Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
House lawmakers scuttled a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution is not empirically proven - the latest setback for critics of evolution.
The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.
But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.
Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.
"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"
Buttars said he didn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.
The vote represents the latest loss for critics of evolution. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes.
Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.
Earlier this year, a rural California school district canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.
But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.
He's been around for years! And you still tolerate him? I am impressed! Well, a friend of yours, is a friend of mine. ;)
How goes it, Elsie?
If I understand where you want to go with this; yes what goes for our DNA also to a greater extent goes for our ancestors. However, humans became humans as a group, not as an individual. We can trace our Y chromosome to our most recent common ancestor but this does not mean that there existed at that time (the time of our MRCA) only one man. It means that of all the men alive at the time, only one is an ancestor of all human males in our current population.
Nor does this mean that the Y chromosome does not change, just that it changes in trackable ways.
He's a bit like the neighbors' puppy -- he comes into your yard, piddles around a bit, follows you while you do yard work, but in general is fairly harmless and occasionally entertaining.
BINGO! We have a winner.
Who said we are all descended from a single 'missing link'? Who said that the Y chromosome never changes?
Oh, that is so cute!... Here, Elsie...
Puppy placemarker.
That's the thing about Elsie's smartarse comments. Nearly all of them are based on a feeble misunderstanding of the evidence, so they miss the mark for anyone who understands the science.
Nice attempt at 'appeal to authority'. I realize you are a recognized expert at the 'red herring' and 'the bait and switch', but just for once, perhaps we can get your incredibly potent mind to stay on subject?
The point made was that the 'Y' chromosome can be used to trace back to our most recent common ancestor, at least for males, females have mitochondria, and that the variation we see today would not be possible if we had experienced a genetic bottleneck at the time and type of a Noachian flood.
Your response was that the 'Y' chromosome is too changeable for that to be accepted and that we should use mitochondrial DNA, which by the language used in your posts leads me to believe you feel the female MRCA, which biologists have called 'eve' (a poor choice in my opinion) is indeed the eve of the Bible.
You are obviously much more intelligent than I am so I hope my reply to you isn't too messed up. The 'Eve' of mitochondrial DNA is a single woman in a population of other women; she just happens to be the ancestor of all the women in our current population, not the only ancestor. The same applies to our most recent common male ancestor; he is but one of many alive at the time that contribute to our 'Y' chromosome.
"which by the language used in your posts leads me to believe you feel the female MRCA"
She repeatedly said X chromosome. Let's take her at her word that is what was meant.
It is asked in earnest. I have yet to find anyone who can practically explain why 'information increase' is necessary and sufficient for evolution but simple genomic change is insufficient. Nor has anyone explained why simple changes in the genome can and does leads only to a decrease in this 'information'.
It has been impossible to get the information-aholics to stick with just one theory of information, or at least to define when, where and why the different ToIs are to be applied.
That was not my response. I didn't get that far. Not that the Y was unacceptable. I was pointing out that the more interesting ancestral argument might be about Noah's wife, to which I was told I could not tell male from female. Or something like that.
Recombination? Could you please give me a citation about this? I don't know what you're talking about.
Why add to her confusion?
It can also have 'data' added.
"IOW, it doesn't replicate as exactly as its counterpart.
So? For the application that the OP (can't remember if it was junior or js1138) put it to, the mitochondrial DNA (not the X chromosome) is a poorer choice.
"It also does not have as much going on to start with. And it does change.
All DNA can change. The application determines the choice.
Just write my responses for me. Don't, however, expect me to sign them. One nice thing about evo threads is that you never see the evos any other place on FR.
Perhaps it was the way you suggested the use of the 'X' chromosome?
It may very well be an interesting question, but the female most recent common ancestor is a number of years farther in the past than that postulated by the Biblical literalists.
I did not see where it was stated you can't tell the difference between a male and a female, but given that it happened, I was not one who did.
Have I done that?
One nice thing about evo threads is that you never see the evos any other place on FR.
I assume you feel that to be a negative thing? Why?
Do I remember correctly that they did trace one male lineage back to a common ancestor living at the time of Moses? Jews named Cohen (or variants)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.