Originally posted by Nineveh
john2001:
So far Behe has done absolutely no science that backs up his IC claims. He wrote a little pop anti-science book, and has been playing the lecture circuit as a "controversial" figure.
He isn't
alone. There are a lot of people you have to account for on that link.
LOL! The only real scientists on that link are dead people. The others are not players, hence their opinions are the opinions of laymen. (A couple are 7th Day Adventists at Loma Linda-not much real science their either.) Still no science of ID. (Plenty of ego, though!)
(original statement was an incoherent reference by ninevah to "left handed amino acids".
Here is a start.
Here is a more modern item
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/7/14/1
john2001: wrote
Similarly dinos do not "turn into" birds. Birds and dino's share common ancestry.
Same as above. Did you know that Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC,
disagrees?
First of all, Olson was objecting to the National Geographic's touting of a fossil called "archeoraptor" without proper peer review. National Geographic got burned on that, because archeoraptor turned out to be a composit of two other fossils.
(Other genuine fossils have been found since then with similar characteristics.)
To claim that Storrs Olson disagrees with the notion that dinosaurs and birds share common ancestry is ludicrous!
No, I do not believe your great great gramma was an animal. She was human like her great great gramma before her.
She was, as you are. Humans are a species of animal.
My position is that Taxonomy is a useful tool within science, just like chuck's ideas about "adaptation". If we used Taxomonomy as the discipline itself, it would be just as incorrect of a base for Biology as using chuck's tools are.
Adaptation is origin of variation in evolution. "Chuck's" notion of common descent makes the world of biology go 'round.
I don't know about the other guys, but, I personally am not now, nor have I ever to my recollection discussed religion on this group. I am interested in people accurately representing the mainstream scientific viewpoints on matters of origins.
Alright, if you don't buy into abiogenisis, then where do
you think chuck gets a start?
[/QUOTE]
We all believe in abiogenesis, whether it is God "telling the earth to bring forth life" or whether it is by the natural processes of chemistry.
I am quite happy to let the science of chemistry progress. Some sort of chemical abiogenesis seems to be the only possible direction. However, I do not demand that science give all of the answers today.
john2001
So my "3rd opinion" is the one that the scientific community uses is that there are unresolved issues in science. That is the very reason for having science is to study and resolve the unresolved. However, science is a displine of supreme honesty, and the honest person admits that there are an infinity of things we do not know.
I have
never claimed otherwise
Science is a wonderful tool to investigate the nature around us. However where you and I will disagree is when it boils down to "faith" in who is right according to the evidence.
Nonsense. The "questions" you ask are the questions of the unreasoning skeptic, whose purpose is not to illuminate, but to obfucate.
john2001:
The point is that we in science do not have to state an opinion beyond what is reasonable when asked a question. We are not in the worldview philosophy business, so we do not have to guess it all right at the beginning. We take into account that our knowledge is tentative and transitory.
I would beg to differ. It wasn't evidence that lead the evos to lable parts of DNA "junk" or organs "vestigial". It was their world view upon which their "science" was based. One had to "assume" evolutionary left overs for those conclusions.
First of all, the term "junk" DNA was applied because these sequences do not code for proteins. At the time, it appeared that the only function of DNA was to code for proteins. This is genetics, not evolution.
However, the presence of pseudogenes in the junk DNA *is* predicted by the theory of evolution, and, in particular, the fact that those pseudogenes correspond to functioning genes in other species is strong a strong piece of evidence of evolution.
As to "vestigal" parts, this is a fair designation. The fact that organs that are otherwise sources of potentially fatal infections persist in populations indicates that there must be some function offsetting the liability of these organs.
Ultimately, the basic pattern of all of biology of "reuse" of parts, rather than novelty, is something that is easily understood in the light of evolution, and is not understandable in terms of a "designer" .
john2001:
..Ah, and you're supposed to be Galileo in this discussion... Guess you don't know anything about Galileo, do you?
Um, no, pompous one, the point is, as the RCC had a strangle hold then, chuck has the strangle hold now.
The point is that you seem to know about as much about modern science as you do about Galileo. (Which is to say, not much!)
john2001:
Sure, those attempts to inject creationism into schools have failed. The fact that there is a political movement that keeps trying to push these things into the public school system makes evolution a political hot potato that causes writers of textbooks and teachers to try to skirt the issue.
I'll ask again,
where? Where in the US has chuck been limited in the classroms?
Everywhere. You have, at any one time in the US, between 10 and 20 bills before state legislatrures to try to either censor (such as with textbook disclaimers as in Alabama), limit, or to teach some creationist doctrine as "equal time" . The time and energy that are expended fighting these things detracts from the mission of education.
Furthermore, you have students indoctrinated with creationist propaganda by their peers, parents, or churches parroting the kind of garbage that we see you guys parrot taking up valuable classroom time.
john2001:
Yep. That abiogenesis happened, there is no doubt. How it happened is the thing that is not understood.
Faith!? :shocked:
That's what it takes to believe ordered sequence is birthed from the "essoteric soup"
Nope. Common sense. Either life always existed from the biginning of the universe, or it originated at some later time. Life is chemistry, ergo, there had to be an origin of life from non-life.
That is true whether you are assuming that God told the earth to "bring forth life" or that chemical abiogenesis happened.
john2001:
I think you have a really warped notion about how much money is supplied to teaching. If anything, it is a lack of funds that is part of the problem of public education. Having to fight off creationist garbage is not helping the situation.
You mean, evo science. There
is another way to look at the evidences.
Basically science is science. There is no "non evo" science.
Lemme guess, along with being an evo, and a pagan, you are a liberal, too?
For this discussion I am a scientist. Politics and relgious persuasion are not the issue. Indeed, the *entire* argument from the creatiionist community is a political or religious one, not a scientific one.
john2001:
You mean was don't you? Kenyon used to be a decent scientist, way back when he did research back in the 1970's. He stopped doing research at that time, and has been working primarly a college administrator. (FYI people who become department chairmen don't do science. They don't have the time.)
LOL!!!!
So in essence "Kenyon
used to be one of us, but now he is a traitor."
Sounds like you just don't like what he has to say
anymore.
No. Kenyon had a brief scientific career, which he then moved away from.
You should read his book _Biochemical Predestination_. It is a classic.
Basically, Kenyon has not had anything scientific to say in more than 25 years.
Well, I gave you a link to info, I guess asking a third time for some from you will be another waste of time.
Regarding Mendel and evolution, you can start here.
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Mutation
john2001:
(Nature article)
I did. It's a tremendously exciting and important result that no doubt will change the way we view common descent. However, it by no means invalidates the notion of common descent. In fact, the study would make no sense if the idea of common descent was not there.
It's ok, I don't expect you to appologize for your attitude. I have come to see most evos lack the ability to admit error.
Anyway, my point is still the same. After
one comparison the hypothesis was understated, and I am sure we will see more.
You don't have a point because you don't have any expertise in biology. It is not possible for you to read and understand the article you are quoting, as you have amply demonstrated in your posts on the subject. Aharvey tried to set you straight on this, but you are so bullheaded that you won't listen to him, even though he has been patient and has given you more time than you deserve.
john2001:
The only problem with your hypothesis is that nobody controls science. Science is a free marketplace, and the only reason that creationism, or ID (whatever) is not selling is that that free market sees no value in it.
I think you missed a few steps. The dogma of the day gets the money for education and air time. As for OH, the
school board voted it down, not the parents who wanted it.
It is right and proper that the trends and topics of the scientific community be the things that are taught in science classes. We should be glad that the parents in OH didn't get what they asked for.
john2001:
You are making the mistake of believing that there is only one possible configuration for life. Life as we know it, is a particular configuration. There is no reason to believe that it is the only configuration.
[
Before you go making the problem harder for yourself, let's consider what we actually have here to work with. You need to explain how RNA is in the right sequence to mean anything.
There could be billions of "right" sequences. The problem has not been studied enough to make that call.
