Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Politicizing Science Education: A plague on both your houses
The Constitution Club ^ | 08-18-10 | Verite

Posted on 08/19/2010 1:19:28 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen

Documentary educational television would have us believe that the single greatest scientific achievement of the past millennium was Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many religious fundamentalists have serious issues with this assertion. Many legitimate scientists with both secular and religious perspectives do as well. Darwin himself recognized serious shortcomings with evolution. A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene. These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.

On the other side we have unscientific religious fundamentalists. These folks are willing to describe their search for proof of their scriptures as basic science. They study scripture and seek evidence to support what it says.

Both sides’ methods are troublingly reminiscent of case law: by carefully selecting your precedents or evidence one can prove anything. Mathematicians and philosophers long ago concluded that “proving” a general hypotheses about the real world is a logical impossibility. That is, no one can find every possible exception to any assertion about the real world.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationism; education; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2010 1:19:30 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
IMO, the best paragraph is this:

Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.

2 posted on 08/19/2010 1:35:16 PM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Serious problems here:

A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene.

Although the article tries to represent an unbiased tone, putting "scientist" in quotes shows the bias.

These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.

These folks didn't show up until well afer the theory became commonly accepted, had proven unassailable. It happens in all theories. We have lots of scientists working within the current models of quantum theory, general relativity, and a whole host of other theories, in addition to those scientists who work within the current model of natural selection.

The auhor forgets that natural selection is 150 years old, and that Darwin based his work on others who far preceded his own. The inspiration I find most interesting is that natural selection is basically the 18th Century work of Adam Smith applied to animal populations.

Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable

In two different ways. In science NO THEORY is provable. A scientific theory is only model that attempts to explain the phenomena we see. A successful theory that has beaten out the others means it is the one model that SO FAR best explains the phenomena. Examples of that are the atomic theory (yes, atoms are "just a theory"), the germ theory of disease (yes, germs are "just a theory" and initial postulates of the theory were indeed wrong), and natural selection. Meanwhile, creationism claims absolute truth and cannot be disproven within its model.

Those three scientific theories were initially controversial as they stepped on some religious toes. For some strange reason, creationists only still have a problem with natural selection these days. I guess they look just way too dumb saying germs don't cause disease.

3 posted on 08/19/2010 2:26:26 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.¨ --Richard Feynman
4 posted on 08/19/2010 3:33:35 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
IMO, the best paragraph is this:

Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.

Actually, I use the basic tenets of evolutionary theory all the time when I am thinking about my experiments. As far as the types of results I should be looking for, and how I should interpret what I see, the theory is highly predictive.

5 posted on 08/19/2010 4:49:23 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I don’t worry myself a great deal with this debate. To me, in my blissful ignorance, the basis of Darwin’s theory is survival of the fittest, not the origin of life. If I am correct in that, then man is at the top of the totem pole. His brain and use of tools, which he has greatly expanded, gives him dominance over all others with the possible exception of germs and bacteria. Even in that he is still far ahead of the game.

All this other environmental crap, like endangered species, is counter to Darwin’s theory on which they pretend to rely. In addition, that is what the Bible says, that man has dominance over the others. So, Darwin compliments the Bible rather than opposing it.

As far as God is concerned, proving God scientifically or philosophically is a fool’s errand. To prove God is to destroy God, by definition. A proof makes God finite and He is infinite. Case closed.


6 posted on 08/19/2010 4:51:28 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

This is interesting. Can you provide me an example?


7 posted on 08/19/2010 5:40:08 PM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
This is interesting. Can you provide me an example?

I'll try.

Right now, I am interested in finding a virus. The virus is present in many reptiles and mammals, and around a hundred variants of the virus exist in humans. Evolutionary theory tells me that parts of the virus change more than other parts, according to their function within the virus. If the part has a structural function, then it changes a lot (because quite a bit of amino acid variation can occur without drastically changing the structure). But, if the part has a mechanistic function--like an enzyme--then it is resistant to change (because a single amino acid change in the active site can disrupt or even abolish the function of an enzyme). So, since I want to find variants of the virus, some of which may not yet have been found--I am designing an assay to detect the active portions of the virus enzymes, not the structural areas.

8 posted on 08/19/2010 6:25:14 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
exDemMom,

Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?

However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.

I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?

9 posted on 08/19/2010 6:45:02 PM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
"Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions."

Science does not and has NEVER worked like that. First...observations of facts that are not explained by current scientific knowledge. Second....formulation of a hypothesis that explains both the old and new facts. Third....verification that further discovered facts do or do not support the hypothesis. If yes.....hypothesis is "promoted" to theory. If no....formulate new hypothesis.

Science ALWAYS works from the very specific to the general and NEVER the reverse, although it continues to be tested by explanation of further new observed facts. And there are other ways to "test" theories outside of lab experiments.

Nobody has any problem with the theory of plate tectonics, but no laboratory experiment has ever been done (or can be done) to prove or disprove it. But it has survived the tests of explaining newly discovered geologic facts quite nicely.

10 posted on 08/19/2010 6:49:29 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
You do a disservice to the author by only quoting the one sentence. What he says before this is "Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive.", which is the framework you describe.

Actually, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a huge step in general principles, and was confirmed by many different specific, testable predictions, such as the bending of light due to gravity, to the slowing of the decay particles as they accelerate to the speed of light, and to the slowing of clock due to the gravity of the earth.

11 posted on 08/19/2010 7:10:47 PM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
exDemMom,

Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?

However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.

I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?

Yes, your surmise is correct: mutations do happen at a fairly constant rate randomly throughout the virus genome, but survival of mutated viruses is not at all random. In a nutshell, that is a very simple illustration of the principle of evolutionary theory (i.e. "the fit survive").

In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring. The more time that passes, the more random mutations there are, so that after the passage of many generations, the "modern" species is quantifiably different than the "original" species. We will never see an example of, for instance, an animal with arms giving birth to an animal with wings, but we can find fossil evidence of animals whose arms became more and more wing-like over the course of thousands of years.

12 posted on 08/20/2010 12:21:22 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
"What he says before this is "Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive.", which is the framework you describe."

Garbage. Evolution has been wildly successful at predicting, in precisely the same way that plate tectonics has. More so, in actual fact, as there HAVE been laboratory experiments done to prove evolution. The author is an idiot who has let his religion overwhelm his science.

Evolution is how the world works. God set it up that way. The only people that have significant problems with that are the "biblical literalists" of Christianity.

13 posted on 08/20/2010 3:51:46 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
WW,

Random mutation, or micro-evolution, has been shown in the lab, but as far as I know, no lab experiment has shown macro-evolution. Also, the existence of micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. What laboratory experiment has proven macro-evolution? Can you cite one?

Thanks,
K51

14 posted on 08/20/2010 5:35:27 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
All this other environmental crap, like endangered species, is counter to Darwin’s theory on which they pretend to rely.

I've always thought that was funny. We're animals. We compete just like the rest. If we make a species go extinct then that is just nature at work, Darwin's theory writ large.

15 posted on 08/20/2010 7:28:04 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Sorry, the theory of evolution is both specific and predictive.

There was a testable prediction that a precursor to a tetra-pod would be found at a particular location in a strata of shoreline of a particular age, and they found them.

I predict that if I expose a bacterial culture to heat stress, the bacterial mutation rate will increase, increasing variation, and those variations that are more resistant to heat stress will increase within the population.

Scientists use the theory of evolution because it explains and predicts. They do not use the dogma of creationism because creationism has never produced anything of any real world value as far as use and application.

16 posted on 08/20/2010 7:34:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
“The only people that have significant problems with that are the “biblical literalists” of Christianity.”

There is also a large contingent of Muslim creationists.

Science suffers in their culture due to it.

17 posted on 08/20/2010 7:35:29 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Absolutely agree b/c you can never re-produce thousands let alone millions and billions of years in a lab.


18 posted on 08/20/2010 8:00:27 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You claim:

“In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between “macro” and “micro” evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring.”

However, any scientist true to his data will assert that there is a big difference between micro and macro.

Furthermore, the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, can accumulate and will eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Far more species are extinct than those that remain pointing to devolution.


19 posted on 08/20/2010 8:06:34 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Wonder Warthog; kosciusko51; exDemMom; antiRepublicrat

The main reason science suffers is when it makes claims as fact that are not substantiated by the data (i.e. Global Warming). Science will only be science when it strives for complete openess and honesty - it must ‘evolve’ away from gov/political funding to regain it’s reputation.

For all those skeptics and creationists out there please take a look at this site below authored by a former believer in evolutionary dogma. Yes micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact but a resounding NO to most all the other fanciful evolutionary claims.

From my links page:
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Also I have another link regarding the alleged scientific ages for the Earth and Universe. A good scientific theory does not ignore/disgard any/all non-supporting data.


20 posted on 08/20/2010 8:15:34 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

What she describes is the adaptability that exists and always has within that virus she’s examining. It has nothing to do with “evolution”, ie, one life form changing into another, more highly advanced organism containing more DNA information than its ancestor.


21 posted on 08/20/2010 8:19:41 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Science suffers in Muslim culture, but not due to a belief in Creation.

It suffers specifically because it is apostasy to “chain Allah” and expect the rules to be unchanging.

Expecting predictability of outcomes of experiments is “chaining Allah”. So you can see why this would effectively preclude any scientific advancement.


22 posted on 08/20/2010 8:22:30 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
“micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact”

Well nothing in science is “proven”, and it is a well accepted theory because it EXPLAINS and PREDICTS facts (while creationism is useless towards explaining and predicting).

What mechanism stops “micro” evolution from becoming “macro” evolution?

The rate of mutation we see is more than sufficient to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimps over some six million years.

Obviously you think there WAS no six million years to be had, but is that your only defense, not enough time?

What mechanism would stop a 2% genetic and 6% genomic change from accumulating within a species over six million years?

Where is there ANY evidence for this “devolution” you speak of? Can you point to a single species, in the wild or in the lab, that went extinct due to accumulation of detrimental mutations? Is this what killed the dinosaurs?

Is the dog a “de-evolved” wolf? They certainly seem to be at no loss as far as the abilities they were selected for. They sure do not seem “de-evolved” to me.

23 posted on 08/20/2010 8:23:41 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial

You're being kind, there. It would be a hard thing to do to come up with an example of a "beneficial" mutation. Besides, mutations get "repaired", ie, nullified, in most cases.

24 posted on 08/20/2010 8:24:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

bump


25 posted on 08/20/2010 8:25:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Beneficial mutations happen all the time. If I subject a bacterial culture to heat stress, the bacteria has a mechanism whereby, under stress, its mutation rate increases. Mutations that enable the bacteria to survive heat are now “beneficial” and accumulate through natural selection.

Now explain to me why, under your ideas of what is and isn't a beneficial mutation, why a bacteria would have a mechanism to INCREASE its mutation rate during stress?

Why would a bacterial population WITH this mechanism to increase its mutation rate during stress survive better than a bacterial population WITHOUT this mechanism?

By all means, impress me with the explanatory and predictive power of creationism ............... .................................................................... ................................................................ ...............

To quote Sean Connery “I'm waiting to be impressed.”

26 posted on 08/20/2010 8:31:01 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You’re confusing “mutation” with adaptation, probably on purpose, in order to justify your assumptions.

Unless you’re going to assert that there is an increase in DNA information due to “heat stress”...

The question is, was the information and ability to adapt already there? Or did an external source cause the mutation?

I know this argument is fruitless, because you assume what you’re trying to prove, but I’m not one to be ingracious.


27 posted on 08/20/2010 8:42:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
The main reason science suffers is when it makes claims as fact that are not substantiated by the data (i.e. Global Warming).

Global warming is a special case. It has been latched onto by various political powers early on and promoted beyond its merits. Long ago it was already hard to get research grants unless it was sure a scientist was going to support AGW because the governments and NGOs had already seen the power they could have in advancing AGW.

Natural Selection was formed in a hostile environment, where in a highly religious age claims of heresy and blasphemy abounded. It's proponents risked ridicule and shame, and even legal repercussions. Yet it survived on the merits, eventually becoming the dominant scientific theory in the field.

Intelligent Design is trying to pull a Global Warming. The proponents have plans to leverage political bodies, the courts and apologetics to try to force the belief to prominence, starting with the faithful who would believe it only because of their religious beliefs, regardless of scientific merit. They do not intend for ID to become dominant on its merits, and they do not even promote it for scientific reasons.

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

I've read this before. The author should be embarrassed.

28 posted on 08/20/2010 8:49:56 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrB
How does the bacteria “adapt” other than through mutation?

The heat resistant bacteria you develop through selective pressures and heat stress is different from the original bacteria in its DNA and the resulting proteins the DNA codes for that are more heat stable. Difference in DNA = mutation.

What mechanism are you suggesting allows the bacteria to “adapt” to become more heat stable? How do the proteins in the heat resistant bacteria become more stable at high temperature?

In reality, the “information” on how to make those proteins, as contained in DNA, changed. This is mutation.

Why would a bacteria under stress have a mechanism that INCREASES its mutation rate?

The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation provides an answer.

Creationism, as usual, provides nothing of any use.

29 posted on 08/20/2010 8:57:57 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

As usual, you arrive at your conclusions by assuming what you’re trying to prove.

good day


30 posted on 08/20/2010 9:03:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrB
No, I am not assuming that the difference between the heat resistant bacteria and the original bacteria is through DNA differences. That is known.

I am not assuming that these DNA differences are what result in a different protein that is more heat resistant. That is known.

I am not assuming that bacteria have a mechanism to increase their mutation rate during stress. That is known.

I AM assuming that you do not have any explanation for any of the above and that is why you are attempting to get out of displaying the supposed brilliant explanatory powers of creationism. BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRILLIANT EXPLANATORY POWERS OF CREATIONISM!

You have no answer for why a bacteria under stress would have a mechanism for increasing its mutation rate.

If flies in the face of everything you think you know about mutations.

So you cannot deal with it!

Good day!

31 posted on 08/20/2010 9:12:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
was confirmed by many different specific, testable predictions, such as the bending of light due to gravity, to the slowing of the decay particles as they accelerate to the speed of light, and to the slowing of clock due to the gravity of the earth.

Experiments enhanced the validity of General Relativity, but it has not been confirmed or "proven." Just as Relativity showed the limits of Netwonian physics, so has quantum theory shown the limits of Relativity. Knowledge continually changes.

32 posted on 08/20/2010 9:15:18 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
"Random mutation, or micro-evolution, has been shown in the lab, but as far as I know, no lab experiment has shown macro-evolution. Also, the existence of micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. What laboratory experiment has proven macro-evolution? Can you cite one?"

Fruit flies. Two genetic lines were interbred until they can no longer cross-breed, which is, by definition, "macro-evolution". But the mere fact that you make that argument shows your prejudices, because science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. That meme was sheer invention by the literal creationists.

33 posted on 08/20/2010 9:56:42 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; allmendream

All well and good except that those mutated fruit flies could not re-produce and they were still fruit flies. Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution means they would have to evolve into some new kind of organism. Never mind that the odds of any organism re-wiring the genetic code to re-produce something other than what they are is mathematically impossible. Even a measly 2-6% is a highly insurmountable number of ‘beneficial’ mutations for any organism to undergo - right AMD?


34 posted on 08/20/2010 10:15:45 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The pure-bred dogs contains DNA that is less viable than the wolf. Also it has been generally accepted that over 80% of all the different species to inhabit the earth are now extinct.


35 posted on 08/20/2010 10:20:24 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Wrong.

What mechanism is going to stop a 2% genetic change from accumulating in a population?

A human is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses makes perfectly functioning proteins.

A chimpanzee is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses is 98% the same as ours, and it makes perfectly functioning proteins.

Where along that 2% change do you see any insurmountable differences? Where does a perfectly viable human DNA sequence changing to a perfectly viable chimpanzee DNA sequence lead to a DNA sequence that doesn't work?

Are you suggesting that if the DNA is only 1% different it will not make a functioning protein, that it needs to be 2% different to work? And thus there is a “gap” that needs to be surmounted? Illogical and based upon absolutely nothing, but at least it is an actual testable claim, rare among creationists.

So.... what is this barrier you imagine that needs to be surmounted?

36 posted on 08/20/2010 10:24:37 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
“The pure-bred dogs contains DNA that is less viable than the wolf”

No, a dog and a wolf are both equally viable = able to live.

Moreover a dog is better adapted through selection of genetic traits towards its specific function.

Run a wolf in a greyhound race. Who wins?

Run a wolf in a dogsled race against huskies. Who wins?

Try to get a wolf to herd sheep as well as a herder. Who wins?

Try to get your wolf to dig a varmit out of a tunnel as well as a dachshund. Who wins?

Yes, the vast majority of all species that ever existed are now extinct. You think that they went extinct through mutation, but we did not? What protected us and every other species extant upon this Earth from this same ‘great plague of mutation caused extinction’ you propose?

This should be amusing!

37 posted on 08/20/2010 10:30:23 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
"All well and good except that those mutated fruit flies could not re-produce and they were still fruit flies."

Which is exactly the point. The individual lines could interbreed quite happily. The fact that not even sterile offspring of attempted crossbreeds occurred proved that those two lines of fruit flies are less closely related than (for instance) tigers and lions, or horses and jackasses. The fact that they still looked like fruit flies is irrelevant to the scientific point proved.

"Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution."

Yes, but the mechanisms were the same as the ones that act in nature, so it was an ideal laboratory proof of "macro" evolution.

38 posted on 08/20/2010 10:34:04 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

GW - yes it is a special case - a microcosm of how culture, peer-review and consensus can all be used to perpetrate a fraud on the public. Evolution has just been around a lot longer and spent less time under the ‘microscope’ of critical thinking.

NS - from a hostile environment? Wasn’t it a catholic monk who determined the science of natural selection and gene transfer. Hardly a hostile environment.

ID - while I do not agree w/ the wedge strategy I do see that everything in the universe shows intelligent design.
Scientific study is the application of logic or of trying to uncover the rules that govern the structure(s). Life and creation are way too intricate and inter-twined to be attributed to chance. Since ID is not the hot topic it once was I can only conclude you have an ulterior motive for bringing it up now.


39 posted on 08/20/2010 10:34:39 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
NS - from a hostile environment? Wasn’t it a catholic monk who determined the science of natural selection and gene transfer.

Mendel's working out genetics didn't run contrary to Creation. It only explained differences, as creationists would say today, "within kind."

I do see that everything in the universe shows intelligent design. ... Life and creation are way too intricate and inter-twined to be attributed to chance.

Those are both highly subjective opinions.

Since ID is not the hot topic it once was I can only conclude you have an ulterior motive for bringing it up now.

ID was just another attempt to put a scientific veneer on creationism. Most creation proponents had realized that putting the word "Science" after "Creation" wasn't getting many to buy that these religious beliefs were science.

40 posted on 08/20/2010 10:43:38 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Sorry but the wolf has more genetic viability than any dog breed out there. Surely you know that their DNA deviates less than 1% yet there are many many attributes in the dog’s DNA that have been turned-off and can not be reversed w/o much inter-breeding w/ the wolf. How about you take just 2 dachschunds and breed them back into wolves.

We do have mutations, all living things do, but the survivors obviously have not accumulated enough genetic drift to be driven to extinction. I’ll grant you that a few species have gone extinct due to negative changes in their selected environments but certainly not all.


41 posted on 08/20/2010 10:44:44 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

If you could just get past your bias against creation science you might begin to see that the hydroplate theory incorporates many more of the jigsaw pieces of natural history than does plate techtonics. Dr Brown’s theories encapsulate and explain many many more facts about nature and history than any other competing theories.


42 posted on 08/20/2010 10:49:55 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Evolution has just been around a lot longer and spent less time under the ‘microscope’ of critical thinking.

I missed that. What? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It has been around a lot longer and therefore has spent MORE time under the 'microscope' of critical thinking. Around longer time = more time, around shorter time = less time, not the reverse. Longer = more, shorter = less. Or am I missing something about the English language here? Anyway, the theory as it is today is quite a bit different than as first proposed due to over a century of critique and discovery. Germ theory is quite a bit different too. Successful theories tend to change over time because nobody gets it right from the beginning.

43 posted on 08/20/2010 10:50:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

You need to re-examine the results. The mutated flies were completely incapable of re-producing.


44 posted on 08/20/2010 10:52:07 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
It always comes down to the Public Schools, this is the holy grail for the leftist and the liberal.

They have used the force of government to impose their views of the most important things in life upon the children of other people.

The liberal on one hand will lie about their wish to undermine Christianity while on the other hand they will post a million newspaper articles, textbooks, movies, youtube videos and comments, websites, television show plots, revisionist histories, and legislate via the bench in order to attack and undermine the Christian faith and then brag about it on their most celebratory posts on leftwing sites.

If you love freedom and are assisting this trend, you are an enemy of American freedom and the country all of our parents intended to give us as our inheritance from them.

45 posted on 08/20/2010 10:53:07 AM PDT by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

If we had a tax break-down that showed how much of our tax dollars go to supporting evolutionary science and also how much usefullness it has produced then and only then would it receive the same scrutiny as GW.


46 posted on 08/20/2010 10:54:50 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
If you could just get past your bias against creation science

Of course I have a bias. I have read the literature and found it wanting, thus the bias. I have a bias against the miasma theory of disease, too. Miasma theory explains a lot, and its connection between sanitary conditions and disease is correct. Doesn't make it right.

47 posted on 08/20/2010 10:59:23 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
If we make a species go extinct then that is just nature at work, Darwin's theory writ large.

Doesn't mean we should try to make species go extinct or that we shouldn't try to prevent extinctions.

48 posted on 08/20/2010 11:00:28 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Can you define “genetic viability” for me? Seems like a term you just made up. Genetic variablity = dogs have more than wolves. Viability = ability to live dogs have just as much as wolves.

The notion that dogs are “de-evolved” wolves makes no sense in light of the fact that I can find a breed of dog that can beat a wolf in just about any test of physical ability you care to name. If something can be “de-evolved” and yet have MORE genetic variability, and yet be faster, stronger, smarter, a better digger, etc - then the term “de-evolved” means what exactly?

If you are positing accumulation of mutation as the main cause of extinction, what mechanism protected the species that are extant upon the Earth that failed to protect those that went extinct supposedly due to mutation?

Why did, for example, the dire wolf go extinct through mutation, but not the wolf? Why did dinosaurs die of mutations but not present day mammalian species?

And why would a bacteria have a mechanism to increase its mutation rate during stress if mutation just caused “De-evolution”?

Maybe because, like a dog from a wolf, what you call “de-evolution” means increased genetic diversity and increased abilities?

If so, maybe we can just drop the “de-”. It is evolution. There is no loss of viability, or ability, and an INCREASE in genetic diversity going from the wolf to dogs.

49 posted on 08/20/2010 11:09:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Doesn't mean we should try to make species go extinct or that we shouldn't try to prevent extinctions.

No, it's just fun to watch liberals squirm. They yell nature, nature, we must respect and get back to nature. Okay, guess what, nature involves extinction at the hands of other species. We try not to make things to extinct because we can think and act outside of normal animal survival nature.

50 posted on 08/20/2010 11:13:33 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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