Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

These arguments are all (unfortunately) highly probabilistic.

All it takes is one.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

When I referenced above that I can't see how we got to life from a standing start in 300 million years, that is fundamentally a probabilistic argument.

All it takes is one, and the probabilities clearly speak in my favor.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

It WOULD be support if you had evidence, but you don't, so this is argument from conjecture. As we all know, conclusions founded in false premises are themselves false.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am deeply honored. Most of my peers consider me a very special idiot, not the run-of-the-mill sort.

I am also suspicious that idiots can run mills, ergo the standard idiot is more probably a can't-run-the-mill idiot.

See, there you go, strawmanning my position again. I never once suggested you could run a mill. You'll notice that the word "of" was included, and significantly changes the meaning of that post.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Speaking of that, where is Buffy anyway?

She has dates, a job, an iPhone, and a daughter. I'd wager a nice scotch that her time is currently associated with one of those.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

And we would call the results, allelic drift (assuming that the organism interacts with others).

Now we are getting somewhere. I just LOVE it when folks really start thinking on this site.

In a case where 1) a recessive allele is expressed, 2) the recessive allele has never been expressed previously, hence it is "new", 3) it is a significant change in phenotype and 4) it is "successful" in that it is advantaged in the population, I am suspicious that this is NOT serial mutation. This argument hangs on #3 above (significant change in phenotype). I think this is what the plain interpretation of the fossil record shows. Some small populations of individuals "rapidly" express recessive alleles that were not previously expressed.

This is my view of the plain explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Small sequestered populations of individuals (after some sort of macro environmental debacle) suddenly began to express recessive alleles that had not been seen before. And we got new phyla, not new features. We got whole new body plans. I do not believe the evidence best suggests that those phyla were selected through serial mutation. I think they showed up before that.

To be clear (getting back to the topic in this thread) if this leads some to the conclusion that there was some "guiding hand" in this, that is not my problem. I think the evidence best suggests that there was not time in the fossil record for those phyla to select themselves codon by codon (or, even worse, nucleotide by nucleotide)

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days....

Not me of course!

Bio is no TRoutMac!

Before this gets out of hand, I do recommend perusing the many uh, "interesting discussions" that have gone on between me and Bio on this topic....and of course its always a good Idea to use scientific methods to refute seemingly "unsupportable" positions....

What man is there so much unreasonable, if you had pleased to have defended it with any terms of zeal, wanted the modesty to urge the thing held as a ceremony,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

What man is there so much unreasonable, if you had pleased to have defended it with any terms of zeal, wanted the modesty to urge the thing held as a ceremony,
Buffy

Buff, will you marry me?

(P.S.- I have been to Venice, but I was never a merchant)

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Buff, will you marry me?

How many times do I have to say no?

I must, forsooth, be forced to give my hand opposed against my heart unto a mad-brain rudesby full of spleen; who woo'd in haste and means to wed at leisure,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I must, forsooth, be forced to give my hand opposed against my heart unto a mad-brain rudesby full of spleen; who woo'd in haste and means to wed at leisure,
Buffy

If memory serves, Katharina and Petruchio end up together. Does this mean I am still in the running?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

If memory serves, Katharina and Petruchio end up together. Does this mean I am still in the running?

No, but it does mean you're probably in for the same treatment of at least Acts 1-4...

In our last conflict four of his five wits went halting off, and now is the whole man governed with one: so that if he have wit enough to keep himself warm, let him bear it for a difference between himself and his horse,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

No, but it does mean you're probably in for the same treatment of at least Acts 1-4...

I am still hoping for Act V, "Kate."

Originally Posted by Buffy, still doing Shakespeare, this time from Much Ado about Nothing

In our last conflict four of his five wits went halting off, and now is the whole man governed with one: so that if he have wit enough to keep himself warm, let him bear it for a difference between himself and his horse...

I am thinking that when conversing with you, I am approximating 50% wit.

[REASON]

Geez, get a room.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

To be clear (getting back to the topic in this thread) if this leads some to the conclusion that there was some "guiding hand" in this, that is not my problem.

So what do you think, Bio.

It appears from your posts that you seem to feel that the original ideas and work surrounding ID theories have been hijacked by religious fanatics who are misusing it for their own personal agenda, and your position on this issue is often misunderstood as a result.

Is that a fairly accurate statement?

If so, what elements, if any, of true ID, or SOTSM, do you think should be integrated into the public school science curriculum to either counter or enhance the teaching of evolution?