Louisiana science coalition begs Jindal: Veto the creationism bill
posted at 9:10 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Don’t be so patronizing.
Insults and slurs are OK. But don’t be stupid.
davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
He even loves atheist darwiniac liars, not that I am accusing you of that, for now…don’t presume upon His grace though…
I’m suddenly an atheist even though I have repeatedly stated that I believe in theistic evolution? How, you truly are an outstanding judge of character. Thankfully your judgment means nothing and less than nothing. To me that is. To you it would mean something else if you believed some guy named Matthew.
again this is just a statement of faith, you don’t know this…and 200MILLION years, with the fastest DNA ‘evolution’ of any animal, it couldn’t change…but still evolution is true, you’ll just come up with a nice ‘just so’ story to make any fact fit evolution….praise darwin
First off, you keep acting as if I, or others here, worship Darwin. There’s no such thing as Darwin worship outside of your head. And yet you have the audacity to ask if I have any integrity? You are behaving EXACTLY like the idiot fanatics who behead people for watching a soccer game by calling it an act of worshipping human beings. Only with less of the beheading part. That I’ll chalk up to parental restraint during your formative years, assuming those are in the past. Anyways, and I’ll type this slowly so you might be able to keep up, change in DNA does not always result in changes in morphology, or in those traits that can be preserved in stone. Furthermore, the fossil record DOES, in fact, show actual changes in the species’ form, specifically in terms of its adaptability to colder climates. Because you are absolutely correct when you point out that the environment in New Zealand now is different from what it was 200 million years ago. Even a broken clock is right twice in a day, so don’t get cocky.
really? are you sure about that?? looks like you haven’t kept up with the science…
Platypus species over 112 million years old
link
I hope I’m not going to have to do your research too!
Nice, a two line link that really says nothing. From that link, show me where it says that modern platypi are EXACTLY the same as the ancient ones? From that link show me where it says, frankly, ANYTHING. Great research. What I guess you missed with the related link with the title “Platypus genome will help reveal how mammals evolved.” The money quote — “The platypus gives us a window to 170 million years ago when all mammals were probably egg laying, and one group continued to work in a particular way and they became the platypus.”
Yeah, what a crushing blow, I’ll never recover from that.
really?? wow you are a fount of misinformation
It’s ‘font,’ Brainiac.
since you say its been ‘mapped out’ why don’t you go and evolve it?? should be easy since you’ve got the map, right?
That kind of thing has already been done, though not in the specific case of flagella. It proves nothing, really, only that evolutionary processes can be intelligently channelled. It’s called artificial selection, and (as has been noted before in this thread, I think by you actually) people have been doing that long before any aspect of genetics was known. Actually, it was being done long before any part of the Bible was revealed. Evolution in the lab has been challenged, with some justification I think, because the lab enviornment introduces elements that do not exist in the wild, and leaves out things that do exist naturally.
Also, the protiens that are used in flagella are related to the protiens that are used for other function, particularly the ‘rotor’ function, the analogue of which is used to pump fluids in or out of the cell. The addition of the ‘hair’ to the pump aids in dispersal. It also provides some mobility. Limited mobility aids in getting to food. Chemical similarities between these components’ analogues in non-flagellant bacteria have already been identified.
There’s also a path to create a mousetrap, starting with a single bit of metal and a flat bit of wood, that is functional from beginning to end. Obviously, I am not suggesting mousetraps reproduce; but ‘irreducible complexity’ does not exist in a mousetrap.
again you have a lot of words, but no facts to back you up..how has it changed, morphologically? it has not, it is a living dinosaur.
Actually, no, it’s not a dinosaur at all, and though the species is ‘largely unchanged’ it is not ‘perfectly unchanged.’ Wikipedia cites Wu, Xiao-Chun (1994). “Late Triassic-Early Jurassic sphenodontians from China and the phylogeny of the Sphenodontia” in Nicholas Fraser & Hans-Dieter Sues (eds) In the Shadow of the Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge University Press. I have not read it. Yes, I know wikipedia is not the most reliable source. But for every page on the Tuatara on the ‘net there are five billion pictures of Brittany Spear’s junk.
yeah you can teach the atheist fairy tales all you want, proving it is much more difficult. hint: the evolutionists were all upset by the big bang, which shows a beginning to the universe….thus they have to come up with ‘multi-verses’ and other such fantasy objects…too funny!
And again the assumption that I am an atheist because I do not subscribe to your particular religious dogma. I personally have no problem with the big bang, unless someone suggests it is an infinitely repeated phenomenon, which would violate several laws of physics as we currently know them. It would also contradict our current observations regarding the growth of the universe. But there is still an infinite amount of knowledge we have yet to gather. Also, the problem I have with all conjectures beyond the big bang is that they are entirely speculative, and have no ability to be tested in any kind of way. There is a period of time immediately after the big bang happened beyond which no scientific statements can be made because the nature of the universe is so divergent from what we can currently evaluate that it is completely untestable and unverifiable in any kind of environment. Modeling is, of course, an incomplete tool.
Also you conflate evolution with astrophysics and theoretical physics. You seem to use the word ‘evolution’ for anything and everything you dislike. It’s sloppy.
Speaking of sloppy, that link you so thoughtfully added is like sending me to http://www.marxisgod.com in a discussion about economics. Clearly you have a love for ‘good’ propoganda so long as it suits your existing beliefs. In the very first sentence I found a nice little bit of twisted information that very nicely demonstrates my contention that such sites rely on twisting the data to fit their agenda: “A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.”
First off, I wonder what this is supposed to prove? How many Nazi’s believe killing jews was good — if it was more than 51% was it actually good then? How many people believed the world was flat 6 thousand years ago? Nearly all. Did that make it right? Does the media’s embrace of Global Warming make that right? Facts aren’t decided democratically. Furthermore, that poll would include me in the 91% who are implied to disbelieve in evolution. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing, and there are many degrees from that 9% how accept materialistic evolution, to those who accept evolution in a theistic universion, all the way to those who believe the Earth is flat, unmoving, and was created to look old 6000 years ago. So the fact that 91% of people disbelieve in purely materialistic evolution (and here I am generous to grant this as a given) shows and proves nothing in two ways. Well, almost nothing. It does show the degree of dishonesty this site is willing to deal in. I guess no lie is evil if it gains souls for Jesus (to paraphrase more than one Church Father).
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
The difference between the fanatical and the devoted comes down to this: the fanatical maintain that God is on their side, while the devoted say that they are on God’s side.
Do you really think that a deity that could encompass all of the spatiotemporal matter/energy universe would give an anorexic rat’s ass about where tiny beings evolved on the surface of an out of the way planet circling a sun in a corner of one of many galaxies, itself one of many supergalaxies, place their genitalia? Talk about delusions of grandeur!
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Don’t see an acceptance of gay marriage and abortion as prerequisites for accepting the theory of Common Descent.
You can study embryology and also believe in a virgin birth. Perhaps that’s what is referred to as a leap of faith.
dedalus on June 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Except that in the real world, mutations tend to kill themselves off or be bred out. Without fail, evolutionists trot out the “millions and millions” of years to insulate themselves from the fact that no advancing mutations have been observed without humans forcing the issue, and manufacturing their own evidence. Even though millions of generations of microbes have been studied… not one has changed form into something new.
The Watchmaker “fallacy” was a nice strawman argument. I have yet to be shown how randomness can produce massive complexity. So I believe that it is still a valid argument in the discussion.
dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Bzzzzz. It’s “fount” as in fountain.
Font is your letter design..
davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Ain’t that the truth.
davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:42 PM
That is a resonable thought. But tell me why He wouldn’t. Without projecting your personal views, please.
What I’m asking for is evidence that He wouldn’t care about what He created.
Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Gotta go.
Worthy is the Lamb.
davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM
We’ve only been looking at genetics for a blink of an eye in the life history day; evolution takes time.
But it is indeed happening; the Morgan Horse sprang from a dominant mutation. If the population of Morgan horses was isolated so that no interbreeding could occur, I can well imagine that the genetic differences might gradually increase to the point that interbreeding producing offspring would no longer be possible, at which point you would have two different species.
Two species that are approaching this point are horses and donkeys. They can be bred to produce mules, but mules are sterile. Thus offspring can still be produced between horses and donkeys, but they have drifted far enough apart that the progeny are infertile. The same is true when you mate lions and tigers, and get sterile ligers.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Nonsense. This is where your “knowledge” fails you. If you knew anything about the cultures and beliefs, and compared that against Christianity, you would immediately understand that the differences are stark…
In other religions, man ascribes the attributes and failings of man, to their gods. Look at Loki, the stories of the Greek gods and others. The stories of their gods changed over the time of their culture, and highlighted the failings of the gods.
In Christianity, God wants man to live according to His laws and truth, and thus experience a better life. With Christianity, man is to rebel against the “animal” urges and adhere to a higher calling.
A very profound difference…
dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
hate to tell ya, but evolution is based upon faith, the faith of atheism.
you’re a liar and a hypocrite telling ‘just-so’ stories just enforce your athiestic faith, which is itself a lie.
how does it feel to know your whole life is a lie?
And that’s it.
You have been insulting, derogatory, holier-than-thou, and in all ways an offensive, vain, arrogant, preening jackass.
You are obviously incapable of rational intelligent discussion.
You are the best witness I have ever met against Christianity; so good at it in fact that I suspect very strongly that you are not a Christian at all, but a troll.
This will be my last reply to you, nor will I read any further posts from you.
Have a nice life.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
The absence of the invisible is difficult to detect.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Amen. I’m going now…
dominigan on June 18, 2008 at 10:51 PM
In the old testament it says, in the first commandment, that ‘thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ This is a tacit admission of the existence of other gods. But by the new testament, there was only the one god. It had grown from being just one semitic mountain deity among others to encompassing all of the known universe. This is known as evolutionary change.
First comes polytheism, where every rock and tree has its own spirit or demiurge. Then comes henotheism, where a panoply of gods and goddesses are codified to represent different realms of the soul and world, with one Boss God in the catbird seat. Last comes monotheism, where the Boss God absorbs all the others, and becomes the One and Only.
I suppose you think there were just Adam and Eve back then, too, which begs the question of incest, and who exactly were the parents of Adam and Eve’s grandchildren.
We have spent our histories creating our gods in our own images. No wonder we love them so much.
Salamantis on June 18, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Amen!
Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 10:57 PM
If Christianity were somehow banished from existence then all the European languages would be instantly rendered unintelligible.
aegnus
What? Are you implying that there was no language spoken in Europe before Christianity arrived? The vast bulk of words in every language have nothing to do with Christianity, believe it or not.
This wins for the single most absurd statement I have ever read in my life.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
That and the fact that a very Christian Roman Empire and its subsequent constituencies expunged a great many of them…
elgeneralisimo on June 18, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Bzzzzz. It’s “fount” as in fountain.
Font is your letter design..
davidk on June 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM
No. From American Heritage Dictionary:
font (fŏnt)n.
A basin for holding baptismal water in a church.
A receptacle for holy water; a stoup.
The oil reservoir in an oil-burning lamp.
An abundant source; a fount: She was a font of wisdom and good sense.
Fount is British, and is a shortening of ‘fountain’ with that meaning. Font is a Middle and Old English word with the meanings shown above. Font is the older and more proper word, and is preserved in sayings like ‘a font of wisdom’ and such. One site attributes the word ‘fount’ to Shakespear, which would make snese, he would often truncate words to fit his rythmic schemes.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 11:07 PM
No, it isn’t a tacit admission. Remember, you are reading an english translation of a Hebrew verse. Strongs concordance has this to say about Exodus 20:3 (the verse in question):
OT:430
OT:430 ‘elohiym (el-o-heem’); plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:
KJV – angels, exceeding, God (gods)- dess, -ly), (very) great, judges, mighty.
So you see, ‘gods’ are anyone mightier or in authority over the Jewish people.
Skidd on June 18, 2008 at 11:10 PM
That and the fact that a very Christian Roman Empire and its subsequent constituencies expunged a great many of them…
elgeneralisimo on June 18, 2008 at 11:03 PM
No religion is free from that taint, not even the religions that reject religion. That fact says more about people than it does about God, if you want to be fair.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 11:19 PM
First time on an intelligent design thread, eh? (sorry, had to)
RightOFLeft on June 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Great job, TABoLK. That goes for Salamantis and dedalus too. Sorry if I’ve left anybody out.
Clearly the division of this discussion is between those who believe that the bible is the literal word of god and those who understand the scientific process. While it was inevitable that this argument would not be settled here, you guys did a great job representing rational thought.
Right4Life and others, I don’t buy your arguments for a second but it’s my impression that you did an excellent job representing your side as well.
The emotions ran a little high but that’s not surprising considering the topic.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Hey, Allah! The Marquis de Sade called, he’d like your autograph. :)
OldEnglish on June 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM
First time on an intelligent design thread, eh? (sorry, had to)
Actually, no. I can understand the logic behind Creationism, though I reject that logic as being flawed. It is not absurd, but based on faulty theology (in my opinion, obviously) but within that context, it is consistent. But according to the statement I was referring to, all European speech sprang ex nihilo out of Christianity. There is no logic there at all, nor sense. I have to wonder how sincere a statement it was — can anyone be that vain? But regardless it is amazing in the scope of its absurdity. It trumps even the absurd statement I read on a Muslim website that NASA had ‘proven’ Mecca was in the center of the universe, and that the Kaaba was radiating God’s mystical energies throughout the cosmos. My eyes nearly rolled out of my head at that one.
Thanks for the kind words, FloatingRock.
TABoLK on June 19, 2008 at 12:35 AM
I don’t think I’ve ever read your comments before tonight but I’m impressed.
You’re a real pleasant commentor, also.
I’m a Christian who believes in instant creation but at times am disappointed in how supposed Christians behave in these threads.
I love the back-and-forth, only wish it was more civil on both sides.
Goodnight, all.
Skidd on June 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Schopenhauer
The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity.
- Schopenhauer
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:26 AM
So many straightmen, so little time.
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who drown his own?
- Robert G. Ingersoll
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
- Issac Asimov
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 AM
A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell — mouths mercy, and invented hell — mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:39 AM
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:41 AM
And perhaps this God entity would like the Marquis de Sade’s autograph?
Or the other way ’round.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:45 AM
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious, unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Now I want every one to remember that blasphemy is a victimless crime.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 1:48 AM
I wonder what Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Twain think of God now. Interesting.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Posted at LGF:
Science: Bacterial Evolution Observed in Laboratory
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
[...]
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
FloatingRock on June 19, 2008 at 2:05 AM
[Well} I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Indeed!
OldEnglish on June 19, 2008 at 3:18 AM
I don’t think that you took that comment the way I intended it. But upon reading it, it was ambiguous.
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 3:44 AM
re-reading
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 3:45 AM
I took it that all three can be sadistic.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2008 at 4:28 AM
there is no ‘theistic’ evolution….its not taught…other than the churches that are oh so eager to be accepted by the darwiniacs, and not thought of as being ‘intolerant’
this from the ‘have your cake and eat it to’ liberal ‘christians’ right…
you really are clueless aren’t you now? given the reaction to anyone who disagrees with evolution, yes its a faith, and darwin is your hairygod. you doth protest too much…
again you can say this, you say a lot of BS, but it means nothing, back it up with some research…which I’ve noticed is oh so difficult for you ’scientists’
reading is fundamnetal moron…how could they recognize it as a platypus??? hmmmm?? do you think it look like T-rex, and they said ‘oh that must be a platypus’??? laughable.
and where is YOU’RE research…for anything??
I know this is hard for you, since its in english, and it requires thinking skills, but they’re saying the platypus is a living fossil….and the ‘help reveal how mammals evolved’ is just another statement of faith…I know this is hard for you…but I’ve just proven you’re a liar since you said:
and I’ve just proven you wrong.
so you’re a typeface of misinformation??? lets go over definitions:
2: a plumbing fixture that provides a flow of water [syn: fountain]
font: 1: a specific size and style of type within a type family [syn:
fount, typeface, face]
2: bowl for baptismal water [
now you need english 101!!! you think you’re a ‘typeface’ of misinformation???? thanks for the laughs….
oh this is even better!!! go ahead and post your proof..what has been evolved??? hmmmm?? lets see what ya got!! or are you just lying again??
you mean breeding animals?? it has zero, zip, nada, to do with evolution…get a clue.
you don’t even know what irreducible complexity is.
Dembski’s critique is apt because it recognizes that Darwinists wrongly characterizes irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. Conversely, pro-ID biochemist Michael Behe, who popularized the term “irreducible complexity,” properly tests it by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system. The “leap” required by going from one functional sub-part to the entire functional system is indicative of the degree of irreducible complexity in a system. Contrary to the NAS’s assertions, Behe never argued that irreducible complexity mandates that sub-parts can have no function outside of the final system.
link
argue with the article:
New DNA research has questioned previous notions about the evolution of the tuatara
In a study of New Zealand’s “living dinosaur” the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered DNA sequences from the bones of ancient tuatara, which are up to 8000 years old. They 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. The research will be published in the March issue of Trends in Genetics.
link
ever hear of a metaphorical use of a word???
your inability to understand what I mean does not mean that my thinking is incorrect, or that your characterization of what I said is correct.
what link was this? I have posted so many I do not know word for word what is in them…and what is twisted about the information? is the poll true? I assume it is, so how can that be ‘twisted’?? hmmm just because you disagree with it??
you’ve proven that lies are OK if it advances evolution.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM
really? then why are so many biologists atheists? and how does a ‘christian’ get around the clear and obvious implications of evolution?
which are:
no god, no savior, no sin, no right, no wrong.
its impossible to believe in christianity and evolution. and ‘theistic evolution’ is just a cover to gain acceptance by both sides.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1)
….
I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.
link
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Some people here substitute faux scorn for a logical argument that they are unable to make because it does not exist. For them , I have a poem:
To a Clueless Critic
Ah, There you are again
My snide sarcastic friend…
How dare you condescend!
From below?
You must not know
The clearness of your guile;
The vapidness of your smug smile.
You brainlessly deride
Yet cannot peer inside.
You just wield dullard snide.
Layers glow
But you don’t know.
You are the most unkeen
Since Mary whelped the Nazarene!
Your comments are obtuse
And of not any use.
They merely sling abuse.
Yet they go
You’ll never know
How much your tripe disgusts
And how much is not sane or just
You think yourself so wise
Yet shallowly apprise.
It makes me cross my eyes!
You’re so slow
You cannot know
How denseness guilds your cruel,
You cotton-minded vacant fool!
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM
thats ok…what I find most interesting is the lack of research and links to back up the assertions of the so-called ’scientists’ on the board who support darwinism.
apparently they think their word is from on high, and should be believed without any support.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:39 AM
there are some people here who cannot do any research. and then try to appropriate other’s research….
for them I have pity…
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM
See, to people who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept evolutionary theory, if it were an elephant and they were tied to its swinging trunk, they wouldn claim that the wind was blowing them to and fro. No proof or evidence – even repeatable laboratory evidence – will ever be sufficient for them; their brains are irretrieveably superglued in denial mode.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Their hearts are forst wedded to their conclusion, and then their minds scramble for premises: exactly the opposite of what logic should be.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM
You might as well tell a shaheed that he ain’t gonna get his 72 virgins as tell a fundy that evolutionary theory works.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 9:46 AM
you might as well talk to a rock instead of casting pearls before darwiniacs.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I do for both scientific and religious reasons.
but continue in your lies…its all you darwiniacs have!
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Just to be clear, understanding that evolution could not have happened does not necessarily mean that Creation is how it happened. I think this is the problem that most evolutionists have that keeps them from considering all the science that runs contrary to evolution.
You can’t just say there was ‘natural selection’ for survival of the fittest. . . but sometimes there were mutations that were beneficial that ran contrary to ‘natural selection’. That’s equivalent to the Greeks making up stories about their gods to explain things in life. You just use your imagination to make up something and call it science.
That just doesn’t make sense, yet that is what the entire theory of evolution is comprised of. It is not science to say that evolution is the progression of ‘natural selection’ except when it isn’t.
Water boils at the same temperature at sea level every time. I can prove it, I can recreate it, I can know that it will boil at that temperature without actually boiling the water. I can predict things with the knowledge of the temperature water boils at sea level. This is science. Evolution is not science.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Imagine a physicist studying the motions of the planets. He can predict where these planets will be without flaw, without fail. If the planet is not where he predicts it will be, then the entirety of the laws of physics will have been broken and the science would need to be reconsidered.
Evolution is a continual process of laws of physics being broken and explained away by saying it happened over quatrillion years and there were all these beneficial mutations for no explained reason. Evolution is more like mythology than science. . . lots of stories to explain things that can’t be explained.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Concerning evolutionary theory, fundies have superglued scales to their eyes. For those who think they are doing God’s work, the evidence, truth and facts of the matter are as immaterial as their chosen alternative.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 9:59 AM
concerning honesty, truth, integrity, darwiniacs discard all to justify their hairygod darwin.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
If only Darwinists could come up with a body of convincing scientific evidence to support Darwin’s theory: after 150 years of assuring us, such evidence surely must exist. As recently as May of this year, the best that a Darwinist as prominent as Professor Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine could come up with as examples of evolution in action was: (1) bacterial resistance to antibiotics; (2) insect resistance to pesticides; and (3) the evolution of fur coloring of desert rodents. (Ayala, “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (May 2007).)
link
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM
It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].
link
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Have ya’ll covered the astronomical chances of this planet, it’s atmosphere, distance from the sun, moon, mountains that store snow to replenish the rivers, wind and rain, all of those external things we take for granted every day which allow man to exist?
By random chance? Believing that is a HUGE leap of faith. But it is much easier taking the wide well traveled road of being your own god.
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Today, there’s also an Arland D. Williams Jr. Bridge, in Washington, D.C.; an Arland D. Williams Jr. Elementary School, in Mattoon, Illinois; and an Arland D. Williams, Jr. Endowed Professorship of Heroism at the Citadel. There’s an Arland Williams folk song and a made-for-TV movie. There’s even an Arland Williams shrine created by a woman in Japan. But as Darwin predicted, there is no Arland Williams IV.
And there never will be.
link
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Thacker, random genetic mutations happen. Some of them help a species better perdure within its environment, some hinder it, and some make no difference whatsoever. Those that are beneficial tend to remain in succerssive generations, as those who have them tend to survive more often to reproduce, and those that are maleficient are selected against, as those who hold them die more frequently before reproduction. There is no violation of physical laws here. |The evidence that this has happened is embedded in the retroviral artifact sequences in our genes, and in the genes of every vertebrate on this planet. And now, we can study, and repeat, an actual instance of laboratory evolution.
Case Closed. Finis. Q.E.D.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Scientists: 2 + 2 = 4
Creationists: 2 + 2 = 5
Yeah, let’s teach it.
Intelligent design is just a failed PR wank trying to make the term creationism seem less loony.
Dave Rywall on June 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
ThackerAgency and right4life, you two rock on! Good stuff.
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
really, where is this ‘evolution’??? hmmm?? post your source.
and since you can ‘evolution’ in a lab…why don’t you just take a bacteria and ‘evolve’ it into a multi-cellular animal?
should be easy, since you can ‘do evolution’ in a lab!
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
thank you!
its fun watching the darwiniacs make statements of faith!
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Dave Rywall on June 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Philosophically, Macro Evolution is 2 + 2 = 534,945,284,238,212.3149
And they’ve been teaching that for decades. Why do we continue to not show it as deeply flawed?
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
See, right4life, they constantly interchange micro-evolution (natural selection – within a species), with macro-evolution (new mutated species) and they are completely different. They have confused terminology on purpose, to confuse those easily lead.
kirkill on June 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The problem with thinking that our earth could not have been precisely positioned and provisioned for life by accident is called observer selection effect.
Where Are They?
Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
By Nick Bostrom
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20569/
(free registration required)
To quote from the article:
Now, it might be thought an amazing coincidence if Earth were the only planet in the galaxy on which intelligent life evolved. If it happened here, the one planet we have studied closely, surely one would expect it to have happened on a lot of other planets in the galaxy–planets we have not yet had the chance to examine. This objection, however, rests on a fallacy: it overlooks what is known as an “observation selection effect.” Whether intelligent life is common or rare, every observer is guaranteed to originate from a place where intelligent life did, in fact, arise. Since only the successes give rise to observers who can wonder about their existence, it would be a mistake to regard our planet as a randomly selected sample from all planets. (It would be closer to the mark to regard our planet as a random sample from the subset of planets that did engender intelligent life, this being a crude formulation of one of the saner ideas extractable from the motley ore referred to as the “anthropic principle.”)
Since this point confuses many, it is worth expanding on it slightly. Consider two different hypotheses. One says that the evolution of intelligent life is a fairly straightforward process that happens on a significant fraction of all suitable planets. The other hypothesis says that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely complicated and happens perhaps on only one out of a million billion planets. To evaluate their plausibility in light of your evidence, you must ask yourself, “What do these hypotheses predict I should observe?” If you think about it, both hypotheses clearly predict that you should observe that your civilization originated in places where intelligent life evolved. All observers will share that observation, whether the evolution of intelligent life happened on a large or a small fraction of all planets. An observation-selection effect guarantees that whatever planet we call “ours” was a success story. And as long as the total number of planets in the universe is large enough to compensate for the low probability of any given one of them giving rise to intelligent life, it is not a surprise that a few success stories exist.
Read the entire article; it is well worth it.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:18 AM
thats for sure, and when challenged the darwiniacs quickly try to change the subject…while loudly proclaiming ‘wah wah evolution is true’
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Here is my source, kirkill:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM
To say the “the entirety of the laws of physics will have been broken” is painting the situation with too broad of a brush. And such a situation has already happened, as Newtonian physics failed to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, with its deeper understanding of the nature of gravity, was able to predict the peculiarities of Mercury’s orbit.
Scientists did not have to scrap all knowledge of the laws of physics and start over, and indeed Newton’s equations are accurately predictive enough for most situations that it is not necessary to bring in the more complicated mathematics of Relativity.
It is true that Einstein’s fame came from proving that Newton’s view of the nature of gravity was not the final word. Similar fame would await anyone who could do the same with Darwin’s theory. But their ability to overturn the Theory of Evolution hinges on being able to provide sufficient evidence to do so, and ID doesn’t do that–no matter how much its proponents may wish it were so.
backwoods conservative on June 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Creationists remind me of kids who continue to believe in Santa Claus even after they find wrapped presents addressed to them from Santa under their parents’ beds in early December.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Also, backwoods, notice that Einsteinian physics did not refute Newtonian physics, but rather, it subsumed it as a special case within a more general theory structure.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Yes Salamantis, or another way I have seen it put is relativity reduces to newtonian physics.
BTW, your patience in calmly and politely arguing your point of view for so many hours is both remarkable and commendable.
backwoods conservative on June 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I already posted the response for this.
this is another case of ‘micro’ evolution being hailed as a ‘major advance’
because there are no real ‘major advances’.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I guess you missed where he/she started calling me names, after my first post to he/she…
no surprise, you darwiniacs only see what you want to see…
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
The way to find out is to place the two groups together and see if they can interbreed fertile offspring. If they can’t, we are indeed talking about macroevolution.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:43 AM
no surprise, you darwiniacs only see what you want to see…
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
The most shining, sterling case of psychological projection i have yet witnessed on this thread.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
darwiniacs are like small children who are close their ears and eyes and cry DODO DODO (darwin only…)
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
The most shining, sterling case of psychological projection i have yet witnessed on this thread.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
yawn…I’ve used that term before…imitation is the sincerest form of flattery..
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
It is not the evolutionists who close their eyes and ears to facts, logic and evidence, but the creationists who do so. This is proven by the fact that evolutionary theory is subject to elaboration and refinement in response to further data, while creationist dogma is forever frozen in the face of all further facts.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM
“Calm and polite?”, more like rude and obnoxious.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Sometimes it is not polite to call someone or something what they or it in fact is, but the truth, by definition, can never be an insult. And the white dog truth is that evolution is itself an evolving scientific theory, while creationism is an ancient and frozen religious dogma, and that evolutionists are willing, even eager, to modify their theory in response to further data and thus improve it, while creationists refuse to budge one iota com Hell, high water, or conclusive refutation, for they must believe that their dogma is eternal perfect gospel truth.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Yes, that’s about right. Truth is truth, no reason to change it. You talk in circles, spinning the same words over and over, never convincing. You base all that you believe on assumptions, calling these assumptions facts. They are not. They are assumptions. There is no way you can prove your assumptions. You try, but you fail every time. They will always be assumptions.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 10:58 AM
THIS is the problem. In order for Einstein to disprove Newton, he didn’t have to come up with new solutions, he just had to show that Newton was wrong.
My main point is that Creation nor ID has to be accurate for evolution to be false. The contention from evolutionists is that unless you can prove Creation or ID then evolution must be accurate. . . that’s not logically true.
And good science is dismissed as being from ‘religious fanatics’ instead of accurate scientists.
While you wouldn’t have to throw out the entirety of the laws of physics, the particular case to which the laws were observed to be broken would have to be reconsidered. Evolution breaks many laws of physics which would disprove it. . . but these breaks in laws don’t matter to most evolutionists because they merely say ‘it doesn’t prove ID or Creation’. Fine, it doesn’t. . . but it DOES disprove the theory of evolution.
Scientists aren’t comfortable saying . . . ‘we don’t know’. So they cling to the flawed theory of evolution instead of saying ‘we don’t know’.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Facts are facts, and evidence is evidence, and great masses of both support evolutionary theory. The ones making the unsupportable assumptions are the creationists. They cannot prove what they maintain, because it is a religious and not a scientific assertion, that is, a metaphysical and not a physical contention. Their stance is forever outside the realm of scientific knowledge, and forever within the realm of religious belief, and they can offer no means whatsoever that their just so story can either be proven or disproven, for it resides outside the realm of either possible proof or disproof. Not only is it not right; it is not even wrong. It is merely irrelevant, and any attempt to insinuate it into science is illegitimate, nonsensical, and absurd.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM
No, the evidence does not support evolution. That is where you are wrong. You try to turn assumptions into facts and you cannot.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Well, a lot of innocent people have been convicted because of masses of evidence supporting their guilt.
I bring it back to all the evidence that there is a gay gene. . . look at all the gay people. Just because there is evidence it exists doesn’t mean it actually exists. Scientists and people are wrong all the time. The most compelling argument the evolutionists in this thread come up with is that you can’t prove Creation or ID. I don’t argue that. I argue that you can disprove evolution . . . no matter how much circumstantial evidence you might come up with to anecdotally ‘prove science’.
For what it’s worth (irrelevant and all) you can’t disprove Creation or ID.
ThackerAgency on June 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Please cite a single law of physics that evolutionary theory violates. One cannot cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the sun.
And Einstein did not disprove Newton; he came up with his own overarching theory that subsumed Newton as a special case.
Good science survives peer review, and bad science fails to, regardless of its authors. To evaluate work not on its meirts but upon its authorship is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Admitting that “I don’t know” is the beginning of science; from there it proceeds to “lets try different things so we can find out.” But creationists can never admit that their beliefs are not knowledge; they confuse and conflate the two, when the difference between them is the presence or absence of evidence, which can be discovered via experiment (the aforementioned trying of different things in order to find out).
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
And that’s why ID/Creationism falls outsides the bounds of science. Science is both falsifiable and corrigible. The corpus of scientific knowledge is decidedly not immutable. Revealations do not meet these criteria. Why don’t we just preface science class with the factually correct statement that scientific theories are falsifiable and corrigible and then teach the best scientific theories we have in each area of science? Leave immutable eternal truths to math, philosophy, logic and religion.
phronesis on June 19, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I would like to see your chart on the evolution of a blood cell, or the pancreas, or the uterus. Explain how each stage would have evolved and how each stage provided enough benefit to allow it to mutate to the next stage until it finally became functional. You talk of fins turning into legs but never discuss the evolution of organs. I would like to hear your assumptions on these very essential evolutionary processes.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Rose, the facts are quite clear; the evidence for evolution is within our genes
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all
within our logic
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20569/?a=f
and within our laboratories
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
The ones making the ungrounded and unfounded assumptions are the creationists.
And yes, Thacker, evolutionary theory could be falsified in any one of many places, which makes it a scientific theory, and not a religious dogma like untestable creationism is. The fact that it has not been disproven in all these years, despite the fact that it would make a scientific careere to do show, shows just how strong of a theory it is.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
There are many non-atheists. Even a non-believer like Gould saw religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria. For a Christian evolution doesn’t offer challenges greater than those already posed by the miracles in the Bible or the difficulty of the modern world.
dedalus on June 19, 2008 at 11:23 AM
No the facts are not clear, until you can explain the process it is just a theory based on assumptions. You will have to explain how every complex system evolved in order to make it feasible. You can’t just say it happened but we don’t know how.
Rose on June 19, 2008 at 11:27 AM
while DARWINIACS refuse to budge one iota com Hell, high water, or conclusive refutation, for they must believe that their dogma is eternal perfect gospel truth
fixed it for ya..
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM
So, I’m supposed to explain in precise and comprehensive detail on this thread how every complex organ in every lifeform on this planet evolved? Great try at demanding a Hurculean task requiring volumes to be presented on a page.
But the evolution of many organs is indeed quite well understood. All you have to do is look it up; you’ve got Google, too.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM
but its not true. truth is truth. science cannot say one thing, and religion contradict it, without one being false, and the other true.
it totally contradicts evolution. its like saying satanism and christianity are compatible, and they can both be true. like dawkins said, evolution makes it possible to be a fulfilled atheist.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 11:32 AM
while DARWINIACS refuse to budge one iota com Hell, high water, or conclusive refutation, for they must believe that their dogma is eternal perfect gospel truth
fixed it for ya..
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM
right4life, you must’ve missed the part where I said that:
creationism is an ancient and frozen religious dogma, and that evolutionists are willing, even eager, to modify their theory in response to further data and thus improve it
even though it was right before the section you read and mangled. But it is no surprise that you show yourself to be willfully selectivly blind.
Salamantis on June 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
no just go ahead an evolve something…like I said take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal…you even get to name it!!
but you can’t. you can’t reproduce evolution, nor can you observe it in the fosil record, its a matter of faith.
right4life on June 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
By that standard one would need theory of everything before one could have a theory of anything and all science would be utterly impossible. This is the same mistake that those who conflate abiogenesis and the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. A single scientific theory doesn’t have to explain every fact in the universe only the facts in the domain it presumes to explain. Leave the theories of everything to religion and philosophy.
phronesis on June 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »