent as does public schooling varies from teacher to teacher. It is all a matter of how dedicated the teacher is to giving the student the best education possible.

As for parents that use home schooling to force their beliefs onto their child that is their perogative, but similar things happen in school, but not to the same extent.

The big difference is... when a kid's at school, there's usually more than one person forcing one set of beliefs. The English teacher might be a born again Christian, the science teacher might be an athiest, and the kid sitting in the next desk might be Hindu or Muslim or anything. Responsible homeschooling parents will expose their children to a wide range of ideas, but there are far too many who are irresponsible, and far too many who homeschool to intentionally shelter their children from all other beliefs.

[Jabrwock]

The big difference is... when a kid's at school, there's usually more than one person forcing one set of beliefs. The English teacher might be a born again Christian, the science teacher might be an athiest, and the kid sitting in the next desk might be Hindu or Muslim or anything. Responsible homeschooling parents will expose their children to a wide range of ideas, but there are far too many who are irresponsible, and far too many who homeschool to intentionally shelter their children from all other beliefs.
Depends on how homogenous the school environment is, but yeah, even the strictest schools have a myriad of beliefs, or at least avenues to be exposed to those beliefs. Homeschooling is a closed system by comparison.

[John]

For the last freaking time THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ONLY COVERS HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME!

And people wonder why scientists constantly consider IDers & Creationists morons. They can't even get the theory they are arguing against correct.

You forgot that common sense does not mix well with politics or religion.

[ezacharyk]

Might I also add that a better wording of the offending sentence would be:

"I merely feel that it is only one of a myriad of theories out there about how life as we know it came to be."

[Tollwutig]

Guys you really need to chill out. Nothing's been said that should cause that kind of anger. This is one of those things we're going to disagree on and neither side is going to budge on the issue.

Besides I thought this whole thing was about homeschooling, not evolution. I realize that both are fairly contentious issues but come on, yelling at a guy doesn't solve a thing.

As Jabrwock stated you get upset when people mis-quote the Bible, I get very upset when people mis-quote Science. Sorry I have a degree in Biology, I sat through Evolutionary Processes, to hear people completely confuse what the Theory states or what a Scientific Theory actually is over and over and over hits a nerve.

The fact is both Homeschooling & Public Schooling completely and utterly mis-teach Evolutionary Theory. They dumb it down to the point that we get such utter crap as "survival of the fittest" "man came from monkeys" etc etc. Just about everyone of the hot catch phrases used to argue against Evolution is in fact a misquote, or misunderstanding of what is actually stated.

Really they should quit teaching Evolution what so ever until the College level since usually most High School teachers don't even understand it. Of course this isn't that big of a surprise since most Science Education majors I was in school with could not grasp some of the simplest concepts of Science.

The phrase "those who can't, teach" is sometimes all too true.

[Demontestament]

The phrase "those who can't, teach" is sometimes all too true.

Welcome to the United States Education System

[CharliesNickel]

The fact is both Homeschooling & Public Schooling completely and utterly mis-teach Evolutionary Theory. They dumb it down to the point that we get such utter crap as "survival of the fittest" "man came from monkeys" etc etc. Just about everyone of the hot catch phrases used to argue against Evolution is in fact a misquote, or misunderstanding of what is actually stated.



you're absolutely right, which is a shame: I had a very incorrect idea about what evolution theory was for most of my young adult life because I whatever I was taught back in highschool, it wasn't evolution.

Since my College education didn't require me to take anything in the life sciences, I never actually had my perceptions corrected until I "homeschooled" myself by reading Dawkin's excellent "The Selfish Gene" - definately "eureka!" type book imho.

For reference, I went to a Catholic/Jesuit HS. I didn't hate it there, and it's kind of ironic that their requirement to study religion coupled with their generally rigourous effort to make their students thinking beings were the spark that lit my speculative hunches into full bred Atheism!

My biology teacher was a Nun and a very lovely person, and a great teacher. I remember fondly how she would pray for the redsox any time they had a game. however on this particular thing her lessons (and yes she at least tried to teach evolution) were lacking.

It makes me wonder how many people really understand the theory - both its critics and it's proponents, because I know I took for granted my inaccurate lessons in HS were accurate.

[Ohma]

HS science also tends to skip over explaining why atoms and molecules make sense. I was lucky in that my second biology teacher actually took the time to explain why atoms form molecules instead of tossing a few articles (that assumed you already grokked this) at the class.
So I was lucky, but I know that there were a lot of people who came out of the other biology classes without understanding how DNA and RNA could possibly "code" for cell structures, and that's a problem.

[Jabrwock]

So I was lucky, but I know that there were a lot of people who came out of the other biology classes without understanding how DNA and RNA could possibly "code" for cell structures, and that's a problem.I remember watching Once Upon a Time... Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time..._Life), a cartoon that explained body chemistry quite well, although some explanations were simplified a bit. Still quite advanced for the target audience though. And they actually showed how DNA was used as a blueprint to build new proteins. It was pretty neat.