It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by slank
.
No Johannmon,
You are thinking about Monoploidy [one copy of each chromosome], Triploidy, [triplicate copies of each chromosome] as opposed to the standard Diploidy [duplicate copies]
Or monosomy [one copy of a single chromosome], trisomy [three copies of a single chromosome] or the standard disomy [two copies of a single chromosome].
What i mentioned is duplication of a portion of a chromosome, creating a longer chromosome.
.
Originally posted by surfup
"The more we question our beliefs and theories, the stronger they become." I know somone said that before, I just don't remember who.
Surf
Originally posted by Johannmon
The point here is that most high school classes that teach evolution do not limit themselves to the substantiated portion of evolutionary theory but almost without variation cross over to the unsubstantiated inference that observed micro-evolution is substantiated scientific explanation of the origin of life on this planet.
This statement has religious implications that directly support a humanistic point of view while denigrating much of theistic religion.
If you really believe that a textbook would be removed from the curriculum simply because it directly implies that evolution is a substantiated theory about the origin of life on this planet then you are living in a dream world bereft practical reality.
Neither they nor I have been taught the theory of evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint.
If you doubt this fact, just ask any high school kid, who has been taught evolution whether he believes evolution as a theory of origins is a fact or not
9 times out of 10 unless that kid has had prior religious education they will state that evolution is a factual account of the origin of life on Earth
It blinds them not only to theistic ideas of origins but also
but also to the need for further exploration into the theory of evolution itself.
Therefore to invite students to critically examine evolution and its tenants is a wise and perfectly constitutional counterbalance.
Unfortunately, in the real world every student and teacher that comes into the classroom brings their religious beliefs with them,
There is good evidence to support the theory of evolution as it pertains to the evolution of species, subspecies, and related species.
There is no substantiation to the idea that the theory of evolution is a factual explanation of how life began on this planet
and evolved from bacteria to the complexity we see today
The goo to you by way of the zoo theory does not have any credible substantiation and most evolutionary biologist recognize this and even welcome its challenge to find proof.
While local school boards are given oversight of the educational process, the design of the curriculum and how that curriculum is taught is determined outside of the local school board.
Only a partisan could see the statement as throwing things out of balance.
Even the judges decision recognized that it was the partisanship behind the sticker that colored its usage
To me it is ridiculous to imply that two sentences that state that evolution is a theory could be seen as “throwing things out of balance”
Hence to be scientifically honest you have to examine all evidences from both the perspective that there is no God and the perspective that there is and see which is more probable.
I welcome those who wish to study science from the perspective of no God
Fact: If a methodology cannot be established by which extra chromosomal pairs can be added to the DNA of simple life forms then no method is known by which life forms with fewer chromosomes in their DNA can evolve into more complex life forms with a greater number of Chromosomes.
I have never heard of anyone being taught that darwin's theory 'explains' the origin of life. I find it hard to beleive that a science teacher would teach it, it makes not sense at all. Or even that 'micro-evolution' explains the orign of life?
So you are opposed to any scientific theory with regards to origins?
If I wanted to know the answer to a comlex math question, I would not as high school students. I don't doubt that there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of what evolution is and what science is and how it operates and what its claims mean. Stickers like this only advance the problem.
A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory.
This is irrelevant. Science cannot be altered so that it agrees with irrational beleif systems.
What else do you think evolution covers?
There are only two lines of evidence that are acceptable for that matter, comparative morphological data and comparative genetic data. They strongly support evolution. There is no evidence that speaks in favour of any 'alternative' to evolution, hence to support it as scientific is a fallacy and to teach it in a science class of all things is a waste of time.
evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Except the genetic and morphological data, ie all the data that is had.
And the highest level that that occurs at is the level of the state, and that varies state by state.
There is no such thing as an 'atheistic science' and a 'theistic science', short of theistic science being witch doctors and juju bags.
Why should evolution require the addition of chromosomes? Darwin ad his contemporaries didn't know squat about chromosomes, and yet they were widely convinced by his theories. Are you saying that all of them were humanist drones?
Originally posted by Johannmon
I have never heard of anyone being taught that darwin's theory 'explains' the origin of life. I find it hard to beleive that a science teacher would teach it, it makes not sense at all. Or even that 'micro-evolution' explains the orign of life?
Nygdan, I appreciate your love of pure science and I agree that the pure science of evolution is quite silent on the theory of where life began, yet most people are searching for an answer to this question. Hence when they are taught a theory that many people, unscientifically relate to the origin of life both the teachers and the students tend to apply the theory in this manner. If you really don’t believe that this message is communicated and received on a regular basis, I invite you to talk to some high school students and even their teachers.
It is the rare individual indeed who can comprehend the scientific limitations of the theory.
So you are opposed to any scientific theory with regards to origins?
who would otherwise draw conclusions that this science does not substantiate.
How does it encourage ignorance of evolution by inviting the student to carefully and critically examine the theory for where it is true and applies and where it is does not apply or is not true but purely speculative?
A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory.
You being of a scientific mind Nygdan surely can see the vast amount of misunderstanding of the theory that there is out there.
If they had been encouraged to carefully examine the Theory of Evolution,
I have never and will never suggest that science be altered to agree with any belief system.
If, on the other hand, the teacher begins the lesson by pointing out the sticker placed on the textbook and agreeing with that sticker, that evolution is a theory, not a fact,
Conversely, Andy atheist,
will be challenged by the sticker and its wording to examine evolution
If Andy is never presented with the sticker and is taught evolution the way most high school text books do then he will give it only tacit attention believing that there is nothing new to discover or explore because science has already established evolution as a fact and there is no more to learn or discover.
The morphological and genetic data you are referring to are quite subjective and speculative.
Basically they are like saying that the Geo Prism is evolved from the dodge Omni because they are of similar size and their blueprints are very much the same with only minor structural changes.
Let me also say that to state that there are no alternatives to evolution is short sighted.
If it is a true assumption that there is a creator then it is logical that the creator makes changes in his design from time to time creating new species with built in adaptability to address a variety of climactic and environmental changes.[q/uote]
And how exactly is a person supposed to rationally distinguish between a world where some invisible all powerful creator tinkers with his creation, and one where he does not?
You have admitted that the assumption that there is or is not a God can never be 100% proven, yet this assumption is primal to understanding the mechanisms of many of our theories.
It most certainy is not. A theory does not need to address the existance of god in order to do what we require theories to do.
Biology takes on a new bent in that I look for signs of design
And how does one distinguish between 'intelligent god driven design' and the design that is a product of natural selection and adaptation?
[qutoe] and order in the life before me.
Many of the same methods used by archeologists to prove that this hill is an Indian sacred place can be used to substantiate the theory that this species genetic code is the result of applied intelligence rather than random chance.
evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Except the genetic and morphological data, ie all the data that is had.
And the highest level that that occurs at is the level of the state, and that varies state by state.
is a gross overestimation of both the initiative and influence of soccer moms and dads.
There is no such thing as an 'atheistic science' and a 'theistic science', short of theistic science being witch doctors and juju bags.
It says I don’t accept your assumptions so I will belittle them.
It also says I don’t understand your methods so I will claim they are primitive and superstitious.
The methods of so called 'theistic science' is primitive superstition, superstition that gods control the development of organisms and the environment. Demonstrate 'theistic science', I have never seen it, all I have ever seen is, effectively, folklore.
then you blind yourself to the true implications and possibilities of the science.
You blind yourself to what science is if you think that it can answer whether or not there is a god and whether or not it acts upon the world.
Why should evolution require the addition of chromosomes? Darwin ad his contemporaries didn't know squat about chromosomes, and yet they were widely convinced by his theories. Are you saying that all of them were humanist drones?
Darwin thought that the cell was a simple form of life. He had no idea of genetics RNA DNA mitochondria or any of the other working of the cell. If he had understood their complexity perhaps he would have been more hesitant to suggest they randomly mutated to become what they are.
Now as to the subject of Chromosomes. If you do not know why it is essential to add chromosomes to the simpler life forms in order to evolve the more complex ones then you do not understand genetics.
The number of chromosomes a being has dictates in large part the complexity of the organism.
No new chromosomes = no fish becomes mammal. Simple as that.
Im sorry that either your fear or inabillity to attempt to answer key questiones i posed makes you feel intellectually inferior, causing you to lable me "full of myself". Ill try to talk "down" in a manner better suited for comprehension by everyone.
some people just are so full of themselves....Cazmedia.
Again Slank, you twist words to avoid the issue. The issue wasnt about your responce to the pedophile, it was to respond to the truthfulness of his statement. (which you avoided)
Honestly CazMedia, if i knew the person to be a pedophile i probably wouldn't reply to their comment. I would probably quietly walk away. Might be a good idea to make sure the parents had the heads up on the circumstances.
I NEVER said that there was no intention BEHIND THE SCENES on this issue. In fact ive said it SEVERAL times already.
And Caz, I still am perplexed as to why you persist in claiming that there was not bias or intent. Its pretty clear to almost everybody that that was the intent of the board there.
the judge in this case put 3 assumptions onto the stickers text...
1)assumes meaning where none is stated.
2)assumes the reader has any knowlege of the senders intent.
3)assumes that the intent of the speaker somehow negates a true statement.
Thats alot of assumptions to base any legal ruling upon.
Im nothing if not persistant!
Caz, maybe people are tired of beating thier heads aginst your relentless dogma?
I'll agree.
A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory. I think it would be a good thing to do in science classes, but the average student can't even get evolution itself, let alone the intricacies and complexities involved.
An interesting work im still reviewing, but i still feel that on the surface it assumes alot. I still defy ANYONE on this thread to write down their inferances (we actually need some new test subjects) and see what kind of things people will put down for
As pointed out at least twice already, the judge based his decision in large part on an amicus that demonstrated that the sticker's language was not, infact, neutral, even taken outside of the evo/crea debate.
GOOD, they we agree, there is no real harm is the sticker then right? I agree that if the students were given the various hypothesis about this issue, that evolution would quickly become the dominate one discussed, because there isnt a way to examine scientifically "god" or creationism. Little more than a passing, "here is another hypothesis" would be given creationism or I.D.
Science education encourages the careful study of evolution, not some preposterous sticker. If the sticker were going to be used in the way you seem to think its intended to be used, then I'd be all for it. Go ahead kids, critically examine evolution, use your capacity for experimental analysis and rational thought to investigate it. There wouldn't be a moment wasted on creationism/idism, other than to demostrate the danger of irrational faith.
Great, fine, NOONE CARES!!! This is a no-brainer!
Truth is what science seeks
Originally posted by CazMedia
I dont read ANYONE on this thread saying that evolution is not being a legitimate study or evidence behind a good THEORY!
NOONE is arguing that evolution should not be taught...
I HAVE said that by reading only the sticker as stated that NOONE can infer the bias or intent that is being applied, from the words used!
Thats alot of assumptions to base any legal ruling upon.
Now that those pleasantries are over
How then can you say the judge was correct to ASSUME that they (or anyone) could have competance or awarness of either the science or the issues about the sticker?
An interesting work im still reviewing, but i still feel that on the surface it assumes alot. I still defy ANYONE on this thread to write down their inferances (we actually need some new test subjects) and see what kind of things people will put down for
1)what can you infer from reading this sentance?
On 'evolution is a theory, not a fact' I read that evolution is not a fact, which is scientifically inaccurate.
2)what do you infer about the person writting this sentance?
That they don't know what evolution is.
Nygdan says,
GOOD, they we agree, there is no real harm is the sticker then right? [/quiote]
No, because there are only two ways to look at the sticker, as innocuous or as insidious. If innocuous, its meaningless, pointless, and wasteful (of course, a judge can't eliminate it because of that). I'm all for students being taught proper science. Poltically motivated 'warnings' about critical rational thought are not proper science.
I agree that if the students were given the various hypothesis about this issue, that evolution would quickly become the dominate one discussed, because there isnt a way to examine scientifically "god" or creationism. Little more than a passing, "here is another hypothesis" would be given creationism or I.D.
BUT
AGAIN ill say science cant study "god" yet. YET PEOPLE!
Does this mean that we shouldnt try?
If it were doable I wouldn't say its something that should be 'tried', I'd say its vitally important and every scientist should focus on it! It'd be incredible if there was some way to do that. Unfortunately, no one's come up with a way to do so. Scientists and researchers shouldn't use this to mean its not worth contemplating, but schools shouldn't teach basically failed or useless theories on the matter. If there was a successful theory on the matter, then, yes, regardless of any constitutional concerns, it should be taught. Infact, it might require that the constitution be altered.
Since ancient times, man has thought about man flying. The greeks dreamed up Iccarus as a morality lesson, but also dreampt of a man with wings and flying.
But this couldnt be done, let alone begin to be studied then...YET WE BELIEVED MAN WOULD FLY
Interesting analogy. What if there were a greek text on areodynamics, and some had used that text to study flight? And what if daedulites attached 'disclaimers' and 'warning' notices on those texts? It'd be pretty silly wouldn't it? I mean, if one takes a step back from the whole thing, and look at what happened, its pretty darned silly. Cigarettes get warnings attached to them, non FDA studied drugs get disclaimers, but scientific research? Well tested, well supported scientific research, that already makes explicit what it does and does not state, gets a disclaimer? They're putting 'warnings' on rational thought?
Now man has the tools and understanding to quantify lift, drag, inertia, areodynamics and more...man flies everyday.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically man flies. Infact, there are two theories on what produces flight, one is more accepted than the other, but neither is really the 'correct' theory. In that way, evolutionary theory is more widely accepted and better supported than flight theory, and people literally stake their lives on flight every day. By the rationale of this sticker, airlines should state that they don't really know, even in theory, why the big metal birds fly, and can't guarentee, to any degree, that the things won't come crashing down. Infact, they can't be held liable for it either.
to shut the door on "god" or creationism as a hypothosis simple because NOW we have no way to observe, test, and quantify these unknowns doenst sound like science continuing to ask questions about the mysteries of existance
Creationism is not a hypothesis. Its a beleif. It can't and isn't tested or refuted or supported or anything. Its like the catholic dogma of transubstantiation. Should that be taught in chemistry classes? Besides, what would be taught about creationism anyway? 'God might've done it, doesn't seem to be anything to support that, but we'll make a mental note of it anyway'? Even that should not be permited in a science class, its irrational, senseless. If creationists came up with somethign worth teaching, then it'd be a different story.
CazMedia:
Then tell us spacemunkey, from reading the text of the sticker, how someones rights were violated?
How can you assume some religious intent (even if it exisits behind the true statement)
How does the text say this in any way?
How can you ASSUME this?
more importantly how can the impartial judge?
Do you think kids reading this would have ANY knowledge of the behind the scenes issues here?
Could they even GUESS at them with a hope of getting it right by reading the sticker?
This is about a bad judgment, not creationism vs science
or
religion vs state mingling...
Its about an open minded and open ended sentence that implies NONE of the things your trying to stick onto it,
AND
one where indeed the local people have spoken democratically and culturally to ask for INCLUSIVNESS of thought
not
Repression of ideas based on which criteria today?
You claim that society is open and free where public schools expouse things that are inclusive
yet
by segregating a true statement expousing nothing more than open minded thinking,
You repress both the message, the truth, and others rights to be included while NOT infringing too far upon others.
Bigotry, and tolorance, know no bounds.
Originally posted by dubiousone
After all, there have been 10+ pages on this thread, yet Nygdan still makes statements such as "evolution is a fact". Y
And this is what I disagree about. All this debate on the merits of evolution and creationism are a side show to the issue of this case.
This, however, is what the judge disagrees about. The sticker itself, taken without reference to the creationism sillyness, is incorrect and biased, as it treats evolution as a theory, when it is a fact accompanied by theories. The amicus written and linked to above made this clear to the judge. On top of that, the sticker does not exist in a vacuum and doesn't need to be considered in a vacuum.
Originally posted by dubiousone
I don't understand the dogged insistence on getting people to say they believe that the "theory of evolution" is a FACT rather than a theory.
Everyone seems to acknowledge that the "theory of evolution" is grounded in factual observations.
As Caz adeptly explained, many "FACTS" that were later proven to be false, such as the flat earth "theory", were grounded in empirical observations.
The flat earth theory was not based on the Bible, which nowhere says the earth is flat!
Evolution is not an observable fact. It is an explanation derived from empirical data, i.e. it is a theory, an attempt to explain what is observed in the natural world.
Maybe in using the word "FACT" as a description of the THEORY of evolution, what you really mean to say is that the THEORY of evolution is a sound, valid, explanation based on the observable empirical data.
It is no less a leap of faith than the creationists’ belief that an intelligent designer is the better explanation of origins.
to guard against being misled by your repetitive insistence on the misuse of these terms.