Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Young Earth Creationist Attack on the New Texas Earth and Space Science Course
Texas Citizens for Science ^ | January 15, 2009 | Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.

Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Continues...

(Excerpt) Read more at texscience.org ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-346 next last
To: only1percent

The conservative party is just fine- the american people voted for obama because htey want their mamma- They want government ot pay for everything, to bail them out, to take care of everyone, and obama played on that and one- plain and simple- republicans lost for no other reason than that (Except people didn’t think we should have saved millions of lives in Iraq and here in the US by fightign terrorism- the mainstream media was instrumental in turnign american pride into one of ‘to hell with htem, horray for me and only me’ attitude!)


101 posted on 01/20/2009 9:00:45 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

When Americans start to wake up fro mtheir obama worship, and start to feel the pinch he is abotu to give us all, they’ll start to realize they were lied to, and will see him as just another democrat. They’ll be like “Wha....Wha.....Wha.... you expect ME to pay for your overinflated spending orgy to ‘fix America”? Are you nuts?” and the dems will once again lose the whitehouse because Americans will see their true colors as the tax and spend liberals who are logn on promisses, and short on answers, and they’ll be after each one of us to foot their wild spending orgy that’s already begun.

Just wait until the dems enact the ‘carbon tax’- that one is goign to cost us dearly- (Fixing a problem that both isn’t a problem, and isn’t our doing either)


102 posted on 01/20/2009 9:05:08 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Spellcheck is your friend.

Unless you are joining me in the BUSHmills'...

Cheers! *hic*

103 posted on 01/20/2009 9:07:03 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I look forward to your insights, dear grey_whiskers!


104 posted on 01/20/2009 9:10:28 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

This thread is posted in the Chat Forum and therefore the Religion Forum guidelines do not apply here.


105 posted on 01/20/2009 9:13:14 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; editor-surveyor

But is editor-surveyor correct in his assertion that “[Jim Robinson] has stated that he will not allow anyone to post against his core Christian beliefs”?


106 posted on 01/20/2009 9:21:01 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner; metmom

See post #4...with your endelss red herrings and endless strawmen.

Pre-NEA, before God was kicked out, alchemy wasn’t taught alongside chemistry.

That’s dishonest on your part to bring that silliness up. It’s all your ilk ever offers.

You can post here a 1000 years before me, but you’re clearly, by your own behavior, a liberal when it comes to this issue.

You can’t help yourself, and you are what you are.


107 posted on 01/20/2009 9:21:23 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; metmom
You can post here a 1000 years before me, but you’re clearly, by your own behavior, a liberal when it comes to this issue.

According to whom? You?

How about a guy that debates Dawkins and Hitchens in public forums? He actually puts his money where his mouth is. I think most conservatives would take D'Souza over you any day of the week:

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/05/04/why-darwin-scares-conservatives-when-he-shouldnt/

"Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society."

"It gets better. Darwin shows that social institutions like the family are founded in the deep human drive to reproduce and care for the young. Reproduction and self-perpetuation are the natural root of human family arrangements, which cannot be redefined as mechanisms of "self-fulfillment" without jeopardizing their biological basis and function. Consider a simple statistic: when divorced moms remarry or have boyfriends in the house, those surrogate parents are vastly more likely to physically and sexually abuse the children than their own parents. Darwinian theory supplies the reason: the real parent shares the same genes as the child and this forms a bond that dispels sexual attraction and discourages abuse. "Family values" are supported by modern evolutionary biology."

"I'm not saying embrace Darwinian evolution because it is politically useful. I am saying don't hastily reject a theory that has a lot of evidence going for it when it has the added merit of being politically congenial."

108 posted on 01/20/2009 9:32:15 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
As far as I know, there have always been a number of non-Christians (other beliefs), agnostics and atheists posting on Free Republic.

Free Republic is clearly pro-God. Here is a recent statement to that effect.

Atheists do get into trouble on the Religion Forum when they are actively anti-God and anti-Christ with every post from thread to thread.

That makes them a "troll" to the RF just as much as a liberal would be doing the same thing on the News/Activism Forum.

But most atheist Freepers do not troll the Religion Forum. They are however attracted to certain articles, obviously.

109 posted on 01/20/2009 9:34:15 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

spell check is no friend of mine- We haven’t spoken for years- it borrowed money from me and never returned it so now I treat it as htough it didn’t even exist- Stinking cheating spellchekcers


110 posted on 01/20/2009 10:58:12 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner; tpanther

That whole nonsense about teaching alchemy, astrology, flat earth, geocentrism, pi=3 is a strawmen argument. It’s nothing but hyperbole designed to discredit and disparage creationists.

No Christian or creationist believes in those things and portraying them as if they do is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s just plain dishonest.

For the record, though, the PUBLIC school I went to DID address those things. They are part of the history of science and as such need to be studied.

People can mock alchemy all they want, but alchemy was the accepted science of the day. We know NOW that it isn’t possible as they thought it was, but that’s because the research they did in the area demonstrated it. They learned a lot about actual chemistry through their study of it. It was not wasted research.

The teaching of creation in public schools is not going to send us back into the dark ages, it will not result in the deterioration of science standards across the country. It was taught in public schools in this country for centuries with no deleterious effect on the progress of science during that entire time.

There is simply no basis for the claim that it will hurt the science education the kids are receiving. On the contrary, evolution has had a monopoly in the school system for decades and has done the science education no good. We continue to fall behind in the world. There is simply no way to lay the blame for that at the feet of the creationists or teaching of creation in public schools, as it isn’t happening.

As a matter of fact, the private Christian schools and homeschools who do teach both creation and evolution side by side, consistently outperform the public schools in both standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores. So much for that alleged inferior education.


111 posted on 01/21/2009 4:34:29 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: metmom
There is simply no basis for the claim that it will hurt the science education the kids are receiving. On the contrary, evolution has had a monopoly in the school system for decades and has done the science education no good. We continue to fall behind in the world. There is simply no way to lay the blame for that at the feet of the creationists or teaching of creation in public schools, as it isn’t happening.

Can you give me an example of a country that teaches creationism as science, and can objectively be shown to be "ahead of us" in science education?

112 posted on 01/21/2009 4:44:50 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Can you give me an example of a country that teaches creationism as science, and can objectively be shown to be "ahead of us" in science education?

I can’t. But I understand that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creationism is taught in schools in the Islamic world.
113 posted on 01/21/2009 4:55:45 AM PST by Caramelgal (My employer had a room for us to watch the Obamination. I, on the other hand had actual work to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal; metmom
I can’t. But I understand that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creationism is taught in schools in the Islamic world.

I believe that's correct. There may be more examples that I'm not aware of, but I do know that before I take up the idea that teaching evolution instead of creation in science class is making us fall behind the rest of the world in science education, I want to see some evidence to back it up.

114 posted on 01/21/2009 5:31:56 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
OR is your aforementioned either/or projection of extremes all about lock-step teaching, one way or the other, with no other possibility, the way you were programmed from the outset with no concept of a middle-ground?

I agree with you! We shouldn't have this either/or mentality when teaching "science." We should present astrology alongside astronomy and let the kids decide which they believe. We whould present alchemy alongside chemistry and let the kids decide which they believe. We should present creationism alongside evolutionary biology and let the kids decide which they believe.

Think how our nation's science and industry would thrive if our engineers weren't forced into the extreme lock-step of Newtonism, but were free to learn that intelligent falling is just as valid as the theory of gravity?

115 posted on 01/21/2009 6:50:15 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Posted many times before.

Private Christian schools and homeschoolers teach creation and evolution side by side, the same thing the majority of people in this country want done as evidenced by many polls.

Plain and simple. Teaching creation in school does not hurt science education. It didn’t in the past, it doesn’t in private and homeschools which do it now.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence that teaching creation in schools would hurt the education of kids in schools. Some data would be helpful. Bear in mind, however, that the current decline the academic standards in science and math is happening concurrently with the teaching of evolution alone in public schools. Go ahead, show that creation would make it worse, instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html

Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719

**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63

**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts

***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp

************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63

************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
************************************************************
SAT/ACT homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp

Standardized test scores homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


116 posted on 01/21/2009 8:07:50 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Show that teaching creation in addition to evolution would cause us to fall further behind.

We are already continuing our downward spiral with creation not being in the picture. If teaching the ToE is the answer to our science education woes, then why isn’t it working?

http://www.sntp.net/education/education_stats.htm


117 posted on 01/21/2009 8:21:03 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Your links simply demostrate that a majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate. That’s the flaw cretards are trying to exploit. This isn’t a debate about hearing both sides like you would in a debate. This is science. Creationism isn’t science. You can dress it up and try and take creationism out of the church and put it in schools, but you can’t take the church out of creationism. Isn’t it ironic that you are allying yourself with muslim fundamentalists who have also banned evolution from being taught in certain middle eastern countries?


118 posted on 01/21/2009 9:01:04 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Show that teaching creation in addition to evolution would cause us to fall further behind.

Can you point to one advancement made in western science and medicine that was made possible by replacing science with religious instruction? Schools should teach science in science classes. If children are taught that a religious belief or superstition has as much scientific value as an actual scientific theory, they will be less prepared for work in that particular field.

If students who will go on to become researchers in field of communicable diseases are taught that the belief that disease is caused by demonic spirits is just as scientifically valid as germ theory, we will all suffer for it.

If students who will go on to become scientists are taught that the religious belief that the earth and all the life upon it was created wholly formed six thousand years ago is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, modern cosmology, and modern geology, we will all suffer for it.

If you want to teach your children creation stories particular to your own religion, feel free to do so at your own house of worship or homeschool. No one is stopping you. Please do not, however, ask the rest of us to teach your religious ideas to our own children under the guise of "science."

119 posted on 01/21/2009 9:08:52 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: doc30

[[Creationism isn’t science.]]

[[That’s the flaw cretards are trying to exploit.]]

[[This isn’t a debate about hearing both sides like you would in a debate. This is science.]]

[[Isn’t it ironic that you are allying yourself with muslim fundamentalists who have also banned evolution from being taught in certain middle eastern countries?]]

With ignorant statements and lies like these- no wonder we’re falling behind in our public education system- Kudos- You have demonstrated why we’re scientifically ignorant in this country. Keeep that biased opinion of yours going- and pretty soon the majority of kids will be as ignorant as your comments attempt make science out to be.


120 posted on 01/21/2009 9:14:16 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Bosh Flimshaw

[[Can you point to one advancement made in western science and medicine that was made possible by replacing science with religious instruction?]]

Can you point out where we’re tryign to ‘replace science with religious isntruction”? Cripes- it appears you’re incapable of intellectualy honest discussions.

[[If children are taught that a religious belief or superstition has as much scientific value as an actual scientific theory, they will be less prepared for work in that particular field.]]

Again- anopther ignorant statement- perhaps you missed my links above showing where religion is NOT in any way shape or form a part of ID science- but keep pretendign it is- it just shows the desperation Macroevolutionists feel by tryign ot malign and falsely accuse the opposition- Yep- that’s the scientific process evidently, intiidate the opposition by lying about htem and tryign to shape public opinion about htme by spreading and perpetrating lies about hteir purpose-

[[If students who will go on to become scientists are taught that the religious belief that the earth and all the life upon it was created wholly formed six thousand years ago is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, modern cosmology, and modern geology, we will all suffer for it.]]

What’s hte matter Flimshaw? Afraid hte truth might destroy the hypothesis of macroevolution? Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?

[[Please do not, however, ask the rest of us to teach your religious ideas to our own children under the guise of “science.”]]

Calm down- NOONE is askign you to teach the parables of Christ, or the virtues of the ten commandments- We are however askign that objective science be taught- ALL of it- instead of hiding hte serious flaws and impossibilities of Macroevolution- Apparently htough, only your particular religious beleif is allowed in schools? Lol- Yep- must be nervewracking htinking your hypothesis faces serious exposure- But do please keep spreading lies about ID- again- apparently that’s hte only defense you folks have- which exposes just how weak your hypothesis really is!


121 posted on 01/21/2009 9:21:56 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You have demonstrated why we’re scientifically ignorant in this country.

What creation story do you think should be taught in science classes in public schools in order to cure our scientific ignorance?

122 posted on 01/21/2009 9:25:01 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
We are however askign that objective science be taught- ALL of it- instead of hiding hte serious flaws and impossibilities of Macroevolution

You are aware, aren't you, that in the last ten years or so evolution has become an experimental laboratory science, and the arguments against multi-step evolution are being whittled away? Behe's Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication. Actually the specific claims he made were obsolete before he published, but he failed to do a simple literature search.

Since publication, two laboratory experiments have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.

123 posted on 01/21/2009 9:30:48 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Can you point out where we’re tryign to ‘replace science with religious isntruction”?

Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction.

Creationism/ID is not science, and the recent attempts to pretend that it is merely another scientific theory is nothing more than window dressing.

Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?

Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable. The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement. The more this particular theory is "exposed" to actual scientific scrutiny, the stronger it has become.

If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution. If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.

124 posted on 01/21/2009 9:36:55 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Bosh Flimshaw

[[Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction. ]]

You didn’t point out anythign but a biased LIE- ID presents evidence and facts- they do NOT posit who or what the intelligence is, only that IC can NOT arise via naturalistic means- that’s ALL they do-

[[Creationism/ID is not science,]]

This is a biased a priori dogmatic statement that is detached from the reality of hte issue-

[[Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable.]]

Well sir, you are in luck- ID is just that.

[[The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement.]]

This is anotherl ie- it has NOT been strengthened, but just the opposite- the more we try to replicate it, test it, examine it, the more we find out just how impossible it really is- it violates several key fundamental laws of science, and is an impossibility who’s adherants must hterefore rely on ASSUMPTIONS that can NOT be proved, demonstrated or shown in the lab.

[[If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution.]]

That’s a load of manure- ID brings hte evidnece agaisnt it, and ID is fiercely opposed by scientists like Miller, Dawkins, and many other congregationalists of Darwin.

[[If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.]]

It’s coming ot a school near you- and thnakfully so- It’s about time kids are taught the TRUTH abotu Macroevolution instead of being handed a myth that violates the very foundational principles upon which scence stands on.


125 posted on 01/21/2009 10:00:40 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[You are aware, aren’t you, that in the last ten years or so evolution has become an experimental laboratory science, and the arguments against multi-step evolution are being whittled away?]]

Lol- being ‘whittled away’? That’s funny- Behe’s irreducible complexity still stands- apparently you are unaware of his rebuttals to those hwo tried to ‘whittle away’ his proposals? and just for hte record- IC exists in EVERY level, not just in certain systems like Behe once htought-

[[Since publication, two laboratory experiments have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.]]

That’s swell, and how does htis ‘whittle away’ IC again? It doesn’t- Lab tests show certai adaptions need several mutaitons? Big deal. You still have hte problems of Metainfo to deal with, as well as the problems associated with MACROEvolution- Seems ot me that all these tests really show are that natural selection is a force that drives MICROEvolution- Swell- We know MICROEvolution is a scientific fact- but we also know MACROEvolution is still a biologically impossible process that still hasn’t been shown in lab tests contrary to some misperceptions on the part of some who argue it’s an ‘established fact’

[[Behe’s Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication. Actually the specific claims he made were obsolete before he published, but he failed to do a simple literature search.]]

Got news for ya- Deconstructing the NON IC components of an IC system doesn’t make IC proposals ‘obsolete’- The ONLY thing oponents of Behe have managed to do is show what we already know- that IC systems CAN and DO contain some reducible components- You can remove an air filter from a carbeurator, but you can NOT remove the IRREDUCIBLE parts of the carbeurator and have it still run. The arguments agaisnt IC are intellectually dishonest arguments, and htose making them know full well that the actual IC parts can NOT be reduced without hte system malfunctioning.


126 posted on 01/21/2009 10:09:26 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Let’s remove hte metainfo from a living system, and htrow a myraid of mutaitons at hte core components and see how well we do- You will see quickly just how itneredependent systems are on this system of metainfo. Bottom line, Chemicals can not create this absolutely necessary system which is required for life, nor can nature provide it despite claism that it must have.


127 posted on 01/21/2009 10:11:38 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Bosh Flimshaw

[[What creation story do you think should be taught in science classes in public schools in order to cure our scientific ignorance?]]

None- what should be taught are the FACTS about Macroevolution- ALL the facts, and all the evidnece showing ID and IC- NOONE is suggesting religous precepts should be taught- just hte scientific facts- The fossil record defintively and objectively shows discontinuity- Baraminology, a discipline made up of several strict scientific practices, shows htis discontinuity conclusively, however, Macroevolutionsts go WAY beyond hte actual scientific evidneces, and make claism that simply do NOT fit hte evidneces and take a tremendous amount of faith to beleive in- You want religion out of Schools? Fine- let’s throw it ALL out- including hte religious beleifs in Macreovolution that DEFY several scientific laws and is contrary to the actual scientific evidences.


128 posted on 01/21/2009 10:16:02 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations. You are ignoring the fact that mutation and evolution are now experimental science. we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.

It’s really no longer necessary to build hypothetical scenarios or to argue about whose assumptions are unfounded.

The pregame show is over. Grab some popcorn.


129 posted on 01/21/2009 10:28:04 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[Behe’s Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication.]]

You know, that statement says quite a lot about just who and what you are willing to put your faith in.

Apparently, it is fashionable to misquote someone, and to launch false claims as some sort of ‘rebuttal to’ someone? Behe never stated that multiple mutations could appear at multiple sites- Those statign he did, are lying about what Behe actually said in his book- whic just goes to show, once again, how deceitful and dishonest these supposed ‘rebuttals’ of his really are- It’s quite a leap from dishonest ‘rebuttals’ to ‘made obsolete’- wouldn’t you agree?

Behe’s response to those who made the FALSE CLAIMS abotu hwat he said:

“But I certainly do not say that multipleamino acid replacements “can’t happen”. A centerpiece of The Edge of Evolution is that it can and did happen. I stress in Chapter 3 that in the case of malarial resistance to chloroquine, multiple necessary mutations did happen in the membrane protein PfCRT. I also of course emphasize that it took a huge population size, one that would not be available to larger organisms. But Carroll seems uninterested in making distinctions.”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKWOEF4DT51SV2

you are basing your claim that Behe’s book was ‘made obsolete’ based on an undergraduate’s FALSE claims that were completely and honesalty REFUTED and exposed for lies that were said- Not very good ground for you to be standign on JS in regards to this particular issue. Carrol was made to look quite foolish, and infact, was even REFUTED by other laypeople

Carrol infact was EXPOSED as a less than honest and intellectually dishonest critic in the very book he unseuccesfully tried to ‘refute’


130 posted on 01/21/2009 10:31:13 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations.]]

I didn’t say they did- You are misrepresentign what I said- You DO however need to htrow a myriad of mutaitosn at the whole genome in order to bring about changes (Adaptive MICROEvolution) changes. As you know, some mutaitons will ‘stick’ while others will be handled and discarded, or thrown off, and others still will remain neutral i nthe system.

[[we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.]]

We sure can, and wonder of wonders, it shows MICROEvolution- just as it should. Not sure why you are tryign to claim these experiments and trackings ‘close hte show’ on MACROEvolution? They have absolutely nothign to do with macroevolution- I’ve got my popcorn, but it appears the Macroevos are refusing to play the game, claiming falsely that there’s nothign to discuss when it’s becoming more and more evident that there really is a serious problem with MACROEvoluionary changes being biologically possible or not..


131 posted on 01/21/2009 10:36:02 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations.]]

I didn’t say they did- You are misrepresentign what I said- You DO however need to htrow a myriad of mutaitosn at the whole genome in order to bring about changes (Adaptive MICROEvolution) changes. As you know, some mutaitons will ‘stick’ while others will be handled and discarded, or thrown off, and others still will remain neutral i nthe system.

[[we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.]]

We sure can, and wonder of wonders, it shows MICROEvolution- just as it should. Not sure why you are tryign to claim these experiments and trackings ‘close hte show’ on MACROEvolution? They have absolutely nothign to do with macroevolution- I’ve got my popcorn, but it appears the Macroevos are refusing to play the game, claiming falsely that there’s nothign to discuss when it’s becoming more and more evident that there really is a serious problem with MACROEvoluionary changes being biologically possible or not..

It’s the equivilent of “Yuo guys aren’t playing fair- Macroevolution is an ‘established fact’ and that is that! I’m takign my ball and and going home if you persist in questioning that!”


132 posted on 01/21/2009 10:37:20 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
...and all the evidnece showing ID and IC

But what will the students do with the other 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the hour?

DEFY several scientific laws and is contrary to the actual scientific evidences.

Without conceding for a moment that the theory of evolution DEFIES several scientific laws (because it doesn't)--how does encouraging the teacing of a "theory" which relies primarily upon a supernatural actor (as creationism/ID most certainly does) increase the quality of scientific progress?

133 posted on 01/21/2009 10:47:05 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Thanks for the link. It goes on:

Apparently Behe is in a race to the bottom of the barrel in his latest “response”.

In this response he attempts to address the crippling of the central point in his book “Edge of Evolution”. His claim is that for malaria to develop resistance to CQ it must have two simultaneous mutations occur. Behe then took the probability of two specific mutations occurring simultaneously and tried to use it as a false “limit” of evolution. This is flat out wrong as clearly stated by the published literature. The literature clearly states that CQ resistance occurred gradually and that only having one gene mutation sill offers some resistance(in other words only having the one mutation is still beneficial instead of detrimental). The odds of two mutations occurring at the same time is irrelevant to CQ resistance in malaria and Behe knows it. Yet he keeps going back to it as if it does. Behe states:

“I stress in Chapter 3 that in the case of malarial resistance to chloroquine, multiple necessary mutations did happen in the membrane protein PfCRT. I also of course emphasize that it took a huge population size, one that would not be available to larger organisms.”

He also quote mined Carroll in a vain attempt to support himself. He quoted Carroll saying:

“Behe’s chief error is minimizing the power of natural selection to act cumulatively... Behe states correctly [my emphasis] that in most species two adaptive mutations occurring instantaneously at two specific sites in one gene are very unlikely and that functional changes in proteins often involve two or more sites.”

Let me fill in what Behe cut out of that quote: “...as traits or molecules evolve stepwise from one state to another via intermediates.”

Well, that changes things a bit. Behe is ignoring the fact that CQ resistance most likely occurred in multiple stages and then he had the audacity to take Carroll's quote out of context to give it the impression that Carroll was agreeing with his fictitious probability. The simply fact is that, yes, two mutations occurring at the same time IS very rare, but that has no bearing on Behe’s claims regarding CQ resistance in malaria since it did NOT require two simultaneous mutations. In breathtaking fashion, after ignoring cumulative gene mutation in CQ resistance and then quote mining Carroll, Behe then admits that mutations CAN occur in sequence and accumulate, but then he tries to dismiss it by saying, “it is a non sequitur to leap to the conclusion that all biological features therefore can gradually accumulate”. He tries to justify this by confusing his readers about beneficial and detrimental mutations. For one thing, natural selection filters out the detrimental mutations. Another more important fact is that the published literature clearly states that one gene mutation involved in CQ resistance imparts some resistance, and that resistance is ENHANCED by adding the second. The published works on CQ resistance are clear on this topic, CQ resistance most likely occurred gradually and the individual gene mutations ARE clearly beneficial. To watch Behe going through such contortions to try and defend his falsehoods is almost painful to watch.

Behe next attempts to address Carroll's demolishing of his claims about protein binding sites. Essentially Behe tried arguing in his book that binding sites are just too complex for evolution to account for. Carroll points out that this claim of Behe’s rests solely on Behe’s unfounded requirements for protein interaction. Carroll even ran through some simple math in his review that shows just how wrong Behe is:

“Very simple calculations indicate how easily such motifs evolve at random. If one assumes an average length of 400 amino acids for proteins and equal abundance of all amino acids, any given two-amino acid motif is likely to occur at random in every protein in a cell. (There are 399 dipeptide motifs in a 400-amino acid protein and 20 mult 20 = 400 possible dipeptide motifs.) Any specific three-amino acid motif will occur once at random in every 20 proteins and any four-amino acid motif will occur once in every 400 proteins. That means that, without any new mutations or natural selection, many sequences that are identical or close matches to many interaction motifs already exist. New motifs can arise readily at random, and any weak interaction can easily evolve, via random mutation and natural selection, to become a strong interaction (9). Furthermore, any pair of interacting proteins can readily recruit a third protein, and so forth, to form larger complexes. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that new protein interactions (10) and protein networks (11) can evolve fairly rapidly and are thus well within the limits of evolution.”

Behe’s only response to this is to misrepresent the cited references then to accuse Carroll of “begging the question” just as he did Jerry Coyne in his earlier “response”. Behe does nothing to address the fact that his assertion in regards to protein binding sites is fundamentally WRONG.

I was still willing to give Behe the benefit of the doubt about the errors in his book. I was willing to entertain the idea that maybe he just got in over his head and didn't understand the subjects he was talking about. The naked dishonesty Behe has demonstrated in this “response” has cinched my opinion, the “errors” in Behe’s book were deliberate.

You can read Carroll's review here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

References:

CQ resistance
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009286740080447X

paper that Behe misrepresented
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16172400

There's quite a bit more after that.

134 posted on 01/21/2009 10:47:58 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: js1138

You’re welcome for the link- infact, it does ‘go on’ and the points brought up by the poster you quoted are refuted once again in hte very next post- so let’s keep going here (And by hte way- nothign that was posted claiming Behe ‘quote miend’ was relevent- what was left out did nothign to udermine what Behe was stating- but let’s do pretend that it did, shall we?

“David Marshall says:
Your claim to objectivity, Mr. / Mrs Allen, is hard to believe, reading some of your other postings. But all right, let’s take your arguments at face value. Here, it seems to me, you’re missing the ball. You may even be swinging for the wrong fence.

Behe is not primarily making an apriori argument in this book. He is arguing from the actual history of evolution among pathogens. The point about chloroquine resistence is that in fact it has not arisen that often. Resistence to atovaquone, by contrast, appears to arise very quickly; every third person, he says. (59) He ascribes the difference to the fact that the former requires two mutations, the latter, just one.

If you want to refute Behe on this point, what you need to prove is that (1) CQ resistance actually demands more than two mutations. (To show that potentially profitable mutations arise more frequently than Behe claims), or (2) CQ resistance actually appears far more often — exponentially more often — than Behe claims.

If you can do one of these two things, then it seems to me that you will have made his position in this book less comfortable. Until then, you’re just batting theory around. In fact, some of your arguments seem to actually make his point stronger.”


135 posted on 01/21/2009 11:03:35 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Also at the link you provided:

Irreducible Complexity is nothing more then a god of the gaps argument. So far every system that Behe has identified and claimed was irreducible has been shown to be reducible. His claims about the flagellum were proven wrong(cut it down by 40 components and you have the type III secretory system) nearly a decade ago. His claims that the blood clotting cascade were irreducibly complex were shown to be false when it was pointed out that the dolphin's immune system worked just fine without a component that Behe said was required. His latest claim of an irreducible system is contained within this book where he argues that cilia HAVE to have the IFT to form. This is again shown to not be the case by the published literature.

As you can see irreducible complexity is nothing but a god of the gaps explanation. When one system that was proclaimed to be IC is explained or demonstrated to NOT be IC, then Behe simply picks another system and says, “What about that one?”.


136 posted on 01/21/2009 11:09:32 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
More at your link:

David,
I'm not sure whether you simply haven't understood any of the critiques of Behe’s probability estimates or if you are being willfully ignorant. I THINK you are just jumping in without any idea of what you are talking about in an attempt to defend Behe. For starters you say:

“If you want to refute Behe on this point, what you need to prove is that (1) CQ resistance actually demands more than two mutations.”

Which leads me to think you don't understand what everybody is talking about in regards to CQ resistance. Behe’s false assertion is that CQ resistance requires two SIMULTANEOUS mutations to occur. The reality is that the published literature clearly shows that the mutations for CQ resistance occur gradually, one mutation at a time. No one has said anything about CQ resistance needing more then 2 mutations. For one thing, that would be HELPING Behe’s claim, not refuting it. As such, your claim that in order to “refute Behe” I would have to show that CQ resistance requires more then 2 mutations makes no sense. The whole point of this little exercise is to point out that Behe’s false assertion greatly exaggerates the difficulty in CQ resistance by claiming that both mutations have to happen simultaneously. This one simple distortion allows Behe to radically alter the probability of CQ resistance arising via evolution(exponentially so actually). You seem to have totally missed the argument here. BOTH sides of the argument actually. Your entire comment is based around your faulty understanding of this issue.

Two other points: first you don't have to take my points at face value. I provided links to the original review that Behe was responding to as well as links to the published scientific literature that disproves Behe’s claims about CQ resistance. If you don't believe me, read them yourself. Second, it's Mr. Allen. ;-)


137 posted on 01/21/2009 11:12:27 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
More from your link:

Mr. Behe,
how does your probability calculation deal with the documented fact that a chloroquine-resistant species of malaria without one of the mutations you discuss (at position 220)? Isn't this an example of sequential evolution?

Secondly, are you serious when you claim that specific protein-protein interactions evolve only with difficulty? If so, you are making a good case for revocation of your biochemistry diploma.

Pretty much every protein will interact with any other protein, depending on conditions and concentrations (as anyone who has performed pulldown or shift assays can tell you; but you should know that yourself by now). If a weak interaction provides a selective advantage, further mutations ANYWHERE in the interaction region that strengthen this interaction IN ANY WAY will be highly selected for. This does not require specific point changes at specific positions, but any kind of change at any position where initial weak binding contact occurs; and this counts for interaction surfaces of BOTH proteins (i.e. both can change).

Given the scope of freedom most proteins have to change sequence without impairing function, I find your “argument” so removed from reality that I can't believe anyone who has taken a junior biochemistry class would buy it.

This, incidentally, has nothing to do with the reality of evolution. Even if theory of evolution was incorrect, and there really is a Designer, it makes no difference. Based on hard, published data about known behavior of proteins and known incidence and effect of mutations, your arguments are completely incorrect.


138 posted on 01/21/2009 11:15:59 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
More stuff from your link:

“I know you've challenged Behe’s assumption that the two mutations need to occur at the same time.”

No, I didn't challenge his claim, the peer reviewed and published science did. I posted a link to the relevant research which clearly shows Behe is wrong.

“But Behe’s argument is not primarily based on theoretical calculations about how difficult mutations might be”

Actually, yes it is. It's the core argument in his book which is clearly evident by the number of times he references his bogus probability of 1x10^20. Attempting to define false “limits” to evolution was the entire purpose of his book. Behe’s false probability argument was the best he could come up with for this.

I not even sure what you are trying to say when you are talking about “given a certain number of bugs per patient” etc.

“If, as I think you claim, the first mutation confers a slightly positive effect, and is therefore selected for, it would be even more puzzling why the appearance of both mutations together is so rare.”

You are correct. I don't think you intended to do it, but you just saw through Behe’s argument. The simple fact is it's no where near as hard as Behe leads his readers to believe for sequential mutations to both occur and combine. It seems you are starting to understand. :-)

“My point about whether two or more mutations would be needed was not to question the fact that it does take two mutations, but simply to point out a logically possible response to Behe, whether it is empirically viable or not.”

David, I don't think you understood what was being discussed. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that in order to “disprove” Behe I would have to show that it takes more then 2 mutations for CQ resistance to arise. Again if you don't want to believe me, go back and use the link I provided and read it for yourself. The cited article lays it out in black and white.


139 posted on 01/21/2009 11:19:18 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
More stuff from your link:

“But this has not happened. More research is taking place in biology than ever before. And besides, Intelligent Design hypothesizes an intelligence, but doesn't get more specific. The design could come from an advanced civilization from another solar system.”

Researh IS taking place in biology, however there is none taking place in ID. Without a scientific framework to start from, there simply is no way to do research into ID. Not identifying who they think the designer is has nothing to do with that fact. The creationists at the DI intentionally avoid discussing who the think the “designer” is for the simple reason that they are trying to trick people into thinking that ID is separate from their religion. They would have a hard time of that if they revealed their designer to be the god of the old testament.

“In the other examples, I think the problem is with the wording of Behe’s definitions. I think the underlying concept is still valid.”

It's not his definition, it's his hypothesis. The evidence clearly shows his hypothesis of IC is incorrect, he has simply chosen to ignore the evidence and keep asserting IC as if it were valid.

“Like any good scientist, Behe should modify his theory to include the situations that have been pointed out to him. Behe should modify his definition of Irreducibly Complex, if he hasn't already. The new definition of a system could allow for parts that are themselves beneficial and have been improved by natural selection.”

The system you just described already has a name, it's called evolution. ;-)

Oh, and one little quibble, I wouldn't call Behe a good scientist. For one he doesn't do any research, and two the errors he has made in this book indicate he either has no understanding of basic evolutionary biology or he is being intentionally dishonest.

“If you start removing parts, in many cases, at some point you will reach a situation where the system will no longer perform its current function. In our example of the flagellum, if you start removing the 40 parts that you mention, at some point the flagellum will stop working.”

You fail to understand what Behe is trying to describe with his failed hypothesis of IC. Behe’s conjecture is that in an IC system all the parts HAVE to be there or the entire structure is useless. Essentially he uses IC to argue that the structure could not have evolved because all the pieces have to be present at the same time or it's all useless. This is clearly false. What Behe overlooks is that the FUNCTION of these various pieces can change. That's what you see if you look at the type III secretory system. It's composed of about 40 of the same pieces as the flagellum, but it has a completely different function. This demonstrates how supposedly IC systems can be reduced to smaller components performing different jobs. Once you realize that these supposedly rigid IC systems are actually very versatile in their function, it becomes clear how easily evolution could produce them in a step wise fashion.

“The case of the cilia is similar. Yes, Behe seems to have been misinformed about the need for IFT. Yet his basic, underlying concept still holds. If you remove enough unnecessary parts, eventually you will reach the point where the system no longer functions as a cilia.”

What you are describing is the classic god of the gaps scenario. Essentially what you are doing is that after a supposedly IC system is shown to have a reducible component, you are then pointing to a smaller component and saying, “well, then THAT'S IC”. What you are doing is shoving IC into ever smaller gaps as the larger gaps are filled in.

“Again, how does a system, which doesn't have enough parts to work as a cilia, benefit the organism enough to be favored by natural selection?”

Because the smaller precursors to the cilia performed OTHER functions that were useful before being incorporated into the cilia itself. This is where Behe tries to confuse his reader. He has them convinced that all of these various parts are only useful for performing ONE function in regards to the cilia. He glosses over the fact that in a different structure they may have a different function.


140 posted on 01/21/2009 11:22:42 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
More stuff from the link you provided:

Mr. Fischer,

you are misinformed on several levels.

First, we do know quite a bit about malaria (I stated that I personally don't know the exact epidemiological information, but that does not mean such information does not exist).

Second, we know pretty much exactly how DNA changes, and how mutations are inherited. Some exotic cases are still matters of research, but the process that underlies the vast majority of evolution is well understood.

Third, we do NOT see an obstacle to formation of complex systems. This is a fact that follows from both theory and experiment: interactions and new activities arise constantly, and the more we research, more weak interactions or weak side activities we are finding.

The protein I'm working on, for example, has one clear catalytic activity. But then it was discovered that it also binds DNA and serves as a transcriptional activator. Then several weak/rare interactions with other proteins were discovered. Then it was found that three different modification (acetylation, phosphorylaton, nitrosation) at different places alter its DNA-binding specificity, changing which genes it activates and which it supresses. And similar stories keep jumping up all over the place, once sufficient research has been done.

So we do know a great deal about the “underlying DNA”, and how it exactly changes. In laboratory and nature, we have observed all required processes: evolution of new protein interactions, evolution of new signalling pathways, evolution of new catalytic activities.

I don't know how I can be more clear about this: we have not found anything in nature that cannot be explained by these processes. Every step is known and seen - all that needs to happen is for these steps to occur one after another, and change is inevitable.

Perhaps there is something in nature, some biochemical or physiological system, which cannot be explained with current models of natural selection. But if there are such things, we haven't found them yet.

This is the second point that should be very clear. There is no known process that counters mutation/selection under changing pressures.

In other words, according to everything we know about DNA and genetics, unless an organism lives in a pretty much absolutely unchanging environment, it WILL change over time. These changes will involve creation of novel biochemical systems of the kind Behe simply states cannot be created; the truth is the direct opposite, it seems that it is impossible for such systems NOT to be created, if the laws of genetics are what they seem they are.

Behe’s entire argument used to rest on picking poorly understood biochemical systems, and stating that they are irreducibly complex. This obviously didn't work - over the years, the systems he used were slowly examined, described, and it was found that there is nothing irreducibly complex about them. So his new approach is to simply fudge the numbers, and directly obfuscate well known facts of biology; a wise choice, given that this approach has served generations of old-style creationists very well.


141 posted on 01/21/2009 11:28:25 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Bosh Flimshaw

#111


142 posted on 01/21/2009 11:31:49 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Even better stuff from the likn you provided:

Even Behe would not agree that every case of evolution results in a loss of genetic information.

Besides thousands of examples in biology (simplest of which are many forms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, often stemming from evolution of a novel gene without any other change or loss of functionality), Behe himself cites the example of malarial evolution - in which, however you turn it, new functionality (specific resistance to chloroquine) has evolved without any “loss of genetic information”.

You also repeat the old creationist canard, this time in truly ludicrous formulation of “fruit flies never became dogs”. Of course, they can't - they can only evolve slowly, with small stepwise changes. Even under significant pressure, they will “still look like fruit flies” to laypeople for a long time - no matter how profound the genetic changes.

You seem to have a very strange idea of what evolution is and what it entails.

And finally, I just ran into a truly nice example that shows evolution of things that Behe flatly says are impossible - evolution of an integral membrane ion channel protein complex (involving three subunits, that associate through protein-protein interactions), from completely random sequence. The protein did not evolve from other proteins, but arose through recombination of a RNA-coding gene, a stretch of noncoding DNA, and some inserted random nucleotides.

The details can be seen here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/on_the_evolutio_1.html#more


143 posted on 01/21/2009 11:35:55 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Bosh Flimshaw; metmom
Please do not, however, ask the rest of us to teach your religious ideas to our own children under the guise of "science."

You don't bother reading much do you? You apparently just regurgitate godless talking points like a robot.

144 posted on 01/21/2009 11:37:25 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Ywes yes, all fascinating reading- but these somments by laypeople do nothign to undermine edge of evolution as the critics have claimed it has been. Critics claim Behe’s book falls apart because they claim Behe states that two or more mutations CAN NOT arise to facillitate one change- that is a lie, Behe NEVER said anyhtign of hte sort- Here is what Behe actually said

““But I certainly do not say that multipleamino acid replacements “can’t happen”. A centerpiece of The Edge of Evolution is that it can and did happen.”

Let’s stick to hte issue- You claimed Behe’s book was ‘made obsolete’ and htis ismply is not true. It’s a false claim, and you also said ‘two laB experiments “have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.” Yeah? And htis makes Behe’s book obsolete how again? Fact is it doesn’t- as mentioned, Behe NEVER said it NEVER happens in nature- He said it is very unlikely, and the probabilities are quite low that it does- Yuo throw ‘two lab experiments’ up as though this somehow refutes the claim that it is rare?

You sir must have a degree in downplaying. These lab experiments only go to show that YES, indeed, these multiple mutaitons ARE idneed rare, and it ALSO goes to show that Heck- Metainfo is indeed instrumental in allowing or dissallowing certain MICROEvolutionary changes. The experiments you are referrign to show simply that Ecoli did infact have the ability to live on Citrates in the wild, and that mutaitons activated the wild sequences already present- Big deal? This refutes Behe’s book and ‘makes it obsolete’ How again?


145 posted on 01/21/2009 11:40:07 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

23 Skidoo.

Nothing in that post refutes my point.

If public schools present creationism/ID as a scientific alternative alongside the theory of evolution, what logic would dictate that astrology should not taught alongside astronomy? Both astrology and creationism/ID have the same amount of scientific value, both are dependent upon supernatural actors, and teaching both would simply grant creationsists/IDers wish of presenting both sides of a controversy.

The only difference apparent on the face of these beliefs is that one is a part of your religious beliefs, and the other is not. Care to explain any other differences?


146 posted on 01/21/2009 11:41:38 AM PST by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Posted many times before.


Many many times...but the cultists just keep ignoring it, as if it’s not there.

It seems the best they can do is connect Islam to Christianity.

As if that’s been a remotely successful tactic.

Most of these people with these severe God-hang-ups are quite helpless.


147 posted on 01/21/2009 11:42:09 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Ummm metmom’s already educated you that students that homeschool are more scientifically literate than the mind numbed socialized robots.

If you demand to link us with muslims, then you’ll be linked with Stalin and Hitler...

it’s up to you.


148 posted on 01/21/2009 11:44:11 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

It’s all the Godless cultists affiliated with the NEA can do. You never see them actually arguing science. They just attack Christianity and American values.


149 posted on 01/21/2009 11:44:58 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory (All our promises and resolutions end in denial because we have no power to accomplish them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: js1138

mmm yes, Panda’sthumb is such a bastion of intellectual honesty- Let’s do send peopel there- After all, it’s not like they haven’t been caught in lie after lie [Sarcasm]

Here again is what Behe stated in his book:

““If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.”

Did he state it was impossible? NO!

Here’s what the quote you said claims- Again, it shoul;dn’t have to be pointed out, but apparently you fail to critically and objectively evaluate the info you wish to beleive in is being dishonest

“And finally, I just ran into a truly nice example that shows evolution of things that Behe flatly says are impossible “

BIG LIE JS- How abotu bringign some intellectually HONEST points to hte table eh? Not itnerested in your links ot sites liek Panda’sthumb which has exposed as liars time and time again, and as biased agendists wirth nothign but an ax to grind agaisnt ID.


150 posted on 01/21/2009 11:45:43 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-346 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson