I know that it isn't the right language to use; species don't turn into other species..... but what are some examples of specific species ultimately descending from specific different species? Do we have any clear data? I'm not talking about closely related species, but species further apart in the timeline. Maybe familial? Can we go further than that? Related in class but no closer? With examples?
People tell me they don't believe that evolution is valid because species do not change into other species. I don't think they do either, but the descendants are subtly different from their parents. It takes enormous time, to get enormous differences, right? I may be using completely inappropriate language for the discussion, so don't be shy about correcting me. Does my question even make sense?
Yes. We have observed new species in real time, and there's a good possibility that the rate of speciation will speed up as the environment changes in the next few decades.
I know that it isn't the right language to use; species don't turn into other species..... but what are some examples of specific species ultimately descending from specific different species? Do we have any clear data? I'm not talking about closely related species, but species further apart in the timeline. Maybe familial? Can we go further than that? Related in class but no closer? With examples?
People tell me they don't believe that evolution is valid because species do not change into other species. I don't think they do either, but the descendants are subtly different from their parents. It takes enormous time, to get enormous differences, right? I may be using completely inappropriate language for the discussion, so don't be shy about correcting me. Does my question even make sense?
Darwin addressed this issue in 'Origin of Species' at a time when evidence of transitional forms was pretty scanty. Despite the scarcity of fossils, paleontologists have since discovered many intermediate forms that creationists have claimed could not exist. Creationists used to get enormous pleasure out of the lack of walking whales, for instance. That was before paleontologists began digging up whale feet. Now there is any amount of fossil evidence - Ambulocetus, Protecetus - showing how, in small steps, whales moved from the land to the sea, effectively becoming a new species.
New species appear constantly throughout the fossil record. Twenty-two new species, for example, have arisen in the elephant lineage in the last 5 million years, roughly one every 230,000 years. And that's just for elephants. Did the new species come into existence in a puff of smoke, or were they the genetically distinct offspring of another species?
Can we find, in the present-day world around us, species whose variation and distribution match the branch-points of Darwinian speciation? The answer is yes.
I know that it isn't the right language to use; species don't turn into other species..... but what are some examples of specific species ultimately descending from specific different species? Do we have any clear data? I'm not talking about closely related species, but species further apart in the timeline. Maybe familial? Can we go further than that? Related in class but no closer? With examples?
People tell me they don't believe that evolution is valid because species do not change into other species. I don't think they do either, but the descendants are subtly different from their parents. It takes enormous time, to get enormous differences, right? I may be using completely inappropriate language for the discussion, so don't be shy about correcting me. Does my question even make sense?
One of (many) problems with Christianity is that humans are deemed to have a soul but nonhuman animals (and plant life) are said to be 'soulless,' I guess you could say. But, what is a soul anyway?
We know that soul is defined as the animating principle in humans, or an immortal entity that lives on after physical death.
But Aristotle believed that, if a soul is an animating principle dependent upon a body to exist at all, then every living things, including animals and plants, must possess a soul as well. After all, our word 'soul' is the English translation of the Latin word 'anima,' from which we get 'animal.'
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that animals possessed a soul. And Pope John Paul II wrote in 1990 that 'the animals possess a soul, and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.'
So why do we keep hearing from religious authorities that only humans have souls?
Solf,
You never heard that from me. Aquinas used Aristolean logic.
My personality is such that I need very little delineated in stark black and white. I do believe within reason that man has dominion over other animals and that animals should be handled with care. Heck, you've persuaded me to buy free range chicken and eggs. You and I are not totally in accord on this subject, though.
This is a bit off-topic for this thread and I have no intention of getting into "ensoulment" as it is being discussed by a new poster. Anyone who truly studies theology as I have for over 50 years can keep many concepts in tension at one time.
Well, Mc, if all creationists did was honestly oppose science, it would not be much of a problem.
But what they have done is set up this elaborate hoax called creationism, which they pass off as science. That they feel the need to do this to retain some measure of "credibility" is actually something of a nod to the influence of true science in our age.
They have, by and large, failed to get creationism in the front door of the schools. But, there is always a back door...
As it stands today, the Theory of Evolution is the unifying theory for many different aspects of biology, and it is the cornerstone idea that makes it possible to understand the whole.
So, yeah, I think it would be a bad idea not to teach it.
More, why on Earth wouldn't you want to teach the best science we know in science classes? Because some religious groups have decided to drag their theology into the scientific arena? It's not like the biology teachers stormed the fundamentalist churches demanding evolution be taught, after all.
And if we cave and let one religious group hamstring some part of science education, why not let any religious group with an oddly bent view of the world hamstring the parts of science that offends them -- maybe the Greek Classicist Fundies will demand we teach that women can get pregnant from a swan like Leda did!
I think a much more fair idea is this: if any group or individual thinks they have a better idea about any part of what constitutes modern science, then let them go through the steps everyone else did to get an idea accepted in the scientific arena; let them do the research and accumulate the data and present their results to the scientific community as a whole.
Why should religious fundamentalists get a free ride?
One of (many) problems with Christianity is that humans are deemed to have a soul but nonhuman animals (and plant life) are said to be 'soulless,' I guess you could say. But, what is a soul anyway?
We know that soul is defined as the animating principle in humans, or an immortal entity that lives on after physical death.
But Aristotle believed that, if a soul is an animating principle dependent upon a body to exist at all, then every living things, including animals and plants, must possess a soul as well. After all, our word 'soul' is the English translation of the Latin word 'anima,' from which we get 'animal.'
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that animals possessed a soul. And Pope John Paul II wrote in 1990 that 'the animals possess a soul, and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.'
" As someone has pointed out the Catholic Church has given its stamp of approval to the theory. If I understand their position correctly they take a dualistic approach. They agree that human beings as a speices have evolved from other species. However they feel that "human beings" are God's special little creature because the have SOULS. It is the "ensoulment" of the human species that makes them "in the image of God". "
Be very careful with your interpretation of Catholic theology unless you have studied it in depth. Ditto for all faiths. Oversimplification does not work and can be resented.
...Should natural eviloution be taught in biology classes?
Absolutely.
Is it really neccessary to be taught the theory?
Absolutely.
Couldn't biology be taught without mentioning it?
Asolutely not!
Is there any practical reason to learn it?
All of modern mediciine and biology is based on the facts of evolution. To leave it out would be like teaching only grammar but leaving out spelling. They kids would know where the words go but not how to spell them correctly. Evolution is the "spelling" for biology.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
I am not suprised that most teachers in the US and most people in the US do not "believe" in evilolution. It is my understanding that according to the latest polls most people in the US "believe" in God. Now believing in God and in the theory of naturalistic evilolution are not neccessarily exclusive. As someone has pointed out the Catholic Church has given its stamp of approval to the theory. If I understand their position correctly they take a dualistic approach. They agree that human beings as a speices have evolved from other species. However they feel that "human beings" are God's special little creature because the have SOULS. It is the "ensoulment" of the human species that makes them "in the image of God".
The naturalistic theory of evilolution is a valid scientific theory that seeks to explain how not only have the human speices came to exist on this planet but how ALL speicies have evolved from earlier species. That is why it should be taught in biology classes.
Creationism is a SUPER-natural theory of evolution. It claims that all speicies, espeically the human speices were created individually by God. They might concede that "micro-evolution" does occur "naturally" but firmly deny that "macro-evolution" occurs "naturally" espeically those who were created "in his image" aka human beings. That is why is could be taught in a religion class.
It appears to me that it is the more conservative-fundamentalist-literalist monotheists of the Abrahamic traditions that have a problem with this naturalistic scientific theory. That includes not only Christians but Muslims as well as Jews.
I really don't know what the Buddhist or Hindu or othere so-called "eastrern" position is on the theory of evilolution by natural selection.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientific theories. I don't think that the conservative-fundamentalist-literalist monotheists of the Abrahamic traditions have much of a problem with those theories. It is just this scientic theory that they object.
However the questions I want answered as clearly as possible is
Should natural eviloution be taught in biology classes?
