rockytriton Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Personally I wish real science got mentioned more often in the pulpit if people really want the equal time idea applied accross the board in fairness, so to peak. Well, I think people should be able to discuss whatever they want in their churches, if they don't want to hear about science then they don't have to, but I won't be taking my family there. Right now we go to a methodist church, they seem like pretty down-to-earth people and don't think they know everything. Well, my wife and kids go all the time but I've only been a couple times because I can't stand to listen to all the singing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 And the IDers that don't??????? How can you actually describe a set of populist non-scientists as IDers??????They describe themselves that way! Mainly because they've found they can't be taken credibly as saying they are "not promoting religion" if they don't! :friday:We are ONLY discussing the portion of the discussion that has merit. Part of it undeniably does.Not really, this thread is about the political/social issue as well, and thus I'd agree that some of the non-scientists feelings (like the board member quoted above) are relevant, but at the same time it has nothing to do with science. My only point was not to argue the validity of their arguments, but rather they are central in the decision making process for the school board and they *don't* make the distinction that its not yet proven, because in their minds it is! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 I don't agree with this. They are saying the scientific community is biased against them (it is- I think you are proving it) not that the scientific method is biased against them.If that's true, then why are they trying to redefine the method? I don't think all of the community is biased against them, but now that they're attacking the definition of the scientific method, they will probably gain more opponents... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Quote:Originally Posted by lindagarretteCan't be. The process of evolution could only take place after mitochondrial DNA existed. There was an earlier form of life. eh, this is not entirely correct. Many forms of life (and some forms of non-life) do not have mitochondrial DNA and evolve just fine (Archaea, Bacteria and viruses). Bacteria have a DNA somewhat similar to mitochondrial DNA . I don't think the eukaryotes and prokaryotes actually evolve into different species but I could be wrong. It's interesting to study these " in between" life forms Here is a pretty good analysis of the subject.. http://encarta.msn.com/text_761582165__1/Mitochondria.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 I don't think the eukaryotes and prokaryotes actually evolve into different species but I could be wrong. It's interesting to study these " in between" life forms Here is a pretty good analysis of the subject.. http://encarta.msn.com/text_761582165__1/Mitochondria.html Perhaps I misunderstand your post, but prokaryotes formed symbiotic relationships to begin the shift to eukaryotes and on up from there, so prokayotes and eukaryotes either evolved into different species, or the only other viable option is creationism... :friday: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 ...prokaryotes formed symbiotic relationships to begin the shift to eukaryotes and on up from there, so prokayotes and eukaryotes either evolved into different species, or the only other viable option is creationism.We do not need to identify a solution when we identify a problem. The evidence for genetic drift/transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is absent. It is an unresolved issue. There are a host of biochemical arguments against it, and none (that I know of) supporting it. To suggest that eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes is purely the triumph of hope over science. I wish we would quit making unsubstantiated assumptions because we do not like the alternatives. If it is any consolation, my pet theory on this is unsubstantiated as well (it is not really either of the above). But I don't offer it in a public forum because it is completely unsubstantiated, as is my (similar) pet theory for resolution to punctuated equilibrium. ...And no, it isn't aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 ..but now that they're attacking the definition of the scientific method, they will probably gain more opponents...Sorry, I guess I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand how anyone can attack a definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Sorry, I guess I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand how anyone can attack a definition.The action by the Kansas School Board specificallly as I mentioned above is to redefine the scientific method to allow anything that involves "a systematic method of continuing investigation,'' without any reference to hypothesis and experimental methods. It appears that the "trial" of Evolution that is going on the proceedings is a cover for the fact that that is the substantive change being made to the formal policy of the Kansas Educational Standards. Its an end run without debate, so perhaps you're taking my use of the word "attack" more literally than I intended. It would be very interesting to hear the debate over why this particular change is justified, but there is none going on that I've been able to see. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 The action by the Kansas School Board specificallly as I mentioned above is to redefine the scientific method to allow anything that involves "a systematic method of continuing investigation,'' without any reference to hypothesis and experimental methods. It appears that the "trial" of Evolution that is going on the proceedings is a cover for the fact that that is the substantive change being made to the formal policy of the Kansas Educational Standards. Its an end run without debate, so perhaps you're taking my use of the word "attack" more literally than I intended. It would be very interesting to hear the debate over why this particular change is justified, but there is none going on that I've been able to see. Cheers,BuffyBy using a systematic method of continuing investigation in the wording one could also include the seven day account of creation with Creation Science research doing an ongoing continued investigation into that idea. I'd also see where religious groups who attempt to continually find reasons people ought to believe in a young earth might also fit that definition. As that matters goes one could include some of the creation stories out of India which has its own religious people researching those. One could also using that same logic propose that we ought to have Bible as history classes in our schools, etc, etc, etc. A systematic method of continuing investigation is just too broad a definition. Some of you more liberal christians might want to beware in this scope also. It depends who's upon the school board and the courts interpreting this which way decessions would go. With my own State having a strong fundamentalist backbone I'd be willing to bet if this case ever got invoked here who's ideas would get presented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 ...And no, it isn't aliens. The funny thing on that last one is if you mentioned that in say alien biology intermixing with earth's primite one's you might actually get a few scientists out there to listen. I see the idea in more personal remarks by scientists from time to time show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MortenS Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 I don't think the eukaryotes and prokaryotes actually evolve into different species but I could be wrong. It's interesting to study these " in between" life forms Here is a pretty good analysis of the subject.. http://encarta.msn.com/text_761582165__1/Mitochondria.html What the current molecular evidence points at is the following scenario: Bacteria and (Archeae + Eukarya) splits of first. Then Archaea and Eukarya splits from each other. Alfa-proteobacteria (or relatives of them) enters symbiotic relationship with cells in Eukarya, and later becomes mitochondria in eukaryotic cells. Some of these eukaryotic cells will later give rise to plants, fungi and animals as well as other eukaryotic organisms. Cyanobacteria (or close relatives) later enters symbiotic relationship with some eukaryotic cells containing mitochondria, and evolves into chloroplasts eventually. A nice summary of the endosymbiotic theory is summarized here:http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 By using a systematic method of continuing investigation in the wording one could also include the seven day account of creation with Creation Science research doing an ongoing continued investigation into that idea. ... Some of you more liberal christians might want to beware in this scope also...This is the last line of defense of course. I don't think its the liberal Christians who are going to worry, its the conservative ones: Once "science" is defined this broadly, it allows any conjecture that does not explicitly mention God, thus all religions are fair game, and you'll see the Raelians and the Moonies and the Scientologists all pushing their "scientific" views of cosmology, evolution, alien abduction, and lots of other topics. At that point I've always assumed that the "but we're a Judeo-Christian country" argument will finally be trotted out to try to shut this off, thus making clear that it *is* about putting religion in schools. And what a multi-edged sword that one is! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MortenS Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 To suggest that eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes is purely the triumph of hope over science. I wish we would quit making unsubstantiated assumptions because we do not like the alternatives. What do you mean that it is unsubstantiated that euakaryotes arose from prokaryotes. It is well substantiated that organelles arose from bacteria. Both morphological similarities, biochemistry similarities and DNA structure point to the endosymbiotic origin of the organelles. I would advise you to take a closer look at the ribosomes of methanogens (Archaea), and compare those with the ribosomes of eukaryotes and bacteria. Which ones are most similar to each other? Then compare the lipids in the cell membrane of Archae, Bacteria and Eukarya. Bacteria and Eukarya have ester lipids in their cell membranes.Archaea have ether lipids in their cell membrane. For me, this paints the hypothesis that the nucleus of Eukarya possibly arose from Archaea, and that they entered a bacteria, thus explaining the similarity in cell membrane lipids between bacteria and eukaryotes. If this hypothesis is correct, the eukaryotic cells is a chimera of Archaea and bacteria, with the later addition of mitochondria and chloroplasts. Of course, this is just one of several hypothesis for how the eukaryotic cell arose, and more evidence is surely needed.. Some parts of the picture is quite unclear. I don't see why we should not continue to form new hypothesis about the origin of eukaryotes, and test them. I just disagree with the opionin that the hypothesis us unfounded. It might not be the correct one, but it is not unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 This is the last line of defense of course. I don't think its the liberal Christians who are going to worry, its the conservative ones: Once "science" is defined this broadly, it allows any conjecture that does not explicitly mention GodMaybe someone could offer a difference between ID and punctuated equilibrium in terms of degree of falsifiable support. PE is a name for a problem, not a model for a solution. So is ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 What do you mean that it is unsubstantiated that euakaryotes arose from prokaryotes. ...Of course, this is just one of several hypothesis for how the eukaryotic cell arose, and more evidence is surely needed.. Some parts of the picture is quite unclear. I don't see why we should not continue to form new hypothesis about the origin of eukaryotes, and test them....I just disagree with the opionin that the hypothesis us unfounded. It might not be the correct one, but it is not unfounded.All good points, MS. I don't think the hypothesis is unfounded (any hypothesis based on reason is founded.) I think it is unsubstantiated. The notion of prokaryotes that do not demonstrate phagocytic character (and preclude being a phagocytosis substrate) ingesting a foreign life form in constructive symbiosis currently strains credulity. I understand the similarities in membrane make-up, but I have a hard time attributing genetic heritage to those characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 The action by the Kansas School Board specificallly as I mentioned above is to redefine the scientific method to allow anything that involves "a systematic method of continuing investigation,'' without any reference to hypothesis and experimental methods. We do this now. Most of linguistics. Most of paleontology. Most of archaeology. Punctuated equilibrium. Most of geology. Most of meteorology. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Maybe someone could offer a difference between ID and punctuated equilibrium in terms of degree of falsifiable support. PE is a name for a problem, not a model for a solution. So is ID.You're absolutely right: PE is a description of an issue that is seeking a set of hypotheses to explain it. ID, however, is described as a hypothesis. If ID were simply described as the "issue of the lack of an explanation for the apparent complexity of life forms," then it would be on equal terms with PE. But you notice its called "Intelligent Design" so its very name says that it is an explanation not a problem statement. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts