TN Governor Evolution Bill

So, we didn't land on the moon... because you didn't see NASA build the space ship? Just saw it launch?

Very logical direction, there.

 

As to the "degeneration" comment, evolution does not necessary benefit the population, always, and it is not controllable.

Further, it is not a linear process, it is just a process. Often without purpose. So no, whales didn't degenerate, they evolved.

I am amused that you would think making it to land is the pennical of existence, though. Those stupid Maine animals...

 

I'm sure this is just a troll comment, but:

If you consider this robust and strong of evidence as an educated guess, you should be questioning the nature of the Sun, shape of the Earth, and what really causes disease.

 

People question what causes disease everyday, just FYI.

I do, of course, realize you are referring to microbe's causing diseases rather than God punishing sinners.

Also, fl0at spelled "pinnacle" wrong. You science guys are so dumb.

 

Tennessee is challenging Arizona for worst legislature in the country. This is what happens when you have a party obsess over culture war issues. In the past year, just off the top of my head, we've had bills on not being able to say gay in schools, showing ID of your sex to use bathrooms and a host of other inconsequential proposed laws to satisfy the idiots in bum[uck fay] that listen to constant fear mongering over every wedge issue out there.

As a Social Studies teacher, all this reminds me of the Lynn Cheney years of the National Endowment for the Humanities when she thought history should be taught to promote patriotic values and not go into great detail about the not so pleasant details of our history. Teachers shouldn't be required to cater to particular viewpoints that are antithetical to the concepts of critical thinking, observable or testable facts or legitimate concepts or ideas in relation to their subject. The fact that there is a "need" for this law simply tells me that this is another end-around for the religious warriors in this state.

One could also state that this is a prime example of why federalism is necessary over the incessant chatter for states' rights, but that's a whole different argument.

 

It is your notion that experimentation is mandatory in the scientific method it isn't. Observation is the other side of the coin of experimentation. One can experiment to make observations, OR just make the observations depending on what the question asked calls for. A good example of this is continental drift. There is no experiment to be run with continental drift. There are several observations that can be made: geological evidence, fossil evidence, paleoclimatic evidence, the structure of landforms and features of the ocean floor. Together, these observations can be taken and explained with tectonic plate theory. This theory successfully explains these observations, as well as volcanic hotspots, earthquakes, oceanic trenches, and mountain belts. No experimentation necessary, possible, or appropriate.

If you are wanting a "simian A leads to human B" explanation, no one can help you there. My students frequently struggle with converting centimeters to miles. Why? Because it isn't a 1 or 2 step thinking process. The human mind doesn't naturally grasp more than a 2 step thinking process. One has to convert centimeters to meters, then meters feet, and then feet to miles. Or meters to kilometers, then kilometers to miles. Not every ancestor of humans is known, but many are.

The law of natural selection states that favorable traits in terms of survival will tend to survive and be passed down over unfavorable traits in the natural world. Over time, those changes can accumulate to a degree that one population becomes distinct from another if they are being exposed to different pressures, conditions, or are geographically isolated from one another. This applies to every living organism. Humans are no different. There is a reason why people descended from ancestors who lived for thousands of years in the tropics have darker skin than people who lived for thousands of years in the forests of Europe. There is a reason why Kenyans are the best long distance runners in the world. There is a reason why sickle cell anemia is found predominantly in people whose ancestors are from subSaharan Africa. All of these traits are favorable in the environments in which those populations have been living in for the past several thousand years.

This really isn't what people "think" happened. It is what did happen and is happening, as much as the Earth is revolving around the Sun. It is simple deduction. In order not to believe it, one has to ignore the genetic evidence, the thousands of transition fossils of beings that are not quite ape but not quite human, the law of natural selection (it is a law that can be observed in experimental conditions), and the geologic age of the Earth.

 

How is it degenerative? Are whales not perfectly suited for their environment? The Earth and live on it is very old. The whale shares common ancestry with today's hooved animals (ungulates like cows). This is demonstrated in the fossil record. The ancestors of whales gradually evolved towards full-time aquatic life. Adaptation through generations is constantly occurring, and has no "direction." Life doesn't necessarily get more complex over time. Bacteria are the most successful life form on the planet, undergo evolution rapidly (and can be observed in laboratory settings over decades of time-- or in the resistance to antibiotics you have seen several strains develop in your lifetime) without sprouting flagella or gills. Different populations have success with different strategies of survival at different times.

Sometimes, two different lineages of species have success in similar but geographically distinct environments, utilizing the same strategy. An example of this is convergent evolution, which whales/dolphins are a good illustration of. They have arrived at a very similar shape and locomotion method to fish and some extinct reptiles, despite being completely unrelated and having separate lineages:


From a creationist's perspective, how does that look? Like God isn't very creative? Or that certain strategies work better than others?

 

earlier, a comment was made that if evolution is so easily supported and other conflicting explanations refuted, what is the problem? The problem is there are plenty of teachers who teach "science" that don't actually believe in evolution and will not give it proper treatment. Then, you'll have classes of kids who are taught, "so Darwin thinks your grand daddy was a monkey. Pretty dumb. Let's now talk about intelligent design." That is fine to say in church (if you don't mind basing your opposition to evolution on an outright lie), but inappropriate in a science class.

I had a physical science teacher who taught us about the hole in the ozone layer for 5 minutes, then spent 10 minutes telling us why it was a bunch of crap. Luckily, the entire world disagreed and passed the Montreal protocol, and our ozone layer is now recovering. I guess it wasn't just a conspiracy to take away your air conditioning.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with Science, Scientists, or the Scientific Method in general that IP is explaining. What I do have a problem with, is the people who claim that just because a person doesn't believe the said scientific method or whatever, they are immediately thought of as dumb, blinded by reality, or any other host of insults that said "Scientist" can think of.

 

I am not kidbourbon. I make no promises not to mock someone. There are some beliefs I can understand from a cultural/traditional perspective. I can understand why some are resistant to believing in evolution, as they see that as a direct challenge to the divinity of creation (although arguably it is not. There is a separate hypothesis that does that). Evolution does not lend to immediate observation by the nature of the time scale it operates on, so I can see why there would be skepticism on that front as well. I don't agree with it, but I can fathom why.

But I cannot abide people believing things like the Earth is flat, hollow, or 6,000 years old. There is no logical sense in it. I had a student once refuse to finish a lab because we were looking at submerged coastlines and rivers from bathymetry images (basically, underwater maps). To her, such information conflicted with her belief in the age of the world. I politely suggested that she could perhaps just approach the questions from a context of "according to what science claims about the Earth's past, ...", as if it were a question about a plot of a fictional movie. I told her that in no way was she required to "believe" anything in university, only to demonstrate knowledge and competency on the subjects.

This was still not possible for her. I told her I could just grade the rest of the lab and mark off the 4 points or whatever on those last questions if she would prefer, and she accepted that route.

Now, to me, if your own two eyes can see the evidence that is conflicting with your world view, perhaps you need a new world view.

She of course had no problem with the portions dealing with higher sea levels, as that was evidence "The Flood" in her mind.

 

1. Please check out the overall brilliance of Kentucky's government before ranking legislatures.
2. I believe you might have confused federalism with anti-federalism.

 

As a believer of the bible, i will say that I think the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. As I understand it, the people who claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old are people who have just taken an "educated guess" at it, and have no real evidence to back it up. I believe in the Creation as everybody well knows, I believe the Bible to be the authority from God, but I do think that man got it wrong when it was first theorized that the earth was 6,000 years old. I have no way of knowing. However, I do not believe the Earth has been here for billions of years, and that humans have been here for 65 million. I just dont see it. Of course this leaves a broad range, but I believe it to be somewhere in between the two, (no evidence to support my claim), just a feeling I have.

 

i certainly question someone's critical thinking if they are arguing fossils are bs, carbon dating doesnt' work, and adam and eve existed as real people (not talking about anyone here specifically btw).

 

why don't you see it? because it's a big number?

 

I believe in creationism.

I don't think evolution really opposes it. Adapting to survive doesn't mean God didn't start the show.

I don't think the earth is only 6,000 years old either.

 

I saw something a couple of months ago that traced a common genetic trait found in the vast majority of modern people's mitochondrial DNA to a single female ancestor. I'll try to dig it up, but I don't think the idea of humans evolving from a single pre-historic parentage is on the same level as your other two examples.

EDIT: I think it was a Discover channel doc called "The Real Eve." Judge it definitive or not--I won't claim to know--but I don't have issue with the concept.

 

This is the sort of position I don't ridicule. Evolution in no way explains the start of the show, nor does anyone who has a good understanding of the theory claims it does so. And the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth is a human construct. One that is ironically only 400 years old.

 

That's pretty much my stance.

My issues come when some try to use it to trace it back to the lone amoeba that started everything. At that point, it's just guessing.

 

arguing that god created the earth and god started it going isn't nuts by any means. i think we can all agree there are levels of creationism.

logically we all probably decend from a select few apes who evolved to humans, but that is a far ways off from saying god created adam in his image and eve out of adam's rib. that indicates the ape never existed.

 

People tend to forget that or they never know it.