When should you introduce your child to evolution?

Yeah. I don’t think there is anything wrong with little kids learning about evolution, or that gay adoptive parents are part of our community for that matter. It’s just the whole “we need to fight the prevailing metanarrative with our own metanarrative” thing that I don’t get. (Well, I mean I get it, I just don’t find it personally compelling in these cases.) I don’t feel the need to proactively combat the creationist metanarrative from a young age.

@Stump, a@JohnZ

My doctor when I was a child was Dr. Clarence Ward. My parents asked him when should they tell me about reproduction? He said let your child ask you. He is highly intelligent and will ask when he is ready to know. Therefore, let the children ask the questions when they are ready to know and explain it to them then. They will let you now when they are ready. The theistic evolution of the human brain makes that possible. Also, Merry Christmas friend John!

@Eddie @Mervin_Bitikofer @Patrick
Reply as a related topic if you want to continue your discussion of whether or not Christians are as Christian as atheists. It’s not the topic of this thread.

You should NEVER teach your child evolution it claims it to be science but it is NOT! Creation ONLY is what we taught our son!

Martin,
Should we give our children vaccinations? How about an annual flu shot? If so, we are tacitly accepting that evolution is fact.

False. This is like saying that if a lion eats a child, or a shark eats a fish, we are tacitly accepting that evolution is a fact. Ridiculous.

We should accept evolution and not let our children near the lions nor sharks. And we should vaccinate our children to protected them from viruses that mutate.

[quote=“Patrick, post:142, topic:3512”]
we should vaccinate our children to protected them from viruses that mutate.
[/quote]…

Yes, and also from those viruses that do not mutate. But mutation is not evolution.

Please explain.

It has often been explained, even on these threads. But once again, mutations merely open up genetic variation within a population. They are only a small part of a necessary requirement for evolution on the scale that is significant. Mutations are not evolution when they cause defects and death within organisms. They are not evolution when they merely activate or deactivate existing sequences. They are not evolution by themselves, and require changes that are significant to change one kind of thing into one kind of another thing. Mutations without natural selection would not be evolution. Mutations with natural selection, but without significant changes in genome or organism would still not be evolution. Mutations with significant changes, and with natural selection, but with merely deleterious changes or harmful changes or neutral changes would not be evolution. If mutations were evolution, then we would not need to use the word “mutation”. Clearly there is a distinction, and you ought to be aware of it.

John,

There are multiple causes for Evolution. One of the causes is GENETIC DRIFT. This is, essentially, mutation.

If you go to Dictionary.com, you will see that ANY change in the gene pool of a life form IS Evolution (either from Genetic Drift, differential survival rates or differential fertility).

George

1 Like

We’ve had this discussion before. Did you miss it? Genetic drift is not mutation. Mutation might allow genetic drift to occur, but they are not the same thing. The dictionary definition is misleading. It attributes a small portion of the evolutionary theory as a definition for the whole theory, which is invalid. It would be like saying that caucasians are the human race. Or the definition of humans is natives.

Eddie, you never disappoint. You don’t think Genetic Drift embodies mutation of the genetic code?

Okay… let’s go to the dictionary. Dictionary.com is far less mysterious than you are, Eddie. It states:

". . . random changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool, usually of small populations. "

Since this definition doesn’t specify whether the changes in frequency is due to differential survival, differential fertility, or just a mutation, I will accept your stipulations.

In any case, I think John will have to accept that Mutation is definitely ONE kind of Evolution.

The Biological definition for Evolution is:

". . . . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "

George

Eddie,
I am pleased that my annual flu shot is doctrinaire neo-Darwinism. Glad there was no copay.

micro/macro evolution, atheistic/theistic evolution, Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution. There are so many types of evolution, I am having a hard time keeping track so I am just going to refer to the Earthly biological process as evolution.

1 Like

Eddie, my dearest boon companion, you must be great fun at parties.

If you read my post again, you will see that I accept your criticism. And I listed the two dictionary definitions to replace my original position.

I realized, specifically because of your comments, that I was wrong in what I had originally posted.
Try not to have a heart attack…

George

Eddie, Let’s try this one more time:

The DEFINITION of Evolution is:

". . . . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "

EVOLUTION happens to a gene pool.

If we are looking at the specifics of mutation …

“MUTATION is a change to a single gene or chromosome.”

To the extent that mutation affects a whole gene pool, is the degree to which the gene pool has evolved.

George