http://www.msnbc.com/news/548017.asp?cp1=1

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 21 — A committee of the Arkansas legislature on Wednesday recommended banning the theory of evolution from textbooks in the latest challenge by state officials to the scientific view of how life develops. A COMMITTEE of the state House approved the legislation and forwarded it to the full House, 20 years after the state legislature passed a similar bill later struck down in federal courts as unconstitutional ...

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Answers

I am more surprised that not only are they supporting banning the theory, but also evidence that supports the theory. In particular, they're insisting that radiocarbon dating is theoretical; now THAT is just puerile.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

The first thing I ever read about the "Boy Governor" of that state was he would "totally reform education" and make public education the best in America. That was in the 1970s.

This is another great example of how very successful he was at his "legislative agenda".

How wonderful for the citizens of that state they have THE Dr. Gary Duct Tape so nearby to advise them of a proper "Six Day Creation" thesis for all the children.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

What's a dedicated representative to do, when his constituency is ignorant and superstitious, and wants the same for their children? Just how do you vote their interests? What *are* their interests?

Some people make a strong case for sterilization, for sure.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Arkansas, the State where everyone has the same DNA.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

I know of no abortionist who has ever seen the SILENT SCREAM.

I know of no evolutionist who has ever run the numbers on how long it would take to "evolve" DNA.

Do the numbers before you criticize.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

John:

Evolutionists have run the numbers on evolution many times, but using *correct* assumptions, rather than distorting things beyond all recognition to get the predetermined results.

These actual number show life is a lead-pipe cinch to evolve within a fairly short time after favorable conditions exist. Happens every single time, almost immediately. The Creationists, to begin with, assume serial experiments. Somehow they fail to notice that over an entire planet, trillions of experiments per second are taking place in parallel. And once a single one of them works, the results are explosive.

You should also be honest enough to mention that these actual numbers were only run *after* the Creationists had propped up yet another straw man with their dishonest calculations.

(And I'm getting tired of repeating these same refutations. Don't you guys have any NEW fallacies? These are ancient!)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Acutually John we (the people) got pretty lucky about 70k years ago. Evidence now that a South Pacific volcano eruption and the resultant black winters reduced our numbers to a few thousand world wide and we barely escaped extinction. DNA testing was the root of this analysis.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Flint,

It's possible that he was referring to abiogenesis, or getting the first life so that evolution could get started. Unless you have access to knowledge that I don't, as of early 2000 (the last time I checked in depth -- and I try to stay on top of this), there still wasn't even a serious hypothesis for how this could have happened, so I'm a little surprised that you act as though it's a "done deal."

Now, once you get the first DNA to "seed" the process, the rest falls into place like clockwork, sure enough. No argument there. But where'd that first DNA come from?

There's plenty of speculation, but I am not aware of any plausible scenario for how the first DNA was formed. Nor am I aware of any reputable, peer-endorsed computer models for how this could have happened, at least not to produce DNA with even the minimal information content required to start the evolutionary process.]

Computer models for evolution? Sure, there are zillions of 'em (mostly micro, of course). But for abiogenesis? That's a different matter.

From what I've seen (most recently in Davies' latest book, which I'm reading now), the most promising ideas seem to be based on "seed" life coming to this planet from elsewhere in the cosmos. But there's still no working theory for this.

If you have a link to a peer-reviewed article that says otherwise, I'm all ears. (Or eyes, in this case.[g])

(Seriously.)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Stephen:

Here is a good starting point, and there are links to take you from there. I found this pretty interesting, and the author works hard to make it accessible to nonspecialists.

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/roanoke/bio101ch10c.htm#DNA is like Coke

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Excellent Flint. "Life" creation is pretty simple and probably pretty common in the cosmos. Developing complex life takes a lot of time and considering the cosmic billiard table a lot of luck as well.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Flint,

Yep, that's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.

I worded my reply pretty carefully, Flint. There isn't even a working THEORY on how the first DNA was formed. Plenty of speculation, but no working theories. Unless you know otherwise?

(Which is what I was asking. I wasn't being contentious or trying to start an argument, I was genuinely interested. Hey, I don't know everything, in spite of my reputation.[g])

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

PS - I'll see your link and raise you another. :)

http://www.us.net/life/

If abiogenesis is a "done deal," how come these people have sponsored a contest for the first person to come up with a decent theory of the thing? :)

(And by the way, lest you misunderstand me, or even worse, throw the ol' God O' Th' Gaps thing at me, I personally believe that such a theory will eventually be formed. Be interesting to see who wins the prize.)

(I was SPECIFICALLY taking issue with your assumption above that _abiogenesis_ -- NOT evolution, but the actual origin of life -- is a solved mystery. It most emphatically is not.)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Stephen:

I'm not arguing with you here, I don't think. I grant we have not created life in the lab. The link I provided simply gave a suggestion as to how the DNA format has a head start for chemical reasons.

But I wasn't trying to say abiogenesis had been solved, I was simply trying to point out that Creationist arguments about probabilities are based on assumptions, just as thoroughly as models showing rapid inevitable spontaneous life. Furthermore, changing ONLY the demonstrably false assumptions in the *Creationists'* models results in life "forming" within the time frame we now figure it did.

The notion of life being "seeded" from extraterrestrial sources can presumably be established as possible if we find actual life on space objects like comets, and probably can't be ruled out. But even then, it simply pushes the question of origins back one step, solving nothing.

In any case, John's claim is fallacious. At least you don't confuse lack of a proof with lack of provability -- you understand that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Flint,

I really recommend Davies' book. The idea (as best I can follow it) is that there may be regions of space in which it is more likely for elemental DNA (or "sub-DNA") to be formed. This material was then captured by our solar system, possibly through cometary impacts.

There is actually a proposal on the table that the laws of physics may contain subtle "clues" to assist the formation of such sub-DNA. This is touched on at your link, re: the "hydrophobia" of the base pairs and the fact that they will assemble themselves if placed in water.

You've still got to find a mechanism by which this becomes ordered information, but that's at least a start. I'll grant you that.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001