Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

Sorry, you are wrong about this one. I don't set traps for anybody. I was merely making a point. Why are you so suspicious?

So you're just a tool and you don't even know what you are a tool of. Figures.

I guess you've never seen the position papers, and lists of talking point that the IDers and their fellow travelers put out, the pamphlets on how to take over local school boards in the name of Christ? Or the "calls to arms" to stop godless secular humanism?

Stop wasting our time and take us to your leader.

 

[Thalassamania]

The difficulty with creating more standards lies in the dearth of highly qualified teachers. If we make the requirements more stringent, particularly in math and science, which have become critical, we run the risk of an even greater shortage. There is a move afoot to REDUCE the requirements so that the employment pool is larger. Should this happen as a nation we will fall further behind in the sciences.

The real key is to pay teachers at a scale appropriate to their field. As long as we insist on paying teachers the same, regardless of discipline and only differentiate by the number of credit hours we'll never get there. English teachers and history teachers are in good supply, math and science teachers are not. So pay math and science teachers more (I say pay all teachers more but permit fields that are in short supply to make more) and that problem will solve it self. Frankly I'd rather teach than do what I'm doing now, but I can't afford to.

 

[Soggy]

Soggy>>>>"Yes, animals evolve into other species. Thank you for agreeing with us. I guess we convinced you."

So are you saying it is possible that 2 of a dog-kind could produce the diversity of dog-kinds that we see today? Or are you saying it is not possible? Or are you remaining agnostic on this one?

1) I denounce the word "kind" since it has no meaning.
2) I'm not geneticist, but I do not think that 2 of any one species is a large enough population to facilitate survival of the species. I'm sure Warthaug or Thal will correct me if I am wrong.

Aaron

 

[coachpill]

1) I denounce the word "kind" since it has no meaning.
2) I'm not geneticist, but I do not think that 2 of any one species is a large enough population to facilitate survival of the species. I'm sure Warthaug or Thal will correct me if I am wrong.

Aaron

You denounce the word kind? Interesting...

Let's stick to dogs for now...why? Why not? They are something with which most people have at least a modicum of experience. Have dogs (again, wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs, foxes) ever produced anything other than dogs (wolves, coyotes, foxes, domesticated dogs) in the observational past?

 

[Soggy]

You denounce the word kind? Interesting...

Unless you define it, I refuse to use it

Let's stick to dogs for now...why? Why not? They are something with which most people have at least a modicum of experience. Have dogs (again, wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs, foxes) ever produced anything other than dogs (wolves, coyotes, foxes, domesticated dogs) in the observational past?

Wow, that's a pretty broad paintbrush. Other than being in the same family, (Canidae), all of those animals are very different genus and species. Is there a particular reason why you think inter-family is the most something can evolve?

Honestly, I do not know what the evolutionary history of dogs is...And my definition of "observational past" is obviously very different from yours, as I include data that is observable in other ways than just having seen it happen with my own eyes. These things take time, ya know.

Let's talk horses...
Horse Evolution

EDIT: Nevermind, the horse thing doesn't matter here since it is "only" evolution within a family. Keep in mind that Chimpanzees and Humans are in the same family, though - hominidae, so you might want to be careful where you go with this

 

[sheck33]

You denounce the word kind? Interesting...

Let's stick to dogs for now...why? Why not? They are something with which most people have at least a modicum of experience. Have dogs (again, wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs, foxes) ever produced anything other than dogs (wolves, coyotes, foxes, domesticated dogs) in the observational past?

So, unless you see it happen in front of your eyes in a timespan of a few months or years, species evolving is impossible? There have been plenty of links to scientific studies, posted in this thread, that prove you are wrong.

Evolution is a reality, get used to it.

 

[coachpill]

So, unless you see it happen in front of your eyes in a timespan of a few months or years, species evolving is impossible? There have been plenty of links to scientific studies, posted in this thread, that prove you are wrong.

Actually, I said that speciation would occur. The model would necessitate it because obviously 2 dogs could not be categorized into more than 2 species.

No, I'm not trying to say that I would have to see something. What I'm trying to get at is this: By using what we do see (direct observations) shouldn't we produce models that explain what it is that we do see? In other words, if dogs always produce dogs, then let's explain that. Even mutations don't do the trick here. Poodles are actually mutant dogs. Their mutation has caused them to lose the ability to shed. But they are still dogs.

I'm just saying that it is a large leap to explain speciation within a "kind" (sorry soggy) and then make the jump to other larger categories like phyla and kingdoms.

 

[coachpill]

EDIT: Nevermind, the horse thing doesn't matter here since it is "only" evolution within a family. Keep in mind that Chimpanzees and Humans are in the same family, though - hominidae, so you might want to be careful where you go with this

Yes, I know. However, I also was not dogmatic about where the "kind" could fall in our modern classification scheme.

 

[Soggy]

No, I'm not trying to say that I would have to see something. What I'm trying to get at is this: By using what we do see (direct observations) shouldn't we produce models that explain what it is that we do see? In other words, if dogs always produce dogs, then let's explain that. Even mutations don't do the trick here. Poodles are actually mutant dogs. Their mutation has caused them to lose the ability to shed. But they are still dogs.

Evolution DOES explain what we see through direct observation, genetics, the fossil record, on and on and on.

I'm just saying that it is a large leap to explain speciation within a "kind" (sorry soggy) and then make the jump to other larger categories like phyla and kingdoms.

You, (as a science teacher no less), can't even DEFINE "kind" and you are suggesting that it is a huge leap to go to "larger" categories?

If this is the quality of science teacher my kids end up with, I will move, or send them to private school.

 

[adurso]

The real key is to pay teachers at a scale appropriate to their field. As long as we insist on paying teachers the same, regardless of discipline and only differentiate by the number of credit hours we'll never get there. English teachers and history teachers are in good supply, math and science teachers are not. So pay math and science teachers more (I say pay all teachers more but permit fields that are in short supply to make more) and that problem will solve it self. Frankly I'd rather teach than do what I'm doing now, but I can't afford to.

Of course the key is pay appropriate to the field, yet that would cause screams of disparity. I could afford to teach because I have a retirement, I moved into administration because they hate seeing PhDs in the classroom; they made me an offer my wife could not resist.......