Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[REASON]

Assuming it took 600 or 700 billion years for the earth to cool, this leaves 300-400 billion years for this little dude to begin to replicate.

 

I just wanted to point out that you obviously meant million, not billion in these statements.

 

 

Hence we are arguing (with a straight face) that this biogenetic event occurred in a hostile environment 3.5 billion years ago, and yet, it has never occurred since (at least not well enough to create a different sort of life architecture).

 

Actually, we're suppost to be arguing (with a straight face) why evolution needs to be taught in public schools, and why Intelligent Design doesn't qualify for inclusion in the science curriculum.

 

Reason being, the scientific community generally considers ID pseudoscience, and lacking legitimate evidence in support of it's theories. And it is clear the true motivations of ID proponents, considering their primary efforts appear to be in the persuasion of children in public schools rather than legitimate scientific peers.

 

I'm not aware of any other pseudosciences, such as Astrology or Numerology, that are regularly included in public school science education standards.

 

 

ID folks are NOT saying "God did it". All they are saying is we cannot assert (based on the fact base) that this was exclusively serial mutation.

 

Uh, of course ID folks are saying "God did it." Who do you suspect the Intelligent Designer to be if not God?

[Biochemist]

Thanks for the reply, but you basically just walked around my request.

 

Also, life has been created in the lab, so the whole abiogenesis angle isn't really working for me anyway. Further, most of Behe's assertions have been debunked. Ken Miller did this quite well, but so have others.

 

 

Again, articulating a credible opposing argument is not a refutation. It is an opposing argument. I am not sure why a credible opposing argument is so broadly accepted as a "refutation" on this forum. If someone were to prove that Behe's argument is either 1) not possible (as opposed to arguing that complex structures might have been generated by serial mutation), or 2) at odds with fact, it would be refuted. To my knowledge, no one has done that. A number of competent folks have offered credible defenses of the standard dogma.

 

I have not watched the program. I will look at it.

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

I just wanted to point out that you obviously meant million, not billion in these statements.

Thanks. Oops.I went back and repaired them.

Uh, of course ID folks are saying "God did it." Who do you suspect the Intelligent Designer to be if not God?

Hmmm. I am having difficulty with your circuitous argument. Let me a little more concrete: I am not saying God did it. I am saying that some phenomenon are poorly explained by serial mutation. It is illegitimate to critique my argument because of your imputation of motives into someone else's argument. If you have a problem with the nomenclature of "Intelligent Design", then call it something else. How about "Something Other Than Serial Mutation". Let's use SOTSM from now on.

 

I am suggesting that support for serial mutation is weak. Period. There are several long, ugly threads on this forum with hundreds of posts discussing the implications of the theoretical options if serial mutation is not the cause of speciation.

[Biochemist]

Also, life has been created in the lab, so the whole abiogenesis angle isn't really working for me anyway....

You are joking aren't you? Are you actually suggesting that because we can copy DNA and insert it into a complex preexisting machine that transcribes DNA into protein or replicates DNA, that we have "created" life????

 

Isn't this a little like saying that a 16 year old can design a BMW because he can steer it?

[InfiniteNow]

If someone were to prove that Behe's argument is either 1) not possible (as opposed to arguing that complex structures might have been generated by serial mutation), or 2) at odds with fact, it would be refuted. To my knowledge, no one has done that.

 

Two words for you, mate. Bacterial flagellum.

 

Please let me know when you have an academically honest and authentic claim for me to counter.

 

Do watch the NOVA program. :eek2:

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks. Oops.I went back and repaired them.Hmmm.

Where is your support that mutations are not parallel?

[REASON]

Hmmm. I am having difficulty with your circuitous argument. Let me a little more concrete: I am not saying God did it. I am saying that some phenomenon are poorly explained by serial mutation. It is illegitimate to critique my argument because of your imputation of motives into someone else's argument. If you have a problem with the nomenclature of "Intelligent Design", then call it something else. How about "Something Other Than Serial Mutation". Let's use SOTSM from now on.

 

I am suggesting that support for serial mutation is weak. Period. There are several long, ugly threads on this forum with hundreds of posts discussing the implications of the theoretical options if serial mutation is not the cause of speciation.

 

SOTSM :snow: Got some SOTSM?

 

I apologize. I didn't realize you were simply referring to yourself when you said "ID folks." And it isn't fair of me to lump. In my experience, proponents of Intelligent Design are usually attempting in a round-about, scientifically oriented way, to site God as the source of the intelligence, and thus of the design. I mean who else could it be, right? :eek2:

 

But as for SOTSM, I guess I'll just have to judge that once I have an idea what that Other Something is. What do you suggest is better?

[InfiniteNow]

You are joking aren't you? Are you actually suggesting that because we can copy DNA and insert it into a complex preexisting machine that transcribes DNA into protein or replicates DNA, that we have "created" life????

No, that is not what I am suggesting, and you appear to be misrepresenting my actual position and then attacking that misrepresentation... aka... strawman.

 

I encourage to look here, as you've surely already done if you're deciding to present me with the same old tired argument:

 

The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists

 

 

Also here:

A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.

 

It is also interesting to note:

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

 

So this is how the genetic code gets started... Really, it's just simple chemistry.

[freeztar]

I am suggesting that support for serial mutation is weak. Period. There are several long, ugly threads on this forum with hundreds of posts discussing the implications of the theoretical options if serial mutation is not the cause of speciation.

 

Why not speak to Evolution in the broader sense?

Mutations can cause evolution, as can NS and genetic drift. It all depends on the circumstances at hand.

 

"Serial mutation" is an odd term. It suggests, to me, that evolving lifeforms are somewhat "opposed" to non-linear continuity. I find faith in randomness. :eek2:

 

As far as speciation goes, it's a challenging science.

 

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life

[Biochemist]

Did you happen to catch this program?

 

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS

 

The whole thing is quite worth the watch, but Chapter 8 seems to speak specifically to the points you've raised above.

I watched Chapter 8 to see if there was anything new in it. There is not. Although Nova did a good job with cool graphics.

 

Again, we have a reasonable proposition (that some structures are incredibly complex, and hence are difficult to ascribe to serial mutation) and a counterargument that the flagellum example has parts that are used in other complex structures.

 

My only point is that both arguments are reasonable. The flagellum components are indeed incredibly complex, highly specific components. The fact that some very highly specific components can be used for completely unrelated, very highly specific functions (unlike the simplistic mousetrap as a tie-clip metaphor in the video) could be as well argued as another proof case for ID. These are protein structures (I don't know how many genes) that are exquisitely integrated with the surrounding membrane tissues.

 

If someone designed a fuel injector that was also usable as a otoscope, we would probably say that pretty clever (similar shape, very diverse usage). In itself it is a design argument.

 

The refutation of serial mutation will probably require examples of daughter species expressing complex phenotypes that cannot be shown to have been previously expressed (and hence could not have been selected). I think it is still worth looking.

 

We would call that activity research.

[InfiniteNow]

Again, we have a reasonable proposition (that some structures are incredibly complex, and hence are difficult to ascribe to serial mutation) and a counterargument that the flagellum example has parts that are used in other complex structures.

You seem to misrepresent to the true position of ID. You can equivocate and make your own subjective interpretations all you want, but they are not making reasonable propositions.

 

They are not suggesting that some structures are "incredibly complex, and hence difficult to ascribe to serial mutaion." They are suggesting that some structures are "irriducibly complex" and could not have come about from evolution.

 

I know you are brighter than most ID proponents with whom I've had the disfortune to interact, but surely even you can see the difference.

 

 

 

By the way, the very concept of research implies discarding broken ideas. We know the Earth is not flat, and we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe, yet we still are learning through research. :eek2:

[Biochemist]

Why not speak to Evolution in the broader sense?

Because "evolution" per se is weakly defined. You have to identify a point within the range of issues to have an informed discussion. It might surprise some to hear that "evolution" only means that things have changed. That definition would include (most) Creationists, since they agree with that.

 

Even within "Darwinian evolution" there is a range of accepted elements, although the link that IN posted a couple posts previously was a pretty good definition.

 

I don't (for example) have a problem with the generally accepted earth age (at 4.5 billion years or so) or common descent (that is, all life forms from a common ancestor). I think those elements are well supported. But I think the arguments for serial mutation driving natural selection driving speciation are weak.

 

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days,and that all life was mature on day 7. This is presumably because I don't automatically accept the reigning mutation dogma. Go figure.

 

You see the problem?

[freeztar]

The refutation of serial mutation will probably require examples of daughter species expressing complex phenotypes that cannot be shown to have been previously expressed (and hence could not have been selected). I think it is still worth looking.

 

We would call that activity research.

 

And we would call the results, allelic drift (assuming that the organism interacts with others).

[InfiniteNow]

SIDE NOTE:

 

Let's recognize that BioChemist is a good contributor. I may disagree completely with his conclusions, but he makes my own arguments stronger by challenging them in an intelligent way.

 

 

I ask that NOBODY consider him a run of the mill IDiot, because his posts here on Hypography VERY clearly show that he is not. I want my approach to this topic to be stronger, and the only way that will happen is if folks with his knowledge and ability are here to challenge me and my points. I'm sure everyone here wants the same, so the same goes for you. :eek2:

[Biochemist]

You seem to misrepresent to the true position of ID. You can equivocate and make your own subjective interpretations all you want, but they are not making reasonable propositions.

You are again critiquing my argument by referencing their argument.

 

You are essentially doing what Creationists do when they point to Genesis 1 and say "see- it says 7 days; it means 7 days". Genesis 1 could mean a whole bunch of things, just in regular English.

 

Likewise, Behe did not (I don't think) mean to terminate his argument (or the discussion) when he created the term "irreducible complexity". I don't think my argument is significantly different than his. If you feel better calling "pretty complex, hence pretty unlikely", (PCHPU) then call it that. The thesis still stands. These arguments are all (unfortunately) highly probabilistic. When I referenced above that I can't see how we got to life from a standing start in 300 million years, that is fundamentally a probabilistic argument. One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

 

I find that interesting.

[freeztar]

I think the arguments for serial mutation driving natural selection driving speciation are weak.

When put that way, I have to agree.

Nonetheless, your comment suggests to me that you are not considering other factors of evolution such as genetic drift and gene flow. It is not necessarily a causal science in the way you suggest. NS is pervasive, but other factors are at work. It is not necessarily linear, as you describe.

Humorously some folks (on this very site) put me in the very same bucket with the folks that think the earth was created in 7-24 hour days,and that all life was mature on day 7. This is presumably because I don't automatically accept the reigning mutation dogma. Go figure.

Nobody's done that since you've returned, AFAICT. :eek2:

You see the problem?

 

Nope, can you elaborate on this problem?

[Biochemist]

SIDE NOTE:

 

Let's recognize that BioChemist is a good contributor. I may disagree completely with his conclusions, but he makes my own arguments stronger by challenging them in an intelligent way.

 

 

I ask that NOBODY consider him a run of the mill IDiot...

I am deeply honored. Most of my peers consider me a very special idiot, not the run-of-the-mill sort.

 

I am also suspicious that idiots can run mills, ergo the standard idiot is more probably a can't-run-the-mill idiot.