TN Governor Evolution Bill

[uck fay]ing hell. Look, here are the first topics I linked:

1.1 Explores the history and impact of West African ancestry on family, religion,
social structure, and the art
1.2 Understands African-American life and cultural contributions through 1860.
1.3 Understands and recognizes the achievements and cultural achievements and
contributions of African Americans in United States Culture from 1860 to the present.

Kill white people!!!! Hell, there's a bone thrown to your side for the 5% of the black population that is conservative (although, obviously, it's not a bone when those people are influential, before you try that argument against me)!!

Seriously, are you really advocating taking out things that might be objectionable to your sensitivities? Yeah, I should just stop teaching about slavery, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement. None of that is important, at all. Are you kidding me? Your whole point rests on the typical whine that Ethnic Studies classes teach exactly what happened and don't modify it to make white people more comfortable.

And, who said every white person is racist? That hasn't been part of the discussion, at all. And, if you don't think your experiences as a white person differ from a black person, then you aren't paying attention. Ask about "DWB" and see what kind of response you get.

 

Question that I don't know the answer to -

What % of AA history/studies classes actually discuss how they got here in the first place and how they became slaves? And how much of said classes discuss this?

 

Not a good example on your part IMHO. Does not science state that man evolved in such and such manner. I simply want to see where the experiment that laid it all out. Don't scientists have to be able to replicate an experiment in order to be proven fact? Thats the simple thing I'm asking here, nothing more. Oh, and since we landed on the moon more than once, I would say that the scientist replicated that to satisfactory conclusion.

 

You say you want to see the whole thing laid out. So, you'd have to see the shuttle built, not look at the end result (the actual landing).

The experiment has been replicated in nature and labs for a long, long time. Like the fact that we have landed on the moon more than once, we have seen other species evolve... more than once. And like you didn't have to see the shuttle being built, but know that it carried the astronauts from Earth to the moon, I'm not exactly sure what you think you need to see in order to arrive from Specie #1 to Specie #2.

But if you are interested, I can loan you Beak of the Finch, which I find to be a rather dull and boring book on this very thing.

 

I am missing one of my two front teeth, can't understand what you are saying.

 

i see 3 classes out of 30. wow. you are really the historian. you a throw a bone to the real history and then dig into your agenda. great job.

i'm advocating taking OPINIONS and AGENDA out of school yes. the fact that you think ethnic studies classes reflect exactly what happened shows your agenda. that the important stuff is what the white people did. and are you seriously saying a CORE part of the course isn't discussing how these things you listed effect todays society and the impact of racism in TODAY's society? you ONLY discuss the past. Racism today (which of course exists is spades) is never mentioned?

the point of the institutional racism argument is that every white person is racist even if they are unaware of it. since they hold the power. that makes you racist too btw. i'm shocked you don't know this. and where did i saw that my experience don't differ from a black persons? My experience differ from every other person. positive and negative.

 

I have no problem with what you just said. I simply want to know how man got here. What is the evidence that man evolved from something, that can be laid out and seen, hands on, touch.

 

Yawn.

 

I said such a few pages back:

Fossil record, genetic make up. Mutations and acquisitions of genes can be traced, quite effectively, from generation to generation, and from specie to specie. By tracking and comparing these mutations, we can find commonality. As in, at this point in time, this gene didn't exist, anywhere. And then, low and behold, now this gene exists here. So, where did it come from?

Well, I found this new fossil, and it has it, and it also has this anatomical feature that we only see on this specie, then this must be a common ancestor. They are nearly genetically identical, they have a gene that nothing else has, and they have the same anatomical features. One is extinct, the other is not... this is a split point.

 

How does this work with survival of the fittest? It seems to me that something would have to as necessity to get smarter, more complex, to survive.

 

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with survival of the individual. It is a test of reproduction. Fitness is reproductive fitness, as in, the ability to produce more offspring than anything else. Nothing more.

It doesn't have to be smarter, it doesn't have to be more complex, and hell, it doesn't even have to survive very well. It just has to have a shit ton of kids, and their kids have kids, and their kids have kids and so on.

There are brightly colored fish that don't survive for crap because predators see them easily enough hanging out in the stream, and they get eaten. But, their females can see them equally as well, and so they mate, and they produce kids. Whereas, there are other fish, who have better survival, through dull colors, that don't get eaten by predators, but also don't have as many kids because their female counter part can't find them very well. And so they don't produce as many kids. And this balance goes the other way as well. The population that wins has done so only by reproduction, not by being the smartest fish in the pond.

That is survival of the fittest.

 

Since when did we ever get a complete fossil record for man? I must have missed this. What happened in my particular case? My mom was 5'-6", my dad was 5'-11". I am 6'-6". Have I mutated,(my wife thinks I am btw)? Genes mutating I can see, viruses, etc... I want to see Man and where he came from. Why when this question is asked, it turns to whales, viruses,mutations, etc... If man evolved, please show me the evidence that MAN did it, not any other creatures. And please don't think I'm getting angry or upset with you or IP. I'm not. I just want this one question answered.

 

This is very...........different that I have had it explained to me basically since I was what, 12-13 and it was first introduced.

 

Nothing is wrong with that, but we don't need a law for that.

 

Yes, you have mutations. I really hope they are dying off faster than they are occurring, because if not, someone soon will call that cancer. But, to the rest: Do we need to dig up your great grandparents and catalog them, or can we just skip them? Do we need your great-great grandparents?

Exactly how much of the fossil record do you think we need to take things we see everywhere else, in every other species, in every other part of the world, over the last several millions of years... in order to apply it to humans? Or do you honestly believe we are just the exception to the rule?

If you don't think we need to have every single human that has ever walked this earth, in order to determine evolutionary ancestry, then I suggest you start with the homo genus as work your way to us.

 

Which is why we need better education on evolution, and less snubbing our nose because dear Great Aunt Sally wasn't included in the fossil record.

 

I have no problem with the concept of species changing/adapting/going extinct. I don't have a problem with the idea of mutation. If we taught such, and to an extent left it there, I'm fine with it. (By such I mean the stuff I have forgotten or never learned as I've not had a biology class since I was 17).

My problem is that to the general public and at the very basic levels, evolution is taught as the answer to all questions about where we came from as essential fact, when as others have stated in this thread - it's an extrapolated educated guess as to how we got to where we are. We really don't know how it all started. Therein lies my problem. If presented as a theory, no biggie. Too often, at least IMO, we present it as rock-solid fact.

I hope that makes sense.

 

Evolution is a rock-solid fact. Evolution is that populations change over time through passing of genetic makeup to offspring. That is it. That is evolution. Natural selection is the driving force of evolution; the change. That is it.

That is evolution. Evolution is not the belief that man came from ape, or that they split, or any other such. Evolution is merely the explanation for how that might have occurred. Evolution is absolute fact. It is not arguable.

The difference is that those who see this as true do not have to make a large leap to see that man evolved, and thus the two are often lumped together. But they are not one and the same.

Think of evolution as the mechanism, and natural selection as the force by which the mechanism turns.

When stated like this, which is the absolute foundation of evolution, nobody disagrees. Everyone says, yea, wow, that does happen. And then throw in a but. The difference is that while one is damn near commonly accepted, by everyone, there is a disconnect with taking it to the next level.

Why? It is like saying that if I flip a coin 100 times, it is going to land on its side 100 times. And you'll agree. And then I say, but it could also land on its edge, and you'd look at me like I've just lost my mind.

 

I agree.

Like I said, my problem is the leap.