Should evolution be taught in schools?

there is a convincing explanation for macroevolution. It doesn't even make your brain hurt

'The idea that the origin of higher taxa such as genera requires something special is often based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new lineages arise. The two species that are the origin of canine and feline lineages probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were taxonomically isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared internally but that other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell.'

it can't be conclusively 'proved' because the time scales are so vast and human life (and civilisation) are so short and the fossil record is incomplete. but as a logical explanation it seems to present no problems.
the same is true of stellar evolution, the time scales are so vast that we cannot live long enough to observe them. As a result we construct a theory based on the observable universe. The theory is under constant reappraisal as new information comes to light but there is nothing in the observable universe that contradicts it. It therefore seems reasonable to accept it.


Abiogenesis is more problematic because a convincing theory has yet to be devised. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, only that the mechanism is not understood. The fact that we are here is a pretty good proof that it happened though!


Nothing is ultimately 'proveable' beyond all doubt.
I have to accept that if I shove a lighted stick of dynamite up your arse it might be pleasant for you, but I have to work on the hypothesis that it won't be.

what evidence is there for abiogenisis or stellar evolution?

the thing about abiogenesis is that it only had to happen once. a self replicating mechanism once it develops will carry on and all the rest of evolution follows. Thats why the creationists seize on it because the how of it has not been 'proved' beyond all doubt. and given that it happened 4 billion years ago on an earth that was very different to today, it's not surprising that it hasn't.
however given the fact that we are here and given the timescales involved it seems a reasonable theory.
When I was at school we were taught that the origin of life was unknown. we were also taught that god existed.
I've since made my own mind up. Thats what I want children to do once they have all the facts.

Macroevolution is based on genetic mutations, a mutation doesn't create something new it distorts whats already exists... For example if a disease that effects fish fins and spreads to their fish brains wipes out the population of a local pond, if there existed in that pond a few mutant finless fish they would survive as they didn't have fins to catch the disease... This mutation may be beneficial in the short term but ultimatly it is a regression.

Logically the majority genetic mutations would contribute to the regression of a species and not the evolution... Macroevolution as its explained today is inplausible.

We see stars dying constantly, we know that death is all around us... yet in such a vast universe we haven't witnessed the birth of one star... stellar evolution is nothing but faith.

How on earth does the fact life exist prove that abiogenisis occured? Looking at a computer from the inside does not tell me how the computer came to exist... At best I can find out how that computer operates... To find out how it came into existence I need to step outside the computer

a self replicating mechanism is not life.

There's a number of theories of abiogenesis detailed in numerous books, and clearly only one at best can be correct, but there's not necessarily anything particularly special or devine about a self perpetuating chemical.

What I can say however, is that by not having to recourse to the supernatural or magic they are likely to be more worthy of consideration than the religious alternative.

If you are to demand exacting standards of evidence from science (and you absolutely should) you must demand the same from any religious alternative.

In the absence of evidence amounting to proof, the rationalist considers the one with best evidence, ie the one that best fits the observations and probabilities, to be the most valid.

There's a number of theories of abiogenesis detailed in numerous books, and clearly only one at best can be correct, but there's not necessarily anything particularly special or devine about a self perpetuating chemical.
A self perpetuating chemical and life are not one and the same.....

You know fine well that even the most basic forms of life is a million billion trillion miles from a self perpetuating chemical!

If you are to demand exacting standards of evidence from science (and you absolutely should) you must demand the same from any religious alternative.
Why I claim my religion as a faith not a science, evolution is not based on science - it is based on guesswork.

I do know fine well, there's a massive difference - but evolution can explain this! It explains the trillion miles of apartness! Evolution is the only mechanism we know by which complex life could have originated.

Complex life is exactly the problem we're having trouble explaining - and the only way the religious person can explain it is with recourse to an even more complicated being to do it!! It's totally self defeating, and a catastrophically flimsy argument.

Saying your religion is 'faith' up to a point is fine - but then you lose all right to use it to explain scientific problems (origin of the universe, origin of life, whether prayer works, whether god exists) then the evidence has to match scientific standards. Over the years, we've seen the 'domain' of religion shrink - it used to be the explanation for all this, now science has provided better explanations for every phenomenon I can think of.

whats the difference between a self replicating mechanism and a bacterium?

Use virus there as a better example

No it doesn't!

Why do you continuelly lie?

Take the Cambrian explosion of animal life, 530 million years ago, some 50 phyla appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Only 30 to 34 survived. The rest perished. Since then no new phyla have evolved... why would no new phyla evolve?

hahahaha you haven't been able to explain anything other than microevolution... how can you possibly say complex life is the only thing you have trouble explaining?!?!?

deary me. all evolution is based on genetic mutations. There is no such thing as macroevolution as you are choosing to define it. One species does not suddenly mutate into another and nobody claims they do. It's a process of gradual seperation. Thats why there is nothing with three legs (apart from rolf harris)
If any mutation confers a benefit then it will survive. The vast majority of them will not and won't. There is no such thing as progression or regression. the direction of evolution is random.
And a mutation does indeed create something new.
your understanding of evolution is as poor as mine of hebrew.

well there is some debate as to whether a virus constitutes a life form. give him an inch

Joe issues such as gaps in the fossil record and why they are actually expected by the evolutionist are covered in more detail than I can be bothered to recant here in Blind Watchmaker - it is a mere £7 on amazon and I think it helps clarify all the standard creationist errors and misinformation.

You're quite right to question the evidence for evolution - but what's your alternative to it? A glorified fairy did it all coz he felt like it?

You bring me the better explanation and I'll ditch primordial slime and evolution

Deary deary me.
The birth of many stars can be seen. It is just on such a long time scale that it takes longer than recorded history and so a human observer can't see it.
Stars at all stages of this process can be observed however.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen.

I can't hear, see or feel, a gamma ray, and nor can Joe, but there's damn good evidence they exist.

One analogy I think will help here is that of the murder trial.

We have someone with motive, ability and opportunity.

We can track his movements on CCTV cameras for 3 hours up to the event, except for a 5 minute blackspot during the murder itself. He was the only person around, forensic evidence links the weapon, DNA links him to the weapon, and he is seen running away after and disposing of the body.

You can't prove he did it....but that doesn't mean he didn't do it, and the balance of probabilities are that he did. And a rational jury would probably come to the same conclusion and send him away.

They should scrap Religious Education in favour of this, I used to stay off school whenever I had RE because I didn't want to be taught about things I didn't believe in and stuff like Muslims/Hindus/Jews etc etc. RE should be optional and not compulsary, it shouldn't be forced onto people the way it is.

they should teach philosophy IMO

Then it is you that is confusing macroevolution... within the timeframe of life emerging on earth without genetic mutations there hasn't been the time scale for such a broadscope of life to emerge.

What you class as macroevolution is actually microeveolution, the different variety of cats can be attributed to microevolution, however the shared ancestor of a cat and venus fly trap cannot be explained by the gradual progression you describe... mutations or something similar need to occur.

You've just stated something, can you show me one example of this ever happening... it certainly isn't in your rich fossil record