Fuck the vapid creationism/evolution bullshit, what we really need are students who are mathematically literate beyond basic algebra.

>>2147954

Your right I was too busy not being brainwashed by some little red riding hood fairytails

I don't like your reasoning. The reason there needs to be a National Education system is because there needs to be a set curriculum and (most importantly) a streamlined process for eliminating/adopting good/bad teaching methods. It would also make proper socialization of American youth a lot easier for the Government, which is always a big plus.

I'm no fan of teaching creationism, but let's be honest. A two-sentence footnote in a biology textbook to appease the christfags is not the greatest enemy to education. There are greater problems that need to be addressed like the dropout rate, etc.

>public schools fail
>we need MORE government to fix this

>my face

>>2147976
The only reason PUBLIC education exists is because the Government pays for it. Less government can only mean less education. Unless you want that. An even more ignorant populace would probably be more receptive to libertarianism after all...

You can drop creationism from being discussed if you also drop evolution. Neither can be proven; it's just as bad to brainwash a kid to make him believe he's the result of primordial ooze deciding it wanted to become bacteria.

>>2147971

WHOAH WHOA FUCKING WHOAH, I would never speak ill of the Grimm Fairy Tales. Those are fucking works of art I was talking about the original bullshit ones we force feed our kids.

>>2147994

Yes but one actually has some fucking facts to make it true, the other is literally a story with no physical evidence other than some cloth people claim covered jesus. The fact is we have evidence to support evolution and until we find either the holy grail or a fucking slipper Jesus wore I suggest the religious butt the fuck out and let the adults work this shit out

>>2147992

You're right, without the glorious state to provide everything for us, we plebians would poof and wither away


asshole

Three month vacation? Really?
Here in Aus, we got less than two months. And we have Christmas at the same time.

>>2148011
You can make the case for both evolution or creationism by inserting a pre-historic scenerio that would support one or the other. Neither can be proven as being beyond arguement, and you can use currently known facts to support either. So I'd disagree with you on evolution being supported by more 'facts', because those same facts could be used to support a creationist standpoint by assuming the world started (this way) as opposed to evolution only claiming the 'facts' are on their side if the world started (this way).

>>2148016
No, you would just go back to killing each other for resources until you reestablished society around a common power in order to restore the peace and end your suffering.

Our education should not be at the whim of the National Education Administration. Ever since that Godforsaken government agency was established in the 60s, American education funding and cost has skyrocketed and education quality has plummeted into the laughingstock of the Free World.

They are more concerned with political correctness and self-esteem than education. A high school student makes an F? Pass him anyway. I shit you not, I knew of people who graduated American high schools who were functionally illiterate. Hell, the head superintendent of Detroit schools was found to be functionally illiterate, and only got to that position because of politics and affirmative action. D.C. spends more per student on education than anywhere else in the country, and they have literally the worst-performing schools in the country.

It should be most controlled at the state level, with different states, or even counties or cities, allowed to try different education techniques. Keep it as local as possible, and the citizenry has more control over their government and education system.

>>2147964
That's fucking stupid. All they'll do is ignore the creationistfags instead of appeasing them, what exactly are they going to do about it except bitch?

>>2148046
The U.S. gives 2 extra days off for Thanksgiving, like 7 extra days off for Christmas, about 5 extra days off for spring break, and then we get from late May/early June until late August as a break. Average school hours are from 7:45-3:15ish across most of the country, Monday through Friday.

ITT

>>2148103
The things on the right are mostly what I actually believe.

>>2148071
>We are fucking human and it is human to want to venture into the unknown and learn about the world we live it.

Yes, but without proper educaiton we invent crazy things like religion in order to explain the causes of events of which we are ignorant. The State is the greatest engine of mass anything that has ever been built so far by human society. If we use it to its full potential to education its subjects there is nothing that they will not be able to learn.

>if anything school Pavlovianly trains us to not like to learn because thats what the state wants, obedient, dumb, and manageable.

If you automatically resist education just because the State wants you to be educated then you are a child and you belong in school.

>>2148128
>>derp derp we must indoctrinate children to believe the correct things!

You seriously need to be killed in your home if what you believe is sincere.

>>2148063

I learned more from my parents and simply picking up books myself that is applicable to my life than I learned in public schools. My mother taught me to read at age four, and by the time I finished fifth grade, she had taught me everything I would be taught again in algebra I, which was not available for me until eighth grade. Public school was a nursery more than a place of learning, and my parents already paid for it with their tax dollars. The most useful things I learned in public school was how to play saxophone and diagram sentences, and that's only slightly more useful than an asshole on my elbow.

>>2148117

>>2148071

listen to this

http://www.lostrepublic.us/archives/4535

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BB5F738A465BE3FB&playnext=1&v=11g9Tnmvo3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKci3_cmlqI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11g9Tnmvo3Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQmYYVeM-0

>>2148147
Forgot to post the description

Mr. Gatto was the New York State 2009 public school teacher of the year.

Mr. Gatto quit as a public school teacher in order to stop harming kids. He had discovered that institutional schooling is designed to prevent the natural genius of children from emerging. Public schools impose a state of permanent incompletion to our kids, by teaching habit-training, not intellectual development. The power elite deliberately suppresses independent and critical thinking, to make us obedient citizens and consumers. Gatto, author of the best-selling Weapons of Mass Instruction, Dumbing Us Down, and The Underground History of American Education, discusses how the twenty elite boarding schools teach their students according to ancient principles, and homeschoolers and unschoolers are doing the same.

>>2148136
Children are naturally "indoctrinated" anyways. I would rather the State have the primary role in this indoctrination rather than some ignorant anarchist or church.

>>2148154
And that's why you need to be euthanized.

BTW, creationism should not be taught in public schools. That is a religious matter, best taught by the church, rather than government bureaucrats.

Private schools, that's between them and their paying customers, the parents.

Whoever gave this ape a diploma should be fired and have their wages stripped from them for life.

pic related

>>2148147
>>2148147
>>2148147
>>2148147
>>2148147
>>2148147
>>2148147

>>2148054
You have no idea of what you are talking about do you?
>>2147938
And let's FINALLY have some standards for once. Enough of this "No Child Left Behind", FUCK THEM if they don't want to be smart then KICK THEM OUT. And throw them into the military and let them get killed. Stop trying to save everyone who doesn't want to be saved.

bump for statist butthurt

>>2148361
Kindly point out any logical fallacies in my statement good sir. I would gladly correct anything I said that wrong.

>>2148378
that is wrong.* Fixd

>>2148378
Saying that the arguements of facts with Evolution can be used with Religion is bullshit. Religion is about God and his subjects going through their faith. Evolution involves all species changing over time due to many variables.

>>2148147
worthless idealism

>>2148396
lolbutthurt

enjoy your status quo :)

Honestly I think paying 72$ for a basket ball or 20$ for a stapler is more destructive to education that whether kids get to zone out in biology and get a blurb on creationism/evolution or not.

>>2148166

stop stealing possum's pen name

>>2148391
>Saying that the arguements of facts with Evolution can be used with Religion is bullshit.

Let me give you an example of what I was trying to convey in that post. A creationist can argue that there is no changing of species over time at all, and they can't be proven wrong. There has never been any visual evidence of one species of organism changing into another in recorded history (you can SAY that organisms evolved over millions of years, but you cannot PROVE that, the same way creationists SAY that God created the world, but they cannot PROVE that). Evolutionists use new species that they find, and say that one species turned into that species, which is a viable theory, but one which still cannot be proven. A creationist would argue that those new species that are found aren't evidence of evolution, but rather that that species has always been around, which also cannot be proven wrong.

Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states "accountable" for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats.

-Congressman Ron Paul

>>2148442
Why do people keep on quoting that old fool?

>>2148432
That's dumb and lazy. You CAN prove Evolution. Not all of it because there are holes that need to be filled in. But anyway Creationists don't care to find proof to discredit Scientists on Evolution. They'll just stick to their religion regardless of any proof. See it happen? if that wasn't the case then why can some people survive certain diseases while others can't? why can Africans survive certain dieseases passed down from flies but Native Americans can't? O because as they grew up in a shitty envoirnment they build immune systems to fight it and then passed the genes on to their offspring. Native Americans don't experience this type of envoirment so when you give them the diseaes they'll DIE. Do the same with the African and they'll live through and/or not get infected by it.

>>2147938
Ausfag here, I went to a Catholic Private High School.

There the Teachers taught.
-Yes, use contraceptives if you are going to fuck.
-Yes, it's alright to be homosexual
-Yes, Evolution is currently undeniably real. Whether they was a guiding person is up to you to decide.
-Yes, you can read books about Magic.
-Islamic people are okay but their leaders have their heads up their ass.

Although...
-Global Warming exists.

Come to think, it was better then I expected compared to America despite how much I trash it. Although I don't think they covered abortion.

>>2148454
'cause that old fool is the only man in Congress who gives a shit about the Constitution.

>>2148428

>>2148462
That isn't evolution... strictly speaking. Addtionally, no, you cannot "prove" evolution. Its is a scientific THEORY. You may provide evidence in support of it, but you are merely supporting the theory as it stands now.

Additionally the main mechanic behind evolution, the creation of a new species out of a previous one, has yet to be observed. Is it possible that it happens? Sure, natural selection is capable of some pretty impressive things. Have we ever seen it? Nope, and we can't find any evidence of it either. The cloest we get is laying the jump to conclusions game based on what we dig up in the fossil record, which is patchy at best. Now that isn't really science's fault, its just how the world is.

>>2148454
Cause he's the Best Republican candidate there is.

Unless you want Palin 2012.

>>2148517
That IS evolution. You should just give up since I cansee how pathetic that response was. Evolution has been proven in some aspects. Just because you disagree doesn't make it false. Take race for an example People in Black Africa are dark and are very physically capable of surviving in their envoirnment. ANd that's because the envoirnment in Africa is very hot, humid, topical, and desert-like. That will affect the body a lot. Which over time will change their skin color, facial features, dick size, voice, hair type, hair color, eye color, and body shape and size. It's the same way around the wintery parts of the globe. But that envoirnment is cold, sometimes dark or always sunlight, barely humid, and untropical. Over time their skin will turn white, have lighter eye colors, lighter hairs, lighter pitched voices, and lighter types of hair. Now compare the two, same speices but different features meant that they can survive in their own envoirnment.

>>2148462
>That's dumb and lazy. You CAN prove Evolution.
You may be ABLE to, but no has yet to actually prove it. Same may go for creationists; there may be some evidence out there that supports either to the point of being irrefutable, but neither is anything beyond theory as it stands right now.
>But anyway Creationists don't care to find proof to discredit Scientists on Evolution.
Evolutionists don't care to find proof to discredit scientists on creationism either; because none exists on either side.
>They'll just stick to their religion regardless of any proof.
Same with evolutionists alot of the time.
>See it happen? if that wasn't the case then why can some people survive certain diseases while others can't? why can Africans survive certain dieseases passed down from flies but Native Americans can't? O because as they grew up in a shitty envoirnment they build immune systems to fight it and then passed the genes on to their offspring. Native Americans don't experience this type of envoirment so when you give them the diseaes they'll DIE. Do the same with the African and they'll live through and/or not get infected by it.
That's not evolution bro, it'd be faster if you just googled the immune system, but I'll explain it if you want.

>>2148575
You're confusing natural selection with evolution. Evolution is the changing/gaining of genetic data in an organism that results in a net gain of survival capabilites; in other words, the organism changes into a 'better' species.
Natural selection is the passing DOWN of genetic data by organisms which survive in a given environment; there is no gain or genetic data, it's just that only some genetic data gets passed down because others die out. The species does not change.

>>2148589
>Evolutionists don't care to find proof to discredit scientists on creationism either; because none exists on either side
We ALL know that ain't true. Because there are scientists trying to find shit out from Creationism and found NOTHING. Evolution is different, it's being studied on for generations now. It's still ongoing.

>That's not evolution bro
Yes it is. It's the evolutional change of the body and the immune system over time.

>>2148454
12ON PAUL!

>>2148517
>That isn't gravity... strictly speaking. Addtionally, no, you cannot "prove" gravity. Its is a scientific THEORY. You may provide evidence in support of it, but you are merely supporting the theory as it stands now.

>Additionally the main mechanic behind gravity, the mutual attraction of mass, has yet to be observed. Is it possible that it happens? Sure, spatial curvature is capable of some pretty impressive things. Have we ever seen it? Nope, and we can't find any evidence of it either. The cloest we get is laying the jump to conclusions game based on what we dig up in free fall displays, which is patchy at best. Now that isn't really science's fault, its just how the world is.
fix'd

>>2148598
>Natural selection is the passing DOWN of genetic data by organisms which survive in a given environment
What? No, that's just heredity.

>(WHICH IF YOU CHECK WERE THE ONLY ONES LEFT WHO ACTUALLY DO A THREE MONTH VACATION)

Finnish schools up to high school level have about two and a half months of summer vacation. Beyond that level it is largely the same except students have the possibility to do summer studies towards their university degree etc.

>>2148598
Yes it DOES change. Wow now that's some stupid shit right there. Natural Selection is PART of evolution. The purpose of evolution is that the species change over time to survive in an envoirnment. While the ones that don't change die off. Only the one suitable for a certain type of envoirnment can survive there.

>>2148598
I'll provide an example of this.
Say there are a group of dogs in an area. There are dogs with long fur and dogs with short fur. The area gets really cold. The short haired dogs die, the long haired dogs live. As a result, the gene for short hair is lost in that dog population, because short haired dogs die from freezing to death. Thus, you end up with only long haired dogs. Did any of their genetic data need to change for them to survive? No, because the gene for long hair already existed in the population. Did their appearance change? Yes, because now there are only long haired dogs in that population. Did their species change? No, they are still dogs, capable of breeding with any other dogs.

>>2148608
end of evolution/creation discussion.

I GUARANTEE neither of you will convince the other of your viewpoint. At this point, both of you might as well be spewing verbal diarrhea laced with AIDS at each other.

>>2148608
Very good... you seemed to have grasped a bit of how the scientific method works... our perception of the phenomena of gravity changes as we find out new data, which is the strength of the scientific method. The same applies to the theory of evolution, which currently has a lot of holes in it, even for a theory.

>>2148609
>What? No, that's just heredity.
Natural selection is selective heredity, because organisms carrying some genes die out, and die without passing on their genes, while the genes of surviving organisms remain to be passed down.

>>2148613
And mind you this was done as just a few decades ago Finland was agrarian society and families needed their children to help in the farm work, as summer is the most hectic time for farmers.

>>2148629
>which currently has a lot of holes in it, even for a theory.
Ah yes, the American educational system. Perhaps you can name some of these oh so many holes?

>>2148652
The principle mechanics behind it, that life can be created from non-life, and that one species, through mutation or otherwise, can become a different organism based on its environment, have never been observed. That is a BIG hole. Does it disprove it? No, and it still remains a viable field of study, but these are big issues thatneed to be worked out before anyone calls "victory."

I don't even really understand to point of agruing whther it is taught in school anyway, as its quasi religious as is. Natural selection and heredity are both useful tools for genetics and are actually observable, whereas evolution as the orgin of our species has no real use in science.

>>2148618
>Yes it DOES change. Wow now that's some stupid shit right there.
You're referring to me saying species don't necessarily change with natural selection right?
Because they don't; different genes may be cut out of a species in an area, but they don't gain any genetic data, and they remain the same species.
Natural Selection is PART of evolution. The purpose of evolution is that the species change over time to survive in an envoirnment. While the ones that don't change die off. Only the one suitable for a certain type of envoirnment can survive there.
So I'll restate this: Evolution is the changing of current genetic data into new genetic data that was never part of the species before the generation in which that genetic data came into being. Over time, new species would occur because the new, 'evolved' species would be incapable of breeding with the older species (assuming the base species didn't die out)
Natural selection is only the idea that species THEMSELVES change through some genes dying out and some living on because the more useful genetics are passed on while the less useful die out. There is no gain of genetic data in natural selection.

>>2148676
the
>Natural Selection is PART of evolution. The purpose of evolution is that the species change over time to survive in an envoirnment. While the ones that don't change die off. Only the one suitable for a certain type of envoirnment can survive there.
was supposed to be greentexted, my bad

>>2148670
>that life can be created from non-life
Not part of evolution. Also, your use of the word created shows your bias, subconscious though it may be.
>and that one species, through mutation or otherwise, can become a different organism based on its environment
It has, countless times, in bacteria and viruses. The only reason it hasn't been observed as much in macroscopic organisms is because they tend to have generations which last a lot longer.

>>2148652
>Ah yes, the American educational system. Perhaps you can name some of these oh so many holes?
There has never in recorded scientific history been a gain in genetic data from one generation to the next; which is to say that any offspring of any organism have only had the genetic data passed down from their parents, and no more.

>>2148685
>Not part of evolution.
It may not be part of evolution, but it is a pretty much universally help evolutionist belief. Otherwise, how would you explain the world existing in the first place?

>>2148721
universally held* my bad

>>2148676
>>2148670
Gravity is a mystery because we're trying to understand how it works. Evolution is about studying how species change and shit. Gravity is something we want to control later on in the distant future. and so on there been theories used to understand how to do gravity and use it to our will. And most of them failed the test. Evolution is a parity proven study of works about the species evolving into something else. Not more nothing less.

>>2148721
The world? We have a pretty good idea where earth came from, but what does that have to do with anything?
>>2148701
>There has never in recorded scientific history been a gain in genetic data from one generation to the next; which is to say that any offspring of any organism have only had the genetic data passed down from their parents, and no more.
But that's not how evolution works, so why is that a problem?

>>2148734
>But that's not how evolution works, so why is that a problem?
Are you implying that evolution is not the changing of genetic data (into genetic data that was not previously possessed by an organism) that results in the birth of new species?

Crocoduck in 3...2...1...

>>2148743
No, I am simply saying that new genetic information is not magically added. It's a result of gene duplication and mutation, which are both very well documented.

>>2148685
It *is* part of evolution. According to evolutionary theory, life had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere had to be something not defined as alive. Also, what word would you rather have me use, since you're going to be bitchy about it? Poofed? Appeared? Evolved? Manufactured? Created sounds right because in order to prove it *we* have to *create* life out of something that is not alive, which we have been unable to do.

As for my "bias" I don't discount evolution. If more breakthroughs could be made into the mechanics of how it works it could open up a whole new branch of genetic manipulation. As it stands our existing ability to modify genes is impressive based only on ideas of genes themselves, evolution doesn't matter with this. Will you become a better scientist if someone can "prove" you evolved out of an ape? By the same token would you become a better scientist if someone could "prove" an all powerful entity put you here? What matters are facts, you *do* exist, therefore *why* or *how* you exist is academic at best and irrelevant at worst.

>>2148734
>The world? We have a pretty good idea where earth came from, but what does that have to do with anything?
I don't know sir, I was just making a statement, followed by a question in case anyone cared to argue with that statement. It was partially brought up, and theories behind the beginning of the world are enjoyable to discuss. Shit's pretty interesting.

>>2148756
>It *is* part of evolution. According to evolutionary theory, life had to come from somewhere,
Evolution is only about the development of life, not its origin.
>Also, what word would you rather have me use, since you're going to be bitchy about it? Poofed? Appeared? Evolved? Manufactured?
How about originated?
>Will you become a better scientist if someone can "prove" you evolved out of an ape?
Tell me you're being ironic, please.

>>2148748
>No, I am simply saying that new genetic information is not magically added. It's a result of gene duplication and mutation, which are both very well documented.
But gene duplication and mutations are not evidence of evolution. No new genetic data is created in duplication; you just end up with more of a pre-existing gene, and this can't result in a change of species. As for mutations, mutations of genes which have been documented are harmful to the existence of an organism 99% of the time, useless the other 1%, and mutated genes can't be passed down through heredity, which makes their usefulness when applying them to evolutionary theory 0.

problem with a national education system is you're going to be outnumbered by christians/conservatives etc whatever way you look at it, whether by vote of states or popular vote. so no matter what blue state you run to, you won't be able to hide.

suddenly throwing the 10th amendment out the window doesn't look so cool anymore now does it?

>>2148782
>No new genetic data is created in duplication; you just end up with more of a pre-existing gene, and this can't result in a change of species.
That's where mutation comes in.
>As for mutations, mutations of genes which have been documented are harmful to the existence of an organism 99% of the time, useless the other 1%
This is simply not true. Yes, the majority of mutations is not beneficial, but that's what natural selection is for.
>and mutated genes can't be passed down through heredity
And this is just complete nonsense. Where did you get this from?

>my face when there is no creationism in my country

>>2148767
>Evolution is only about the development of life, not its origin.
It has to have a starting point. Perhaps the ONLY useful thing evolutionary study can teach us is this, so I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.

>How about originated?
that life can be originated from non-life? Try reading next time. Regardless I can rephrase the statement so that you can be less butthurt about a word, buts its still weak as hell. Since "originated" means where it started, which would only apply to the first instance of this happening and then nowhere else. Since is our goal to reproduce this event in a lab, "originated" is an inaccurate term.

>Tell me you're being ironic, please.
If you're willing to rage about evolution not being taught as the end all be all answer to our origins(Which, incidentally science couldn't give two shits where we came from) you must have a good reason for it. Since your reason is acadamia I assume this means you think people would become better scientists if told they had evolved to get where they are.

>>2148802
>It has to have a starting point.
Yes. But that is not within the area of evolution.
>If you're willing to rage about evolution not being taught as the end all be all answer to our origins(Which, incidentally science couldn't give two shits where we came from) you must have a good reason for it. Since your reason is acadamia I assume this means you think people would become better scientists if told they had evolved to get where they are.
Actually, my point was that humans did not evolve from apes.

>>2148794
>This is simply not true. Yes, the majority of mutations is not beneficial, but that's what natural selection is for.
But this is true from everything I know about the subject; if you can find me a mutation which has been observed in the past century which hast been beneficial to the host of that mutation, I'll definitely research the topic more.
>And this is just complete nonsense. Where did you get this from?
Biochemistry class; teacher might have been full of shit, but from the stuff I bothered to look up on my own time about what he said, he never blatantly lied to me.

>>2148808
>Actually, my point was that I'm wrong.
Fixed.

>>2148771
#12 on the list is an enormous logical leap. For the theory to hold it more or less has to be what happened, but there is no evidence of the mechanic working on that scale.

2 + 2 = ...well the answer I needed was 5, so we'll just assume thats the answer.

>>2148432
You're basically saying that 2+2=4 is true, but 2,000,000+2,000,000=4,000,000 is false. Congratulations, you're on the same mental level as Trig Palin.

>>2148818
>But this is true from everything I know about the subject
Well there you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations
For starters. Also read the citations if you want more information.
>Biochemistry class; teacher might have been full of shit, but from the stuff I bothered to look up on my own time about what he said, he never blatantly lied to me.
Well either you misremembered, or he did blatantly lie to you. The copying sequence can not tellthe difference between mutated genes and unmutated genes.

>>2148824
>You're basically saying that 2+2 = 4, but 2,000,000+2,000,000 = Jesus, a truckful of gold and some strawberries.
Fixed

>>2148802
what you want to argue is this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

atleast argument against the right subject.

>>2148771
Alright, up 'til #11 it's fine; according to it, all species are still the same by #11, they just have physical differences from different gene heredity in different areas. But then I get to #12, and it's like, wtf. It doesn't say shit about changes or gains in genetic data, it just says "this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth". That explains the diversity among SPECIES, it does not explain the diversity of LIFE.

>>2148843
If we evolved from bananas, why are there still bananas?

>>2148824
No, on the provide list, point 12 is a leap in logic. They want evololution to be true so they add up all 11 other points and say... you know, close enough. Then just declare point 12 as correct.

And before you go on about "you must just want evolution to be false!" I don't. It does not hinder, shatter, shake, or even wobble my faith in the slightest. As said for the third time I couldn't give two shits where we originated from, which is the only distinction between evolution and genetics in the classroom. For reference, I am from Texas, and I learned all 11 of those points in highschool biology. Why? Because they matter to genetics, and are easily observable/repeatable. Evolution, that one species becomes a different species over long periods of time via mutation or other factors and thats where we all came from, is neither observable at this point it time, nor is it repeatable, nor does it even matter.

>>2148875
>For reference, I am from Texas
Well why didn't you say so in the first place? That could've saved us all a lot of time.

>>2148830
>For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.
The mutations there are deletions and a lack of existing genetic data (in the sickle-cell example)though, and can't result in a change in species. Are there any recorded mutations in which a gene mutates into a different gene and is passed down? That's the only kind of mutation I think would be supportive of the evolutionary theory.

>>2148849
....are you seriously this dense? Why is it so hard to grasp? Different populations subjected to different pressures/isolations will undergo different mutations and select for different traits. Over a large number of generations, these populations will be so different that they're no longer genetically compatible = different species.

The "macro/micro" bullshit is so damn retarded that it's hard to take seriously. There is no difference "within" a species or "outside" a species.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a terrible idea.

If you really want to develop a superior education system you must allow individual states the autonomy to do as their denizens see fit.

Rather than gambling the minds of all the youth in the nation based on what faggot in Washington likes, we can have 50 enterprises exploring what works and what does not work.

When a superior system emerges, the students of that system will have the best jobs and opportunities. Other states will adopt that system in an effort to improve the lives of their children. Those that don't can remain dumb - because the intelligent people will still need others to exploit.

>>2148875
>, is neither observable at this point it time, nor is it repeatable, nor does it even matter

I see your claim, and raise you evidence
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/bio_essay1.jsp

>observable
>repeatable
>and oh so relevant

>>2148894
>Are there any recorded mutations in which a gene mutates into a different gene and is passed down?
What part of 'mutated genes do not act any different from normal genes' do you not understand? The chemistry is exactly the same.

>>2148886
Oh, so you have issue with this?
>>2148771

I'd love to hear your reasonings behind that. Go ahead, break down all 11 points, since they were taught in a Texas school they've gotta be wrong right?

>>2148894
...............................wow, you really think evolution = frogs magically turn into dragonflies in one generation or something?

OVER MANY GENERATIONS the changes add up. I don't think you even understand what a gene is.

>>2148875
>this is what Texans are brainwashed into actually believing

>>2148517

Aside, of course, for all the proven evolution on a bacterial scale that has been observed in both laboratory conditions, and out in the world at large, where specisation of bacteria creates a whole raft new disease varieties as well as new diseases.

Evolution is a proven fact. It's evolution 'by means of natural selection' that's the bit not wholley proven, and even there the evidence is quite overwhelming.

>>2148894
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

If men evolved from apes, why do we have creationists?

>>2148899
>The "macro/micro" bullshit is so damn retarded that it's hard to take seriously. There is no difference "within" a species or "outside" a species.
But there most definitely IS sir. There has never been a species in documented history that has become too different to be incompatible at breeding within that species.
>....are you seriously this dense? Why is it so hard to grasp? Different populations subjected to different pressures/isolations will undergo different mutations and select for different traits. Over a large number of generations, these populations will be so different that they're no longer genetically compatible = different species.
It says absolutely nothing about mutations in there. And it's not that I don't grasp it, it's that it's making a HUGE leap from something which has been proven and which has actually occured to "that's how all life happened" WITHOUT saying anything about mutations or gains in genetic data which made species different (I speculate because if that WAS said, it would be even more obvious what point in it would be the one to argue about).

>>2148905
Oh look, another article about varition of kinds, which could only be described as "evolution" if you expand the definition of evolution to include all fields of genetic study.

12 populations of e.coli, 45,000 generations, and you know what came out the other side? e.coli. Heredity, mutation, these are the pressumed tools of evolution, but no evolution has occured here. Somewhere else, maybe, but that article tells me nothing I haven't been saying over and over and over again in this thread. Variation? check. Natural selection? check. Mutation? check. New species? oops. Eh, we got the first three thing right, so we can just check off the last one and call it a day right guys!? Thats how science works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>2148943
>But there most definitely IS sir. There has never been a species in documented history that has become too different to be incompatible at breeding within that species.
wut wut wut. Darwin's finches, and that's just the first thing that popped into my head.
>WITHOUT saying anything about mutations or gains in genetic data which made species different
I'm pretty sure we've already explained this in the thread.

>>2148909
>What part of 'mutated genes do not act any different from normal genes' do you not understand? The chemistry is exactly the same.
That's not my point in that statement though. I'm saying that if the only observed beneficial mutations are only a net loss of genetic data, then technically that's not evolution, that's de-evolution, because all that's occuring is that a species is losing genetic data that it has to work with.

>>2148943
>But there most definitely IS sir. There has never been a species in documented history that has become too different to be incompatible at breeding within that species.
hhhhhhnnnnnnnnnggggg so much brainhurt

OF COURSE THINGS CAN MATE WITHIN THEIR SPECIES, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIES

>>2148943
>But there most definitely IS sir. There has never been a species in documented history that has become too different to be incompatible at breeding within that species.

Actually there have been, kinda, its weird, lemme find a link for you.

>>2148945

Yes it sure was a new species. It gained the ability to eat a material that by DEFINITION e.coli cannot do.

If you bothered to read the article
>In fact, a characteristic feature of E. coli as a species is that it cannot grow on citrate.

>>2148968
>that's de-evolution,
NO SUCH THING. Bloody hell, evolution does not mean 'adding more genetic data'.

>>2148963
Okay, you fail, Darwin's finches aren't speciated.


>>2148971
Someone beat me to it.
>>2148953

>>2148969
>OF COURSE THINGS CAN MATE WITHIN THEIR SPECIES, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIES
Broski, take a deep breath. Chill. Aight? Now read.
>But there most definitely IS sir. There has never been a species in documented history that has become too different to be incompatible at breeding within that species
I'm saying that because if it COULDN'T, then it'd be a new SPECIES, which HASN'T HAPPENED. Usin' caps to help a bro pick the important shit out. No need to thank me.

>>2148978
That isn't the definition of a species you fuckwit... its still e.coli.

>>2148990
>Okay, you fail, Darwin's finches aren't speciated.
Uh, yes? There are about 15 different species of Darwin's finches.

>>2148981

If anything look at mitochondrial evolution from its protozoic ancestor as proof.

110% gene utilization (seriously, they have overlaping transcription windows) and all unnecessary function removed (those done by the main cell).

one efficient mother fucker

How is it that creationists (a) demand a far higher level of evidence from evolution then they can even remotely hope to provide for their own debunked theory, and (b) start off by saying theyd believe if the evidence was there, but as soon as evidence is prevented, go off on a whine about how they 'need ta see cat turn into dog or else not gunna listen'?

>>2149000

No, it isn't

bacterial speciation isn't some magical divide like with animals that are obviously different

You have a generic bacteria form. You look at it, what can it eat, what does it look like. That defines the species.

It doesnt reproduce sexually in the traditional manner so that definition is out.

I agree with OP just because I feel bad as hell for kids growing up in Alabama who have their educational curriculum dictated by retards.
However the Constitution leaves education up to the states, and so there it will remain.

>>2148998
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

takes 5 seconds to google, bro

Clearly recorded. As are fruit flies, if they aren't mentioned, among other things

Hell, if you read the Wikipedia article you'd have numerous sources of evidence.

>>2148981
Umm... it kinda does, because that's the only way evolution works. If you start with primordial ooze, or whatever you want to have as the 'first life', the evolutionary theory states that it all became/becomes more complex as it evolves. You don't become more complex by dumping genetic data.

>>2149014
People have this strange idea their own religious Texan education and average, uneducated opinion somehow holds a brilliant knowledge that has escaped millions of trained biologists

>>2148849

This is why /new/ is worse than /b/.

>>2149035
Yeah, because these people aren't kids and they aren't trolling

>>2149030
>that's the only way evolution works
Haha, no.
>the evolutionary theory states that it all became/becomes more complex as it evolves
Sigh. No it does not. Please educate yourself on the matter first.

>>2149030
>the evolutionary theory states that it all became/becomes more complex as it evolves

No, see mitochondria.

>>2149034
So aside from my descion to not grasp at straws like you pro-evolution guys, how is my education lacking. Unless absoluetly everything YOU guys have posted in this thread is fundamentally wrong I think my education is working fine.

>>2149051
>>2149046
So from what you're saying, the first living organism was the most complex organism ever to exist, carrying the genetic data for millions and millions of species thereafter. Because obviously you're not supporting the idea of gains in genetic data at any time during the evolutionary process (which have never been observed).

>>2149090
>facepalm.jpg

>>2149090
No, I'm not and yes, it has.
0/10

jk guys, I actually thought species were different like Pokemon. Thanks for showing me evidence. Going to go jack off to Jesus now

J4J

jack for jesus

>>2149101
What in my statement would you argue about?
>>2149102
>No, I'm not and yes, it has.
Alright, that's fine, and according to evolutionary THEORY it has, but it has never been observed in scientific history. All examples of changes in genetic material in this thread have also been losses in genetic material. So you can SPECULATE that there has been gains in genetic data at some point, but it has yet to be proven.

>>2149110
Nice try bro, keep throwing up strawmen. Good to know "science" and "reason" have taught you so well.

>>2149120
>but it has never been observed in scientific history
Yes, it has.
>All examples of changes in genetic material in this thread have also been losses in genetic material.
No, they haven't. Learn to read.

>>2149123
>ignore all posted evidence

>Claim to know more than all biologists

>mfw

>>2149129
I don't know more than all biologist, nor have I claimed to, but keep building those strawmen. You have posted literally NOTHING in this thread that I have not already read. NOTHING you have posted proves your hypothesis, you are still just grasping at straws and jumping to conclusions.

Hell I bet you think this picture makes sense, and you fap to it every night.

>>2149090
off the top of my head there is a virus that has added defective DNA to the human genome.

voila' added information.

>>2149140
>claim to have read everything when a long as article was posted

>Claim this while the whole time f5ing to troll people who post

ur a smart 1

>>2149145
Why are you trying to respond to me, as me? Also just because you suck at reading doesn't mean everyone does.

0/10

>>2149153
>Texas education produces people like this

Is marrying your cousin legal in Texas, by any chance?

>>2149127
>Yes, it has.
Going "no it hasn't" or "yes it has" all day isn't going to do shit bro. No scientist can show you accurate data showing you how one generation of a species ended up with a gene that a previous generation didn't already have.
>No, they haven't. Learn to read.
I read them all; if you noticed something I missed that actually showed a gain in genetic material (not a gene which had part of it deleted, but a gene which was not present in the previous generation), I'd appreciate if you'd point me to it, if you don't want to that's fine: I think I've got everything I could've out of this thread

>>2149160
Why are you trying to ask me questions as me, it really ruins your whole charade.

Also, no.

>>2149161
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

PLENTY OF STUDIES FOR YOU TO READ

I'm not holding my breath, though. I know you won't read them.

>>2149142
Was going more for helpful genetic data bro, since evolution technically only works if it can be gained, unless you use the assumption that the first living organism was the most complex.
Thanks though

>>2149161
God dammit, are you pro-evolution guys so retarded you can't put down this simple line of questioning.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/bio_essay1.jsp

This article. Some mutations are technically "gaining" genetic information. The e.coli that became able to consume citrine probably has additional/significantly different genetic code than other strains.

Like has also been said, viruses, like retroviruses are capable of adding code. For the most part this is to copy themselves, but a mutation could also occur within this code to make it function differently. Look up gene therapy for uses of this property. Should the technology is still in its infancy, it theoretically is possible.

>>2149161
>No scientist can show you accurate data showing you how one generation of a species ended up with a gene that a previous generation didn't already have.
Holy shit, it's like you didn't read anything that has been posted here whatsoever. I'm not going to post all those articles again, I'm just going to take your failure to read anything as admission of defeat.
New genes do not magically appear between one generation and the next. What happens is, a gene sequence is accidentally copied twice. This mutation is passed on. A few generations later, one of these identical sequences mutates into something different. Repeat for 3 billion years. Tada.

>>2149182
Stop thinking of evolution in a Pokémon way.

Evolution is a religion.

oh god, this "god" thingy is soo overrated

>My face when not everyone agrees with OP about how creationism is bullshit

This is why the rest of the world laughs at you, Murka.

Regards, Europe.

Evolution thread.... lol america, enjoy your ignorance.

>>2149242
They hate us because darwinists brainwashed them.

>>2149399
1/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znAFVL28HpQ

i fail to care for creationism or evolution, im just happy to be here and i wanna live my life (wait...why am i on 4chan then...)

>mfw the supreme court struck down creationism as religious bullshit

>>2149161
>No scientist can show you accurate data showing you how one generation of a species ended up with a gene that a previous generation didn't already have.

The fuck? I did this experiment a few weeks ago. We were able to determine with statistical significance that the proportion of mutant e coli in a population with a specific mutation increased over generations. That is, from new mutations occuring as the cells replicated. Not from the propagation of existing genes.

For those interested, it was T2-phage resistance :D

Why would you teach evolution if it's only a theory (a geuss)?

>>2149595
Why would you teach germ theory if it's only that, a theory?

Oh, look, American bible humpers killing each other over stuff that was established as fact in the rest of the civilized world hundreds of years ago.

>>2149619

No, I'm pretty sure germs have been proven to exist.

>>2149595
Because it has applications in the biological sciences.
You'd be hard done by to become a biologist if you didn't understand evolution in some detail. And a lot of people want to be biologists.

>>2149595
>evolution
>guess
>troll

>>2149595

Oh God, the sheer stupidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact