Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[InfiniteNow]

Moving away for a moment from the depressing religious and creationist inspired violence topic, here's one that puts matters into better perspective. Enjoy. :)

 

 

 

 

YouTube - Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed (Expelled parody) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM

[Kayra]

One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

 

I find that interesting.

 

Interesting indeed. I have not read all of the arguments to the end of this thread yet (still working on it) but wanted to address this statement while it was fresh in my mind at least.

 

Please ignore if this has already been resolved.

 

I personally believe that life and its precursors are being continuously created. The problem is that any new "Life" that forms from random confluence has an astronomically small chance of being capable of competing with previous random "Life" forms that have had opportunity to improve themselves through natural selection.

 

I hope I am not missing the obvious here :D

[Biochemist]

Interesting indeed....I personally believe that life and its precursors are being continuously created. The problem is that any new "Life" that forms from random confluence has an astronomically small chance of being capable of competing with previous random "Life" forms that have had opportunity to improve themselves through natural selection.

Maybe. But it remains true that all extant life forms run on a common "life architecture" (identical 4 DNA bases, 20 amino acids, use of RNA, common energy usage, etc). One might suggest that there is "only one" successful model that has shown up for any number of reasons. One hypothesis is that there really is only one model, so if it shows up again, we would not notice it as "new".

 

But it appears true that no other superior building blocks have arrived on the scene in 3.5 billion years.

[Kayra]

Hmm.

 

One might also suggest that even if superior self assembling building blocks exist and appeared later in the evolution of life, they would have grave difficulty contending with existing life forms that have had the opportunity to adapt and efficiently avail themselves of most of the renewable energy in a system?

 

Another hypothesis may be that many different "life architectures" have had their opportunity, and that life as we know it now is simply the winner by reason of any number of superior traits it possesses. One might suggest that there is "only one" remaining successful model.

 

I guess my point is that, while your position is not invalidated by these possibilities, neither is it supported.

[Biochemist]

One might also suggest that even if superior self assembling building blocks exist and appeared later in the evolution of life, they would have grave difficulty contending with existing life forms that have had the opportunity to adapt and efficiently avail themselves of most of the renewable energy in a system?

I think that is a valid hypothesis, although I can't think of any evidence for it.

Another hypothesis may be that many different "life architectures" have had their opportunity, and that life as we know it now is simply the winner by reason of any number of superior traits it possesses. One might suggest that there is "only one" remaining successful model.

Possible as well. But this is at odds with the generally-accepted framework for "common descent".

 

Not that I mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework.

[InfiniteNow]

As has been stated recently elsewhere, there's no reason to think that there weren't multiple common ancestors which later merged. Neither of us has evidence one way or the other, so you cannot argue with any validity that there was "only" one.

 

Your suggestion that you don't "mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework" reminds me of the sickening and academically dishonest approach used by Ben Stein.

[Kayra]

But this is at odds with the generally-accepted framework for "common descent".

 

Not that I mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework.

 

It is my understanding (I just read up on this :hihi: )that "common descent" refers to the source of all existing life, and not to alternative life architectures. If these alternatives were entirely incompatible with our current system, then extinction would leave little or no fingerprints.

 

OK, it is thin, but not impossible :naughty:

 

I suspect that my hypothesis will remain just that, unless some caches of alternate life are found somewhere on this planet feeding on an as yet unknown energy source.

 

Bio, I would bet you rather like being at odds with the generally-accepted framework when you can justify it :evil:

[Biochemist]

It is my understanding....that "common descent" refers to the source of all existing life, and not to alternative life architectures. If these alternatives were entirely incompatible with our current system, then extinction would leave little or no fingerprints.

Understood. As I said above, I think this is a valid hypothesis. I just can't think of a test, other than...

...unless some caches of alternate life are found somewhere on this planet feeding on an as yet unknown energy source.

Bio, I would bet you rather like being at odds with the generally-accepted framework when you can justify it

Damn. You saw right through me. And I was trying to be so mysterious.

[Biochemist]

As has been stated recently elsewhere, there's no reason to think that there weren't multiple common ancestors which later merged.

As has been said other places- "merged"? How would two lines merge? And two lines with different genetic architecture?

Neither of us has evidence one way or the other, so you cannot argue with any validity that there was "only" one.

Sure we do. We have only found one. This leaves three possibilities:

 

1) It only happened once

2) It happened more than once, but all were identical

3) Some other life model occurred, but died out (or we have not found it)

Your suggestion that you don't "mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework" reminds me of the sickening and academically dishonest approach used by Ben Stein.

Well, lots of folks went along with the crowd that were (eventually) not held in high regard. Most forms of bigotry (Nazis, racists, classists, etc.) fall in this category. On the other side, some significant folks went against the crowd and were rewarded kindly by history. Einstein comes to mind. Maybe Hawking too.

[InfiniteNow]

We have only found one. This leaves three possibilities:

 

1) It only happened once

2) It happened more than once, but all were identical

3) Some other life model occurred, but died out (or we have not found it)

4) It happened more than once, but they merged at some point later.

[Biochemist]

4) It happened more than once, but they merged at some point later.

You are talking about Clay's example of bacteria merging?

[InfiniteNow]

I am talking more abstractly about the possibility itself, a possibility which itself has been shown to be feasible by that one source C1ay has shared.

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Jay Spears: SMAK DEM CHRISTIANS DOWN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16R4aeYBXww

[InfiniteNow]

Strangely, I was reminded of this thread while watching the clip below. Enjoy.

 

 

YouTube - A bit of Fry & Laurie - Sex talk in class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwo8qxUit00

[InfiniteNow]

NCSE Resource -- Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

 

On May 21, 2008, Senate Bill 733, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was unanimously passed by the Louisiana House Education Committee. Before passage, the bill was amended slightly from the form which passed the Senate on April 29, 2008, as previously reported by NCSE. It now moves to the full House.

 

The Associated Press reports (May 21, 2008) that, over the course of a hearing that lasted close to three hours, "Science teachers called Senate Bill 733 a veiled attempt to add religion to science classes." The bill singles evolution out from other scientific theories, and states that a teacher "may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

 

In the House hearing, some critics pointed out that the bill's stated goals are already covered by policies set by the state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Baton Rouge Advocate reports Tammy Wood, a science teacher from the Zachary, Louisiana school district, told the committee: "There is absolutely no need for this bill," and added "I am begging you here today to kill this bill."

 

 

 

NCSE Resource -- Antievolution legislation in South Carolina

Senate Bill 1386, introduced in the South Carolina Senate on May 15, 2008, and referred to the Senate Committee on Education, is the newest so-called "academic freedom" bill aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution, joining similar bills currently under consideration in Louisiana, Michigan, and Missouri. Similar bills in Florida and Alabama died when the legislative session in those states ended. The South Carolina bill contends that "[t]he teaching of biological and chemical evolution can cause controversy, and some teachers may be uncertain of administrative expectations concerning the presentation of material on these scientific topics" and that "public school educators must be supported in finding effective ways to present controversial science curriculum and must be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of theories of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner."

[InfiniteNow]

NCSE Resource -- Veto of Louisiana's antievolution bill urged

 

Veto of Louisiana's antievolution bill urged

 

The New York Times, in a June 21, 2008, editorial,

urged

Governor Bobby Jindal to veto Louisiana's Senate Bill 733, a bill that would, if enacted, in effect open the door for creationism to be taught in public school science classes. According to the editorial, "it would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not. In school districts foolish enough to head down this path, the students will likely emerge with a shakier understanding of science." Noting that Jindal was a biology major at Brown University, the editorial commented, "Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology," and concluded, "If Mr. Jindal has the interests of students at heart, the sensible thing is to veto this Trojan horse legislation."

 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which previously lobbied against the bill, also urged Kindal to veto the bill in a

letter

(PDF) dated June 20, 2008. "The bill disingenously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists," wrote AAAS's chief executive officer, Alan I. Leshner. "In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Louisiana 'creation science' law. Rather than step backward, look to the future by seeking to provide Louisiana students with a firm understanding of evolution and other essential scientific concepts so they can compete for high-skill jobs in an increasingly high-tech world economy. Asserting that there are controversies about these concepts among scientists -- when in fact there are not -- will only confuse students, not enlighten them," he added. "I urge you to protect the future of science education in your state by rejecting this bill."

[InfiniteNow]

God damnit!

 

 

FROM: Pharyngula: The bill from Bogalusa

 

 

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has signed a pro-creationism bill into law

, all to pander to evangelical protestant hicks.

 

 

:hammer: