Why do educators lie?

[Dancing David]

Who said anything about god? Viruses aren't alive, really? But if you are going to rule god, intelligent design, or anything else, out in the name of science then I would expect science to follow the scientific method and therefore be testable and repeatable.

So how you coming on that supernova, any luck, or should we just throw astrophysics out the window?

I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one. Time will prove this and that there is no higgs boson. There is more out there than we have yet to see or conceive.

And if they do find the trace of the Higg's boson, will you come and admit it?

To all the people above you are right I didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenisis. I personally don't believe in god so if you think I was trying to support anything like that I wasn't!!! It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist.

Who exactly did that, your son's fourth grade text book?

Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

Of course, there shall however be no *poofing*

 

[temporalillusion]

To all the people above you are right I didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenisis. I personally don't believe in god so if you think I was trying to support anything like that I wasn't!!! It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist. Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

At some point in the past there was no life on earth. Now there is. How that happened has very few high level options.. it was some form of abiogenesis (arising naturally through natural processes), magic/god/unicorns (arising through supernatural means), or it was placed here from somewhere else.

No one's said the question of how life first started is all wrapped up.

Appealing to "things we don't yet know" is a common creationist theme, so you may not be one but if you act like one it raises suspicions.

For science the appropriate answer for something that isn't known yet is "we don't know yet".

 

[shadron]

Head in buzzsaw time.

Do you see the problem one gets into with the apology that evolution theory does not include its beginning? Isn't it more practical to simply acknowledge that piece of the theory is currently still being investigated? It is, after all, and significant progress has been made in the research. You might be surprised how far along that research is.

No, not really. They are essentially two different processes with, as you point out, semi-analogous stages between individuals and molecules. Using the word "apology" is begging the question, and brings up the irrelevancy that "we won't do that because it gives creationists a foothold". It shouldn't matter that they may or may not take advantage; the science will lead, the creationists will follow, and in doing so, they lose.

Last question, when the mechanism of abiogenesis is worked out, will it then be part of evolution theory?

No. There is no reason to do so. You don't mix stellar formation theories with the Nebular hypothesis, even though they're related, and one follows the other as the night follows the day. You keep them separate because even in the same theory they are separate; they treat different aspects of the same phenomenon, but yet don't interact. Same is true for the B2HF theory ("we are all stardust") and ABG theory (element percentages created in the BB). Again they're related, but independent; if one were to be substantially modified, it wouldn't affect the other, even the analogous parts. And that holds for evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[shadron]

It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist. Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

Well, no one promised you a rose garden.

All scientists agree that science's theoretical structure is always provisional. It cannot be helped if you don't believe that yourself. Since competition for its own sake seems to be your grail, what are the possibilities? Lamark might make a small resurgence, but epigenetics will never be more than a bump on the ToE. Might there be room for something else? Sure, but it had best start with some good evidence and and not trip over its crank. To just hypothesize a nebulous "something else", though, is not useful, even if it makes you feel better.

 

[shadron]

I would expect science to follow the scientific method and therefore be testable and repeatable.

I'm glad you brought that up. What does testable and repeatable mean, say, in the case of astronomy? As someone pointed out you can't experiment with a class 1a supernova. But what astronomers can do is theorize about what happened, maybe experiment with an aspect of it in the lab, look at the results and compare them with the results detected in space as well as with other labs trying the same thing. Not all testable and repeatable requires experimentation; a testable and repeatable observation works, too.

Take the case of the venerable "nylon-eating" bacteria. It wasn't an experiment; it was an observation, testable and repeatable. Is it invalid because no one thought to try to make it happen as an experiment before it was discovered? No. Then what invalidates it as a piece of testable, repeatable science?

 

[Donn]

.. if you are going to rule god, intelligent design, or anything else, out in the name of science then I would expect science to follow the scientific method and therefore be testable and repeatable.

No. Those postulating the pudding must proffer the proof.

I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one.

What one?

Time will prove this and that there is no higgs boson.

Do you do card tricks too?

There is more out there than we have yet to see or conceive.

Captain obvious called, he wants his tights back.

To all the people above you are right I didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenisis.

Yay! Now you do.

It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist.

It may be your approach. Too, it could be reticence to admit ignorance. It's hard to say "I don't know."

Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

Eh? Natural vs Supernatural not battle enough for you?

 

[Travis]

I'm reading the Peter Ward book on the NASA thinktank. I find the ideas about clay crystals to be very interesting.

Anyways the book also spends some time on the possibility of life arriving via asteroid or comet.

 

[jj]

The OP shows such astonishing lack of understanding of abiogensesis, evolution, and probability that I don't know where to start.

 

[supaluminal]

Last question, when the mechanism of abiogenesis is worked out, will it then be part of evolution theory?

No. There is no reason to do so. You don't mix stellar formation theories with the Nebular hypothesis, even though they're related, and one follows the other as the night follows the day. You keep them separate because even in the same theory they are separate; they treat different aspects of the same phenomenon, but yet don't interact. Same is true for the B2HF theory ("we are all stardust") and ABG theory (element percentages created in the BB). Again they're related, but independent; if one were to be substantially modified, it wouldn't affect the other, even the analogous parts. And that holds for evolution and abiogenesis.

The way I view this is that they are subsets of a larger theory. So evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are constituent parts of a greater theory of life.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

That. I will need a bigger bumper.

Bumper Poster?

 

[Mojo]

Appealing to "things we don't yet know" is a common creationist theme...

And so is claiming that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution. Jeremy passes the duck test.

 

[pristerognathus]

So does that mean you got to the posts saying the same thing, or the one with my answer to it?

Define where evolution starts?

The first replicating organism?

Didn't molecules have to replicate before that?

The first replicating organisms upon which natural selection pressures could act?

Didn't natural selection pressures act on those precursor molecules as well?

Do you see the problem one gets into with the apology that evolution theory does not include its beginning? Isn't it more practical to simply acknowledge that piece of the theory is currently still being investigated? It is, after all, and significant progress has been made in the research. You might be surprised how far along that research is.

Last question, when the mechanism of abiogenesis is worked out, will it then be part of evolution theory?

Apologies if I stepped on anybodies toes. It is clearly the case that life started at some time in the past, but the Theory of Evolution does not address the issue of how life started but how it changes, the clues in the name, How life Evolves, not how it begins. Going back to the OP, I would answer that educators do not lie about how life began when they discuss evolution, it is unnecessary to address that issue in Secondary level education.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Apologies if I stepped on anybodies toes. It is clearly the case that life started at some time in the past, but the Theory of Evolution does not address the issue of how life started but how it changes, the clues in the name, How life Evolves, not how it begins. Going back to the OP, I would answer that educators do not lie about how life began when they discuss evolution, it is unnecessary to address that issue in Secondary level education.

Agreed. Not that natural selection would not fit into a working theory of abiogenesis, particularly once the first viable self-replicating organic polymer formed. But saying that evolution by natural selection must explain abiogenesis is like saying that chemistry must explain the origin of the elements.

 

[pristerognathus]

Agreed. Not that natural selection would not fit into a working theory of abiogenesis, particularly once the first viable self-replicating organic polymer formed. But saying that evolution by natural selection must explain abiogenesis is like saying that chemistry must explain the origin of the elements.

That is a brilliant analogy. Unfortunately there are two problems:-

1) You thought of it so I can only ever quote it

2) Where else but on these forums could I ever use it?

I'll have to steer a dreary after dinner conversation in the right direction but it's gonna end up a tad contrived

 

[Ocelot]

Who said anything about god? Viruses aren't alive, really? But if you are going to rule god, intelligent design, or anything else, out in the name of science then I would expect science to follow the scientific method and therefore be testable and repeatable. I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one. Time will prove this and that there is no higgs boson. There is more out there than we have yet to see or conceive.
To all the people above you are right I didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenisis. I personally don't believe in god so if you think I was trying to support anything like that I wasn't!!! It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist. Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

Lots of people have said lots of things about god with regard to this topic. I for one thought it remiss of me not to point out that the origin of species through natural selection and common descent would both be a proven facts even if a divine spark were required to kickstart the process. It helps highlight the difference between different aspects of the various studies into our origins. If those who have assumed you're some sort of concern troll^WP were wrong I would understand why they made that leap. The conflation of Evolution with the wider study of our origins is a deliberate ploy used by many cynical creationists to apply the legitimate doubt over one area onto the greater whole in a fallacy of composition^WP and then bring that doubt back down to a different area where there is in fact a great deal of certainty through a fallacy of division^WP.

It appears to me that you did exactly the same thing but if that was an honest mistake I'll trust your word for and verify from your subsequent actions. Perhaps you can have some empathy for others making an equally honest mistake in attributing to you the commonly witnessed motivation for deliberately making this error.

Your view of the scientific method however still needs updating. Not all things in science are testable and repeatable. The counter example of astrophysics should have been enough to persuade you of this. Check out some Karl Popper and you'll find that the criterion for something being regarded as scientific is generally regarded as falsifiability.

The study of abiogenesis has yielded a number of falsifiable and therefore scientific theories. None of which are proven. If anybody is saying that abiogenesis is wrapped up then they are wrong. I too would take issue with that, yet it's not a mistake I've actually seen a genuine biologist make.

Someone saying evolution (as opposed to abiogensis) is a proven fact is nonetheless correct. The origin of species is not only an empirical fact under the definition of science I'm using it's even repeatable in the lab and observed in the wild. So testable and repeatable. Common descent on the other hand falls short of your definition of science. Another reason why I don't think "repeatable" deserves to be a fundamental characteristic of science. It is however testable and falsifiable so those of using using Popper's definition are quite happy to call it science. I'm quite happy for people to say that these are proven facts. "All wrapped up" on the other hand might be a leap too far. There's still plenty more fine detail to explore, there are still researchers in this field doing good work.

I do understand that someone who thinks that the theory of Evolution includes abiogensis (which is not proven) would therefore object to seeing Evolution described as proven. Please take time to think about this carefully. Is this in fact the source of your objection?

If not, if you have really seen educators state that a particular theory of abiogenesis is a settled fact then I do agree that they are wrong. To answer why they might tell such a lie we should first establish that they do in fact tell such a lie. Otherwise we're begging the question (a phrase which to us skeptics means something other than the common usage)

So in order to try to answer the question "Why do educators lie?" we should first reference one of these lies. I asked you before if you could give a specific example of an educator stating a theory of abiogeneis as settled fact. There's really no point in continuing that line of discussion until you can do so.

As far as I'm concerned there's always plenty of room for something we don't yet know. However from day to day we can only work with what we do know and distinguish between what is well supported and what is simply our best guess.

I would hope that you agree.<sup>WP
So in order to try to answer the question "Why do educators lie?" we should first reference one of these lies. I asked you before if you could give a specific example of an educator stating a theory of abiogeneis as settled fact. There's really no point in continuing that line of discussion until you can do so.

As far as I'm concerned there's always plenty of room for something we don't yet know. However from day to day we can only work with what we do know and distinguish between what is well supported and what is simply our best guess.

I would hope that you agree." target="_blank">WP</sup>" target="_blank">WP

 

[Ocelot]

I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one. Time will prove this and that there is no higgs boson.

Whilst I think I might have been quite balanced and reasonable about your other points this is just dreck.

How could you possibly know such a thing?

 

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

Somebody needs to make up bumper stickers that say: Abiogenesis Is A Completely Separate Concept From Evolution. Since Inorganic Matter Did Become Organic, We Know It Took Place. Also, There Have Been Many, Many Experiments Verifying Different Stages Of Abiogenesis. And The Fact That Something Is Not Completely Understood Right At This Moment Does Not Mean That God Did It. By The Way, The Definition Of "Life" Is Flexible. Viruses Are Not "Alive" Like We Are. So Demanding That Life Must Have "Started" At Some Point Is Logically Unwarranted. But Please Believe In God If It Makes You Happy. That's Your Own Business. Just Don't Ask Science To Validate Your Personal Feelings Because That's Not How It Works.

That wouldn't leave room on the bumper for the "My other vehicle is a Winnebago too" sticker...

Bigger, Better rubber baby buggy bumper

 

[Cayvmann]

Abiogenesis is never going to be proven in the sense that we will know the exact trail which life actually took to get a live bacteria. What it will show us, at best, is the ways in which the chemicals may have been able to perform that feat, through the many required stages of development. It will demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, not what exactly happened on Earth between 4.5 and 3.5 bya, just as we know how evolution works, but we have not worked out the exact path that was traveled from the many millions it could have used.

Your experiment is absurd; fixing a cell up so it is live after death is not the same thing as creating life from scratch by any means. You don't have the endless experimentation with vast quantities of reagents that the primordial oceans provided. An experiment which might approach what abiogenesis did is to have a vast quantity of such cells, with nutrients and energy sources available. Perhaps then some small number will actually begin again showing life's signs, and then may evolve into what we might recognize as true life.

Yeah, he should at least put in in some peanut butter.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I need a bigger bumper.

 

[Dinwar]

But if you are going to rule god, intelligent design, or anything else, out in the name of science then I would expect science to follow the scientific method and therefore be testable and repeatable.

Already addressed. The historical sciences--including paleontology and geology, the sciences in question here--do use the scientific method. You just have to understand that "experiment" does not mean "things done in a lab by guys in white coats", nor does "testable and repeatable" necessarily mean "I can do the same experiment you did and get the same result". Sometimes the "experiment" is a naturally occuring event, and "testable and repeatable" amount to you being able to look at the same data I do, or even different data from the same event, and we both come to the same conclusion.

Seriously, a grade-school textbook is not where to learn about how the scientific method is actually applied. I suggest "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". I don't agree with everything in that book, but it's a place to start.

I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one.

And you know this how, exactly? All YOU can say, given that you've not studied the subject, is "I don't know". What scientists can say is "We have some potential explanations, and we're working on it". It's too early to say "there is not one", because the data do not support so definitive a conclusion.

It just pisses me off that science and those that teach it act as thought the subject is 'all wrapped up' and if you question them you are automatically a creationist.

Oddly enough, we're not the ones engaging in that behavior. All of the scientists here have said that there are multiple working hypotheses, and we're trying to sort them out just now. You're the one acting as if it's all sorted out (by saing "I want there to be a natural mechanism for this process but there is not one.").

Why does the question have to be between god and natural processes where time is this almost supernatural magical factor, can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

Because that's not an explination, it's just saying "I dunno" and leaving it at that. Any explination has to EXPLANE things, by definition--and saying "Life just poofed into existence by some magical means" doesn't do that. What we're doing is trying to learn the limits by which Earth-like life COULD HAVE evolved, and if possible ways to figure out which path it took. And "trying" is present tense--that means we're not done yet.

Also, again, you show that you have not studied the topic. Time, in geology, is not an almost supernatural magical factor. It's simply a fact that the human mind is not built to handle millions or billions of years. We have trouble handling decades--asking a human to imagine what occurred in a hundred million year timespan is incredibly difficult. But there's nothing magical about time in geology--it's just that physics and chemistry have implications on such timescales that you haven't considered and are unaware of. If you'd like to know more about it, I suggest picking up a used structural geology textbook--the field is pretty easy to understand, in my experience, and offers an insight to how time works in geology. Just understand that "pretty easy to understand" is relative here--you're still going to be looking at a well-developed field of science at a college level, so it's not going to be an easy read by any means, just easier than, say, geochemistry, taphonomy, or diagenesis.

As for the hostiliy, I'm sorry but what did you expect? You don't even know how to apply the scientific method to historical sciences, yet you're trying to tell us (and I do mean us--I'm a member of this community you're attacking, so it's not nebulous and theoretical, you've actually been making specific accusations here, intentional or un) how to do our jobs. I mean, how would you like it if I came into your job, demonstrated that I had no idea what I was talking about, then proceeded to yell and swear at you for doing your job improperly? I get your frustration, I really do--I hate the way science is taught, personally, and part of that is the assinine idea that there's One True Scientific Method. But until you recognize that you do not, in fact, know more about this subject than those of us who study it, you're not going to gain any traction among us.