Evolution / creation

[itfitzme]

Evolution / creation

Science / religion

See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction

...

The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute."

Well, that was kind of what I was saying, that educated science teaching professionals aren't going to teach it.*

Your hard pressed to try and force the entire body of science teaching professionals to do so.

 

[itfitzme]

Bill Nye is an Actor not a science guy all he has is a bachelor in science.

He studied under Carl sagan
Compared to some slack jawed bible thumping inbred who has a doctorate in creation science for a bible school run out of someones trailer house?

“Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.
Dr. Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.
Dr. Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.
Dr. Cliffford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.
Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.
Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.

play nice, show a link where Bill Nye studied under Carl?

Its not necessary. Wikipedia comes straight up on top and states it.

Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Missourian]

I have...and your response is a verbose "I don't know"...which is fair enough, *I don't know either.

The point that I'm making is, *as much as some prefer to believe...Macro-evolution is not settle science.

And, *judging from your article, *the evolutionary biologists understand that.

I did find this passage of interest:

"I don't think anyone had ever tried it before," says Ratcliff. "There *aren't many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they're trying *to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it."
​

How can you understand something scientifically without experimentation?

So you should have just made your point.

Like I said, I can't argue evolution.

Nor am I aware of anyone having said it is a settled science.

In fact, I specifically posted a link to a UC Berkeley website that discusses issues like them
*misconception that it is a "settled science".

You seem to have some personal issues that you need to address. *I would suggest taking them up in a professional situation where you can resolve them.

As usual, the anti-religious can't get through a discussion without a personal attack.

 

[itfitzme]

Unlike lefties, many of us Conservatives aren't one-issue voters. I'd vote for someone who believed in evolution (which i don't) if they were fiscally conservative.

That is, by definition, a single issue voting.

 

[itfitzme]

‘If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.’



Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube

Bill Nye is an Actor not a science guy all he has is a bachelor in science.

"All he has is a bachelor's"? Have you gotten a BS in anything? Have you any idea what it takes to get a BS? OMG! Yeah, That he has a BS from an accredited university, had Carl Sagan as a professor, and teaches science, makes him a " science guy."

 

[itfitzme]

I have...and your response is a verbose "I don't know"...which is fair enough, *I don't know either.

The point that I'm making is, *as much as some prefer to believe...Macro-evolution is not settle science.

And, *judging from your article, *the evolutionary biologists understand that.

I did find this passage of interest:

"I don't think anyone had ever tried it before," says Ratcliff. "There *aren't many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they're trying *to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it."
​

How can you understand something scientifically without experimentation?

So you should have just made your point.

Like I said, I can't argue evolution.

Nor am I aware of anyone having said it is a settled science.

In fact, I specifically posted a link to a UC Berkeley website that discusses issues like them
*misconception that it is a "settled science".

You seem to have some personal issues that you need to address. *I would suggest taking them up in a professional situation where you can resolve them.

As usual, the anti-religious can't get through a discussion without a personal attack.

That's what you wanted. You began with "your response is a verbose "I don't know"

 

[itfitzme]

Well, I have learned some new things today, boys and girls.

Got a nice exerpt from Darwin's Origin Of Species.

Read about*Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

And "The real distinction is Gradualism vs. Interventionism, the former implying some automatic process while the latter implies some direction or purpose.*

Followed by Misconceptions about evolution

Read about*Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where the book "of people and pandas" included

creatintelligent designionism​

And I learned how to center

Also cockroaches*News from The Associated Press

http://hosted.ap.org/photos/4/4ef709b5-adf5-49c8-923d-580ce8538aa2-big.jpg

And a source of*ScienceDaily: Evolution News

Like how turtles got their shells.

And

"'cept turtles are hatched with shells and the shells grow with them. They don't move out of one shell and into a larger one as they grow."

No one debunked my snail and slug theory, so that is good.

Learned about*New study restores famed fossil to "bird" branch : Stltoday

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...0f-22029164473c/51a94b235e3bc.preview-620.jpg

I learned "Somewhere on You Tube is a video of a (local, I believe) AZ legislator opining that the earth is only 6000 years old. "

And caught this curious statement "Unlike lefties, many of us Conservatives aren't one-issue voters. I'd vote for someone who believed in evolution (which i don't) if they were fiscally conservative." Which sounds exactly like a one issue vote. *Only care about fiscal conservatism, not evolution."

Considered*cooperation. *The ability to work together as a group, one cohesive organism. *as evolutionary and got to write a long essay about my dog and cat.

Learned about Bill Nye like*Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes

Also, he's has a BS in science and Carl Sagan was one of his professors. *He also teaches science on TV. So by definition he is a science guy.

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" | Speaker Profile and Speaking Topics

Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Got to consider some fuzzy probabilistic logic like

*If an observation fails to show A then A cannot be thus anything that implies A must therefore be not true.*

Expanded Logic includes "maybe", 0<= P(A) <=1.*
and "Might not be" P(P(A)=0)>=0 (see more below)

Found *book*[ame]http://www.amazon.com/g/p/aw/[/ame] on creationism. *

and studies on evolutionary like lab experiments like*
Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

Some one explained a hypothesis and a theory.
With links*http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemi...a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

I learned about yeast forming clusters.*nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

And the list of creationist experts educations like

“Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.

Can I get one too?

Reviewed "moral hazard", the problem of becoming negligent because insurance will cover it.

There is some description of where science is focused with regard to evolution,*"they're trying to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it."

I also got to read about another evo v cre case
See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Thank you C_Clayton_Jones for the reading.





-----
[1]
If maybe A and nothing proves not A then A.

Is there a logic symbol for "maybe A"?

There is A, and, not, or. *How about "maybe"? How about "proven"? *Extended logic? *Fuzzy logic?

There is 0 <= P(A) <= 1. *"Maybe"?
There is P(A) = 0 * * * * "Not True"

Does the following probabilistic logic express the reasoning and is the statement true?

If 0 <= P(A) <= 1 and *P(P(A) = 0)>=O then P(A)>0 therefore P(A) ~= 1.*

 

[konradv]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

You haven't watched long enough.

Actually the correct answer is, there's no pressure to change. There are many species in the wild that haven't changed for millions of years, either. Considering that bacteria were likely to be the first organisms, if evolution was mandatory, would there be any bacteria around at all?

 

[Wyatt earp]

&#8216;If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that&#8217;s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that&#8217;s fine. But don&#8217;t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.&#8217;



Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube

Bill Nye is an Actor not a science guy all he has is a bachelor in science.

"All he has is a bachelor's"? Have you gotten a BS in anything? Have you any idea what it takes to get a BS? OMG! Yeah, That he has a BS from an accredited university, had Carl Sagan as a professor, and teaches science, makes him a " science guy."

What a BS was to hard for you? I laugh at kids with a Bachelor in Manufacturing BTW, they are not even fit to carry my tool belt.

 

[auditor0007]

Its funny, for the past 40 years as a christian, I thought evolution was a fact. Today not so sure ever since a poster in another forum ask this question. Why would a creature with fur, strong as heck...evolve to a furless weak creature?

Because its brain developed to a point where being strong wasn't as important as being intelligent.

 

[itfitzme]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

You haven't watched long enough.

Actually the correct answer is, there's no pressure to change. There are many species in the wild that haven't changed for millions of years, either. Considering that bacteria were likely to be the first organisms, if evolution was mandatory, would there be any bacteria around at all?

Much my point exactly. But you have to watch while the build falls
down, the petri dish is broken, the bacteria spills into the dirt, the composition of that dirt changes, and all the while hoping that it doesn't hit some dead end. I don't think any evolutionary biologist said it was easy.

 

[konradv]

We've seen millions of generations of bacteria in the pursuit of scientific research...far more that the possible total generations of all larger forms of life on Earth...yet the bacteria has never "evolved" into a high form of life.

Bacteria HAS exhibited many mutations and natural selection...but there is not a single instance of evolutionary change...after millions of generations of laboratory study, it's still bacteria.

Because it fits it's ecological niche. Evolution doesn't say that a species MUST evolve into something else. It only evolves enough to survive or to best it's competitors.

And bacteria and viruses evolve constantly.

But that is what the whole house of cards is based on, that lower order life forms evolved into higher order life forms.

So why would the first single celled organism with no predators and no competition feel any pressure to evolve...they filled their niche.

Shouldn't they, like the bacteria, simply multiplied a million generations and stayed single celled organisms?

Pressures don't just come from predation, but also from the environment, which has changed repeatedly over the eons. There's also the matter of collective action being more effective than individual action, inducing cells to form multi-cellular conglomerations.

 

[itfitzme]

Because it fits it's ecological niche. Evolution doesn't say that a species MUST evolve into something else. It only evolves enough to survive or to best it's competitors.

And bacteria and viruses evolve constantly.

But that is what the whole house of cards is based on, that lower order life forms evolved into higher order life forms.

So why would the first single celled organism with no predators and no competition feel any pressure to evolve...they filled their niche.

Shouldn't they, like the bacteria, simply multiplied a million generations and stayed single celled organisms?

Pressures don't just come from predation, but also from the environment, which has changed repeatedly over the eons. There's also the matter of collective action being more effective than individual action, inducing cells to form multi-cellular conglomerations.

Yeah... "survival of the fittest" includes, and to perhaps a larger extent, "survival of the symbiotic", not just "survival of the strongest".

"Symbiotic" seems to be exclusive to "mutually benificial". "Strongest" seems to be exclusive to "singularly dominant", parricularly in implying one gets eaten.

Viruses, like the influenza, are more in the middle, taking advantage of their host without killing it while not providing any advantage in return. It's neither a dominant or symbiotic relationship.

The Hunta and Ebola virus, when they jump to a human host, don't seem particularly survivable as they killnthe host so quicky as to limit transmission. What is that, the "R-naught vector"?

Does virus mutation, like the influenza virus, count as "evolution"?

I haven't yet understood where the line gets drawn between evolution and thing like breeding for expression of particular genetic characteristics.

There is also a process by which the underlying genetic structure doesn't change. Rather a particular molecule is attached to part of the gene sequence that turns it on and off. I forget the terms. It is quite fast.

 

[PaulS1950]

Virii evolve constantly. That is why we have so many different flu virii. Madagascar and the Galopagos Islands also prove that larger animals also evolve. Sickle cell enemia also proves that people evolve. The genetic change that causes sickle cell enemia is a combination of two parents that evolved a recessive genetic modification to red blood cells that prevents "sleeping sickness". When both parents have the modified gene and pass it to an offspring it results in sickle cell enemia - it has been charted to find the origin of the genetic change.

Evolution happens for a number of individual and various pressures. Some of the changes stay because those who carry the gene are able to live to procreate while others die as a result of the change. Yes, there is even evidence that different species evolve from one. Birds still carry the genes of their reptilian ancestors and by turning on the existing genes you can have chicken with teeth, arms instead of wings and, at least theoretically, you could turn on the genes and have a dinosaur from a chicken - reverse evolution - so to speak.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you did the same thing to a chimp - maybe find the common ancestor of both humans and the great apes.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Evolution and creationism are not exclusive of each other. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that they are.

There is no doubt that environment affects the gene pool. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that this undeniable fact precludes any notion of a created universe. That is a silly misconception on their part.

What else can you expect from a bunch of wackos who gad about the net demanding a scientific explanation of God?

 

[itfitzme]

Virii evolve constantly. That is why we have so many different flu virii. Madagascar and the Galopagos Islands also prove that larger animals also evolve. Sickle cell enemia also proves that people evolve. The genetic change that causes sickle cell enemia is a combination of two parents that evolved a recessive genetic modification to red blood cells that prevents "sleeping sickness". When both parents have the modified gene and pass it to an offspring it results in sickle cell enemia - it has been charted to find the origin of the genetic change.

Evolution happens for a number of individual and various pressures. Some of the changes stay because those who carry the gene are able to live to procreate while others die as a result of the change. Yes, there is even evidence that different species evolve from one. Birds still carry the genes of their reptilian ancestors and by turning on the existing genes you can have chicken with teeth, arms instead of wings and, at least theoretically, you could turn on the genes and have a dinosaur from a chicken - reverse evolution - so to speak.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you did the same thing to a chimp - maybe find the common ancestor of both humans and the great apes.

Thanks. *There is some technical fine line between evolution and simply breeding to bring out characteristics. *Virus mutation at a genetic level is an evolutionary process, real, present, observable, and happening constantly. That is a missing piece to the discussion.

 

[PaulS1950]

The biggest reason that viral evolution is observable is that they reproduce so fast. Each reproductive cycle has a chance for some small change and when you multiply 1000s of times an hour it is easier to spot the changes. Like going from the ability to infect birds to being able to infect mammals.

 

[itfitzme]

Evolution and creationism are not exclusive of each other. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that they are.

There is no doubt that environment affects the gene pool. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that this undeniable fact precludes any notion of a created universe. That is a silly misconception on their part.

What else can you expect from a bunch of wackos who gad about the net demanding a scientific explanation of God?

I must disagree. Evolution and science in general, are completely and fundamentally incompatable with Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Genesis.

One is based on starting from a blank slate, observing, requiring repeatability of observation, amasing statistically significant evidence, then creating a more generalized model that explains that observations and is effective in predicting future observations. It's ability to predict future observation is dependent on the complexity of the natural phenomina that it studies, as well as the computational power of the tools at it's desposal. If also highlights it's fundamental postulates and axioms.

 

[PaulS1950]

Yet the first life form might be a "creation" that led to evolution....

Or it could be that the chemicals of life naturally come together because of the physics and evolution adds diversity to the equation.

 

[itfitzme]

The biggest reason that viral evolution is observable is that they reproduce so fast. Each reproductive cycle has a chance for some small change and when you multiply 1000s of times an hour it is easier to spot the changes. Like going from the ability to infect birds to being able to infect mammals.

I have only a cursorary knowlege of viruses. If I understand it correctly, they are entirely RNA in genetic structure, relying on the host machinery for reproductuon. It strikes me that this both allows for and forces fast adaptation. I can only hazard to guess that the RNA molecule is relatively simple amd short, as RNA/DNA self duplicating molecules go.

Oh, did you know that the gentlemen who first discovered the structure of DNA did so because, in part, they were lousy students and were not all that familiar with the texts that said what they had discovered wasn't possible? At least that's the story, and we're sticking to to it.