Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law

[Yarn]

I see no reaon why this bill is a problem it protects other views of creation which would be unfairly excluded by ant-religious zealots who's only goal is to discredit something which cannot be discredited, evelotuion has absolutley NO proof, any more or any less than creationism, and even if creationism did in fact happen, then it doesn't mean that eveloution cannot take place also and vice versa. Very little to no signiffigant evidence can be presented to prove evolution theory. Why should science nerds be allowed to cram a evidenceless theory down our children's throats? Why shouldn't a student be able to expose nay flaw or weakness in any theory? OSunds to me like a bunch of whinning anti-religion babies to me.

And you have what credentials to be making this claim again? 97% of scientists believe in something that there is "no proof" for?

No proof? Any objective person who has taken biology, or who even has a passing interest in it, wouldn't make that claim. Hell, they are even able to precisely measure rates of mutation (e.g. some viruses evolve at a rate of 1 error per 200 base-pair replications). Evolution is happening all the time, everywhere, in everything.

If we start having you teach our children biology, kiss modern medicine good bye.

[finder]

And you have what credentials to be making this claim again? 97% of scientists believe in something that there is "no proof" for?

No proof? Any objective person who has taken biology, or who even has a passing interest in it, wouldn't make that claim. Hell, they are even able to precisely measure rates of mutation (e.g. some viruses evolve at a rate of 1 error per 200 base-pair replications). Evolution is happening all the time, everywhere, in everything.

If we start having you teach our children biology, kiss modern medicine good bye.

The problem is the term "evolution" is used in such a broad since. Yes, mutations occur. Where the leap of faith comes in is believing that all life came from one single living cell. A living cell that proponents of "evolution" readily admit evolution doesn't explain how the existence of that cell came into being nor does it attempt to, but all their theories begin there, ironically. So ironeagle is correct when she says it hasn't been proven.

And the fact is evolution is a political movement designed to enhance the government intrusion efforts of the left. The Politics of Evolution

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

The problem is the term "evolution" is used in such a broad since. Yes, mutations occur. Where the leap of faith comes in is believing that all life came from one single living cell. A living cell that proponents of "evolution" readily admit evolution doesn't explain how the existence of that cell came into being nor does it attempt to, but all their theories begin there, ironically. So ironeagle is correct when she says it hasn't been proven.

And the fact is evolution is a political movement designed to enhance the government intrusion efforts of the left. The Politics of Evolution

I don't know about you, but I wasn't taught one way or the other about the origins of life in school, even up through undergraduate - and that's with a minor in biology. Generally, it's not taught because it's not well understood.

But you first acknowledge that "evolution," is used colloquially in a broad sense, and then you use it colloquially yourself to conflate it with a separate, if related, idea. In other words, you first bring it to our attention that the term is being misused, then misuse it yourself.

Evolution has been proven. Period. There is absolutely no doubt about it to anyone with the ability to objectively consider the evidence.

Abiogenesis has not (yet) been proven, though there are theories with promise. But abiogenesis is not what the bill is aimed at, or what creationist efforts at pushing religion into public schools are aimed at, for that matter. Because abiogenesis (so far as I know) is not yet discussed in public schools.

[finder]

I don't know about you, but I wasn't taught one way or the other about the origins of life in school, even up through undergraduate - and that's with a minor in biology. Generally, it's not taught because it's not well understood.

But you first acknowledge that "evolution," is used colloquially in a broad sense, and then you use it colloquially yourself to conflate it with a separate, if related, idea. In other words, you first bring it to our attention that the term is being misused, then misuse it yourself.

Evolution has been proven. Period. There is absolutely no doubt about it to anyone with the ability to objectively consider the evidence.

Abiogenesis has not (yet) been proven, though there are theories with promise. But abiogenesis is not what the bill is aimed at, or what creationist efforts at pushing religion into public schools are aimed at, for that matter. Because abiogenesis (so far as I know) is not yet discussed in public schools.

I communicated on the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution and how the theory of evolution begins from the point of the unproven theories of abiogenesis. I didn't say they were the same theory or that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution. So your accusation that I misused the term "evolution" is dead wrong.

It depends on what you mean by "evolution." If you mean mutations, yes they have been proven. If you mean common decent of all life from a single ancestor, no it hasn't been proven. You can't prove all life came from a single existing cell. You can only prove that the evidence can be interpreted as such by people who believe it. Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correct, abiogenesis is not as of yet a political issue.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I communicated on the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution and how the theory of evolution begins from the point of the unproven theories of abiogenesis. I didn't say they were the same theory or that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution. So your accusation that I misused the term "evolution" is dead wrong.

You said:

So ironeagle is correct when she says it hasn't been proven.

The "it," in question being - unequivocably, from her post and your reference to it - evolution. Evolution is proven. Period. I'm not interested in getting into another debate about it, because you would undoubtedly "become disinterested," in the debate right about the time you were proven once again to be unequivocably wrong on the point. That ground's been covered before.

[finder]

You said:



The "it," in question being - unequivocably, from her post and your reference to it - evolution. Evolution is proven. Period. I'm not interested in getting into another debate about it, because you would undoubtedly "become disinterested," in the debate right about the time you were proven once again to be unequivocably wrong on the point. That ground's been covered before.

The "so" in the quote you provided of me was indicative that there was a context for which I said that. I was responding to the evidences of evolution that Yarn pointed out which was basically that things mutate and change before our eyes. I conceded him that. The preconception that a self existing cell independent from any life previous is responsible for all life i.e. common decent from a single ancestor, is still however, just a preconceived notion. And I don't care to debate evolution at this time either. My concern was the broad sense that the term "evolution" is used.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

The "so" in the quote you provided of me was indicative that there was a context for which I said that. I was responding to the evidences of evolution that Yarn pointed out which was basically that things mutate and change before our eyes. I conceded him that. The preconception that a self existing cell independent from any life previous is responsible for all life i.e. common decent from a single ancestor, is still however, just a preconceived notion. And I don't care to debate evolution at this time either. My concern was the broad sense that the term "evolution" is used.

Sorry, that's not really how the word "so," works - it doesn't indicate a limitation or context, but rather indicates a positive assertion. You can try to wiggle around semantically all you want - you specifically claimed that ironeagle's claim that evolution is unproven was correct. That assertion is, quite simply, flat wrong.

So - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

No one really doubts that the LUCA existed. There's still some questions about what it looked like, so to speak, and certainly a lot of questions about where it came from - but no doubt that it existed.

Earth's Original Ancestor Was 'LUCA'

[minorwork]

I see no reaon why this bill is a problem it protects other views of creation which would be unfairly excluded by ant-religious zealots who's only goal is to discredit something which cannot be discredited, evelotuion has absolutley NO proof, any more or any less than creationism, and even if creationism did in fact happen, then it doesn't mean that eveloution cannot take place also and vice versa. Very little to no signiffigant evidence can be presented to prove evolution theory. Why should science nerds be allowed to cram a evidenceless theory down our children's throats? Why shouldn't a student be able to expose nay flaw or weakness in any theory? OSunds to me like a bunch of whinning anti-religion babies to me.

Ah, kissing up to atheists won't endear you to your God. There IS good news in the legislation. Prayer and placebo can be examined, eh? Zombies and Jesus. Sounds like fun.

"If we are going to teach biblical creationism in the science classes. Why stop there? Let's teach the biblical "demon possession" theory in medical school as an alternative treatment for epilepsy, pi as 3.0 in Geometry, the terracentric model of the universe in Astronomy, the flat earth in Geography, unicorns in Zoology, and the role and proper beating guidelines for slaves in Humanities."-- Jay Holland

[Yarn]

The problem is the term "evolution" is used in such a broad since. Yes, mutations occur. Where the leap of faith comes in is believing that all life came from one single living cell. A living cell that proponents of "evolution" readily admit evolution doesn't explain how the existence of that cell came into being nor does it attempt to, but all their theories begin there, ironically. So ironeagle is correct when she says it hasn't been proven.

I am perfectly amenable to the idea we don't teach abiogenesis, since we don't know how it works (we have a few theories, but none of them are solid), but that is only, at best, the tiniest portion of what evolution is. Arguably, it isn't even part of evolution. The first step, the one that produced the first living thing, was either that of a blind or intelligent watchmaker, not of natural selection. The evidence is only solid that around 3.5 billion years ago, somehow or other, prokaryotic cells emerged that started leaving behind fossils. Everything after that we have plenty details for and are continuing to learn more and more about. And that is what I wish to safe gaurd. Not speculations about abiogenesis.

So if she had said abiogenesis, fine. But she didn't. She said evolution.

And the fact is evolution is a political movement designed to enhance the government intrusion efforts of the left.

The fact is you're trying to redefine our argument in terms of formalism in order to promote the absurd idea that letting politicians rather than scientists determine what is taught in science classes is somehow less political than allowing scientists to decide.

[Jack]

The problem is the term "evolution" is used in such a broad since.

It depends on what you mean by "evolution." If you mean mutations, yes they have been proven. If you mean common decent of all life from a single ancestor, no it hasn't been proven.

My concern was the broad sense that the term "evolution" is used.

Our concern is how the term evolution is used as well, especially how it's too often misused and misapplied by religionists attempting to undermine proper science through the use of innuendo and misinformation. Creationists mischaracterize evolution, constantly confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution and suggest that there's a question in the scientific community about the process of evolution. The biological sciences and medical sciences are based solely on the scientific fact that evolution occurs. There is no statistically significant opposition to the occurrence of evolution in nature.

Those of us who learned anything at all about evolution understand: The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. (Source)

[finder]

I am perfectly amenable to the idea we don't teach abiogenesis, since we don't know how it works (we have a few theories, but none of them are solid), but that is only, at best, the tiniest portion of what evolution is. Arguably, it isn't even part of evolution. The first step, the one that produced the first living thing, was either that of a blind or intelligent watchmaker, not of natural selection. The evidence is only solid that around 3.5 billion years ago, somehow or other, prokaryotic cells emerged that started leaving behind fossils. Everything after that we have plenty details for and are continuing to learn more and more about. And that is what I wish to safe gaurd. Not speculations about abiogenesis.

So if she had said abiogenesis, fine. But she didn't. She said evolution.



The fact is you're trying to redefine our argument in terms of formalism in order to promote the absurd idea that letting politicians rather than scientists determine what is taught in science classes is somehow less political than allowing scientists to decide.

No worries. I don't think anyone is trying to threaten cell mutations. But I am curious. Say the first cell that emerged, divided into multiple cells, then some died off while others divided and still others began to merge with some of the divided cells. So that they are of the same original cell. Where would the "new dna" come from? If you take salt and divide it, then reemerge it at a later time, it's still salt, right?

I was stating a fact, not attempting to redefine an argument.

[finder]

Our concern is how the term evolution is used as well, especially how it's too often misused and misapplied by religionists attempting to undermine proper science through the use of innuendo and misinformation. Creationists mischaracterize evolution, constantly confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution and suggest that there's a question in the scientific community about the process of evolution. The biological sciences and medical sciences are based solely on the scientific fact that evolution occurs. There is no statistically significant opposition to the occurrence of evolution in nature.

I don't know what you mean by "religionists" but from a layman's perspective it seems it is the scientific community that has put out misinformation. Lay people will speak as lay people, it's not fair to fault them for that. Consider how evolution has been presented to us. Like your link. Cute, how at the top the animated cell mutates eventually into a man desiring a cheese burger. But that plants a subliminal message in the mind that suggest cells mutate into various creatures; eventually even into a man. So if a lay person sees that, naturally considering it nonsense because no one actually believes a cell mutates into a man, who has misrepresented evolution, the lay person or the scientist displaying the animated sign? It reminds of the London museum of natural history. At one time they showed a short film clip as part of their tour that depicted a squirrel jumping from a tree and sprouting wings before it landed, emphasizing natural selection. No one in their right mind would believe a squirrel could do that. Who mischaracterized evolution in that case?

That said, I did appreciate your source. I understand what you mean by the process of evolution vs. the theory of evolution. The British moth example made it easy to comprehend, thanks. I once read an article about London mosquitoes a few years back. In short it was about mosquitoes that were trapped in the tunnels and in a relatively short time they became translucent and were unrecognizable by their parent counter parts outside of the tunnels. They adapted to the dark and fed on the rats. They no longer could procreate with the original species. So I get it, things change and that is all evolution is.

Also I understand the concept of a cell nuclei having different dna from its outer wall. That when one organism consumes another or in some way merges to another, that both dna is persevered, thus in essence the organism becomes a "new" organism. But I have to ask you, how does rearranging the same genetic information create 'new' information? Your source, though it alluded to the first life emerging led to all other forms, didn't explain how that can be so. Is it your view that life emerged multiple times being different from each other or that it happened once and all life diverged from that one single life? You see the obvious problems with both scenarios don't you? On the one hand the amazingly rare emergence of life had to have happened perhaps hundreds of times in different locations to be able to offer up the cocktail of genetic ingredients to interact, sparking evolution. And then on the other hand you have just one vulnerable, fragile life from which all the dna would have had to come from that produced the wide variety of life throughout all of time. And if that is the case, how can rearranging the same substance over and over produce an entirely new substance? For instance, no matter how many different ways you arrange and mix flour, butter and sugar, you will never end up with meat.