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 ...
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.
#111
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
You don't bother reading much do you? You apparently just regurgitate godless talking points like a robot.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My religious beliefs are my own, thank you, but I would be interested in anything you can point to that would indicate “godlessness” in my posts.
I’ll repeat for your benefit: if your religious beliefs compel you to believe the earth is six thousand years old and the center of the solar system, that all life on the planet sprung forth fully formed within the six days of God’s creation, and that disease is caused by demonic possession, that is your business and I would never seek to disabuse you of your own faith.
What I do not wish to see happen, however, is our public school system emulate those of Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, and replace scientific education with religious instruction.
Uhhh you never made a point, you’re just full of the same tired strawmen, red herrings and failed miserable NEA tripe.
Yup, and for some odd reason they think no one notices all this.
Cults can really lean on people that way.
Could you please point out any examples of attacking Christianity and/or American values in this thread? Thanks.
You didn’t answer my question: how do you justify teaching creationism/ID as “science” in public schools, but not astrology?
Why is one acceptable, and the other (presumably) not?
That analogy is not much different than the one they scream against when it involves them and Hitler.
Do as I say, not as I do.
How quickly you forget.
Equating Christianity with fairy tales and islam.
Go back three posts.
Actually they don't even do that, they demand to control all things public and force you to take YOUR ball and go home AND pay for their failures too!
I have done no such thing. I do not equate Christianity with fairy tales, I merely point out that you are free to have whatever religious convictions you choose, whether those be mainstream Christian or something less contemporary.
And I do not equate Christianity with Islam, I merely point out (correctly) that if we were to replace scientific education with religious instruction (of any kind) we would be joining the company of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
You’re in the grip of your cult and you should get that looked into.
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.