Why do educators lie?

[catsmate]

My cat can't figure out how door nobs work. For her, they appear to be magic. Does that mean that they are magic?

No, it means she's too stupid to figure it out.

But my cat has figured out how to open doors on his own, by your analogy, perhaps a smarter human will figure out how to create life.

 

[Ziggurat]

But my cat has figured out how to open doors on his own, by your analogy, perhaps a smarter human will figure out how to create life.

Indeed, perhaps a smarter human will. And we can't know until (and if) it happens.

 

[pristerognathus]

But my cat has figured out how to open doors on his own, by your analogy, perhaps a smarter human will figure out how to create life.

I fail to see where this is going. Due to the immense passage of time, which as has already been pointed out is really absolutely beyond our ability to comprehend, the number 4,000,000,000 does not begin to suggest what that number of years really is, and how much natural processes will have changed our planet over such a time scale, there is almost no chance that science will ever categorically say "This is how life started, these elements/chemicals were present in this quantity and event X occured and then Y followed and hey presto, life." What science will be able to say, and to some extent is already saying is, "For life to start, certain minimum conditions are likely to be required, these include X, Y and Z. Given these conditions life is a possible outcome."
As scientists, the people doing this work will seek deeper understanding and may expand or reduce the conditions they consider to be relevant factors but at the end of the day, with this particular field of discovery, the answer will never be known with the level of certainty that we expect from experimental sciences.

Here's a quick thought, if you live to be 75 yrs old you will have lived through approximately 2,365,200,000 seconds, think about that number as years. That scientists can say anything about what was happening that long ago is pretty impressive in my book.

 

[moebob]

I work in an elementary school.
Educators lie because, parents don't want to hear the truth! I see it everyday! (not all! just the average.) I see so many really good teachers, frustrated to the point of tears!
They can't reach the kids because of all the behavior problems! Parents let them have and do whatever they want, just to shut them up, and are using the teachers for glorified babysitters! Parents are too busy working, to teach their own children, how to wipe their own ass! I have a hard time believing what I'm seeing! These kids are helpless, and all they have to do is cry, and we all have to kiss their ass. Or the parents will be up ours!
The local, P.T.A., is why educators lie!

 

[Toontown]

If it makes you feel more plausible, you can believe that the first thing that ever existed was an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator Being who just happened to exist, atemporally and acausally, who just happened to know how to make everything else, and just happened to have the power to do it. Perhaps the Maker of Games was the result of an astronomically improbable series of quantum fluctuations, or something like that.

I don't know what else you could choose to believe. But whatever you might choose would have to be astronomically improbable. This kind of complexity doesn't happen with a simple wave of Tinker Bell's magic wand. And even if it were that simple, how would you explain Tinker Bell, Simplifier Of All Complexities, Maker of Games?

The most simple, most plausible explanation is that something very, very, very, very, very, very...improbable...happened, and was then butressed by an entire series of nearly equally improbable events.

A few thousand million years of random, high-speed organic molecule interactions could make a lot of improbable stuff happen - but not as improbable, perhaps, as the Maker of Games. Perhaps not on any and every suitable planet, but we wouldn't be on just any planet, would we. And it isn't as if there is a shortage of planets upon which to base a theory that astronomically improbable stuff can happen.

At any rate, there is no formal Theory of Abiogenesis. May never be. It's speculative. Nothing wrong with that. Something rather strange did happen, didn't it. We do know that much.

No use fighting it. Just roll with it. Something wierdly improbable happened. Wasn't the first time, though, and won't be the last.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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

Right, so you just made baseless accusations, and continue with this:

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.

So, might as well continue on with the baseless accusation eh? Nobody understanding the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution would make this "all wrapped up" assertion.

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?

Nonsequitor. There's lots we don't know. So there isn't any room needing to be made for that.

You aren't just uninformed. When told that science eagerly admits to not knowing everything, you go right back to insisting the opposite.

Some kind of irrational hatred going on here.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

can't there be some room for something we don't yet know?

There IS. Tons of it. Sadly, anytime science or some other rational process admits to this lack of knowledge, theists stick their little god in there, and prance on attempting to basically destroy any scientific inquiry. Look up god of the gaps (or as it has bevome known as a meme, the goddidit answer).

 

[jeremydschram]

So Just To Be Clear

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?

 

[crimresearch]

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll be happy to say that your first post was simply trolling, and this last one appears to be the same.

Did you say anything in between that was either correct or useful? Because I must have missed it if you did.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?

Yes, that's right. Scientists don't know for sure how it started therefore you can happily discard notions of "macro evolution" in favor of divine fiat and limited change within Biblical kinds.

Well you can't actually because evidence contradicts the lies spread primarily by US evangelicals. These despicable people are out there lying to kids about the age of the earth, and that man lived together with lovable vegetarian t-rexes.

Science takes an honest approach to the answers based on best available evidence. This is what goes in the text books. Thank **** for the Establishment Clause or schools in some US states would make Taliban medreses look good. At least those ********* won't toss out the geology texts as well.

Come on, mate. What's your position? Don't be a troll - engage the folks who have responded.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

I don't think it's quite been said yet, but it must be hard to draw a hard boundary between abiogenesis and evolution, i.e. to define a point where the one has stopped and the other has started.

Part of the problem is in the "bio" element of the word abiogenesis. Once a replicator exists in an environment offering different opportunities for effective replication and variations in that replicator exist then selective processes are an inevitable logical consequence. But at that stage I don't think we could say that "life" has been brought into existence: the result of abiogenesis had not yet appeared, but evolution had been initiated.

I do not pretend to be an evolutionary biologist, but I think this is logically correct and we need to avoid too stark a contrast between these processes.

As someone else said, a Theory of Life would include both processes, and that theory would also include the theories of stellar physics that lead to supernovae and so on up to cosmological theories of the origin of the Universe/s.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

And just to chime in on the most basic point jeremydschram seems to be struggling with;

Life did not exist. Then life existed. Therefore abiogenesis occurred. Monitor developments in science if you want to gain a better idea how this occurred.

Once replicators exist and selection based on variation exists evolution starts. Evolution as a mechanism based on selection is an observed, reproducible and quantifiable fact in biological and non-biological systems.

The boundary between life and non-life is fuzzy. Get used to it. This fuzziness does not invalidate either abiogenesis nor evolution. Different opinions exist about where to draw the boundary and how much fuzziness to allow around that boundary, but this is because we have a word, 'life', that makes clear sense in everyday conversation but which turns out not to be adequately defined once we push to the limits of its definition. Are viruses alive? I 'die', but my cells continue to respire for variable periods of time, what is the exact time of my death?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So let’s start with a single cell that is alive. If we kill that cell evolution states that given enough time that cell will eventually evolve alive again first life form that CAN be done.

Actually, jeremydschram's OP contains its own excellent example.

At 4:00pm this afternoon, Jeremy, I will mechanically disrupt the cell wall of a single Paramecium cell. I think we can agree that it will no longer reproduce and entropy is going to take hold of its various biochemical processes, i.e. I will have killed it. However, please give me a watertight definition of life so that I can declare its time of death with absolute precision.

 

[maggot9779]

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?

Origins of life vs Origins of species. Do you see the difference? Evolution needs life in order to "function" but evolution itself doesn't explain how that life came about. You are pretending that you know more about this subject than you do and you accuse others of lying?

Here's an idea; actually find out what you are talking about. Read some upper level biology texts books, find out what scientists mean by abiogenesis and evolution. If you still see a problem then by all means tell us, but don't act like it's all a big conspiracy.

(by the way, I don't mean to come across as mean or whatever in this post )

 

[Dancing David]

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?

Yes, no, and no.

Must you speak in absolutes?

 

[jeremydschram]

You don't see the problem?

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?
Maybe I don't understand, but isn't this a straightforward question isn't it? I just want to make sure I understand. Evolution is the process which living things evolve and abiogenesis is the process which brought about a change from non living to living. Come on please I just want to make sure this is right.

 

[jeremydschram]

You don't see the problem??

The problem is this IS an very easy question but by saying so opens the door to intelligent design, creationism (of a type) , and lots of other crap we couldn't have in schools that isn't science so no one is willing to answer this question directly! So to cover this up the word evolution gets misused and abused in mass media and pop culture and apparently second grade classrooms. Seriously think about it on tv and in film there must be a million everyday references to evolution and abiogenesis NONE. That's a million to none in favor of the question that we still don't have the answer to being asked at all. And anyone asking this question is a "creationist" and "doesn't believe in evolution".
How can a teacher teach evolution and by not teaching the FACT that we don't know how life began is disingenuous at best.
I do gather that it is a fact that we don't know exactly how life began, if I am wrong about that please explain it to me, although since simply answering "So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?" is impossible to get a satisfactory "YES" answer to because the words life & began don't seem to leave enough grey area for you all to waltz around LOL.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?
Maybe I don't understand, but isn't this a straightforward question isn't it? I just want to make sure I understand. Evolution is the process which living things evolve and abiogenesis is the process which brought about a change from non living to living. Come on please I just want to make sure this is right.

Where do we draw the line when self replicating chemicals can evolve through environmental selection working on random mutation? At what does life begin? Is RNA alive? A prion? A virus? A self replicating membrane? Do we need to know exactly how it happened to argue that it must have?

Why not engage some of the quality posts you have had in search of your answers?

 

[crimresearch]

The problem is this IS an very easy question but by saying so opens the door to intelligent design, creationism (of a type) , and lots of other crap we couldn't have in schools that isn't science so no one is willing to answer this question directly! So to cover this up the word evolution gets misused and abused in mass media and pop culture and apparently second grade classrooms. Seriously think about it on tv and in film there must be a million everyday references to evolution and abiogenesis NONE. That's a million to none in favor of the question that we still don't have the answer to being asked at all. And anyone asking this question is a "creationist" and "doesn't believe in evolution".
How can a teacher teach evolution and by not teaching the FACT that we don't know how life began is disingenuous at best.
I do gather that it is a fact that we don't know exactly how life began, if I am wrong about that please explain it to me, although since simply answering "So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point. Is that what your all saying?" is impossible to get a satisfactory "YES" answer to because the words life & began don't seem to leave enough grey area for you all to waltz around LOL.

I'm sorry... I forgot to say 'thoroughly dishonest' trolling.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

[Dancing David]

The problem is this IS an very easy question but by saying so opens the door to intelligent design, creationism (of a type) , and lots of other crap we couldn't have in schools that isn't science so no one is willing to answer this question directly!

So it is the neutral language that bothers you because you want absolutes?
Evolution does not explain everything that has happened since the start of 'life'.

Wow, is that really so hard for you to accept?

However the theory of evolution through reproductive success does seem to be a very likely explanation for much of what we see in the world.

So to cover this up the word evolution gets misused and abused in mass media and pop culture and apparently second grade classrooms. Seriously think about it on tv and in film there must be a million everyday references to evolution and abiogenesis NONE.

I doubt there are a million references to evolution, do you always speak in hyperbole?

I might guess there are a million references to "Coke", "Pepsi" or "McDonalds"

That's a million to none in favor of the question that we still don't have the answer to being asked at all. And anyone asking this question is a "creationist" and "doesn't believe in evolution".

You seem to be having difficulty expressing yourself coherently?

Why all the absolutes and false dichotomies?

How can a teacher teach evolution and by not teaching the FACT that we don't know how life began is disingenuous at best.

Funny the fact is that the action of reproductive success is real.

I want the citation from your alleged text book. I work in grade schools and I think you are making this up. Is your child in fourth grade or second grade?

Are you going to give the exact source and citation?


Second grade text book? Sure.

I do gather that it is a fact that we don't know exactly how life began, if I am wrong about that please explain it to me, although since simply answering "So just to be clear science doesn't actually know how or where life itself began but evolution explains everything that happened after that point.

There you are using the word 'everything' again.

Hyperbole.

Is that what your all saying?" is impossible to get a satisfactory "YES" answer to because the words life & began don't seem to leave enough grey area for you all to waltz around LOL.

I suggest you haven't tried to define life have you?

So give us five traits of 'life'.

Here are some common ones
-metabolism
-excretion
-reproduction

So is a virus alive or not?