How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#1  Postby DoctorE » Mar 03, 2011 7:14 pm

:shock:

Second antievolution bill in Tennessee February 19th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/second-ant ... see-006496

Antievolution legislation in Tennessee February 11th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolut ... see-006485

Antievolution legislation in New Mexico February 2nd, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolut ... ico-006469

Second antievolution bill in Oklahoma January 20th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-ant ... oma-006439

Antievolution legislation in Oklahoma January 19th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolut ... oma-006438

Antievolution legislation in Missouri January 14th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolut ... uri-006421

Antievolution legislation in Kentucky January 5th, 2011
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolut ... cky-006389
User avatar
DoctorE
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9674
Age: 54
Male

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#2  Postby Alan C » Mar 04, 2011 5:25 am

What fucking controversy? That grown adults can believe that this environment was created in 6 days, humans were made out of earth and this omnimultiguy got pissed and drowned the entire fucking planet in a fit of pique [among other foetid bollocks]?

:nono:
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 895
Age: 38
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#3  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 04, 2011 6:12 am

Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16986
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#4  Postby CharlieM » Mar 04, 2011 3:46 pm

Calilasseia:
Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.


Can you point to any place in any of these bills where its acceptance would prevent the teaching of evolution?

Casey Luskin about the debate in Texas, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html :
The reality, of course, is that NO leading Darwin-critics in Texas sought try to censor evolution. Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.


and:

Casey Luskin:
Leading Darwin-critics aren't seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught. They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution. As I explained in a recent article in Christian Science Monitor, they do this by labeling opposing viewpoints as religion:

Courts have uniformly found that creationism is a religious viewpoint and thus illegal to teach in public school science classes. By branding scientific views they dislike as "religion" or "creationism," the Darwin lobby scares educators from presenting contrary evidence or posing critical questions - a subtle but effective form of censorship.

The media fall prey to this tactic, resulting in articles that confuse those asking for scientific debate with those asking for the teaching of religion. And Darwin's defenders come off looking like heroes, not censors.

Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state - a good thing - and abusing it to promote censorship.



From NCSE themselves http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389 :

Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." But it is unclear whether teachers take advantage of the opportunity. The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."


So schools in Kentucky have a statute in place which already allows them to teach creationism, but it seems they choose not too. Why then would this bill suddenly promote creationism?


And what do the bills themselves say about teaching religion in science class?

Kentucky:
This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.


Oklahoma:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.


and:

Oklahoma:
The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.


New Mexico:
"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines."


Tennessee:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.



So why the insecurity? What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of? Too much close scrutiny, that's what! Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts. What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.

Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.

Regards,
CharlieM
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#5  Postby Paul G » Mar 04, 2011 3:50 pm

Hahaha! What?
User avatar
Paul G
 
Name: Beef Joint
Posts: 9836
Age: 32
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#6  Postby trubble76 » Mar 04, 2011 3:59 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Calilasseia:
Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.


Can you point to any place in any of these bills where its acceptance would prevent the teaching of evolution?

Casey Luskin about the debate in Texas, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html :
The reality, of course, is that NO leading Darwin-critics in Texas sought try to censor evolution. Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.


and:

Casey Luskin:
Leading Darwin-critics aren't seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught. They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution. As I explained in a recent article in Christian Science Monitor, they do this by labeling opposing viewpoints as religion:

Courts have uniformly found that creationism is a religious viewpoint and thus illegal to teach in public school science classes. By branding scientific views they dislike as "religion" or "creationism," the Darwin lobby scares educators from presenting contrary evidence or posing critical questions - a subtle but effective form of censorship.

The media fall prey to this tactic, resulting in articles that confuse those asking for scientific debate with those asking for the teaching of religion. And Darwin's defenders come off looking like heroes, not censors.

Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state - a good thing - and abusing it to promote censorship.



From NCSE themselves http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389 :

Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." But it is unclear whether teachers take advantage of the opportunity. The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."


So schools in Kentucky have a statute in place which already allows them to teach creationism, but it seems they choose not too. Why then would this bill suddenly promote creationism?


And what do the bills themselves say about teaching religion in science class?

Kentucky:
This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.


Oklahoma:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.


and:

Oklahoma:
The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.


New Mexico:
"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines."


Tennessee:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.



So why the insecurity? What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of? Too much close scrutiny, that's what! Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts. What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.

Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.

Regards,
CharlieM



Can you point to any active supporters of creationism that aren't religious? There are a group of alien-worshippers, I believe, but the figure is negligible. The answer is that creationism is a religious proposition, and one that is consistently shown up by reality. To teach it along side real science is to lend credence to superstitious mumbojumbo, it does NOT belong in science classes. EvNS is well-supported science, that is why it is taught in science classes, creationism belongs elsewhere.

How do you feel about the concept of Intelligent Falling being taught along side Gravitational Theory (it's only a theory, after all), or the idea of Directed Illness taught as an alternative to Germ Theory in hospitals? Perhaps we could offer religious alternatives to every single science?

I wonder, do you also think that scientists should try to force churches to permit the teaching of scientific fact after each sermon? Maybe a small piece on why water cannot turn to wine in a literal sense, or an analysis on why human feet are insufficient to walk on liquid water?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11055
Age: 37
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#7  Postby CharlieM » Mar 04, 2011 4:36 pm

PaulG, good argument!!! Hahahaha back.

trubble76, why would I want to point to creationists that aren't religious? And rather than read and respond to what my post said you choose to go off on some emotional rant about teaching creationism, which I agree should not be taught in science class.

Regards,
CharlieM
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#8  Postby Rumraket » Mar 04, 2011 8:35 pm

CharlieM wrote:So why the insecurity?

What insecurity? You mean the one you just made up in your mind?

CharlieM wrote:What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of?

Fundamentalist religious indoctrination, with good reason.

CharlieM wrote:Too much close scrutiny, that's what!

Made up.

CharlieM wrote:Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts.

I'd like to think that "virtually everyone" actually agreed with that but they don't. There's still plenty of ignorant people around with political power all too ready to lie to and leech on the uneducated and the credulous.

CharlieM wrote:What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.

First of all, this isn't being "more and more questioned". The level of questioning has remained the same, by the same people. The only change taking place is the label these people now use to describe themselves. They used to just call themselves creationists, now they call themselves ID proponents. It's still the same people though. And essentially the arguments have remained the same.

CharlieM wrote:Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.

Yeah we better give them the geocentrist "theory", along with the "theory" on white supremacy, in addition to the "controversy on the holocaust" and the potential powers of "healing crystals" etc. etc.

CharlieM wrote:Regards,
CharlieM

You're welcome.
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9557
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#9  Postby Rumraket » Mar 04, 2011 8:51 pm

Hey CharlieM, since you appear fond of quoting known liar and ID spokesperson Casey Luskin, could you please go and fetch some of that "evidence against evolution" he speaks of?

I have heard the term used a couple of times but I have yet to actually see something that met the criteria it purpoted to constitute. I feel compelled to state up front that the very idea of having "evidence against" an observed fact strikes me as rather oxymoronic. :whistle:

So if you would be so kind as to reproduce some of that evidence here, that would be awesome. :cheers:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9557
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#10  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 04, 2011 11:25 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Calilasseia:
Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.


Can you point to any place in any of these bills where its acceptance would prevent the teaching of evolution?


Someone obviously hasn't read the Wedge Strategy document, where the professional liars for doctrine at the Disinformation Institute clearly laid out their ground plan, and explicitly stated that their goal was to destroy valid, evidence-based science and replace it with a bastardised pastiche that was subservient to religious ideology. The "teach the controversy" mantra being peddled by these individuals is a part of that plan, namely, erect an entirely synthetic, manufactured "controversy" where none exists, peddle this lie as if it constituted established fact, and poison the minds of susceptible children against the valid science that refutes creationist lies.

CharlieM wrote:Casey Luskin about the debate in Texas, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html :
The reality, of course, is that NO leading Darwin-critics in Texas sought try to censor evolution.


Only because they don't yet think that they possess the power to do so. The moment they do, we'll very quickly see "teach the controversy" replaced by "enforce the orthodoxy".

CharlieM wrote:Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.


Only because prior case law such as the Dover Trial ruled that ID was unconstitutional, because it violated the Establishment Clause. If you think these people wouldn't drive evolution out of the classroom and replace it with mediaeval superstition if they had won the Dover Trial, you really do need to study these people and their duplicity properly.

CharlieM wrote:and:

Casey Luskin:
Leading Darwin-critics aren't seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.


Nothing but a polished lie. Luskin was one of the people who constructed the Wedge Strategy.

The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught.


Ah, the familiar and specious erection of the canard that teaching valid, evidence-based science instead of mythological bullshit is a "conspiracy". Whilst the peddlers of this lie hope no one will notice their conspiring on a grand scale.

The reason that scientists seek to have the current Modern Synthesis taught in schools is because REALITY supports that theory, and doesn't support fatuous assertions that a magic man is needed to produce the biosphere. How many of the 2,000+ scientific papers on the subject in my collection do I have to bring here in order to establish this?

They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.


This is a lie, plain and simple. Those of us who paid attention in science classes know this to be the case, because there does not exist any science that "challenges" the Modern Synthesis. The only "challenge" that exists is a duplicitous ideological one. Of course, you could always present some scientific papers here that establish the need for a magic man, but somehow, I think you'll have a hard time doing that.

As I explained in a recent article in Christian Science Monitor, they do this by labeling opposing viewpoints as religion:


And exactly how is "I can't imagine how a natural process could achieve X, therefore no natural process can achieve X, therefore Magic Man did it" not religion in any logically consistent universe? Because that is a summary of the IDist position.

Courts have uniformly found that creationism is a religious viewpoint and thus illegal to teach in public school science classes.


And how did those courts arrive at this? Oh, that's right, by examining the real world evidence supporting that view. Of which the Wedge Strategy is only a part.

By branding scientific views they dislike as "religion" or "creationism," the Darwin lobby scares educators from presenting contrary evidence or posing critical questions - a subtle but effective form of censorship.


Poppycock. The simple fact remains that ID is nothing more than a political lobbying campaign on behalf of mythology. Recognising this basic fact isn't "censorship", this is merely another lie peddled by the professional stormtroopers for ideology.

The media fall prey to this tactic, resulting in articles that confuse those asking for scientific debate with those asking for the teaching of religion.


Exactly how is presenting the observed fact that so-called "critics" of the Modern Synthesis are virtually all motivated by religious presuppositions "confusing"?

And Darwin's defenders come off looking like heroes, not censors.


That's because they aren't censors. Once again, learn this basic lesson: science classes exist to teach valid science, not mythological bullshit. There exist classes for teaching about mythology. But the ideological stormtroopers for creationist/IDist doctrine aren't satisfied with that, because relegating their blind assertions and canards to classes on comparative mythology, where they properly belong, means that pupils are taught properly about the nonsensical nature of said blind assertions and canards. That's the last thing that Luskin et al want.

Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state - a good thing - and abusing it to promote censorship.


Bollocks. This is another manifest lie. What part of "the First amendment is there to keep ALL mythologies out of science classes, not just the pet mythology of creationists" is difficult to comprehend here?

The simple fact is that ID is nothing more than creationism in a stolen lab coat. It pretends to be "scientific" whilst offering NO real research, NO proper, rigorous empirical work, and NO properly testable theoretical underpinnings. When the assertions of these people ARE testable, it's not because the erectors thereof want those assertions to be testable, because when those assertions are tested by real scientists, they are found to be worthless, because REALITY says they are worthless.

CharlieM wrote:
From NCSE themselves http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389 :

Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." But it is unclear whether teachers take advantage of the opportunity. The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."


This might have something to do with the fact that those school districts don't want to waste money on Dover Trial II.

So schools in Kentucky have a statute in place which already allows them to teach creationism, but it seems they choose not too. Why then would this bill suddenly promote creationism?


Oh, you need the baby steps here? Allow me.

The game plan is simple. One, erect a specious, entirely manufactured "controversy", pretend that this "controversy" is extant amongst real scientists when it manifestly isn't, and use this to try and suggest that the vast mountains of valid scientific evidence are somehow "mistaken". Two, once this step is complete, present the so-called "alternative" as if it constitutes established fact, and fill the minds of children with ideology before they are in a position to recognise that they are being lied to. Three, once this step is complete, press the misinformed children into service in later life as yet more ideological stromtroopers for doctrine.

If you think this strategy isn't well known, then once again, you need to pay attention to what creationists are up to.

And what do the bills themselves say about teaching religion in science class?


Oh, do go on ...

Kentucky:
This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.


This is merely an indication of the way in which creationists evolve under selection pressure. Having failed with their previous skulduggery, they're now trying the "intellectual freedom" angle, whilst their actual intent is the exact opposite. Do you honestly think that, for example, Islamic or Hindu creation myths would get a look in if creationism was allowed in science classes? I contend that anyone entertaining this notion is hopelessly naive.

Oklahoma:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.


Once again, a smokescreen to hide the true intent. Which, as I've explained already, was made manifest in the Wedge Strategy document.

CharlieM wrote:and:

Oklahoma:
The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.


Another smokescreen made necessary by the Dover Trial. Once again, creationists demonstrate that they are evolving with the environment. Interesting that their behaviour provides yet more evidence for evolutionary mechanisms, it is not?

Once again, this is merely a carefully constructed piece of high-sounding legal puffery, erected with the intent to deceive. "Intellectual freedom" and "academic freedom" are fast becoming adopted as creationist buzzphrases, the intention clearly being to appeal to that peculiar American sensibility over the word "freedom", whilst in reality paving the way for the introduction of creationist propaganda, followed by imposition thereof once creationists think they are safe to do so.

New Mexico:
"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines."


Merely a slippery way of saying "feel free to push creationist ideology". See my above paragraph.

Tennessee:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.


Does the appearance of a similar pattern of phrasing in these bills not arouse suspicion? Once more I smell the redolent odour of "cdesign proponentsists".

CharlieM wrote:So why the insecurity?


Your synthetic attempt to paint concern over the manifest duplicity of creationists, and their well-documented ideological war against science, as "insecurity" fails miserably. The simple fact remains that creationists have been waging an ideological war against any science that fails to genuflect before mythology for at least 40 years. The body of evidence for this is overwhelming. What I am concerned about is the fact that ruthless, ideologically motivated propagandists are using their access to money and political connections to pervert and corrupt science teaching, in order to kill off any science that doesn't allow itself to be enslaved by religion. Anyone who doubts that this is the case obviously hasn't read the Wedge Strategy document, where the ideological stormtroopers themselves state this explicitly.

CharlieM wrote:What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of?


Ideological duplicity and skulduggery on the part of anti-science demagogues. Next?

CharlieM wrote:Too much close scrutiny, that's what!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on!

Who do you think are the people who have been subjecting the hypotheses of evolutionary biology to proper scrutiny? The evolutionary biologists themselves, that's who. Indeed, one amongst their number, J. B. S. Haldane, gave a classic example of the sort of thinking that has been a staple part of evolutionary biology and evolutionary palaeontology for decades. When asked what sort of evidence would constitute a falsification of evolutionary theory, he tersely growled in response, in his own inimitable manner, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian". Evolutionary biologists have known for decades what categories of real world evidence would falsify their theories, and, far from the caricature erected by creationists, which duplicitously defames those scientists by suggesting they are "suppressing" any such evidence, those scientists have gone looking for it themselves. Not least because, any real scientist who does alight upon a real world evidential falsification of evolutionary theory is going to be headline news overnight. The science journals are going to be falling over themselves in the rush to print his findings first. Falsifying an extant paradigm, or establishing the validity of a new paradigm, is the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of. Anyone who doesn't understand this elementary concept really hasn't paid attention in science classes.

If you want examples of how this elementary concept applies for real, allow me to present:

[1] Dr Barry Marshall. Barry Marshall presented the theory that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, and in doing so directly confronted the conventional wisdom of surgeons. Result? Dr Marshall received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2005. His article in the Medical Journal of Australia in which he presented his thesis is one of the most cited articles in that journal's history.

[2] Stanley Prusiner. Stanley Prusiner hypothesised that it was possible for proteins to exist that were capable of replicating without a nucleic acid intermediary, in direct contradiction of what used to be termed "the central dogma of molecular biology". Result? He received the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 1994, and the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1997. Moreover, he not only established that such proteins existed, but established that they were the cause of serious neurodegenerative disease in mammals including humans.

[3] Lynn Margulis. Lynn Margulis hypothesised that eukaryotic cells evolved as a result of the development of a mutualist relationship between ancestral prokaryotes (the endosymbiont hypothesis). Result? Her theory is now a standard part of mainstream science, and she was awarded the National Medal of Science in the USA in 1999. The Library of Congress has announced that it will permanently archive her papers, she was awarded the Proctor Prize For Scientific Achievement in 1999, and has been inducted into the World Academy of Art And Science. Incidentally, she spent 30 years achieving this end result, which gives an indication of how hard she laboured at the task.

The reasons that the careers of these people flourished, and that two of them won Nobel Prizes?

Simple. They engaged in genuine scientific research. They pursued rigorous methodologies. They rolled up their sleeves, did the hard work, provided the evidence that convinced other scientists that they were right, and in doing so advanced scientific progress.

What characterises the above individuals is the following:

[1] They asked difficult questions, including questions that were controversial in their respective fields at the time;

[2] They laboured diligently to provide the evidence from observational reality to support their hypotheses;

[3] They demonstrated that the evidence they presented was capable of surviving the most intense critical scrutiny that other scientists could bring to bear, including scientists who opposed their ideas.

Creationists and IDists want to bypass all of this. They want their unsupported assertions to be granted special privileges and treated as if they were rigorously established results from observational reality, when they are nothing of the sort. Well science doesn't hand out privileges like that to people who don't earn them. So, the answer is simple. Creationists and IDists can get off their backsides, engage in real research, devise testable hypotheses and establish that those hypotheses are evidentially supported. Because if they don't do that, they are not engaging in genuine scientific activity and their ideas do not deserve to be called "scientific", no matter how much they dress those ideas up in a stolen lab coat.

CharlieM wrote:Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts. What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.


Oh really? And which actual scientific papers erect these questions, may I ask? Only in the 2,000 or so scientific papers I have in my collection, what I keep seeing is empirical demonstrations that mutation plus selection can deliver the goods. How many of these do you want me to bring here?

Indeed, this brings me neatly onto another of those inconvenient facts that creationists hope no one will notice, namely that if creationist assertions were supported by REALITY, then scientists would have integrated them into their theories, and creationist assertions would be part of mainstream science. The reason they are NOT part of mainstream science is because REALITY SAYS THAT CREATIONIST ASSERTIONS ARE WRONG. It's that simple. Only the ideological stormtroopers for doctrine won't learn to live with this.

CharlieM wrote:Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.


Excuse me, but the reason children are in school in the first place is in order to learn how to do this. Because this is a skill that requires assiduous cultivation. Bombarding them with propaganda for an ideology before they have learned to distinguish evidentially supported postulates from unsupported blind assertions does NOT achieve the goal of cultivating proper critical thinking. Plus, evolution is NOT a matter of "belief", this is merely another creationist lie, and we KNOW it is another creationist lie, courtesy of the vast mountains of real world evidence supporting evolutionary hypotheses, which is the reason why those hypotheses have become elevated to the status of a theory. I suggest you master this elementary concept quickly.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16986
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#11  Postby Paul G » Mar 04, 2011 11:28 pm

I just don't get why someone would come on to a well established forum and try to lie like this. It's beyond shameful. What on earth did you expect to happen CharlieM?

The mind boggles.
User avatar
Paul G
 
Name: Beef Joint
Posts: 9836
Age: 32
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#12  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Mar 04, 2011 11:33 pm

CharlieM wrote:Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.


The antithesis of education. Let the kids think whatever the fuck they want to think.
"Infinite loop?! I don't have time for that!" - Bender Bending Rodríguez
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 8972
Age: 47
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#13  Postby CharlieM » Mar 05, 2011 12:27 am

Rumraket:
Hey CharlieM, since you appear fond of quoting known liar and ID spokesperson Casey Luskin, could you please go and fetch some of that "evidence against evolution" he speaks of?

I have heard the term used a couple of times but I have yet to actually see something that met the criteria it purpoted to constitute. I feel compelled to state up front that the very idea of having "evidence against" an observed fact strikes me as rather oxymoronic. :whistle:



That's why I don't look for evidence against evolution. Why? Because I believe in evolution. But I see lots of evidence that casts doubt on the prevailing neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.

for example:

Ramray Bhat:
...we have the first really coherent framework to explain the origination and evolution of body plans and organ forms within a short evolutionary period, known as the Cambrian explosion.

...This framework also solves the Molecular Homology-Analogy paradox - why same/similar sets of genes are employed to build functionally or structurally similar organ forms in widely divergent organisms.

All of these are inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the classical neo-Darwinian model. We accommodate the role of natural selection in our framework mainly to lock the already-emerged but immensely plastic forms into place, and to render them robust



Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini:
when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, inexpressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?



To save the Darwinian explanation of blindsnake evolution it has been postulated that these burrowing animals crossed the Atlantic on rafts of vegetation. Observations are made and unlikely explanations are proposed to align with the theory. This is not the way science should work.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330210938.htm

Floating across oceans seems an unlikely mechanism for a burrowing animal to spread to new continents, but there is a second instance of ocean crossing by blindsnakes among the groups left on West Gondwana: West Gondwana broke up about 100 million years ago, making Africa and South America separate continents, but the genetic split between African and South American blindsnakes occurred only at about 63 million years ago. This finding shows that blindsnakes probably were confined to Africa when West Gondwana broke up and only later traveled to South America -- and still later to the West Indies -- by floating across the Atlantic from east to west.

This journey has rarely been documented. Only six or seven other vertebrates are thought to have crossed the Atlantic in a westward direction. However, the crossing would have taken no more than six months and might not have been too difficult for blindsnakes, which have a relatively low need for food and may have been floating on vegetation rafts along with their insect prey.

"Some scientists have argued that oceanic dispersal is an unlikely way for burrowing organisms to become distributed around the world," observes Hedges. "Our data now reinforce the message that such 'unlikely' events nonetheless happened in evolutionary history."



After the structure of DNA was fathomed, neo-Darwinists predicted a simple scenario. Linear progression from lengths of DNA to proteins to organisms. Sequencing the human genome would reveal the secrets of our evolution. Not so.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html

The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. Erika Check Hayden asks if there's a way to make life simpler.

“When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”


Further refutation:

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. - The Myths of Human Evolution

Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.


"Clever cells"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm

In a paper featured this week on the cover of the journal Science, they describe a new technology called Hi-C and apply it to answer the thorny question of how each of our cells stows some three billion base pairs of DNA while maintaining access to functionally crucial segments. The paper comes from a team led by scientists at Harvard University, the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, University of Massachusetts Medical School, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We've long known that on a small scale, DNA is a double helix," says co-first author Erez Lieberman-Aiden, a graduate student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology and a researcher at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and in the laboratory of Eric Lander at the Broad Institute. "But if the double helix didn't fold further, the genome in each cell would be two meters long. Scientists have not really understood how the double helix folds to fit into the nucleus of a human cell, which is only about a hundredth of a millimeter in diameter. This new approach enabled us to probe exactly that question."

The researchers report two striking findings. First, the human genome is organized into two separate compartments, keeping active genes separate and accessible while sequestering unused DNA in a denser storage compartment. Chromosomes snake in and out of the two compartments repeatedly as their DNA alternates between active, gene-rich and inactive, gene-poor stretches.

"Cells cleverly separate the most active genes into their own special neighborhood, to make it easier for proteins and other regulators to reach them," says Job Dekker, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMass Medical School and a senior author of the Science paper.

Second, at a finer scale, the genome adopts an unusual organization known in mathematics as a "fractal." The specific architecture the scientists found, called a "fractal globule," enables the cell to pack DNA incredibly tightly -- the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication.



Molecular convergence was not something neo-Darwinists anticipated but no matter how inconceivable they have to postulate it to keep their theory alive.

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/598BIO/498BIOonline-essays/hw2/files/HW2-Welander.pdf

A recent study by Mark Collard and Bernard Wood finds several discrepancies between morphological and molecular phylogenies for extant higher primates



and


http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2810%2900128-9?switch=standard

Abstract

Convergent phenotypes provide extremely valuable systems for studying the genetics of new adaptations. Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages. Together, these different examples of genetic convergence suggest that molecular evolution is in some cases strongly constrained by a combination of limited genetic material suitable for new functions and a restricted number of substitutions that can confer specific enzymatic properties. We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the evolvability of complex organismal traits.


and

Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular phylogenies become functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1999): 177-178.
...the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting. (p. 177)


To name but a few pieces of evidence.

Regards,
CharlieM
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#14  Postby Shrunk » Mar 05, 2011 12:43 am

CharlieM seems to think those antievolution bills are all about making sure that students understand that there remain minor aspects of evolutionary theory for which there remain some scientific disagreement about whether neo-Darwinian explanations are the best. That these bills have nothing to do with fostering doubts over the indisputable facts upon which evolutionary theory rests, such as universal common descent.

CharlieM is dreaming in technicolour.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19759
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#15  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 05, 2011 1:25 am

With respect to the first of those "quotes" (how propagandists for creationism love their quotes, or should that be quote mines?) ...

Ramray Bhat:
...we have the first really coherent framework to explain the origination and evolution of body plans and organ forms within a short evolutionary period, known as the Cambrian explosion.

...This framework also solves the Molecular Homology-Analogy paradox - why same/similar sets of genes are employed to build functionally or structurally similar organ forms in widely divergent organisms.

All of these are inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the classical neo-Darwinian model. We accommodate the role of natural selection in our framework mainly to lock the already-emerged but immensely plastic forms into place, and to render them robust


Let's take a look at the actual paper, shall we? Namely:

Dynamical Patterning Modules: Physico-Genetic Determinants Of Morphological Development And Evolution by Stewart A. Newman and Ramray Bhat, Physical Biology, 5: 1-15 (9th April 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Newman & Bhat, 2008 wrote:Abstract

The shapes and forms of multicellular organisms arise by the generation of new cell states and types and changes in the numbers and rearrangements of the various kinds of cells. While morphogenesis and pattern formation in all animal species are widely recognized to be mediated by the gene products of an evolutionarily conserved ‘developmental-genetic toolkit’, the link between these molecular players and the physics underlying these processes has been generally ignored. This paper introduces the concept of ‘dynamical patterning modules’ (DPMs), units consisting of one or more products of the ‘toolkit’ genes that mobilize physical processes characteristic of chemically and mechanically excitable meso- to macroscopic systems such as cell aggregates: cohesion, viscoelasticity, diffusion, spatiotemporal heterogeneity based on lateral inhibition and multistable and oscillatory dynamics. We suggest that ancient toolkit gene products, most predating the emergence of multicellularity, assumed novel morphogenetic functions due to change in the scale and context inherent to multicellularity. We show that DPMs, acting individually and in concert with each other, constitute a ‘pattern language’ capable of generating all metazoan body plans and organ forms. The physical dimension of developmental causation implies that multicellular forms during the explosive radiation of animal body plans in the middle Cambrian, approximately 530 million years ago, could have explored an extensive morphospace without concomitant genotypic change or selection for adaptation. The morphologically plastic body plans and organ forms generated by DPMs, and their ontogenetic trajectories, would subsequently have been stabilized and consolidated by natural selection and genetic drift. This perspective also solves the apparent ‘molecular homology-analogy paradox’, whereby widely divergent modern animal types utilize the same molecular toolkit during development by proposing, in contrast to the Neo-Darwinian principle, that phenotypic disparity early in evolution occurred in advance of, rather than closely tracked, genotypic change.


Oh look. What the authors of this paper are saying, is that one specific hypothesis about the origin of body plans is falsified by their results. However, even from the abstract, it is clear to me that they might not understand as much about the Modern Synthesis as they think, because last time I checked the relevant scientific papers, phenotypic diversity was considered by evolutionary biologists to be a product of genotypic change, not something that occurred "in advance" thereof. Methinks once again, that hyperbolic claims about the Modern Synthesis being "in crisis" are woefully premature.

Plus, the authors explicitly state in the above abstract, that natural selection and genetic drift, which are both integral parts of the Modern Synthesis, would have consolidated the products of their process, and consequently, they are not "casting doubt upon the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy", rather, they are extending the remit of the Modern Synthesis by adding a new process to the mix. There is a difference, though I don't expect propagandists for mythology to understand this.

One tell tale paragraph from that paper underpins the authors' lack of understanding about what the Modern Synthesis actually says, which makes me wonder how it passed peer review without editing changes being suggested - so much for the "conspiracy to enforce Darwinism". The paragraph in question is this:

Newman & Bhat, 2008 wrote:This is not what would have been predicted by the standard model for evolutionary change—the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. In that model, where a fairly straightforward relationship between genotypic and phenotypic change is assumed, the engine of evolution is change (under natural selection) in the populational frequency of genes with small effects on the phenotype. Morphological evolution should therefore be gradual, rather than abrupt, as seen in the early metazoa.


First of all, the assertion "a fairly straightforward relationship between genotypic and phenotypic change is assumed" is plain, flat wrong, as anyone who has been reading papers in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo for short) will readily understand. The research literature in evo-devo is littered with instances of complex chains of signal transduction mechanisms being elucidated, and workers in the field have known for at least two decades to my knowledge, and possibly even longer, that "a fairly straightforward relationship between genotypic and phenotypic change" is NOT what the hard evidence from reality is delivering. Which once again makes me wonder how this paper passed peer review.

As for the assertion "Morphological evolution should therefore be gradual [according to the Modern Synthesis], rather than abrupt", this once again smells highly suspicious, not least because instances of major evolutionary change taking place in relatively short time frames are extant and voluminous in the evolutionary biology literature. This includes experiments on incipient speciation, which in the case of Dobzhansky's 1971 paper on Drosophila pseudoobscura, took place in just five years. Now, since the Cambrian radiation is hypothesised in the literature to have taken a good deal longer than five years, indeed, one paper in my collection cites a time span of 18 to 23 million years for this process, first of all, the idea that this was an "abrupt" process is at best a naive simplification, and at worst an outright canard, one that should not be appearing in a proper scientific paper. If I had reviewed this paper, I would have sent it back with a raft of corrections just for this one paragraph alone.

Then we have the following paragraph, namely:

Newman & Bhat, 2008 wrote:The discrepancies of these findings from the predictions of the standard model, when probed deeper, are even more serious. ]Since evolutionary change supposedly tracks genetic change, it would be expected that the genes that mediate developmental morphogenesis and pattern formation would have changed dramatically during origination of the disparate metazoan body plans. But this is also not the case. The genes of the ‘developmental-genetic toolkit’ are highly conserved among all metazoan phyla. In fact the proteins specified by these genes have changed so little during the more than half-billion years since the common ancestor of chordates and arthropods was extant, that their coding sequences will often function in development when swapped between the embryos of mice and fruit flies (see, e.g., Gehring (2002)).


First of all, the part highlighted in blue above directly contradicts their assertion at the end of the abstract, which again is a sign of sloppy, non-rigorous thinking, and once again leads me to wonder how this paper passed peer review without being sent back for a serious re-write. Second, the assertion highlighted in green was never a part of the Modern Synthesis. Indeed, the Modern Synthesis never erected assertions about the relationship between genotype and phenotpye, because, wait for it, this is an active area of research for evo-devo researchers. They are in the business of determining the real mechanisms that connect genotype to phenotype, courtesy of empirical research, about which I shall say more that is relevant in a moment. Because, wait for it, the part highlighted in red cites a research paper by Walter J. Gehrig that is intimately connected with a research paper in my collection on eye evolution, that, like every other paper of the same variety, never erected the assertion highlighted in green above. Indeed, conservation of bauplan genes is one of the extant hypotheses of the Modern Synthesis, and how the authors of this paper could have failed to know this escapes me at this juncture.

So already, this paper contains some serious deficiencies that even an elementary literature search would have remedied. Perhaps they were so keen to rush their findings to print, that they failed to apply due rigour to some of their more florid speculations.

The next paragraph is also instructive, viz:

Newman & Bhat, 2008 wrote:These observations present the following puzzle: how did large-scale morphological evolution take place so rapidly without much change in the genes specifying the proteins that mediate development? There are two possible answers: (i) unusually intense selection on regions of DNA that do not encode proteins (e.g., the regulatory regions of the genes) led to extremely rapid, but still incremental, diversification of form during a narrow period of time at the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary; and (ii) non-genetic/epigenetic determinants were responsible for generating many different organismal forms during that period, with genetic change occurring after this rapid episode of diversification. Scenario (i) underlies the analysis of many articles in what may be called the ‘Neo-Neo-Darwinian’ mode, and is well summarized in a recent book by Carroll (2005). Scenario (ii), which we favor, proposes that early multicellular forms were subject to the action at the mesoscopic scale of physical processes characteristic of viscoelastic and chemically excitable matter, and thus assumed the three-dimensional structures and patterns generic to these materials (Newman et al 2006). We will describe this latter view in what follows. In doing so, we will present evidence in support of the idea that molecular functionalities that evolved to serve unicellular life inescapably took on new morphogenetic roles in the new physical environment and larger spatial scale entailed by the transition to multicellularity.


First, the part highlighted in blue testifies to the fact that the authors appear not to have read much, if any, of the extant evo-devo literature. Because, as I've stated above, that literature contains papers documenting empirical research aimed at elucidating the underlying mechanisms. What do the authors of this paper think that evo-devo biologists are doing, sitting in the rest room playing poker?

Second, the part highlighted in green is already being investigated in the evo-devo literature. The hilarious part being that the authors of this paper cite relevant works in the literature in their list of citations at the end of the paper, yet apparently do not recognise that these prior papers are documenting precisely the sort of research into epigenetic mechanisms that they claim here to be advancing. Anyone who thinks that research into epigenetics has nothing to do with evolutionary biology really does need to sit down with a couple of dozen papers and learn otherwise. Indeed, the authors of this paper make several references to such processes as signal transduction (which is a classic epigenetic process) and Turing morphogenesis, which again is a staple part of evo-devo research - I have enough papers on Turing morphogenesis in butterflies alone telling me this, let alone any other clade of organisms.

So, how does this paper "cast doubt" upon the Modern Synthesis again, given that it merely explores a research area that is already a part of evo-devo research?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16986
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#16  Postby Robert Byers » Mar 05, 2011 8:39 am

Good news and more to come.
It shouldn't have to be that aggressive legislation must be made. however there is a state censorship going on. So the state must be used against the state.
It shows how opposition is growing and being mobilized against the censorship and error.
In time organized creationism will demand and work to overthrow the present structure against equity in conclusions of great contentions in the classroom.
The activity is frustrated only by ideas that there are solid legal prohibitions.
In fact there are not any good ones and simply more cases better need only be brought forward.
Evolution needs state defence because its unpersuasive to most people once they can weigh the issue.
Robert Byers
 
Name: Robert Byers
Posts: 325

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#17  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2011 8:40 am

CharlieM wrote:http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2810%2900128-9?switch=standard

Abstract

Convergent phenotypes provide extremely valuable systems for studying the genetics of new adaptations. Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages. Together, these different examples of genetic convergence suggest that molecular evolution is in some cases strongly constrained by a combination of limited genetic material suitable for new functions and a restricted number of substitutions that can confer specific enzymatic properties. We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the evolvability of complex organismal traits.

Nothing in this abstract argues against evolution. The paper is not free so I can't verify it's contents.

CharlieM wrote:Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular phylogenies become functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1999): 177-178.
...the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting. (p. 177)

Yeah?
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/do ... etic-trees
Nope.
The authors are talking about a review paper by Michael Lee (Lee MSY, 1999 Trends Ecol Evol 14:177-178), in which he refers to data obtained on one of the proteins involved in the respiratory chain in mitochondria, cytochrome b. The figure below shows the tree as presented in Lee's review paper:
Cytochrome b phylogenetic tree: from Lee, (1999) Trends Ecol Evol 14:177-178

The phylogenetic inconsistency here is the misplacement of a single branch, that of tarsiers (a primitive group of primates), as if they had separated from other primates before cats and fin-back whales. Actually, the data in the original publication (see figure below, Andrews et al. 1998 "Accelerated Evolution of Cytochrome b in Simian Primates: Adaptive Evolution in Concert with Other Mitochondrial Proteins?" J Mol Evol. 47:249–257) gives a slightly different picture, namely that the analysis of cytochrome b sequence is statistically incapable of resolving the phylogenetic relationship of most of the species in the tree (the numbers in the figure represent a measure of the statistical confidence in each branch of the tree, and numbers below 30 generally indicate lower confidence; the statistically robust values are underlined). In other words, cytochrome b is simply not a good protein to choose for constructing the evolutionary tree of these species. But why is that?

Cytochrome b phylogenetic tree: from Andrews et al., 1998; adapted to match layout and nomenclature in Lee, 1999 (see prevoius figure)
Both the Andrews and Lee papers suggested, based on other data, that the phylogenetic incongruence in this tree was caused by cytochrome b and other respiratory chain proteins having evolved much faster in some primate lineages compared to other mammals, possibly following unique selective pressures. As mentioned above, both accelerated and adaptive evolution can cause errors in phylogenetic tree reconstruction, masking or enhancing the similarities of related genes, depending on the circumstances. And indeed, in more recent years the accelerated adaptive evolution of respiratory chain proteins in monkeys and apes (but not tarsiers and lemurs) has been extensively confirmed (see for instance Grossman LI, et al. 2004 "Accelerated evolution of the electron transport chain in anthropoid primates." Trends Genet. 20:578-585). Thus, the inconsistency in the cytochrome b tree, rather than highlighting hopeless phylogenetic confusion as alleged in Explore Evolution, is the result of real biological and evolutionary processes. The existence of this extensive literature offers opportunities for an inquiry-based lesson on molecular evolution and evolutionary processes. Instead of offering that lesson, the supposedly inquiry-based Explore Evolution throws up its hands in confusion at any sign of difficulty.

Although molecular phylogenetic tree inconsistencies are hardly a fundamental theoretical concern for evolutionary biology, if persistent they could still cause practical problems in assessing certain evolutionary relationships. However, a number of new approaches have recently emerged that address these difficulties. These methods include the combination of large sets of sequence information from genomic databases, as well as the use of genetic features, such as large-scale structural changes or the mapping of mobile genetic elements, that are less prone to convergence and selection-related artifacts. For a thorough discussion of the potential of these approaches, see Lokas A and Carroll SB, (2006) "Bushes in the Tree of Life" PLoS Biol 4:e352.


Regarding this one:
CharlieM wrote:http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/598BIO/498BIOonline-essays/hw2/files/HW2-Welander.pdf

Would you mind quoting me where the evidence against evolution is to be found?

CharlieM wrote:After the structure of DNA was fathomed, neo-Darwinists predicted a simple scenario. Linear progression from lengths of DNA to proteins to organisms. Sequencing the human genome would reveal the secrets of our evolution. Not so.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html

The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. Erika Check Hayden asks if there's a way to make life simpler.

“When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”

None of which is evidence against evolution.

CharlieM wrote:Further refutation:
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. - The Myths of Human Evolution

Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

How nice of you to quotemine Eldredge and Tattersall. Evolution wasn't actually refuted in that book, but the authors present the puncuated equilibria hypothesis.

CharlieM wrote:"Clever cells"

Not so clever after all since no evidence against evolution is presented therein.

CharlieM wrote:To save the Darwinian explanation of blindsnake evolution it has been postulated that these burrowing animals crossed the Atlantic on rafts of vegetation. Observations are made and unlikely explanations are proposed to align with the theory. This is not the way science should work.

Wait, where is the actual evidence again evolution here? The event is observed but is unlikely?

So, once again we have seen the claim being made, but not backed up with what was advertisted : evidence against evolution. A lot of overinterpretation took place though. Not that unusual...
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9557
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#18  Postby CharlieM » Mar 05, 2011 12:44 pm

In case anyone who thinks they are countering what I wrote didn't read this the first time round, I'll repeat it:

"That's why I don't look for evidence against evolution. Why? Because I believe in evolution. But I see lots of evidence that casts doubt on the prevailing neo-Darwinian orthodoxy."

I never said that the quotes I gave were evidence against evolution. I just want people to look at the facts that are emerging and ask themselves, "In what way is the neo-Darwinian explanation having to be adjusted to accommodate the facts? If there are no doubts in your mind then what can I say? You're just as much a fundamentalist as we find amongst young earth creationists.

When I get the time I'll give a longer response to some of the points brought up, but there's a lot to go through.

Regards,
CharlieM
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#19  Postby CharlieM » Mar 05, 2011 12:55 pm

CdesignProponentsist
Let the kids think whatever the fuck they want to think.


Exactly! Well, not quite exactly. Do not teach the kids the theory, teach the kids about the theory. Prevailing theories come and go. Teach them zoology, botany, physiology, anatomy, how to conduct experiments, how to handle statistics. They are going to believe what they want anyway no matter what, and quite often, in spite of what a figure of authority tells them.

Regards,
CharlieM
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: How Many Antievolution Bills Since 2011?

#20  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2011 1:06 pm

CharlieM wrote:In case anyone who thinks they are countering what I wrote didn't read this the first time round, I'll repeat it:

"That's why I don't look for evidence against evolution. Why? Because I believe in evolution. But I see lots of evidence that casts doubt on the prevailing neo-Darwinian orthodoxy."

I never said that the quotes I gave were evidence against evolution. I just want people to look at the facts that are emerging and ask themselves, "In what way is the neo-Darwinian explanation having to be adjusted to accommodate the facts? If there are no doubts in your mind then what can I say? You're just as much a fundamentalist as we find amongst young earth creationists.

When I get the time I'll give a longer response to some of the points brought up, but there's a lot to go through.

Regards,
CharlieM

Alright fair enough, if the ID community's obsession with evolution is so extreme that they want to argue about the minor details of the modern synthesis, have at it horse. It strikes me a rather odd subject to see fit for highschool-level discussions. Why stop there? Why not argue about the thoughts on proper understandings on fluid dynamics? The formation of the magnetic field of the earth?

Now the problem is that, this is not really what the ID community actually wants. They are blowing matters of interpretations of empirical findings and discussions on population dynamics completely out of proportion. What they really want is to shoehorn mythology into classrooms, and trying to cast doubt on the modern synthesis is just the first step in that process. We know their desired goal and it has nothing to do with furthering a proper scientific understanding of evolutionary mechanisms.
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9557
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest