Utah House kills evolution bill

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 28 February 2006 | JENNIFER DOBNER

[Elsie]

No, they are not. Check your premisimates.

[GrandEagle]

Of course not.
I believe that a coke can is made from aluminum. I believe that most aircraft are also made from aluminum. I do not believe that a coke can will turn into the airframe of an aircraft if I sit around and watch it long enough.

[Elsie]

Perhaps you are making a frequently-repeated error.

AHhhh.

PCspeak comes to FR; finally!!

Can the revealing of Mormon temple rites be far behind?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Spam alert

[Elsie]

Or soon will be!

[dread78645]

What, exactly, does evolution "explain". Evolution is not a process. You cannot generate it, you cannot make it happen. You cannot reproduce it in a lab. It is a paradigm. Mutation is a theory.

Yep. All those undergrads are just wasting their time with Drosophila melanogaster in Biology Lab.

[AmishDude]

"Continental drift" is quantitative. It can be measured. That doesn't make it a theory, only data. Only mutation can be measured. "Evolution", i.e., natural selection, cannot.

"Evolution" is like looking at the outcome of a coin toss and saying, "That coin was predisposed to turn up heads because, look, it did."

The bird has wings because nature killed those previous mutations that did not. Fine. That's a paradigm, a lens through which the results can be viewed.

[AmishDude]

All those undergrads are just wasting their time with Drosophila melanogaster in Biology Lab.

I didn't say that (although they are, the little mushheads should be training their minds learning calculus, if they can handle it -- most of them can't, BTW, that's why they're in biology).

The point is that they are studying mutation, not evolution. It's amazing that biologists don't know what they don't know and that their paradigm is just economics, with a few words scratched out and others scribbled in the margins.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Plato had defined Man as a "featherless biped". Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words "Here is Plato's man." In consequence of which there was added to the definition, "having broad nails".

link

[ToryHeartland]

To some extent I agree.

I suspect we agree about much; my point (not particularly well put) was that ToE is indeed empirical, though some seem to demand that ToE produce direct observation of results which in fact require hundreds of millions of years--which is a demand as unreasonable as demanding an empirical proof of God. Neither demand is appropriate, IMHO. It is clear that some folk find a conflict here; I happen to find none. But I do respect views from scientists and laymen alike that are (1) cogently argued and (2) civilly presented, as indeed yours are.

[Californiajones]

Time should NOT be the errant element of proving a chemical DNA process of evolution.

If evolution is indeed a innate scientific process, its formula should be definable and demonstrable in everyday experiments.

But -- it's not. Because -- it's bunk.

[Dimensio]

Pschaw, that's nothing. It's still a [insert species here].

You mean "It's still a [insert arbitrary declaration of 'kind' here]". I have observed on more than one occasion a creationist literally redefining the meaning of "species" as a means of denying observed speciation events.

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Dimensio]

Please point me to the single best instance in that long comment above, where you see an animal species generate a different animal species.

Are you suggesting an event occur in a single generation?

[Dimensio]

I'd be happy if they could show a single instance where dirt has evolved into any kind of living creature.

Why would you wish to see this? The theory of evolution does not predict that any such thing should happen.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm positive that some people are ionized.

[Dimensio]

The problem is not so much that evolution is "unproven" but rather that all scientific explanations are "unproven" and evolution is being singled out as though it is somehow unique in that regard.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It explains why most taxonomic schemes yield a tree, not a lawn.

[Dimensio]

I am curious. Are you serious in your belief that all who accept evolution are "fools", or are you merely lampooning common creationist talking points by parodying their practice of avoiding factual statements and falling back on irrelevant religious preaching?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If evolution is indeed a innate scientific process, its formula should be definable and demonstrable in everyday experiments. "

No, as has been told to you before, science does not have to be reduced to a formula. No matter how much you wish it did.