Louisiana science coalition begs Jindal: Veto the creationism bill
posted at 9:10 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via LGF, showcasing a killer quote from Jindal’s college biology professor, the Louisiana Coalition for Science makes its case. The bill’s been on his desk since yesterday, having passed the state senate 36-0 and the house 94-3. You’ll find the text here, scoured of any references to creationism or intelligent design and mentioning religion only in a heavy-handed section aimed at shielding the bill from the inevitable Establishment Clause challenge. I recommend reading the annotated version instead, but whatever you do, note that the state isn’t compelling every school district to teach ID; they’re leaving it up to each local school board that wants to teach it to request permission to do so. That’s another concession aimed at limiting the scope of the legislation to maximize its chances of surviving a constitutional challenge, although in light of what Jindal had to say about empowering individual school districts on “Face the Nation,” it might be there to make the bill more attractive to him, too.
Given the size of the majorities in both houses, it’s going to pass no matter what he does. Even so, I’m curious to see how he games this politically. If he signs it, he leaves himself open to attack from the left four years from now. If he vetoes it, he pisses off the base. If he does nothing … it becomes law in 20 days, although that would indicate a certain lack of backbone on the hottest of hot button issues. Prediction: He signs it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »
Then you are saying that Neanderthal man was more complex and highly developed than modern humans.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
From the fall of Rome until the Renaissance it was pretty dark in Europe, at least from the stand point of disease, life expectancy, population size and the spread of knowledge.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The long answer to your question is the evidence to be found in the science of paleontology. The short answer is that we are here.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Not quite. I was referring to complexity. Mass alone does not determine intelligence. If that were the case, women would be more stupid than men are.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
It’s actually a quotient of brain size multiplied by brain organization, OldEnglish. The differences between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens were in the palate, which did not permit the Neanderthal to voice a sufficient number of differentiable phonemes to allow for the creation of complex syntactic speech, and in the fact that the complex and highly integrated eye-hand fine motor controls which had been honed over many years of evolution had not, in Neanderthals, been made available via genetic mutation to the mouth-ear (speaking-hearing) nexus.
Uniquely Human: The Evolution of Speech, Thought, and Selfless Behavior by Philip Lieberman
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I’m glad you limeys (lovingly) sorted that out, and that you left the theory stand.
flenser, the other limey (also lovingly) has the quote of the thread with
Are you absolutely sure about the bolded part?
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM
BTW, The Dark Ages were so called because it was a period of almost fifteen hundred years where the peasantry were literally kept in the dark through the insistence of The Church to keep all written documents in Latin or Greek, and to not allow said peasants to be educated. An educated person asks questions, and that would never do.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM
If you are a gent, you will not be liked by same…
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I believe so. The complexity has manifested itself, in the main, in mental and physical dexterity, as the need to survive the constraints of the Ice Age lessened to zero. It was the ending of the Ice Age that signaled the end of Neanderthal man, and allowing a more dexterous creature, Homo Sapiens, to dominate.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 12:49 PM
That’s the cartoon history I was refering to. Among other problems, there is no agreement as to what perod is covered by “the Dark Ages”, or even what the term means. Different sources will tell you that the “Dark Ages” ended in 800, or 1000, or 1200, or 1400. And its original meaning was to describe a period when few books were written.
The church, both Catholic and Protestant, remained a dominant force in Europe up to the 18th century. That’s a problem for those who want to make “Dark Ages” synonomous with “the time when religion was powerful”. Unless the Dark Ages are extended till 1780.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Thank you for the corrections/additions, I have a tendency to be sparse in my written speech, to the point of being perfunctory.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I believe you OE – I was thinking of the not-so-enlightened minds of today. Just look at our election year situation, and the idiocy encircling it/us. I question how advanced we are, often in one day, each day, as a humanity, sadly.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 12:58 PM
More cartoon history. The only people writing books were members of the Church, and they naturally wrote them in Latin or, someimes, Greek. Just as in the 16th and 17th centuries, virtually all serious literature was written in French. Today it’s written in English.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM
It may not be an academic term, but there were hundreds of years after the fall of Rome that were brutal and “dark” from the standpoint of recorded history.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Actually, I think that the capacity for speech was the difference. Hunting parties could be co-ordinated much more precisely and completely over large numbers and distances (especially out of line-of-sight) by spoken communication than by gestural means. The ability to more efficiently manage a hunt on the fly and through prey pursuit changes conferred a decided advantage upon the New Speakers, and they basically competed the Neanderthals out of existence.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I don’t think it was religions power that made the ages dark. If anything they were preservers of knowledge during hundreds of years of political instability.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
If I recall my history lessons correctly, the Protestant Reformation occurred, in part, because knowledge had started to spread to the general populace. The Roman Catholic Church had started to lose its grip by around 1500 AD, and it was in the interests of the Reformers to have a following that was not entirely clueless.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM
“Dark from the standpoint of recorded history” is the academic term. In the sense that we have fewer written records from that period than from before or after. Not “dark” in the sense that it was unusually brutal.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM
The Gutenberg printing press spelled the end of the Dark Ages, for it allowed many copies of books to be mass-produced, rather than individual copies being laboriously transcribed.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
At the turn of our last century I watched a video series of the 100 greatest inventions in the last 1000 years. It kept narrowing down and when the last 10 were going down, down, down, I kept saying “if they don’t name the Gutenberg press, I’ll die of disappointment”. Alas, I lived…
“Life magazine called the Printing Press the greatest invention in the last 1000 years.”
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Without going into the details behind this, I’ll just point out that the Protestant Reformation is generally agreed to have kicked off in 1517. So this becomes just one more of the many dates suggested for the end of the “Dark Ages”.
The reason many historians are ditching the whole “Dark Ages” concept is that the list of possible dates given for when they ended covers a time span as long as the ages themself. It’s become a label which obscures rather then illuminates.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Interesting experiment, thanks for posting. Great example of how science works.
The theory of evolution predicted that lower primates and humans would share genetic material that our common ancestors contracted from viral infections. Scientists run an experiment, confirming the prediction. The experimental results suggest further research into how viruses can alter our genome, in the past and the present.
Contrast with intelligent design. No predictions, no experiments; just philosophical toys like irreducible complexity, or math toys like the “universal probability bound.”
RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM
You have not seemed to contradict me, with the possible proviso that you appear to be referring to England, rather than to Europe as a whole.
Also, books were indeed written in a form not understood by many outside of the Church, just as books written by Apothecaries and Alchemists were. The reason given to me, by the Catholic Church, was to perpetuate exclusivity beyond the time when Monks spent their whole lives copying original texts.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM
There is no way of measuring the complexity of Neanderthal brains, but brain size relative to body mass does correlate pretty well to intelligence. The idea that they were less intelligent is a circular one. Why did they die out? They were less intelligent. How do we know they were less intelligent? Because they died out.
Well, lets not change the subject.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
“Let’s not”, that is…
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Even during Roman period life expectancy was pretty piss poor.
But he is right, there were no Dark Ages. The massive trade routes dried up, since there was no an empire to ensure trade, but learning still continued in Christian Monasteries.
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Whether or not Neanderthals were less intelligent is not an easily settled question; the fact that they lacked the physiological substrate to allow them to produce enough audially differentiable phonemes to allow for the construction of complex syntactical speech is, however, known beyond rational dispute, via palate studies of frozen specimens.
That communicational inability relative to Homo Sapiens proved to be a competitive disadvantage too severe to overcome.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Sorry if I was unclear. I’m contradicting your claim that the church wrote in Latin and Greek as part of some devious plot to keep knowledge from people. They did so for the same reason as all the worlds air traffic controllers speak in English – because it’s important that life and death information be transmitted in a common langauge. Up until a hundred years ago it was taken for granted that all intelligent people were familar with certain languages, Latin chief among them. Virtually all the Founders had some Latin.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM
No, see Evolution is a empirical way of study their worldview in an attempt to justify the irrational position that Matter is Eternal. Intelligent Design is an Empirical Study of a Theistic worldview.
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Granted,they didn’t die out through lack of intelligence alone. I believe that their physical size and shape made them less able to live in the warming period after the Ice Age, particularly with regard to weight/shape and nasal passages, which were designed to keep functioning in the bitter cold.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Not only do they need to start teaching Intelligent Design in schools…they need to stop teaching the disproven and unscientific theory of evolution!
SaintOlaf on June 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM
lets see what was going on during those years in europe? oh yeah they were trying to fight off the muslim hordes, then the golden hordes.
As far as the spread of knowledge, the monks copied the ancient manuscripts, without them our knowledge of the ancient civilizations would be pretty much nill…and please don’t tell me the muslims were so very ‘learned’ please.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM
1. If your claim that no scientist, I can name a number who do and considered very credible. Dawkins and Sagan were two off the top of my head.
2. This quote is a piss poor straw man and shows you have zero credibility and are completely ignorant of the topic:
Theism says about science, “The facts are right, but the interpretation of the data is wrong, because it is based upon a faulty worldview. Therefore, we choose to interpret the data different and believe that X, Y and Z show point to a Theistic implication (ID). We also believe that A, B and C are in conflict with Evolution, therefore we believe that Evolution is untenable.”
Tim Burton on June 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I’ll go with that, with the exception that it wasn’t “intelligent” people, rather it was “educated” people, who were, outside of The Church, wealthy enough to afford a tutor of some sort.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM
natural selection is a tautology. if its fit it survives…so?
common descent is demanded by the theory of evolution, the ‘proof’ of common descent is just as easily attributed to design as evolution.
no it does not. even evolutionary hero Dawkins admits ID is ok as long as its space aliens.
doesn’t the atheist agenda of evolution make you question the agent itself and it’s motives??? isn’t atheism beyond the realm of science? but prominent evolutionists talk about it all the time. denying God in science journals, and textbooks, for example.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM
with every post you prove my point. and since I’ve used the term projection before, I will assume you are copying me, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
sadly you will never evolve beyond stupid.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM
In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.
link
and this:
Moreover, ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms. To quote Dr. Max once again, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”
link
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM
and yeah your link is from the newyorker….ok.
ps: I answered your assertions, but I notice you were unable to respond to the articles I posted. you couldn’t even answer why the tuatara doesn’t change given its high rate of mutation….
looks like you are the ignorant one. and I pity you.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM
‘Twas ever thus. But the fact is that poor but intelligent people were the sort who joined the church and became priests. It was the twelfth century equivalent of the poor kid getting into college. And literally into college in some cases. The first universities in Europe were founded by the Catholic Church during the “Dark Ages”.
For instance, the University of Paris was founded by a French theologian in the mid 13th century. And he was a poor French theologian. His name was Robert de Sorbon, from which comes the modern name “the Sorbonne”.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
The feudal rulers were also spending a lot of time fighting each other.
As I said above the monasteries were greatly responsible for preserving knowledge in Europe after the fall of Roman, but knowledge was imported from the East as well–for instance algebra.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM
a little more about the retrovirus…
A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans.
link
there are pseudogenes found in humans and apes but not in chimps:
A truncated immunoglobulin epsilon pseudogene is found in gorilla and man but not in chimpanzee.
link
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
link
why are so many tests done on mice rather than on other primates? While it is also cheaper to do tests on mice, the real reason is that their bodily systems (especially the immune system) function more similarly to ours than do those of primates.
maybe you shouldn’t get your scientific data from the new yorker…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Questions about the supernatural aren’t relevant to Darwin’s two theories. Neither are Dawkins’ or Darwin’s religious views any more relevant than the views of scientists who are Jewish, Hindi or Christian.
Aethisim is beyond the realm of science. Also there are limits to the role religion can play in comprehending the natural world. St. Augustine on that point:
“We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers.”
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM
the absolute denial of the supernatural is. even gould admits this:
“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)
the implications of darwin’s theory are clear, no god, no savior, no sin, no right, no wrong. add to that the inherent racism in the theory…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Well, finding a space alien would lead to a big increase in research grants for scientists like Dawkins and his friends.
Would a space alien be natural or supernatural? I’m not going to ponder that question. Right now they are imaginary and not relevant to the life sciences.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
It’s a discipline–something like the Gary Sinise character in Apollo 13 sitting in a room in Houston surounded by nothing more than what the astronauts had aboard.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Off topic:
The Spore Creature Creator has been released. This is a program that both creationist and evolutionist can love.
Ars Moriendi on June 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
if you haven’t noticed I just refuted your ‘irrefutable’.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I remember seeing a video demo of this game….very cool idea
LimeyGeek on June 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
What a hoot! After reading through the 300+ comments in the thread, it is clear that the Christians are far and away the best informed and most knowledgable regarding molecular biology, genetics, and the rest of the scientific disciplines. It’s ironic, isn’t it? The atheist are the REAL “truthers” here. Clinging bitterly to their Darwinist religion and living in the Dark Ages — just like they can’t let go of their religious belief in humanism, insisting that “human nature is basically good” in spite of the fact that they have many thousands of years of recorded human history that “flies in their face” — overwhemingly indicating that all of mankind is totally depraved, and always has been totally depraved.
You know what their problem is? It’s persecution envy. Mainstream society has ALWAYS marginalized and ostracized atheists. They have always been despised and held in such utter contempt that they are, for the most part, largely ignored by the rest of us — and THAT’s what REALLY bugs them. They know that they will never be considered worthy of the persecution that we Christians enjoy. The only time we pay any attention to them at all is when they go on one of their murderous rampages — like that little 72 year experiment with communism that they are all so fond of. Even then, they are SO pathetic, they went out with a whimper, instead of a bang. Yeah. That’s it. Pathetic with a capital P.
And it’s not just science that the atheists don’t understand — they can’t get history right either. Look at all the comments in this thread where they continually whine, bitch, and moan about “the Crusades.” Here’s a hint for the atheists: Hello! The Christians LOST the crusades. Yes, that’s right, after a valiant effort, holding Jerusalem for nearly 100 years, and a presence in the middle east for nearly two hundred years, the Christians were COMPLETELY driven out of Palestine. Saladin had unified the Muslims by the end of the 12th century (making ample use of the Oh-so-typical Islamist tactics of murder, assasination, and treachery against his own peoples). By the 13th century, Muslim armies were poised to overrun Europe and END Christianity, once and for all. So why didn’t it happen? Why aren’t we all typing these comments in Arabic, and stopping to turn to Mecca and pray 5 times a day? The atheists would have you all believe that it was just more Christian treachery. The Muslims know better. They remember Ghengis Khan and the mongol hordes — and the two hundred years that the Mongols ruled in Asia. They can also tell you that Khan was FAR more brutal than the Christians, practicing a doctrine of “total war” some 5 – 6 centuries BEFORE General Sherman was even a twinkle in his parents eyes.
My collie says:
Why not? They’ve already told bigger lies than that — right here in this thread.
CyberCipher on June 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
According to Darwin… things should become simpler the lower you look into the living organism. He said that if science found the cells to be complicated than expected, it would be the end of his theory. Surprise… cells are orders of magnitude more complicated than anything he imagined. But scientists cling to their religion and refuse to look at other theories… because of the elephant in the room.
Intelligent Design is based on the logical deconstruction of inter related parts to determine if random chance could generate such amazingly complex functionality. It ends up making a proof that multiple, complex changes would have to occurred simultaneously to create usable functions. Something that statistics can prove as impossible.
I find all this bashing of ID/Christians very irritating on this ordinarily intelligent blog. ID is no different than SETI looking for intelligent transmission patterns in radio noise… but that is considered real science and ID is creationism. Talk about stuck on stupid!
And similarity of genetic material doesn’t prove evolution. I could just as easily make the assertion that as a software developer, I tend to use similar design patterns across different applications because it’s more efficient. How many disparate forms of data storage are used across different blogs? Nearly all the ones I know use a relational database… a design decision. It doesn’t mean that all blogs have the same core code if you look low enough, or that somehow magnetic decay on the disks created more highly evolved functionality… the universe doesn’t work that way. The organization of data needed to form a blog, with articles, security controls, admin screens and user responses… were not formed from randomness noise.
The organization of bits to form usable information is not a random act… it is design. And yet look at DNA, the most complex structure we’ve ever imagined… and tell me that the terrabytes of information stored there are the results of randomness… right…
There is no harm in debating different theories. But this push to keep discussion out of the classroom is all about control. Because if we are forced to acknowledge that there is design inherent in our patterns, it points to a Designer. And if there is a Designer, we are compelled to realize that there is more to this universe, and we are not the center of it… that our actions might be subject to judgment by the Designer.
It is safer to discount ID debaters as “kooks” and “freaks”, than to admit that there might be a God… and the Christians may be right after all.
dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Patently false. Lieberman is junk.
rightwingprof on June 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM
You won’t be able to make the case for ID meeting scientific criteria through caricature of other commentors. Certainly broad philosophical questions such as whether man’s nature is good don’t belong in biology class.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 4:23 PM
You’d get a lot of dissent from scientists about whether SETI is real science, and there is no need to test high schoolers on their knowledge of SETI.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM
According to Darwin… things should become simpler the lower you look into the living organism. He said that if science found the cells to be complicated than expected, it would be the end of his theory. Surprise… cells are orders of magnitude more complicated than anything he imagined. But scientists cling to their religion and refuse to look at other theories… because of the elephant in the room.
I don’t understand how you can think this is relevant. Obviously we’ve learned a lot in the 150 years since Darwin.
Intelligent design is based on making up big numbers and pretending that they mean something. If the statistical proof you suggest were possible, though, I would accept it without reservation.
SETI isn’t the scientific success story you seem to think it is.
Do your programs self-replicate? If so, do they experience random errors at compilation when they replicate? Do you make a habit of introducing viruses into your programs as a design decision? Do you think that the experiment salamantis posted is the only line of evidence that supports evolution? Do you still think this is good analogy?
No, I wouldn’t say DNA is randomly organized. It’s organized according to the non-random laws of the universe. Whether God made those laws or not really isn’t a relevant scientific question. If you want to believe that God isn’t capable of creating the universe in an instant, with all it’s laws formed such that life would arise as a natural consequence, well, it’s your God, you can make him as impotent as you like.
Didn’t this used to be something Christians accepted on faith?
I’ve called them a lot worse than that, believe me.
RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Let them teach students that Jesus rode around on Dinosaurs for all I care, make the kids just as ignorant as their parents, more jobs for me, but please make a list of them somewhere so when I have a child the school doesn’t make them any more retarded than schools already make children. I leave all that witchcraft and flying off crosses nonsense to the fiction section where it belongs. And intelligent design is really just a BS excuse for people that want creationism and religion taught in school but don’t have the b@lls to say it.
LevStrauss on June 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Just thought I’d point out that there are people who write programs which do all of these things. That is to say, the computer virus writers. And the “random errors” are there to help the virus survive. In other words, it’s a survival mechanism.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM
You Christians are hillarious. Now that your mythology is fading, you are actually trying to find a “scientific” basis for for the creation myth.
How many brontosauruses were there on Noah’s Ark?
revolution on June 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Your going to have to do better than that candy pants.
ronsfi on June 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I don’t have to do anything to make you look like an idiot…you do it with every post, fat boy.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Right4life: A pathetic, failed and futile attempt at obfuscation. Let me tease out the strands for you, so you can perhaps comprehend how the fabric is woven.
Of course humans and other primates would share some, but not all, retroviral artifact sequences; some would have resulted from infection of a common ancestor before species diverged, while others would have resulted from infection of one, but not the other, of the divergent species after the split.
If this is indeed the case, the older, more mutationally degraded artifact sequences would be those that are shared, while the newer, less mutationally degraded sequances would be those that would be specific to one descendent line or another.
And in fact that is indeed the case. In fact, such commonalities and differences are used as markers in order to ascertain when primate (among other) species lines diverged (it was what was used, for instance, to discover differentiation dates between dogs, jackals, wolves and foxes in my original quote of 12:01, for instance). Your 2:03 and 2:48 posts thus end up further reinforcing MY point in favor of the historical and genetic facticity of evolution, and devastating whatever you might consider to pass for your puerile attempt to deny it (even though the author of the Creationiost propaganda site you reference is either willfully dissembling, or doesn’t possess the prerequisites to grasp same).
Here’s the original article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all
Bon Appetit, all!
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM
hate to tell you, but christianity is winning around the world….more and more people are becoming christians….its your athiest fairy tale and your hairygod darwin that have failed, and are nothing more than a laughingstock.
I can add you to the number of idiots posting on this thread.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM
you post the same old BS…too funny! whassa matter, can’t do any research?
thought you were such a ‘scientist’ *smirk*
tell me are you as fat as you are stupid?
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
and since you’re too stupid to understand the big words in this quote:
what part of ‘no relationship’ don’t you understand?? hmmmm??? moron.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
oh yeah fat sal, why haven’t you answer my simple little question….
why has the tutatara, which has the fastest rate of DNA ‘evolution’ not changed physically in 200M years??
is it too hard for you saly, or just don’t have the guts?
lets see you come up with an independent thought…perhaps you just need to ‘evolve’ a little more!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
When someone is compelled to resort to ad hominems, you know that logic, reason, facts and evidencer have failed them.
I don’t care what you like or don’t like, nor what you feel should or should not be the case in your chosen universe; all that matters to me is what indeed are the obtaining states and processes of affairs. When you pit your visceral emotionalism against factual-evidance-based coherent, cohesive and cogent rationality, you lose the logical argument every time, because you’re not even playinmg on the appropriate or relevant field.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
yeah thats what you did on your first post to me, you stupid piece of trash, when I was polite.
I’ve destroyed your facts, I bet you’re foaming at the mouth about now. so try to spin as you might, you cannot defend your faith. your hairygod darwin would be so disapointed in you..sad…
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
again answer the question:
why has the tutatara, which has the fastest rate of DNA ‘evolution’ not changed physically in 200M years??
but you keep ignoring it…why is that??? hmmmm??
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
and since there was ‘ there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas ‘ why do you keep lying?
you just can’t handle the truth.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
where’d ya go saly boy? haven’t ‘evolved’ enough to think fast on your feet? or are you checking your darwiniac talking points for a reply??
good luck!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
You should read your links before you post them; your last three,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389?dopt=Abstract
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=2987940
and
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
substantiate my position while refuting yours.
You will not succeed in dragging me down to your level. I learned long ago that if you allow an interlocuter to seduce you into the low road, you are lost, for there is a depth beneath which you cannot go and remain true to yourself, while, any person who is trying to get you to follow them into their descent can usually go much lower.
I will remain on the high road; there I can remain true to myself, while, if you dare to follow me there, you cannot remain true to yourself.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:24 PM
you are delusional as well as a liar. you really should try english 101.
from your first response to me, after I was polite to you.
I enjoy it watching you darwiniacs lie like rugs. first you’re nasty to me, then when I respond in kind, you piously take the high road…this is too funny!!
newsflash: you were never on the high road, you’re a liar as well as a hypocrite, and you have proven it, much to my amusement.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
The text of right4life’s first link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389?dopt=Abstract
Evidence from DNA sequencing studies strongly indicated that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas [1-4]. However, precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes have remained uncertain. The unique insertion sites of endogenous retroviruses, like those of other transposable genetic elements, should be useful for resolving phylogenetic relationships among closely related species. We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans. They also show that HERV-K replicated as a virus and reinfected the germline of the common ancestor of the four modern species during the period of time when the lineages were separating and demonstrate the utility of using HERV-K to trace human evolution.
And his second:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=2987940
Molecular genetic analyses of the young pseudogenes of the immunoglobulin C epsilon genes were carried out to obtain qualitative evidence for the phylogenetic branching pattern of hominoid primates. We found that Old World monkeys had two C epsilon genes, one of which was processed. Among the hominoids examined only the gorilla and human genomes contained three C epsilon genes: an active, a truncated, and a processed gene. Other hominoids so far examined, including chimpanzee, contained two C epsilon genes: one active and the other processed. These results suggest that the processed C epsilon pseudogene was generated before the divergence between Old World monkeys and hominoids and that the gorilla is more closely related to man than the chimpanzee is, unless the chimpanzee has lost the C epsilon 2 gene after the divergence of this species.
and his third:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees to a well established phylogenetic standard, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts.
Judge for yourselves whether they support creationism or evolution via mutation and natural selection.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM
It’s called being hoist by your own link petard.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM
lets go over some of these articles that you say support your position:
1) A truncated immunoglobulin epsilon pseudogene is found in gorilla and man but not in chimpanzee.
I thought you evolutionists always say that a chimpanzee is our closest relative, not a gorilla, so how can this be?
2) A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans.
how can this be since chimps are our closest relatives? and since its now there, how does that prove common descent at all?? rather it contradicts it….english is fundamental…
3) Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
this is the most interesting one of all..but you didn’t read the article, or didn’t understand it…
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas
shouldn’t there have been a consensus, if what you say is true???
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
lets see if you can answer ANY of my questions about these articles…
and notice you did not find any of these articles…and you sure don’t understand what they mean.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Mythology? Have you ever truly looked at the evidence? If you were wrong about your worldview, would you want to know? When questioned about my faith, it drove me to search for evidence… and I found more than expected.
We have archeology proving accounts from the Old and New Testaments. From cities to kings to events, we continue to find evidence that the history described in the Bible is accurate.
Is written evidence enough to prove the existence of Jesus Christ? We have scraps of the Gospels dated to within a few decades of his death. We have hostile, non-Christian accounts that acknowledge his life, death and even the resurrection. They talk about the thousands of Christians, who lived within a few years of his death and would have been witnesses, going to their deaths rather than recant the truth.
Have you read and studied the details around the resurrection? Or do you cling to the old and tired (and debunked) theories of his body stolen from the tomb, or that he didn’t really die? Do I need to go into the makeup and rules of the Roman/Temple guards, or the public crucifixion and burial, or the brutal efficiency of the Roman soldiers, or that all Pharisees had to do was produce His body to kill off this annoying “cult”?
Is carbon dating a made-up science? The Dead Sea Scrolls are carbon dated at 2 B.C., over a hundred years BEFORE Christ’s birth… and contain prophesies that describe his birth, life, death and resurrection in detail. Eight prophesies describe exactly where and roughly when his birth would be (pretty hard to fake). If we consider all the people who have ever lived, and just 48 of the prophesies, we find that the statistical chance that any one man fulfilled them all to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. And yet, one man did fulfill them.
Those same Old Testament Dead Sea scrolls have been compared against modern translations, and were found to be 95% perfect copies, with only minor deviations on syntax (which didn’t change the theology). Translations aren’t done “telephone” style, but always compared against our oldest documents. And these substantiate the accuracy of Biblical transmission.
And then there are truths, where Christianity just fits. The Bible describes why we are hardwired with certain truths, that lying, murder and stealing are wrong… even in other cultures. It advocates love, compassion, charity and forgiveness.
Somehow I doubt you will believe my own personal circumstances… how dozens of “coincidences” fell into place to form a definite plan. Or the dozens of miracles I observed helping with Katrina, 3 weeks after it hit.
You may find me “hillarious”, but I’ve already lived in your shoes as an unbeliever. I pray that one day you will decide to look at the overwhelming evidence, and that your eyes will be opened as mine were. God bless.
dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Just a small question on the space alien theory. If space aliens were the intelligence behind the creation of the universe, where did they come from?
Any attempt to insert an intelligence into the creation of the universe must always satisfy this question – where did the creator come from?
The only answer that satisfies that theory is a God. Therefore, ID is religious in intent.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM
did you really read what you posted? this is too funny! where are the answers for my questions….????? hmmmm???
you didn’t cut, paste and run now ddid ya??
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Actually, what it proves is that some retroviruses infect single species, whch them evolutionarily diverge, while others can infect multiple related species. It all depends upon the phage (see swine and bird flu, for instance).
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
but then how does that prove common descent? newsflash: it doesn’t.
thanks for the lame attempt, why don’t you try an equally lame answer for the tuatara?
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Also, species are related to each other in differing genetic ways. Where there is commonality in some sequences, there is disparity in others, which is why they are distinct species. Just because one species is closer to another species than a third is does not necessarily predict susceptability to infaction. Two species that are more divergent may yet share a genetically infectible commonality at a chromosome site that a third, closer species (since it branched off later) does not share, because the later branching species can mutate at that site while ther earlier one doesn’t. It’s not a handy-dandy zero-sum game. 97.1% vs. 96.6% shared DNA says something about the aggregate in common, but not about specific genes; they are not interchangeable, like pouring one glass 97.1% full of water and another glass 96.6 % full.
But of course your mind – or rather your heart – is made up, so such appeals to the sweet voice of reason will have no effect upon you whatsoever.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 6:52 PM
so in other words, you see a few examples that support your beloved theory of evolution, so no matter what data contradicts it, that contradictatory data supports evolution…yeah thats um ‘rational’ yeah
oh thats what you meant by calling me names because I dared to dispute your beloved faith in evolution!!
oh this is laughable. no matter what the data says, there is always a ‘just so’ story to fit it into evolution!! too funny!!
but of course your mind is made up, and no evidence would sway you from the lie of evolution.
ps: you never did answer my simple little question about the tuatara….why not?
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Ha! Flirt!
ronsfi on June 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
CyberCipher,
I agree with most of your comment but this sentence stuck out like a sore thumb:
We’re now supposed to accept that the Moslem armies of the 12th century were Islamists distorting the truth about their religion? That goes beyond parody.
Why not just call them what they call themselves, Muslims?
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Actually, the confirming data for evolution via mutation and natural selection numbers so vast as to be practically uncountable. We use out knowledge of how DNA sequences work to engineer blight-resistent crops, to breed hardier food animals, and to create vaccinations for mutating diseases. In any one of a million different ways, the theory could be falsified, and yet in no place has that ever happened, even though it would make a scientific career to be able to do so. All that happens is that the theory is refined and elaborated in response to further data, as should every good scientific theory, yet its basic tenets remain untouched. But it is never considered to be absolutely true, only provisionally so, contingent upon further evidence – and there is always the possibility of further evidence. However, the likelihood that evolution via mutation and natural selection has indeed occurred statistically approaches certainty, once the plethora of evidence is considered.
Oppose this to creationism, or, as it has been euphemistically named, intelligent design (the Wedge Document indicate why such changes have been made; not to arrive at truth, but to sway opinion). There is nothing about it that is subject to either verification or falsification. That’s why it is not a scientific theory; all scientific theories must be amenable to falsification. That means that relevant evidence must in theory be presentable that would, if it were the case, render it untrue. But how does one physically test for the presence or absence of an ordering deity? Quite simply, it cannot be done, which is why any notion that invokes same must remain outside the realm of scientific knowledge and inside the realm of metaphysical belief. To maintain otherwise is to confues the immanent and the transcendent, the sacred and the profane, to the detriment of both.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
As far as your tuatara is concerned, it will change morphologically if the genes controlling its morphology change. You have not presented any evidence that you even know which genes these are, much less any evidence that they are the ones that have changed.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I do not think that this is comment is helpful.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
aengus, it just proves that it is easier to lose one’s rationality when one has less of it to lose in the first place.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:27 PM
you write much, but say very little…let me guess, you’re a ‘scientist’. you think bafflin em with BS will work?
whats amusing is that evolution has nothing to do with our knowledge of DNA, or vaccines, or anything else, as coyne admits:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
link
the tuatara falsifies it….no wonder you dodge that question!! too funny!! you can’t answer, because the answer is: there is no evolution micro doesn’t add up to macro!
really?? well how could miller claim to falsify the flagellum, if ID couldn’t be verified or tested??? hmmmm?? oh I know this is another one of those question you can’t and won’t answer!!
you really are a hoot!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
another good one!! so somehow evolution KNOWS how to change an ancestor of the chimp into a human in a few million years, but it doesn’t know how to change a tuatara!!!! my, that evolution is very clever isn’t…and aren’t we *special* to be the benefactors of all that ‘evolving’???
who cares what the genes are? doesn’t matter..after 200 million years of non-evolution in the fastest ‘evolving’ DNA ever observed in an animal…evolution just couldn’t make the right change….laughable!!
Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
link
keep the faith!!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
but you weren’t upset when he/she started this by calling me names…..my some pigs are more equal than others!!
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
For one thing, it’s Gregor Mendel.
Natural selection pressures modify the genome by causing the owners of some mutations to die out prior to reproduction while the owners of other mutations live to reproduce. Once the mechanism of a genome is known, it can be manipulated at will. For instance genes from flourescent jellyfish have been inserted in mice, causing their descendants to glow in the dark.
s far as the flagellum is concerned, the ‘irreducible complexity’ charge only applies if it can be shown that its constituent parts did not subserve other functions before they came together. But in fact, the constituent parts did indeed serve other biological functions; thus, the complexity of the flagellum is indeed reduceable into simpler functional constituent parts. The same is true, btw, for the eye, which has evolved by several different paths in several different species.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Exactly. For centuries people said that Christianity was false because the Hitites were mythical and did not exist. Then in the 19th century the ruins of the Hitite civillisation is discovered by archaeologists, with more ruins being found in the 20th century. Thusly that argument is dropped and a new one concocted.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
What a stellar argument for theistic evolution! For intelligent design… not so much.
RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
With regard to the Tuatara, why should it evolve into something else if its current state, enhanced by rapid gene modification, allows it to survive. It would, in fact, agree with the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.
OldEnglish on June 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
I was upset but I did not comment on it because I do not hold unbelievers to the same standard as believers in Christ. I expect atheists to behave that way.
I challenged an atheist in the same way on a different thread last week. He insisted that atheists were just as moral as Christians but when I demonstrated by quoting him that he was not himself ‘rising above’ lowest common denominator arguments he agreed to adhere by his argument and became much less offensive.
By the way I think you have been truly magnificent in your arguing and persistence over the last two days. I completely understand if the strain of constant argumentation is getting to you. You have more in intellectual stamina than me.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Remember that Mendel, who essentially invented the idea of controlled breeding did not believe in evolution and Mendel’s and Darwin’s ideas were in fact considered incompatible for decades. thats why they had to come up with the Synthesis.
we could argue about the details and what irreducable complexity really means, but do you have any integerity in you to admit that your previous charge that ID is not testable was a lie? you just blather on….and ignore the context….you said ID wasn’t testable…but it is. will you have the common decency to admit you were mistaken?
not a chance, you’re a darwinist. truth doesn’t matter.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Once again, your own link provides an evolutionary explanation for the phenomenon you cite – one that, interestingly enough, is the same as was mine before I viewed it.
Here is my prior statement:
As far as your tuatara is concerned, it will change morphologically if the genes controlling its morphology change. You have not presented any evidence that you even know which genes these are, much less any evidence that they are the ones that have changed.
and here is a paragraph from your link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cp-ttf032008.php
“Of course we would have expected that the tuatara, which does everything slowly – they grow slowly, reproduce slowly and have a very slow metabolism – would have evolved slowly. In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly, which supports a hypothesis proposed by the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution.”
Obviously, environmental pressures are not differentially selecting morphological mutations within the tuatara. But, if such environmental selection pressures came to bear, it would either become extinct, or some members with morphological mutations more serendipitously suitable to its new climate would persevere, perdure and reproduce, while the other members without them would more frequently die before reproduction.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
another ‘just so’ story…EVERYTHING SUPPORTS EVOLUTION…EVOLUTION IS ALL IN ALL….PRAISE DARWIN!!
then tell me, why did anything evolve, since it had to be surviving in order to evolve?? hmmmm??? why would something that is surviving need to evolve at all??? and it wasn’t surviving, it couldn’t evolve and it would to extinct.
right4life on June 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
You should be spending your time building a time machine to transport yourself back to the Dark Ages. I think you would like it and fit in quite well there. I’m looking out for you!
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »