Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Good for Nebraska--perhaps in addition to corn and corn-fed beef, they will reliably produce scientists.

Not really. Not scientifically. They call upon high school students to describe how the teachers describe the theory of evolution and how the teachers apply it to explain the diversity of life over time. Which isn't likely to be a proper description of evolution nor of its application to the diversity of life over time and especially not to the life of the foetus over time in the cradle evolution provided for its safety nor of the life of sperm or eggs in their respective reproductive organs which were brought to their present state by evolution.

But if the kids regurgitate in their exam papers what the teachers have told them, which is probably a giant bundle of laughs, they will get high marks and be on the way to becoming scientists.

The standards further admit to teaching bullshit theories about light because of the tender years of the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. They might have applied the same principle to evolution except that they are so eager to teach that to the same kids in order to further their own agenda regarding other matters and their teaching of it is just as likely to be bullshit as their teaching on light, which is admitted to be lies and reliant on mirrors being perfect.

PS --I gather that the OMAHA WORLD-HERALD refuses, fining itself in the process, to publish announcements of same-sex unions in City Hall ceremonies.

I find what hurts the "theory" of evolution is the fact that its basic and fundamental tenet is falsified by the Scientific Method each and every time that it is placed to the test of Observed, Reproducible, Experimentation, and of course that fundamental tenet is the Hypothesis that LIFE evolved Spontaneously void of intelligence from DEAD MATTER. That fundamental tenet is ALWAYS falsified, as there has not been one successful Scientific Experiment that comes close to demonstrating that Life can come about by Spontaneous Generation in a Natural Environment, regardless of the conditions of that environment.

And Frankly, I find it somewhat amusing to suggest that any experiment designed by the most Intelligence that man can muster might somehow prove that Life is capable of evolving from dead matter void of intelligent design. While on the other side of the coin, The Law of Biogenesis is Observed and Repeated in nature on a daily basis, with that law demonstrating, just as Men like Louis Pasteur recorded.....LIFE can come about only as a product of PROCREATION from preexisting LIFE....WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES. And this Law has not been subject to Falsification ONE TIME.

This "Law of Biogenesis" may be popular among Creationists but , if it were a REAL LAW, Creation would be in trouble as a "scientific theory". Biogenesis is froma phrase by PAsteur who spent months and years trying to show that life can spontaaneously erupt. Pasteur,who gave us "Louizization", had a quaint concept of biology by our standards, so any "Law" about how "spontaneous generation is but a dream" is based only upon what science was capable of in his time.
We know so much more and have been conducting experiments with abiogenesis for quite a while. Its a concept that, becuase noone has been capable of generating life from base chemicals merely shows us the complex of chemical and physical reactions necessary to show the birth of the prokaryotic cell (or the pre prokaryotic cell). Weve shown that the cell wall can be assembled from naturally occuring lipids. the cell and thye nucleus can be assembled with fairly good precision. Most of the precepts that define"life" have been demonstrated in the lab.
However, all that being part of this discussion is merely a diversionary attempt by you Mr Ralph. You know that Darwin himself never included abiogenesis in his complex theory and that his speculation about the "warm little pond" appears in which edition of the "Origin of SPecies"?

Evolution through time is certainly falsifiable, and has been subject to prediction (Which have subjected the theory to falsifiability tests and , in which, the theory has NEVER been falsified). The most recent expeditions to find specific "intermeidate" fossils have been predicted based upon the occurence of earlier and later fossils and an understanding of the geology that contained these fossils and the geologic time that hosted the fossils. Curious that you fail to recognize those little facts.Genetics and genomics allows us to understand how, just as decent with modification predicts, GENES of previous forms of life re preserved in related species. Genes of island species show almost parent/descendant genetic similarities to the forms found on the mainland . All these thousands of island and /or cave species so close in form to nearby , but morphologically different species needs a good analysis beyond the simple minded concept of "Special creation".

You are an idiot. You are an idiot because you let your religious creed do your thinking for you. The evolutionary process is a sound theory (no quote marks, theories are as close to statements of fact as science ever comes, and an idiotic insistence on what theory means on the street corner among the rubes won't change that). No part of evolutionary science concerns itself with cosmic origins--evolution doesn't "care" how the universe came into being. No part of evolutionay science concerns itself with how life began; evolutionary science is about what happens once life has begun--evolution doesn't "care" how life began.

Then little Suzie's going to go home and say, "Mommy, light is a wave and a particle", and Mommy's going to say, "quit talking gibberish and read your bible".

So what is light then? The absence of dark. Do the instruments used to examine it explain the nature of light or do they only explain what light does to the instrument?

And you, **** for brains, are a crass fool who seeks the company of the likes of Gomer the Turd. No wonder you agree to sneer and snicker at people with beliefs...you are so bloody insecure.

There are many truely knowledgable people out there who respect religion...you clearly do not qualify in either end of that sentence.
Would you care to put a time frame to that pathetic attempt at humuor ? What is the difference in time between the start of a race and when it has begun ? Still scratching your head over how the Olympics ever start an event ?

You are a clown.

They use instruments to examine the physical universe and then declare with frightened volume that the non-physical can not exist. God I hope these fools are not representative of true scientists or we might evolve backwards.

They do not represent scientists Io. Their attempts to bring science into disrepute while riding its coat-tails in the service of their dickies will fail. One of them has admitted that a nun smacking his bottom discovered for him the scientific fact that there is no God. In an infants school too.

btw--evolutionary processes don't have direction. That's a conceit of that class of upthrusting merchants and manufactures to which Charles Darwin belonged.
They could hardly justify their behaviour on Christian principles. Early Wedgwood pottery, very collectable and splendid in the drawing-room display cabinets, was soaked in the blood of the "bungled and the botched", as Nietzsche called them, just as the pyramids of old Egypt were. Giving a direction to evolution allowed such persons to imagine they were in the highest position on their fatuous tree of life notwithstanding their abject fear of germs, viruses and other little wiggling things.

We are all in a panic to make sure we dont devolve and become like you, Australopithecus Anii.

I heard that , lately, youve been able to almost achieve an upright stance. Thatlls sure take a load off yer knuckles.

Youve got it all ass backwards as usual ANUS, it was spendi who started the denigrating of the scientific method and "how evolution should not be taught to public school children" (He hints that most kids and women are ill equipped to ahndle various topi9cs). Then he states boldly that, if it werent for Christianity that we wouldnt have all this technology.
BY YOU AGREEING with him (besides your own demonstrations of consistent ignorance) , You join the drunk in trying to keep alive a seriews of myths .

I have no problems with people of faith, and the fact that I aint one of em should be of no concern of yours (UNLESS OF COURSE-you take it as some mission to "Save souls"). SO which is it are you just an ignoirant nag or are you commissioned by some god to proselytize?

As a real scientist, I am curious about what gets yer goat about our concerns for the US public education system.

1You have no vote

2You have your own problems

Obviously your own limited abilities havent even caught the nuance of sets statement. The official definition of biological evolution from the AGI is as follows:
1. The CHAQNGE of a group of organisms toward adaptation to the environmental conditions to which they have been exposed through the passage of time.

2. The theory that life on earth has descended from a common ancestor

3. The permanent change in the form and function of orgnims of successive ancestor-descendant generations or populaqtions, over geologic time, so that the latest members of the succession differ significantly from the earliest.

NOWHERE, in these three sequence definitions do you see the term "Biogenesis".

I assume that you will try to insert your own denials of these words(like you did for the GEologic period name NEOARCHAEAN). SO I will give you a name and address to which you may send an e-mail to bitch about the facts. I may be laughing too hard.

That definition applies between 9.00 pm and 1.00 am in the pub. In fact it applies to any conditions anywhere in which organisms can be found assuming time doesn't stop and the cells of their bodies are in motion. Hence it means nothing. It says no more than that the organisms are alive. Which we already know. How can organisms not change?

Do you address everybody as if they are illiterate and as thick as a brick. It sure does look like it.



I don't hint at any such thing. I baldly state it because it is a simple fact and one proved by how you handle the subject and as do all those ladies who flatter themselves that they can teach it without being embarrassed. Don't pretend that because you and your claque have the matter on Ignore that it ceases to exist. That's just devious. Most men are incapable of handling evolution as well. As you lot seem determined to prove.

Is it not possible for you to correct your typos before shoving them at us. We know you have problems but if you respected us a little more you could alter them as is obvious from the rest of your post. " ill equipped to ahndle various topi9cs" indeed.



No way. A deliberate lie. Nor would I denigrate the scientific method. I denigrate your attempt to use it for audiences which don't understand it and would reject its severe nature. Every post you make demonstrates that you don't think scientifically, don't act scientifically and, as I often say, have not a single scientific bone in your body. You haven't even got the nonce to comment on the scientific method. Your subjectivism is rife and seemingly incurable.



Of course I state it boldly. It's an obvious fact. You Ignoring all the evidence I have offered, your being incapable of understanding the matter and your failure to take on Spengler's explanation of the fact is neither here nor there. And your English is hopeless as well. "It weren't" eh? And what's the comma for and the second "that"? Where's the apostrophe in "weren't". And in "wouldn't"? Did they let you loose on America's students?

The whole subject is outside the range of your intellect. You're hopeless.

Thats a lie dipshit. I just address you and Anus like illiterates , How am I doing so far? You both seem to want to try to respond so I figure Im getting through to both of yoiur levels.

Why was it a lie? I explained what I said to justify my statement that you address people as if they are gumps. That your definition was useless because it said nothing. And that you were seeking to take advantage of people who can't read properly.

All you have done is assert that I was incorrect but excusing yourself of saying why I was. Your definition is useless for the reasons I gave and anybody who can speak English properly and has any science would know it. Are you addressing people who can't speak English and have no science because that's what it looks like objectively.

You've got assertivitis.

You'll never get through to me until you're cured of it.

It says nothing to people like you who's brain has been irreversibly damaged by your religion. Creationism is a man-made myth based on ignorance; it has no support of any kind except in the brains of "believers" who think god is the creator of all things.

Show us the beef. You can't. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that all of your challenges to science is based on total ignorance, because you arrive at conclusions based on nothing more than myth.

Your arguments is as hollow as your brain; there's nothing there.

Have you said that to those members of your family you have told us are religious?

You're one of the gumps ci. And you've got assertivitis too. It is catching you know. It's so easy to do you see.

I do have to be on your side here Spendius! I could only hope that you would be able to understand very well what spendius just said, " if you do care about people talk to him as if he was your mother and she is a religious person.
I would think that your conversations would get some where much faster.
I do realise that sometimes that you and your mother will disagree but I can only hope that you would never give up on the relationship that you two share.

You are not on my side rl and I have no need or desire for you to pretend to be in order to find another excuse to post your ingratiating, snidey, sarcasms.

You have well demon-strated that my theory will not work on all people Spenduis!
The comment that I made was ment to be in agreeance, "that he would not talk to his own mother that way. Being on that side of the issue I would consider to be a good thing, or would you think that he should not respect his love ones belief's and have direct confrontations such as he has with others? Who knows there may be some people that can learn no other way!
On the issue of snidey, sarcasms I am completely against its use in a descusion as vital as this can be and if I ever fall to such a level I would consider it to be ignorant of me.
I am only human so I am sure that I can behave in that way but I chose to try and reframe from that type of behavior. I do jokingly play around at times but I try to insure the listeners that is the case.