Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

[variant]

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.

It should show you that your comparison isn't very good.

The radical difference between eukaryotes and prokaryotes takes more than a trillion generations in nature. It represents a far more radical change than anything In human evolution.

You are making a scale error of several orders of magnitude.

 

[durangodawood]

Some peoples minds go haywire when confronted with anything that happens outside the human scale, especially the human time scale.

 

[BobRyan]

It should show you that your comparison isn't very good.
.

I agree they are not at the same level of difficulty - prokaryotes are far more adaptive and should demonstrate whatever-there-is of substance in evolutionism in far fewer generations than one would expect of a far more complex species like humans where massive saltations would be needed to squeeze in enough change to create a new species.

In fact that is my whole point.

 

[stevil]

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 -- what it is that can "pop into being eukaryote from nada"?

You are going down the strawman route again.

I said that we and bacteria from today had common ancestry.
Even if bacteria evolve to have limbs and brains etc, they won't be animals, they will be something new, something different.
They diverged from the ancestory line of animals BEFORE the animal kingdom ever formed.
Given 10 billion years the bacteria of today will never evolve to become animals.

When thinking about future evolution it is best to consider functional attributes e.g. a mammal evolving wings or fins. Rather than suggesting a fruitfly evolve into a girrafe, or a bacteria evolve into a human.

We can look back on the past as a study of history to say where things evolved from. But bear in mind that we keep our ancestorial roots.
Us humans we are still apes and always will be, we are still placental mammals and always will be, we are still animals and always will be.

We will never evolve into monotremes, or marsupials, we will never evolve into birds, never evolve into fish.

 

[BobRyan]

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 point...


A world-class scientist (British palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London from 1962 to his official retirement in 1993) an evolutionist - Collin Patterson once lamented the distinctively religious nature of the argument for evolution, even though he himself was pretty much an atheist and firm believer in evolution himself to the day he died.

 

[Teamo]

• Liberal Atheists are upset that Conservative Christians want Creation Science taught in schools
• Conservative Christians are upset that Liberal Atheists want Critical Race Theory taught in schools

It's funny how each group gets mad when the other tries to force a teaching on their kids, yet see no problem with doing the same thing.

Practice the Golden Rule! You don't want these ideas forced on your kids? Then don't force these ideas on other peoples kids!

 

[BobRyan]

• Liberal Atheists are upset that Conservative Christians want Creation Science taught in schools
• Conservative Christians are upset that Liberal Atheists want Critical Race Theory taught in schools

It's funny how each group gets mad when the other tries to force a teaching on their kids, yet see no problem with doing the same thing.

Hence my OP where I argue that the religious doctrine on origins found in both of those two opposing belief systems - not be included in science class - just let science in.

 

[variant]

I agree they are not at the same level of difficulty - prokaryotes are far more adaptive and should demonstrate whatever-there-is of substance in evolutionism in far fewer generations than one would expect of a far more complex species like humans where massive saltations would be needed to squeeze in enough change to create a new species.

In fact that is my whole point.

"Saltations" isn't a word I am familiar with.

You have it exactly backwards, and are comparing things that are different by a scale of several orders of magnitude.

Prokaryote to Eukaryote isn't a "new species" it's a new KINGDOM.

The massive changeover of genetic material and structure from prokaryote to eukaryote both in total and as a percentage of the genetic material present is many orders of magnitude more different than any change observed in human evolution.

So, your comparison shows you don't understand what you're talking about and your point stinks.

We also have observations of how long it takes for eukaryotes to form, so your expectations are simply and obviously wrong.

 

[HARK!]

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

Actually I was forced to take a class in Astrology. ...another feeble attempt to prepare me for the real world; and my parents were taxed on it; and I'm still paying down the debt.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually I was forced to take a class in Astrology.

Really....where? Hogwarts?

 

[BobRyan]

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

As the OP points out -- when evolution is taken to the extreme of being a competing doctrine on origins with the doctrine on origins found in creation - it is merely doctrinal statements of belief - and not "observations in nature" about a bacteria becoming a rabbit over time or an amoeba becoming a horse over time or dust-gas-rock turning into a horse over time.

 

[durangodawood]

....an amoeba becoming a horse over time....

I agree, that could never happen.

But I thought we were discussion the scientific theory of evolution...?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually I was forced to take a class in Astrology. ...another feeble attempt to prepare me for the real world; and my parents were taxed on it; and I'm still paying down the debt.

Astrology or astronomy?

 

[HARK!]

Astrology or astronomy?

The religion, not the science.

 

[Whyayeman]

That well known experiment with bacteria discussed here actually produced a new species of bacterium. The experiment began with a species of bacterium which was killed by acetic acid; after many generations, all preserved as proof of what was done, a species of bacterium evolved which was not killed by acetic acid.

Still a bacterium, but a new bacterium - hitherto unknown to man. Real evolution had occurred. This is a demonstration of the reality of evolution. Creationists don't accept it.

Yet it is true.

 

[MIDutch]

They've had their careers destroyed, though. But I guess you'd probably say they deserved it for bring so stupid as to deviate from the One True Faith of Our Lord Darwin.

Really? Who? Do you have names?

Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? Kurt Cameron? Walter Brown?

They never had any careers in science to begin with.

Plenty of that going on in the scientific think tanks as well. Remember "punctuated equalibrium"? Magic!

"punctuated equilibrium" was a hypothesis based on the available evidence. Based on the EVIDENCE. Something creationists can never claim. It may have been wrong but to say it was "magic!" is bearing false witness.

It's your story, Bubba. Run with it.

Not my story. Wish it were but I'm not that good a writer. That being said, the LOTR is a much better a story than the simplistic Noah's ark story plagiarized from the Mesopotamians.

 

[BobRyan]

You are going down the strawman route again.

I said that we and bacteria from today had common ancestry.

Prokaryotes ARE the common ancestry in the story telling of evolution

As we already saw here ...

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"

 

[HARK!]

"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"

spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence:


I guess this is truly a theory after all.

 

[d taylor]

Might as well teach it (evolution), they have been teaching (in schools) the other scientific lie for hundreds of years.

 

[BobRyan]

That well known experiment with bacteria discussed here actually produced a new species of bacterium. The experiment began with a species of bacterium which was killed by acetic acid; after many generations, all preserved as proof of what was done, a species of bacterium evolved which was not killed by acetic acid.

Still a bacterium, but a new bacterium -...

So then prokaryotes producing "more prokaryotes"?? who would have guessed? And not a single one having a nucleus...

"survey by Jason Gans found there to be about a million bacterial species per 0.035 ounces (1 gram) of soil. While only a few bacterial species dominate the soil, there is a huge number of low-abundance species" from: How Many Species of Bacteria are There? (with pictures)

As the story telling would have it --

"Prokaryotic cells are much older than Eukaryotic (by about 3 billion years), yet they never evolved past small, single celled organisms."


The story telling is pretty amazing
from - First Eukaryotes
"No one is certain how eukaryotes came into being. The endosymbiotic theory suggests that bacteria were engulfed by larger cells. The bacterial cells remained in the cell, assumed some of the chemical reactions for these cells, and became the mitochondria of these cells. The cells then reproduced and flourished, becoming animal cells."

"An extension of the endosymbiotic theory refers to plants. In this case, pigmented bacteria, such as the cyanobacteria, were engulfed by larger cells."

Clearly Eukaryotes represent a higher level of complexity than prokaryotes - and so they claim prokaryotes "created" eukaryotes.