Teach "Evolution," Not Darwinian Evolution

The Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon used to be a mountain about as high as the Himilayas, maybe higher, but the mile high strata of rock above it is the result of the continuous uplift of the North American Craton (Wyoming Craton) that continues to rise today. This counters any erosion. Continental crust rises, ocean crust sinks. So what's the point about erosion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know. What's this got to do with my illustrative example of tiny effects over vast spans of time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a factual example of your theoretical example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps I was not clear in my reply? Your "illustrative example" is flawed because the "tiny effects of erosion over vast spans of time" are equally - if not more so - counter-balanced by the "tiny effects of deposition over vast spans of time" and the uplift of continents.

Let me be more precise in my example of the Grand Canyon. The mile-high strata of rock is the result of deposition that has occurred over 1.2 billion years. The canyon itself, and the reason that we are able to see this strata of rock deposits, is the result of the uplift of the Colorado Plateau (8,000 feet) that occurred over a much shorter time interval when the Farallon Plate uplifted the North American Craton (Wyoming Province). That uplift continues today as the Pacific Plate is subducted under the North American continent. Continental crust rises: oceanic crust sinks.

Two out of 3 ain't bad. Want to try for another "crap shot" illustrative example?

 

As Colorado is far from the Pacific Ocean, I am surprised to read this subduction extends so far to the East. I think you are ten times better versed in geology than I am* so you are probably correct here, but can you inform how far subduction typically goes etc. (All drawings I have ever seen illustrating subduction have the lower strata going down at at least a 30 degree angle and melting before it could go from west coast to the upper part of the grand canyon.)
--------------------------------------
*Do not get a "swell head" about this. - It is more a comment on my ignorance than your knowledge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

WTF 36 pages...?

 

Evolution is an Observational Fact. Darwinian Evolution refers to the Theory of Natural Selection, which is the current leading mechanism explaining how and why Evolution occurred.

Darwin didn't invent Evolution, his grandfather was an evolutionist, and many other men and women before Erasmus.

The reason that Evolution is an Observational Fact is because of the wealth of fossils. Each strata contains certain fossils the entire world over. You do not find more complex organisms deeper down anywhere. They follow a clear pattern of change, with many intermediate fossils showing a clear progression of change from one form to another. So, we know that animals change over time, we just aren't sure how or why. Maybe a god is changing them over time, and making 99.9% of all species that have ever existed go extinct. Or perhaps, since we know that organisms pass along their traits via DNA, it could be that the slight variation in DNA is acted on by the variety of environments, resulting in differential success, which creates a change in the organism in response to changes in the reproductive success of the organism.

And this debate is the true one that creationists and natural selectionists should have. Instead, NS guys say that there is no god, and creationists say that there was no evolution. In both cases, the argument has gone to the base, instead of staying on target.

People who think that Evolution didn't take place are just too uneducated to know what they are talking about. There is no Theory of Evolution, Evolution is a Fact of nature... organisms change over time. The only reason people deny this is because their religion tells them to, the same reason they don't wear condoms and kill their sisters for having sex out of wedlock.

 

Please address the politics of teaching evolution vs. creationism, otherwise the subject is best discussed in the Biology or Religion sections. Or perhaps Science and Society.

 

OK, I moved it, this thread has been resurrected.

 

Mod Hat (tiassa ™)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This thread is getting a second chance. Let's try to keep up a decent level of discussion if any discussion is still merited.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Since all here must agree that species is a meaningless term (since members of different species can breed), let's all encourage the scientists to come up with a classification system which has actual meaning, this species routine is foolishness.

 

Species is not totally meaningless. It defines different kinds of animals that at least do not typically mate due to behavioral or environmental reasons.

 

The fact that they can produce offspring is what matters.

 

That is usually how species is defined. Most classification systems will have exceptions, since nature tends to be fuzzy rather than clear cut.

How hard is it to prove that two animals can mate? How is this accomplished, in vitro? It's not a practical system.

 

The lowest common denominator is often not at the "species" level, it's often at the genus level, and sometimes the family level, so the term species forces delineations of gene pools which are not there, bad science.

 

In practice species are not usually defined in biology by the capability to mate or not mate.

They are described firstly according to their morphology, behaviour, habitat, and location.

 

But if in practice they do not mate, then their gene pools are effectively separate.

 

in practice it is very clear what is a species and what is not in most cases. If you want to dive below the species level on the level of subspecies it can get a bit messy.

That's why species is still the base unit for life.

 

Many so-called species can interbreed to produce offspring, so syngameons, or a more accurate term like it, would be better science.

Since many "species" can interbreed, they are obviously not "the base unit for life."

Mod Hat (tiassa ™)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

merged posts.
Try to think before you post and just make one post.

 

Yes, but as I understand it, most cross-species hybrids are infertile.