Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

Yttrium · May 2, 2021

variant said:
Because it is also a scientific theory.

Since when was abiogenesis a scientific theory, and since when was it taught in schools along with the Theory of Evolution?

Last I heard, we had some hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, but nothing all that solid yet. (Which, of course, is not a problem at all for the Theory of Evolution.)

TLK Valentine · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
How does natural selection explain the creation of life?

How do you define "life"?

loveofourlord · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
You are of course welcomed to your opinion -- and "yes" I am "over that" in fact I welcome it.

No opinion, it's facts, your dislike of them doesn't change them.

loveofourlord · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
Good point. And in the "long term evolution experiment" they discovered that after 75,000 generations of "evolution" - observed in real time... bacteria remained .... wait for it... "bacteria".

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia.

Evolution in real time.

it's been many times more then 75k generations since mammals split from reptiles, and were still wait...for it mammals.

That Guy 11200 · May 3, 2021

loveofourlord said:
it's been many times more then 75k generations since mammals split from reptiles, and were still wait...for it mammals.

Considerably more. But mammals didn't split from reptiles. Synapsids split from reptiles and some of their descendants evolved into what we would now classify as mammals. The earliest mammals would have been egg-layers, probably secreting milk through their skin like modern monotreme mammals.

Those that weren't part of the monotreme lineage diverged into different lineages of their own. Modern marsupials and placental mammals don't lay eggs. Placentals, like us, carry our developing young inside us using a placenta, while marsupials don't produce a placenta and give birth early in development and then carry their undeveloped young in a pouch.

Those are just differences in giving birth and rearing young. There are many more differences between mammal groups - living and extinct. Saying we're all still mammals is hiding a great deal of evolved diversity.

Strathos · May 3, 2021

loveofourlord said:
it's been many times more then 75k generations since mammals split from reptiles, and were still wait...for it mammals.

And we always will be. Just like we always will be vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes. This post displays a fundamental misunderstanding of cladistics.

That Guy 11200 · May 3, 2021

Strathos said:
And we always will be. Just like we always will be vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes. This post displays a fundamental misunderstanding of cladistics.

I don't hink the problem is cladistics. I think the problem is Linnaean classification.

Linnaeas developed the system by looking at modern, living creatures. He saw a lot of diversity and labelled them appropriately. This system was then pushed back through time when fossil studies became more prominent.

This created a perspective issue, where we have a convergence of groups in the deep past. When we follow phyla back to the Cambrian, for example, they converge with each other and appear to have evolved from organisms with similar body forms, and must have been very closely related.

This creates a misunderstanding, that new phyla could evolve today. But they can't because that's just how the classification system works. Evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't mean much.

Linnaean classification intrinsically assigns a weight to the higher groupings, so it seems like a big, important event for a phylum to appear in the fossil record compared to a species appearing. Whereas cladistics doesn't assign weight to any clade and preserves all of the relational information from the deep past, so it's better at explaining the diversity we see and allows for new clades to form in the future.

Ana the Ist · May 3, 2021

HARK! said:
There is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are testable.

Is Abiogenesis testable? Where is the evidence?

Last I checked....the abiogenesis has some pretty decent evidence.

ID is all theory....no evidence.

I don't care what anyone teaches their kids at home. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty harmless belief.

Strathos · May 3, 2021

Well abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, not yet a theory, AFAIK.

Pommer · May 3, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
I don't care what anyone teaches their kids at home. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty harmless belief.

Right. Keep it away from public policy and we’re all good.

BobRyan · May 3, 2021

Tanj said:
Uh, no. In lab conditions, the generation for E coli is 20 minutes.
Organization of sister origins and replisomes during multifork DNA replication in Escherichia coli.

Considerably less than 40 years. My calculator says 115 days. One of us is doing it wrong, but even with your math it's less than 3 years.

well then (40 X 365 x 24 x 60) / 20 = 1.05 million generations.
If a generation for humans were 40 years - then that simulates 40 million years of human evolution... many many times the amount of time it supposedly took for humans to evolve into being.

And yet the prokaryotes never made it to eukaryotes even though by comparison to humans - bacteria have a far more adaptive genetic architecture ... wearing their DNA on their sleeves essentially.

BobRyan · May 3, 2021

Pommer said:
Right. Keep it away from public policy and we’re all good.

I prefer that neither religion were in the science class room.

BobRyan · May 3, 2021

stevil said:
OK, cool.
Evolution also claims that bacteria will produce bacteria no matter how long you observe them.

To get a basic understanding of evolution you would benefit from taking a look at the tree of life

Here is a very simplistic version of it.

Bacteria on the left in the diagramme above.

And the black line that "Can choose to be a single celled organism called prokaryote or else a eukaryote?"

If it is not a single celled organism -- then what is it that can "pop into being eukaryote from nada"?

Your argument that"the story" has no line at all from prokaryote to eukaryote means that something with even less ability than a prokaryote can "pop into being a eukaryote - but a bacteria cannot".

meanwhile --

Origin of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes: Eukaryote Evolution.

Where we have

"Fossil records indicate that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes somewhere between 1.5 to 2 billion years ago."

And then...

https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/difference-prokaryotic-eukaryotic-cells.html

where we have

"Most experts agree that prokaryotes were the first form of life, having likely evolved from protocells approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and from there, the two earliest domains of life arose: Archaea and Bacteria"

And also

"Eukaryotic cells are believed to have evolved from prokaryotic cells consuming one another. Imagine that a large prokaryote was blindly moving through the world in search of food when it encountered a smaller prokaryote."

=========================

Heavy emphasis on "are believed"

Goonie · May 3, 2021

BobRyan said:
I prefer that neither religion were in the science class room.

Except evolution is not a religion by any definition, unless one deliberately bares false witness.

Wolseley · May 3, 2021

MIDutch said:
Why do creationists always trot out this silly comic book version of evolution?

I don't find it any more comic book-ish than the idea of dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin magically transmogrifying into a functioning eyeball....but that's just me.

MIDutch said:
A fruit fly changing into a giraffe would be something you might find in a religious text described as a miracle (right next to giants having offspring with human women maybe), but it occurring would invalidate our understanding of evolution.

You gotta think outside the box, man. Maybe the giants (Nephilim in Hebrew) were visitors from a different galaxy? (I know...here we go with comic books again; but since neither you nor I were actually there at the time, it's entirely plausible.) Perhaps we're the fruit flies they're tinkering with, and they decided to inject some of their own DNA into our line to see what would happen.

MIDutch said:
That's why universities, hospitals, museums, research laboratories, excavation sites, etc. around the world are throwing it out in favor of a 6000 year old Cosmos

Well, I will grant you that the cosmos might be considerably older than 6000 years (again, neither of us were there, so we can't really say for sure), but insofar as life walking around in it, it hasn't been here that long.

MIDutch said:
I can't even imagine how the kids from Arkansas will fare against the kids from other countries who are so much more advanced in science, tech, engineering and math.

Oh, they'll do about as well or ill as the rest of us will. The real problem will be trying to learn how to read, write, and speak Cantonese once the Chinese take over the world.

Goonie said:
Except evolution is not a religion by any definition, unless one deliberately bares false witness.

From the way its adherents savagely attack everybody who challenges it, you'd certainly think it was a religion---and an intolerant, violent one at that.

MIDutch · May 3, 2021

Wolseley said:
I don't find it any more comic book-ish than the idea of dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin magically transmogrifying into a functioning eyeball....but that's just me.

There you go with the "magically transmogrify" bearing false witnessing again. "magically transmogrifying" is something you would find in comic books or bronze age mythology. It has nothing to do with evolution.

As for just you? Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are many many (mostly Americans) who believe the same things you do. Thankfully, that number is reducing significantly.

MIDutch · May 3, 2021

Wolseley said:
From the way its adherents savagely attack everybody who challenges it, you'd certainly think it was a religion---and an intolerant, violent one at that.

AFAIK no one has ever been murdered for disagreeing with the Theory of Evolution.

The religion side of this argument can't say the same.

MIDutch · May 3, 2021

Wolseley said:
You gotta think outside the box, man. Maybe the giants (Nephilim in Hebrew) were visitors from a different galaxy?

IOW just make stuff up that somehow makes the story seem less silly and childish.

Okay, got it.

TLK Valentine · May 3, 2021

Wolseley said:
I don't find it any more comic book-ish than the idea of dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin magically transmogrifying into a functioning eyeball....but that's just me.

Good thing we don't teach magic in schools...

Well, except that one school in England...

You gotta think outside the box, man. Maybe the giants (Nephilim in Hebrew) were visitors from a different galaxy? (I know...here we go with comic books again; but since neither you nor I were actually there at the time, it's entirely plausible.) Perhaps we're the fruit flies they're tinkering with, and they decided to inject some of their own DNA into our line to see what would happen.

Perhaps Jesus was a visitor as well? Instead of "Ascending to heaven," he simply beamed himself up?

How far "outside the box" are you willing to think?

Well, I will grant you that the cosmos might be considerably older than 6000 years (again, neither of us were there, so we can't really say for sure), but insofar as life walking around in it, it hasn't been here that long.

Considerably longer than 6000 years; that much is certain.

Oh, they'll do about as well or ill as the rest of us will.

Considering that Arkansas ranks #41 out of 50 in education, I find that improbable.

The real problem will be trying to learn how to read, write, and speak Cantonese once the Chinese take over the world.

Is teaching creation science in Arkansas going to accomplish anything to postpone that? Or are we trying to accelerate it?

From the way its adherents savagely attack everybody who challenges it, you'd certainly think it was a religion---and an intolerant, violent one at that.

Actually, we wouldn't think so... the "savage attacks = religion" is based on your experiences, not ours.

MIDutch · May 3, 2021

Wolseley said:
(I know...here we go with comic books again; but since neither you nor I were actually there at the time, it's entirely plausible.)

Neither you nor I were there when Aragorn and the Black Fleet arrived to save Gondor either so that's entirely plausible as well then, isn't it?

Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

Independent Centrist

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

No one important

Newbie

Aggressively serene!

No one important

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Not so Mystic Mog.

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads