Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law

[Void Serpent]

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.

Well the first life would have been simple pre cells with only rRNA. But the way RNA transcribes from DNA1 to DNA2 allows for mutations, they are errors in the reading process. It is not simple division by cutting like salt, there are middle men all of whom can and do make mistakes leading to small differences that over time with billions of divisions and mutations lead to new life altogether. To keep with the salt analogy when the salt divides if there is another element present you could end up with blue salt from white salt, so environmental factors such as UV can affect mutations as well for the dividing cell.

[arX]

but from a layman's perspective it seems it is the scientific community that has put out misinformation.

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

You're mistaking "layman" for an "illiterate" or a "lazy idiot" if you think that anyone who only looks at a simple illustration to understand evolution and doesn't read the material is worthy of our sympathy for being "misled".

[grandpa]

You're mistaking "layman" for an "illiterate" or a "lazy idiot"
if you think that anyone who only looks at a
simple illustration to understand evolution and doesn't read the material
is worthy of our sympathy for being "misled".

Unfortunatly, this law will only grow their numbers. If the trend continues, we'll all be battling for food in the future.

Grandpa h.

[Peter]

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.

You still want to believe that evolution requires a complete living cell as the start of all life? Good luck with that strawman.

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.

It sounds like you have confusion but no issues with the Theory of Evolution and favor your supernatural theory of abiogenesis(creation) over the natural theories of abiogenesis(primordial soup... yumm).

Why do you persist in convolving abiogenesis with evolution? I know I've explained the difference to you numerous times.

Once again. The Theory of Evolution is the leading scientific theory to explain the DIVERSITY OF LIFE. As such, it's not required to explain the beginning of life nor does it attempt to.

This new tennessee law changes nothing important IMO. It's just our legislators doing what they do best... nothing.

[finder]

You're mistaking "layman" for an "illiterate" or a "lazy idiot" if you think that anyone who only looks at a simple illustration to understand evolution and doesn't read the material is worthy of our sympathy for being "misled".

Nice edit job. But just because not everyone memorizes the extended vocabulary that's associated evolution doesn't automatically mean they are "lazy illiterates." And since you read my post you know "layman's perspective" was a reference to myself and I did read the material. Indeed I even expressed my appreciation of it. So deflecting the blame doesn't do anything except maybe soothe the ruffled feathers of arrogance. If you can't communicate your beliefs in a comprehensive way then that's on you, not the person you're trying to convey them to. Where the average intelligence of adults are concerned that is.

[finder]

You still want to believe that evolution requires a complete living cell as the start of all life? Good luck with that strawman.

It sounds like you have confusion but no issues with the Theory of Evolution and favor your supernatural theory of abiogenesis(creation) over the natural theories of abiogenesis(primordial soup... yumm).

Why do you persist in convolving abiogenesis with evolution? I know I've explained the difference to you numerous times.

I do not. I'm just trying to figure out how the process of evolution got its start and the fact is though they are separate theories, abiogenesis and evolution are closely tied together. Common decent taken to its extreme begs to have this figured out and that aspect of evolution hasn't been proven completely.

[finder]

Unfortunatly, this law will only grow their numbers. If the trend continues, we'll all be battling for food in the future.

Grandpa h.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[finder]

Well the first life would have been simple pre cells with only rRNA. But the way RNA transcribes from DNA1 to DNA2 allows for mutations, they are errors in the reading process. It is not simple division by cutting like salt, there are middle men all of whom can and do make mistakes leading to small differences that over time with billions of divisions and mutations lead to new life altogether. To keep with the salt analogy when the salt divides if there is another element present you could end up with blue salt from white salt, so environmental factors such as UV can affect mutations as well for the dividing cell.

But how could it lead to something new as opposed to just different in some degree? When life emerged, that was something new. Going back to the salt analogy, blue salt would still be salt. That is what we "see" in evolution. If you took any three grains and mixed and matched them, baked them, froze them, radiated them, pulverized them and reshaped them repeatedly, you will never get a steak dinner.

[Void Serpent]

Different is new, enough slight changes lead to an end product not the same as it began. If those grains have the proper amino acids to be arranged in the protein structure of meat it could be done, and is done by a cow's digestive system and metabolism. As for salt, Table salt is NaCl but say blue salt is NaBr(I am no chemist so this is hypothetical) different new salt. All life can be traced to a common ancestor which means we are all the same, like salts, just different new variations.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I do not. I'm just trying to figure out how the process of evolution got its start and the fact is though they are separate theories, abiogenesis and evolution are closely tied together. Common decent taken to its extreme begs to have this figured out and that aspect of evolution hasn't been proven completely.

There you go again, conflating two ideas and saying they're one explicitly (emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, it's true that abiogenesis has not been proven explicitly. However, that doesn't mean that it's not unprovable, which is important, or that it's not an active area of research (which it is - a new article on the topic came out this week in the Journal of the American Chemical Society - although I personally think it was poorly written).

But how could it lead to something new as opposed to just different in some degree? When life emerged, that was something new. Going back to the salt analogy, blue salt would still be salt. That is what we "see" in evolution. If you took any three grains and mixed and matched them, baked them, froze them, radiated them, pulverized them and reshaped them repeatedly, you will never get a steak dinner.

In all the history of life, there hasn't been anything "new," - at least, not really. See, "new," in the degree you're talking about actually requires different chemical composition. All life on earth is - and always has been, as far as we can tell - made up of very similar chemical substances; amino acids, nucleic acids, fatty acids, and sugars - and more importantly, even only one enantiomer of those - which means that "new," life could be created simply by making functional cells out of the enantiomer (that is, the optical isomer, or mirror image) of all those types of molecules.

[finder]

Different is new, enough slight changes lead to an end product not the same as it began. If those grains have the proper amino acids to be arranged in the protein structure of meat it could be done, and is done by a cow's digestive system and metabolism. As for salt, Table salt is NaCl but say blue salt is NaBr(I am no chemist so this is hypothetical) different new salt. All life can be traced to a common ancestor which means we are all the same, like salts, just different new variations.

That assumes there is preexisting environments similar to the digestive system of cows with the right ratio of amino acids and proteins, very presumptuous.

[el ايمان]

That assumes there is preexisting environments similar to the digestive system of cows with the right ratio of amino acids and proteins, very presumptuous.

Not really. Every space on Earth was available for the random chance of abiogenesis for billions of years.