What is Evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution.

This thread unsurprisingly have a low turn out.

johnydon22:
This thread unsurprisingly have a low turn out.

would you expect otherwise?

Visit https://creation.com/search?q=Evolution to see information about evolution, provided by well-qualified scientists(from recognized institutions in the around the world), which you would most likely not be find around.

I marvel at the confidence with which evolutionists mock creationists for believing, with faith, that life was created, while at the same time they believe that life evolved. What is more striking is that it takes as much faith, nay, I say much more faith than creation requires, to believe evolution. For whereas creation affirms that an omnipotent Creator created life, evolution entertains such absurdities as life arising from the actions of blind, random, uncontrolled, pitiless forces of nature acting on random materials.

DoctorAlien:
I marvel at the confidence with which evolutionists mock creationists for believing, with faith, that life was created, while at the same time they believe that life evolved. What is more striking is that it takes as much faith, nay, I say much more faith than creation requires, to believe evolution. For whereas creation affirms that an omnipotent Creator created life, evolution entertains such absurdities as life arising from the actions of blind, random, uncontrolled, pitiless forces of nature acting on random materials.

Belive?? My brother the concept of evolution has nothing to do belief. Care observations have been made priori by Mr Charles D. Whom based on observations proposed his ultimate findings- that life is evolving in line with environmental changes. Today scientist have confirmed that at every strata of organization.

budaatum:

would you expect otherwise?

If thread were titled "pastor rapes...." or "Daddy freeze throw shades at. ." They will be an online stampede

budaatum:
What is Evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution.

How do you think it will be possible to teach evolution theory in a lay man language.

kkins25:

Belive?? My brother the concept of evolution has nothing to do belief. Care observations have been made priori by Mr Charles D. Whom based on observations proposed his ultimate findings- that life is evolving in line with environmental changes. Today scientist have confirmed that at every strata of organization.

Evolution is poorly understood by students and, disturbingly, by many of their science teachers. it should be part of the compulsory science curriculum in nigeria schools. I have discuss evolution with a biological student from Nigeria before and her reaction and understanding about the topic was very foolish. Permit me with the use of my word.

DoctorAlien:
I marvel at the confidence with which evolutionists mock creationists for believing, with faith, that life was created, while at the same time they believe that life evolved. What is more striking is that it takes as much faith, nay, I say much more faith than creation requires, to believe evolution. For whereas creation affirms that an omnipotent Creator created life, evolution entertains such absurdities as life arising from the actions of blind, random, uncontrolled, pitiless forces of nature acting on random materials.

EVolution is an open science vis a vis a lab science.

It is one of the most tested scienctifc theory and any idiot refusing it are doing it purposely because it portray the truth they are not willing to accept.

vaxx:
EVolution is an open science vis a vis a lab science.

It is one of the most tested scienctifc theory and any idiot refusing it are doing it purposely because it portray the truth they are not willing to accept.

Are you sure that evolution is a lab science? Note that this is different from asking whether some of the things that evolution employ in its explanation can be tested in the lab. But, can we see that particular first organism arising from pond scum?

What do you have to say about these quotes from two high-profile evolutionists, who acknowledged the distinction between historical science (evolution) and operational science (disciplines like Physics, Chemistry)?

1.
“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

2.
“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Source: https://creation.com/its-not-science

kkins25:

Belive?? My brother the concept of evolution has nothing to do belief. Care observations have been made priori by Mr Charles D. Whom based on observations proposed his ultimate findings- that life is evolving in line with environmental changes. Today scientist have confirmed that at every strata of organization.

How is it that evolution has nothing to do with belief? So what, apart from believe, am I to do with statements like these which comes from evolutionary teaching: "our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms", "The first animals evolved from their single-celled ancestors around 800 million years ago." I should chew the statements?

Only those whose brains are infested with "expired ewedu" and "adulterated amala" will come here to claim that humans did not originate from single celled organisms!!!

When your daddy's sp**m entered your mother's womb, WHAT DID YOU LOOK LIKE AND WHAT DID YOU RESEMBLE?

vaxx:
How do you think it will be possible to teach evolution theory in a lay man language.

Lay man language like English?

vaxx:
Evolution is poorly understood by students and, disturbingly, by many of their science teachers. it should be part of the compulsory science curriculum in nigeria schools. I have discuss evolution with a biological student from Nigeria before and her reaction and understanding about the topic was very foolish. Permit me with the use of my word.

Nigerians are taught creationism from very early at home by their parents and their teachers in school. We don't even learn history so how could we possibly understand evolution?

DoctorAlien:


How is it that evolution has nothing to do with belief? So what, apart from believe, am I to do with statements like these which comes from evolutionary teaching: "our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms", "The first animals evolved from their single-celled ancestors around 800 million years ago." I should chew the statements?

No, not "chew", but study, research, learn and understand.

That's also what you ought to do where your religion is concerned, and not just, not use your God given brain and believe whatever you are told to believe!

budaatum:

No, not chew, but study, research, learn and understand.

That's also what you ought to do where your religion is concerned, and not just, not use your God given brain and believe whatever you are told to believe!

Study, research, learn and understand what? At best what evolutionary teaching offers is an explanation of how it COULD HAVE happened in the past (nobody was present then to observe anything). But then these explanations are based upon multiple unprovable assumptions.

Mind you creationist scientists observe today the same things that evolutionists observe, but creationist scientists have different explanations for these observations. So there you go with your "study, research, learn and understand". Well-qualified creationist scientists study the same phenomena and things that evolutionists study, and arrive at different interpretations.

The basic difference is worldview.

Evolution is essential to our curriculum and to scientific literacy. Imagine teaching social science without teaching history; students would lack perspective on events going on today. Similarly, to understand the big picture of biology, students need to understand life on Earth in terms of its history and its future — the changing life forms and ecosystems that have arisen and changed over billions of years, as well as the mechanisms that have brought about those changes.

The Understanding Evolution project aims to help instructors develop student understanding of:

Basic evolutionary patterns and processes

Evolutionary theory's ability to explain phenomena across the many subdisciplines of biology

The many applications of evolutionary theory, both in solving real world problems and in scientific research

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory

As is true of any subject, to teach evolution successfully, teachers need to be prepared with a conceptual understanding of the topic and with effective curricular strategies. Teachers that develop a depth of knowledge beyond what is actually expected of students will be able to confidently adjust instruction in response to students' needs and inquiries. This is particularly true in the teaching of evolution, where students' questions can be numerous and challenging.

We've assembled a variety of resources to help you increase student understanding of evolution. To improve your own content knowledge, explore Evolution 101 and our resource library. To prepare yourself with lesson plans, teaching tips, and pedagogical strategies, visit a Teacher's Lounge or explore the all-level resources listed below and to the right.
Teaching materials

DoctorAlien:


The basic difference is worldview.

"Worldview", as in how you chose to view the world, and not seeing the world how it is Doc? I call that fantasy, and if that's your preferred 'worldview', who am I to argue with you that you don't see what you see.

I'll continue preaching the doctrine of open your eyes and look and see though. One never knows who might catch on.

budaatum:

"Worldview", as in how you chose to view the world, and not seeing the world how it is Doc? I call that fantasy, and if that's your preferred 'worldview', who am I to argue with you that you don't see what you see.

I'll continue preaching the doctrine of open your eyes and look and see though. One never knows who might catch on.

No, worldview as in the preconceived opinion on the nature of things. Worldviews could be materialism, naturalism, creationism, etc.

budaatum:
Evolution is essential to our curriculum and to scientific literacy. Imagine teaching social science without teaching history; students would lack perspective on events going on today. Similarly, to understand the big picture of biology, students need to understand life on Earth in terms of its history and its future — the changing life forms and ecosystems that have arisen and changed over billions of years, as well as the mechanisms that have brought about those changes.

The Understanding Evolution project aims to help instructors develop student understanding of:

Basic evolutionary patterns and processes

Evolutionary theory's ability to explain phenomena across the many subdisciplines of biology

The many applications of evolutionary theory, both in solving real world problems and in scientific research

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory

As is true of any subject, to teach evolution successfully, teachers need to be prepared with a conceptual understanding of the topic and with effective curricular strategies. Teachers that develop a depth of knowledge beyond what is actually expected of students will be able to confidently adjust instruction in response to students' needs and inquiries. This is particularly true in the teaching of evolution, where students' questions can be numerous and challenging.

We've assembled a variety of resources to help you increase student understanding of evolution. To improve your own content knowledge, explore Evolution 101 and our resource library. To prepare yourself with lesson plans, teaching tips, and pedagogical strategies, visit a Teacher's Lounge or explore the all-level resources listed below and to the right.
Teaching materials

Are you sure that evolution is essential to our curriculum? (I'm not gonna bother myself about the "scientific literacy" part, because evolutionists can at will label anyone who doesn't agree with them illiterate, as is observed even on this forum). Hear Dr. P. S. Skell, a member of the US NAS:

“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”

Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

budaatum:

Lay man language like English?

like break it down into simple terms and well to understand analogy.

What youve posted amounts to claiming, "knowledge of the past is not essential for todays living", and while that may be true as far as daily bread goes, we can easily observe how a deficiency in history affects societal development, though, those with no knowledge of history would not see their deficiency since they have no knowledge of the past.

The following is from the article to which yours below is a response.

While Egnor’s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren’t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.
Why Evolution Is True

DoctorAlien:


Are you sure that evolution is essential to our curriculum? (I'm not gonna bother myself about the "scientific literacy" part, because evolutionists can at will label anyone who doesn't agree with them illiterate, as is observed even on this forum). Hear Dr. P. S. Skell, a member of the US NAS:

“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”

Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

budaatum:

Nigerians are taught creationism from very early at home by their parents and their teachers in school. We don't even learn history so how could we possibly understand evolution?

You can see alien subscribing to false claim that science is divided into two. historical and operational.

DoctorAlien:


No, worldview as in the preconceived opinion on the nature of things. Worldviews could be materialism, naturalism, creationism, etc.

Indeed one's worldview can be "preconceived opinion", and fantasy. But a proper worldview should be based on evidence and facts and not just that which one chooses to believe despite, and regardless, of the evidence.

DoctorAlien:


Are you sure that evolution is a lab science? Note that this is different from asking whether some of the things that evolution employ in its explanation can be tested in the lab. But, can we see that particular first organism arising from pond scum?

What do you have to say about these quotes from two high-profile evolutionists, who acknowledged the distinction between historical science (evolution) and operational science (disciplines like Physics, Chemistry)?

1.
“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

2.
“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Source: https://creation.com/its-not-science

i have trashed this rubbished of historical and operational science once with you before. Those creationist you are quoting are only doing that because scienctifc evidence is against their claim......every scientific evidence is both operational and historical because claim and fact can be study, tested, documented , observed and verify overtime......




And about evolution, it is stupid to debate it with you, you don't even understand how science works. How can you know how evolution works?.




To those who want to learn. Pls this is Harvard uni report and lab demonstration of what is called evolution of bacteria



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

budaatum:

Indeed one's worldview can be "preconceived opinion", and fantasy. But a proper worldview should be based on evidence and facts and not just that which one chooses to believe despite, and regardless, of the evidence.

It remains for you to demonstrate that creationism as a worldview is not "based on evidence and facts".

At this point I'd like to note that evidence does not speak for itself: it needs to be interpreted. So when you say "despite, and regardless, of the evidence" I'd like to remind you that people because of their worldviews, will believe whatever they will "despite, and regardless, of the evidence." You know how ready evolutionists are (just as creationists equally are) to interpret whatever new finding/observations to fit into their models.

Worldview, Buda. Worldview.

vaxx:
like break it down into simple terms and well to understand analogy.

The following is from the K-2 teachers' lounge (K-2 is kindergarten, equivalent of nursery school in Nigeria.)

Though you will probably not be teaching evolution in grades K-2, you will be laying the foundation for student understanding of evolution in later grades. You can also help your students avoid confusions that may lead to misconceptions later on.

And the following is 4 years later in K6 to 8, the equivalent of our primary 4.

Students at this level are ready to look more closely at evolutionary concepts that explain the diversity of living organisms and the history of life on Earth. As a teacher, you will be building upon basic concepts students have learned at lower grades: variation within a population, the suitability of different traits for different environments, and inheritance.

As you can see, it is broken down, but building on knowledge acquired earlier in nursery school at 4-5 years old by which age a Nigerian child has been convinced God done it in 6 days and rested on the 7^th and on which all it's future education is based.

vaxx:
i have trashed this rubbished of historical and operational science once with you before. Those creationist you are quoting are only doing that because scienctifc evidence is against their claim......every scientific evidence is both operational and historical because claim and fact can be study , documented , observed and verify overtime......




And about, evolution, it is stupid to debate it with you, you don't even understand how science works. How can you know how evolution works?.




To those who want to learn. Pls this is Harvard uni report and lab demonstration of what is called evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

But Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson whom I quoted were not creationists. Are you sure you read my post well?

DoctorAlien:


It remains for you to demonstrate that creationism as a worldview is not "based on evidence and facts".

I don't need to demonstrate anything to you since it concerns me not what you personally chose to believe or understand or know. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will hear and see and learn. As for the rest, those like you, I don't mind saying "Peace of the Lord be with you", as I clean your dust off myself and depart from your presence.

DoctorAlien:


But Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson whom I quoted were not creationists. Are you sure you read my post well?

but subscribe to the concept creationists ""created"" and hence developed it with backwater science. NOTHING like science is divided into two. Science is both historical and operational. Full stop.