-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Evolution Case Opens in Georgia Court
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
What is this "Evolution" thing???
You apparently didn't get the Memo from the the ruling party that there is no such thing.
That is not exactly true. We stopped using the word "law" in science about 100 years ago or so. There are as you say a few "laws" but some of them are actually not correct, Newtons "law" of gravity is a good example: We know now that it is only valid for speeds lower than the speed of light so strictly speaking it is not a law, we have kept the name for historic reasons but a "law" is not "more correct" or "more true" than a theory.
I think the last "law" was Planck's radiation law (I might be wrong) which was published 1901.
The change had more to do with linguistics and philosophy than than with any radical change in the way we think of science.
Spencer278
Diamond Member
What ignorant right wing nut job wrote that sticker. Evolution is NOT a theory about the "origin of living things" it is a theory about change over time in living things.
If they approached the theory of evolution simply stating that natural selection a possible way that survival of the fittest and not evolution is what is going on they might have some more aspects through scientific methods that could be discovered.
Just because some species that existed 2 billion years ago or who knows how long and doesnt exist now, it does not mean that species evolved into anything. It could have just become extinct. Species go extinct all the time.
So if some mathematician provides evidence that evolution is theoretically an impossibility would you discount that also?
Evolution is at best a stab in the dark. With what we know today there could have just been some kind of genetic engineering by aliens and we were all just cloned in a test tube.
Just because some species that existed 2 billion years ago or who knows how long and doesnt exist now, it does not mean that species evolved into anything. It could have just become extinct. Species go extinct all the time.
So if some mathematician provides evidence that evolution is theoretically an impossibility would you discount that also?
Evolution is at best a stab in the dark. With what we know today there could have just been some kind of genetic engineering by aliens and we were all just cloned in a test tube.
p: If they approached the theory of evolution simply stating that natural selection a possible way that survival of the fittest and not evolution is what is going on they might have some more aspects through scientific methods that could be discovered.
M: If you believe natural selection than you believe in evolution. Natural selection is what causes evolution to happen. Some genes are selected for and some selected against. The altering of the gene pool via genetic drift and selection is what can bring about change.
p: Just because some species that existed 2 billion years ago or who knows how long and doesnt exist now, it does not mean that species evolved into anything. It could have just become extinct. Species go extinct all the time.
You had a father and mother and so did your parents. But you are about to suggest the tooth faerie so wait.
p: So if some mathematician provides evidence that evolution is theoretically an impossibility would you discount that also?
M: Behold the bumble bee.
p: Evolution is at best a stab in the dark. With what we know today there could have just been some kind of genetic engineering by aliens and we were all just cloned in a test tube.
M: The dark is your ignorance. The theory of evolution if far far more than a stab. It is elegantly constructed theory of genius level inference. We could be only a figment of God's imagination too, but rational people look for rational solutions in a realistic non fantastic way. It is the difference between magical thinking and scientific thought. Those scientific minded among us are that way because we are persuaded by its enormous predictive power and incredible application. I could care less what you think, but please don't get in the way. Rational people are trying to make the world better for everybody. It's why you freaking backward imbeciles are such a pain in the ass. You are a drag on progressive human evolution that evolution is painfully slow to weed out.
M: If you believe natural selection than you believe in evolution. Natural selection is what causes evolution to happen. Some genes are selected for and some selected against. The altering of the gene pool via genetic drift and selection is what can bring about change.
p: Just because some species that existed 2 billion years ago or who knows how long and doesnt exist now, it does not mean that species evolved into anything. It could have just become extinct. Species go extinct all the time.
You had a father and mother and so did your parents. But you are about to suggest the tooth faerie so wait.
p: So if some mathematician provides evidence that evolution is theoretically an impossibility would you discount that also?
M: Behold the bumble bee.
p: Evolution is at best a stab in the dark. With what we know today there could have just been some kind of genetic engineering by aliens and we were all just cloned in a test tube.
M: The dark is your ignorance. The theory of evolution if far far more than a stab. It is elegantly constructed theory of genius level inference. We could be only a figment of God's imagination too, but rational people look for rational solutions in a realistic non fantastic way. It is the difference between magical thinking and scientific thought. Those scientific minded among us are that way because we are persuaded by its enormous predictive power and incredible application. I could care less what you think, but please don't get in the way. Rational people are trying to make the world better for everybody. It's why you freaking backward imbeciles are such a pain in the ass. You are a drag on progressive human evolution that evolution is painfully slow to weed out.
DealMonkey
Lifer
The sticker itself doesn't concern me too much, rather it's the sentiment behind the sticker that has me worried.
Evolution, in the sense that creatures adapt to their environments over generations (presumably through the course of natural selction) is an observed fact.
That this process explains the development and speciation of all living things is a theory, which is very, very, very well supported by facts, including the one above. However, it can never be proven.
That objects in a vacuum move towards one another at a rate which is a function of their masses and their relative distance is an observed fact. That this is caused by a "force" which is analagous to other "forces," and that the function determining the magnitude of this force is constant, is a theory, which is very, very, very, well supported by facts, including the one above. Howver, it can never be proven.
Both facts may one day be disproven in some circumstances. In fact, one of them already has been. Guess which one.
All that being said, Public School is probably not the place to make such subtle distinctions, and Biology is certainly not the right subject in which to do so.
That this process explains the development and speciation of all living things is a theory, which is very, very, very well supported by facts, including the one above. However, it can never be proven.
That objects in a vacuum move towards one another at a rate which is a function of their masses and their relative distance is an observed fact. That this is caused by a "force" which is analagous to other "forces," and that the function determining the magnitude of this force is constant, is a theory, which is very, very, very, well supported by facts, including the one above. Howver, it can never be proven.
Both facts may one day be disproven in some circumstances. In fact, one of them already has been. Guess which one.
All that being said, Public School is probably not the place to make such subtle distinctions, and Biology is certainly not the right subject in which to do so.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Yes, At least 51% of the Divided States of America.
JohnSquall:
Perhaps everything you post here should have the same type of warning in large red letters preceding it.
ATTENTION, ATTENTION: EVERYTHING POSTED BELOW IS A TOTAL FABRICATION BY JOHNSQUALL. IGNORE HIM.
They might as well put those stickers on any physics text or the Principia Mathematica. Why have they chosen a biology textbook? Hmmmm?
If any books deserve warning stickers its our HISTORY BOOKS....
-Robert
Perhaps everything you post here should have the same type of warning in large red letters preceding it.
ATTENTION, ATTENTION: EVERYTHING POSTED BELOW IS A TOTAL FABRICATION BY JOHNSQUALL. IGNORE HIM.
They might as well put those stickers on any physics text or the Principia Mathematica. Why have they chosen a biology textbook? Hmmmm?
If any books deserve warning stickers its our HISTORY BOOKS....
-Robert
Vic
Elite Member
Microevolution is proven scientific fact. It should be presented as such. It exists, is proven, and is real. Get over it. God works in mysterious ways. Just how mysterious we are only beginning to discover and understand.
Macroevolution is established scientific theory. It can never be proven and should be presented as such, while still taught at the same time as it is scientifically important. I see nothing wrong with the sticker.
Neither micro- nor macro- evolution are contrary to Christianity, unless you insist on an interpretation of the Bible so literal that your head gets thrust right up your ass. Regardless, your individual religion has no place in our public schools, unless you are willing to agree that everyone else's individual religion should also be taught in our public schools, including Hinduism and Islam, and then when would our kids have time to learn math and history? If you don't like it, pony up the cash and send your kids to a religious school.
Creationism is the teaching of religion. It has no place in our public schools, and should be taught to children by their parents and churches. Take some freakin' responsibility over your own children! If these are things you want your children to learn, then take the time to teach them.
Gravity is scientific LAW. It is has no place in this discussion. To bring it up and call it a "theory" in order to advance your own agenda simply shows your own ignorance... Moonie.
Macroevolution is established scientific theory. It can never be proven and should be presented as such, while still taught at the same time as it is scientifically important. I see nothing wrong with the sticker.
Neither micro- nor macro- evolution are contrary to Christianity, unless you insist on an interpretation of the Bible so literal that your head gets thrust right up your ass. Regardless, your individual religion has no place in our public schools, unless you are willing to agree that everyone else's individual religion should also be taught in our public schools, including Hinduism and Islam, and then when would our kids have time to learn math and history? If you don't like it, pony up the cash and send your kids to a religious school.
Creationism is the teaching of religion. It has no place in our public schools, and should be taught to children by their parents and churches. Take some freakin' responsibility over your own children! If these are things you want your children to learn, then take the time to teach them.
Gravity is scientific LAW. It is has no place in this discussion. To bring it up and call it a "theory" in order to advance your own agenda simply shows your own ignorance... Moonie.
Gravity is NOT law. The word law is not used in modern science except when we refer to classical physics (Newton, Hooke, Maxwell, the laws of thermodynamics, the law of detail balance just to mention a few).
In most modern textbooks you will see references to "Newtons theory of gravity" as well as "Einsteins theory of gravity" (General relativity). Today we also know that Einstein's theory is "more correct" than Newton's (it is valid in situations where Newtons "law" would give you the wrong answer).
There are many reasons why we stopped using the word "law" in science and it is an interersting topic in it self. However, even before Poppers "Logic of scientifc discovery" was published the concept of "scientific law" had disapperad.
Btw, there was a good article in Scientific American about the modern use of the word "theory" (which is very different from the way it is used in everyday life, this difference exists in all languages AFAIK, at least we have the same problem in Swedish) a few months ago, unfortunately I can not seem to find it online.
In most modern textbooks you will see references to "Newtons theory of gravity" as well as "Einsteins theory of gravity" (General relativity). Today we also know that Einstein's theory is "more correct" than Newton's (it is valid in situations where Newtons "law" would give you the wrong answer).
There are many reasons why we stopped using the word "law" in science and it is an interersting topic in it self. However, even before Poppers "Logic of scientifc discovery" was published the concept of "scientific law" had disapperad.
Btw, there was a good article in Scientific American about the modern use of the word "theory" (which is very different from the way it is used in everyday life, this difference exists in all languages AFAIK, at least we have the same problem in Swedish) a few months ago, unfortunately I can not seem to find it online.
Vic
Elite Member
Wrong. Gravity is a law. And there is a difference.
Physical Law
Scientific Theory
Not to disrespect theories, but the difference is that Laws are universal and cannot be disproven, even if we do not know how it works. Gravity effects everything and exists, and despite our limited understanding of how it works, we can predict its effects with unerring accuracy. That makes it a law. If you know of a realm in space where gravity does not exist, scientists are awaiting your phone call.
A theory is different in that regardless of how factual and proven it may be, it is still not to the point where it cannot be disproven. Until scientists actually observe firsthand the process of macroevolution, of one species evolving into another, and then are able to demostrate that such a process is without doubt universal to all life, then evoltuion will remain a theory. A well-proven and factual one, but a theory nonetheless.
edit: That gravity exists universally and its effects can be predicted is law. How and why gravity exists is the subject of several theories. You guys know that there's a difference there, right?
The problems with that definition are
1) How can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is not a single region in space where gravity does NOT exist?
2) Classical laws CAN be disproven, we KNOW that Newton was wrong
3) We can NOT predict all the effects of gravity, we KNOW that even general relativity is not valid in all situations, it does not work in a singlularity (in the middle of a black hole)
Popper showed once and for all that the old notion of "absolute truth" in science is simply not relevant, we can never prove anything.
1) How can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is not a single region in space where gravity does NOT exist?
2) Classical laws CAN be disproven, we KNOW that Newton was wrong
3) We can NOT predict all the effects of gravity, we KNOW that even general relativity is not valid in all situations, it does not work in a singlularity (in the middle of a black hole)
Popper showed once and for all that the old notion of "absolute truth" in science is simply not relevant, we can never prove anything.
Vic
Elite Member
I can accept this. However, are you going to say that macroevolution is just as proven as gravity? While big brains may understand (or at least accept) the complexities involved, the general populace cannot, and to assert as such would only undermine your own credibility in their eyes. If only because one has never been observed, while the other is continually observed. Both can be considered factual, but to a widely different degree.
Let me rephrase my earlier statement when I said that gravity had no place in this discussion. It has no place in this discussion because it is not analogous.
I now leave this discussion so it can revert back to a pointless argument between extremists who wouldn't know a decent compromise even if it whacked 'em upside the head.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
There's only one true solution, no more Federal involvement in the school system. Leave it up to the states, communities, and parents to educate the children. And yes, I'm only half-kidding.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
Meh, it sounds like a good idea, but I think there are just too many problems with it. How would we assure equality of education across the nation? I'd hate to think I would be denied a job or such because I went to school in a particular state or area. And what about the Global Marketplace? Is it not in our nations best interest to assure that *all* citizens are educated to the utmost level possible by conventional methods? Isn't the there a larger, national interest at stake? Maybe some of these issues can be solved by accreditation or something.
Vic
Elite Member
You answered it yourself. Accreditation. No different than a private school or a university. And, when controlled strictly and financially from the local level, I imagine most schools will be held to a higher standard. We had better schools before federal involvement, yaknow.
Still, God and religion should be kept out of all schools that accept public money. The place to teach God and religion is in the home and the church, and not in the public school.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
