Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[TeleMad]

It does not appear that you understand my last post.

 

No, it appears you don't realize how ridiculous your last post was.

 

Biochemist: Contending that God does not exist is as faith centric as contending that he does.

 

More silliness. By your ridiculous standards everything is as faith based as everything else.

 

Do you believe there's an invisible, magical pink unicorn sitting next to you controlling your mind and forcing you to type what you do? No? Gee, your disbelief is as faith based as Creationists belief in a young Earth and Noah's flood.

 

Oh, and I guess it's just as faith based as evolution, right! So I guess now you will try to demand that the invisible, magical pink unicorn theory be taught in science class!!!! LOL!!!!

 

Get real dude! Believing in something that has absolutely NO empirical evidence verifying it - and that we can never obtain such evidence for ourselves - is faith based. Not believing in something with those qualities is logic. Like not believing in the invisible, magical pink unicorn that's controlling your thoughts.

 

Biochemist: How could you rationally suggest otherwise?

 

ROTFLMAO!! How can you rationally suggest it is! Get real dude.

 

Do you not understand the problem of comparing apples to oranges? That's what you are doing. Here, let me point out the apples and oranges to you again...maybe you'll see them this time.

 

Telemad: There is empirical evidence of evolution, natural selection, speciation, etc. There is NO empirical evidence of a God. To try to claim that the scientifically verified process of evolution and the religious, purely faith based beliefs of Creationism/ID should be on a level playing ground in science is laughable.

[Biochemist]

No, it appears you don't realize how ridiculous your last post was.

 

More silliness. By your ridiculous standards everything is as faith based as everything else. ...

 

I, of cousrse, made no such assertion. I regard dropping to personal attack at the ultimate capitulation. I will take it as a confirmation of my argument.

[TeleMad]

I, of cousrse, made no such assertion. I regard dropping to personal attack at the ultimate capitulation. I will take it as a confirmation of my argument.

 

I'll take your refusal and inability to address my points as your conceding that you lose.

 

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

[Biochemist]

No, MISLEADING the students. Oh, and WASTING valuable science class time with religiously motivated "theories".

 

If ID is to be taught, it belongs in philosophy and/or religious classes.

 

You are telling me that texbook authors that intentionally use discdreditied proofs for natural selection (the British moth in the industrial revolution, Darwin's finch beaks) are concerned about others misleading students? That is a little disingenuous.

 

Oddly, Philosophers generally agree (if that were possible) that Darwinist naturalism is a natural for a philosophy class, and many such classess teach it as such. This is different than ID?

[TeleMad]

I also am a little uncomfortable with the use of "evolution" to describe the current state of thought, when it is so far at odds with the thesis as originated by Darwin. Evolutionists tend to revise their theory and not give it a new name. I regard that as disingenuous.

 

Showing your ignorance of the very theory you claim is flawed.

 

Scientists have renamed the modifications to Darwin's theory. Ever hear of neo-Darwinism or the synthetic theory of evolution? Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

 

These are all evolution. Darwin's theory was evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION. His primary theory - that natural selection can lead to formation of new species - is still valid to this day. However, as with most other scientific revolutions, the original proposal does not account for everything. It has to be expanded as new findings occur.

 

By the way, you're a biochemist so you must know about inheritance ... what about it? Mendel's original postulates have been modified a great deal over the years .. for example, linkage groups, incomplate dominance, co-dominance, epistasis, etc. ... yet his findings are still valid today and we still call today's version of all of this inheritance. Why aren't you all up in arms about that?

[TeleMad]

You are telling me that texbook authors that intentionally use discdreditied proofs for natural selection (the British moth in the industrial revolution, Darwin's finch beaks) are concerned about others misleading students?

 

The FACT is, the studies of Darwin's finches is a great example of directional selection in action, observed right there in nature. And it is also an example of evolution since the allelic frequencies, controlling inheritabl traits, in the population changed over generations. In fact, it is a directly observed example of evolution by means of natural selection.

 

Oh, did a quick search and found this rebuttal to Wells' claims about the finches (the site has rebuttals to other of Wells' assertions about the invalidity of his so called Icons of Evolution).

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon7finches.html

[Biochemist]

Showing your ignorance of the very theory you claim is flawed.

 

Scientists have renamed the modifications to Darwin's theory. Ever hear of neo-Darwinism or the synthetic theory of evolution? Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

 

These are all evolution. Darwin's theory was evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION. His primary theory - that natural selection can lead to formation of new species - is still valid to this day. However, as with most other scientific revolutions, the original proposal does not account for everything. It has to be expanded as new findings occur.

 

By the way, you're a biochemist so you must know about inheritance ... what about it? Mendel's original postulates have been modified a great deal over the years .. for example, linkage groups, incomplate dominance, co-dominance, epistasis, etc. ... yet his findings are still valid today and we still call today's version of all of this inheritance. Why aren't you all up in arms about that?

 

 

I appreciate you responding in such a way to as to prove my point for me.

 

1) in the case of inheritance, the fundamental proposition that offspring get their phenotype (and genotype for that matter, although I don't think Mendel discussed that (?)) from their parents is still true, ergo the continued use of the word has meaning.

2) Although there are indeed selected examples of natural selection spawning what look like new species, this is decidcedly NOT the general case that was advocated my Darwin. It is wholly disingenuous to suggest that the theory has been slightly modified.

3) Punctuated equilibrium is almost the opposite of the core tenets of natural selection (i.e., a large number of small serial changes aggregated into a species change). Punctuated equilibrium wass a reasonable response to the discontinuities in the fossil record (although generally the theory is poorly suported.) PE should probalby best be characterized as a contrarian position to evolution. In this case, I think it makes sense to leave the theory in place, because it is the only extant model (that I am aware of) that tries to deal with the fossill record discontinuities. One view of ID is that it could be used to support punctuated equilibrium, or conversely that PE supports ID.

[Biochemist]

The FACT is, the studies of Darwin's finches is a great example of directional selection in action, observed right there in nature. And it is also an example of evolution since the allelic frequencies, controlling inheritabl traits, in the population changed over generations. In fact, it is a directly observed example of evolution by means of natural selection.

 

Oh, did a quick search and found this rebuttal to Wells' claims about the finches (the site has rebuttals to other of Wells' assertions about the invalidity of his so called Icons of Evolution).

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon7finches.html

 

I don't think anyone has shown that these finch changes are directional. The species retains the capability to revert to original phenotype. Did anyone show that permanent irreversible new species actiually emerged form this variation?

[paultrr]

Nope. Go back and read the previous posts.

 

 

 

There is no scientific theory that opposes evolution. There is no Creation/ID vs. evolution debate that should be held in a science class.

 

 

PS: Has anyone noticed that IDists write the most long-winded posts?

 

First off, I don't believe in ID or creationism to begin with. However you can find a few scientists out there who do.

[lindagarrette]

First off, I don't believe in ID or creationism to begin with. However you can find a few scientists out there who do.

Such as?

[TeleMad]

I appreciate you responding in such a way to as to prove my point for me.

 

Nice rhetoric, too bad your (lack of) knowledge can't back up your mouth.

 

1) in the case of inheritance, the fundamental proposition that offspring get their phenotype (and genotype for that matter, although I don't think Mendel discussed that (?)) from their parents is still true, ergo the continued use of the word has meaning.

 

2) Although there are indeed selected examples of natural selection spawning what look like new species, this is decidcedly NOT the general case that was advocated my Darwin.

 

Showing your ignorance of biology again.

 

A great deal of inheritance is not caused by the simple single-gene complete dominance model Mendel put forth. Mendel's version of inheritance is grossly incomplete and at odds with a vast number of known examples and mechanisms of inheritance.

 

1) Mendel considered each gene to be a single, isolated, discrete informational particle (which paired up with its partner). Under his proposal, there's no such thing as chromosomes and linkage groups. But guess what? Every organism Mendel studied - and the rest of animals and plants - have their genes lined up along a chromosome, and therefore, also have linkage groups. Mendel was wrong ... flat out wrong.

 

2) Mendel considered each trait to be controlled in a simple dominance/recessive manner: since then we've learned of epistasis, co-dominance, incomplete dominance, etc. Mendel's proposal was very incomplete.

 

3) Mendel also considered each trait to be controlled by a single gene (unit factor): since then we've learned that many traits are controlled by multiple genes. Another key feature of inheritance missing from Mendel's proposal.

 

By your anti-evolution "logic", Mendel's outdated and incomplete theory should be considered refuted and religious opposing "theories" to inheritance should be taught in science class.

 

 

Of course I could give other examples, like the Bohr model of the atom, which is known to be wrong but is still taught. Why aren't you up in arms about that? What about Newton's theory of gravity, which turns out to be incomplete and has been modified since his times....yet is still called gravity? Why aren't you whining about that?

 

Biochemist: It is wholly disingenuous to suggest that the theory has been slightly modified.

 

It is wholly ignorant to suggest that Mendel's postulates of inheritance haven't been at least as modified.

 

Biochemist: 3) Punctuated equilibrium is almost the opposite of the core tenets of natural selection (i.e., a large number of small serial changes aggregated into a species change).

 

False ... showing your ignorance of the topic again.

 

Punctuated equilibrium is the opposite of GRADUALISM, not natural selection. And since punctuated equilibrium and gradualism aren't mutually exclusive in nature, both can occur and both can be true.

 

Biochemist: PE should probalby best be characterized as a contrarian position to evolution.

 

Hello! Punctuated equilibrium IS evolution.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: The FACT is, the studies of Darwin's finches is a great example of directional selection in action, observed right there in nature. ...

 

Biochemist: I don't think anyone has shown that these finch changes are directional.

 

Good lord, is there no limit to your ignorance of biology? How many mistakes about biology does this make for you? Here, let me teach you something you should have learned in school.

 

Are you familiar with a normal bell curve? Selection can produce three kinds of changes in the a normal bell curve distribution of the phenotypes of a given trait. In stabilizing selection, the bell curve narrows as selection works against the phenotypes at the extreme sides of the curve. In disruptive selection, the bell curve distribution "splits" as selection favors the phenotypes at the two extremes. In directional selection, the bell curve as a whole shifts over to one side or the other because selection favors one or the other extreme. The changes in beak morphology observed in nature in Darwin's finches was an example of the latter...

 

"If an environment changes over time, directional selection may favor phenotypes at one of the extremes of the normal distribution. ...

 

Darwin's finches provide an excellent example of directional selection." (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, and Diana W. Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p397)

 

If you don't believe me still, I'll do you a big favor and spend the time and effort to type out the rest of the last paragraph that expands on its introductory sentence that shows you to be wrong. Do you need me to expand on my lesson?

 

It's quite clear you are attacking a theory you know virtually nothing about!

 

 

Biochemist: The species retains the capability to revert to original phenotype.

 

Yep, and that occurred, which was also DIRECTIONAL SELECTION.

 

Biochemist: Did anyone show that permanent irreversible new species actiually emerged form this variation?

 

Did I say anything like that? Nope.

[TeleMad]

paultrr: First off, I don't believe in ID or creationism to begin with. However you can find a few scientists out there who do.

 

Such as?

 

As one example, Behe is an actual biochemist who gets published, and he believes in ID.

 

However, that doesn't make ID science. There a physicists who believe in UFOs, but that doesn't make UFOlogy a science.

[Biochemist]

Nice rhetoric, too bad your (lack of) knowledge can't back up your mouth......

Personal attackes do not earn replies

 

Showing your ignorance of biology again.....

Personal attackes do not earn replies

 

It is wholly ignorant to suggest that Mendel's postulates of inheritance haven't been at least as modified.

Never suggested it.

 

False ... showing your ignorance of the topic again.

Personal attacks do not earn replies

 

Punctuated equilibrium is the opposite of GRADUALISM' date=' not natural selection. And since punctuated equilibrium and gradualism aren't mutually exclusive in nature' date=' both can occur and both can be true.[/quote'']This point is a complete non sequitur. You might recall that my point was a discussion of nomenclature, not veracity. It is not necessary to identify all truth and group it under evolution.

 

Hello! Punctuated equilibrium IS evolution.

Another non sequitur. If I understand your contention above, you are suggesting that PE is a subset of the Evolution domain. Perhaps you could help me by maintaining a level of continuity in your degree of specificity.

[TeleMad]

I did not mean to suggest that a lone enzyme pathway is necessiarily irreducible, although it might be.

 

So you disagree with Behe, on Behe's home turf?

 

Biochemist: I probably should not have included my reference to glycolysis earlier without including the other parts of the "complex machine" in the framework (e.g., the signals to transcribe proteins from DNA when more glycolytic machinery is needed, the physical arrangement of glycolytic proteins within the cell, the multiple inhibitors and accelators of the glycolytic pathway, the paucity of inhibitors/accelators that are not directly involved in the glycolytic process, etc.)

 

So are you claiming that what you have now described is irreducibly complex?

 

You keep avoiding answering question about IC .. why is that? Seems you want to have the benefits of IC without having to demonstrate IC.

[Biochemist]

Good lord, is there no limit to your ignorance of biology? How many mistakes about biology does this make for you? Here, let me teach you something you should have learned in school.

 

Are you familiar with a normal bell curve? Selection can produce three kinds of changes in the a normal bell curve distribution of the phenotypes of a given trait. In stabilizing selection, the bell curve narrows as selection works against the phenotypes at the extreme sides of the curve. In disruptive selection, the bell curve distribution "splits" as selection favors the phenotypes at the two extremes. In directional selection, the bell curve as a whole shifts over to one side or the other because selection favors one or the other extreme. The changes in beak morphology observed in nature in Darwin's finches was an example of the latter...

 

If you don't believe me still, I'll do you a big favor and spend the time and effort to type out the rest of the last paragraph that expands on its introductory sentence that shows you to be wrong. Do you need me to expand on my lesson?

 

It's quite clear you are attacking a theory you know virtually nothing about!

 

Yep, and that occurred, which was also DIRECTIONAL SELECTION.

 

Did I say anything like that? Nope.

 

I really wish that you could tone down the social rant flavor of your responses.

 

I noticed that you did not answer my question, so perhaps I could articulate it again. You certainly did not suggest that the Galopagos finches varied irreversibly. My suggestion is that the best proof cases for natural selection are those variations that do vary irreversibly. I do understand your bell curve discussion, but it could easily be arguied that the back-and-forth adaptive phenotype merely confirms that there was not enough variation to characterize the adaptation as a new species. It also suggests strongly that the variation is not as a result of mutation, but rather as a result of (dare I say it) extremely complex adaptive behavior in the normal function of a single species.

 

Ergo, my contention is that the specific example of the Galopagos finches is not a particularly strong proof case for natural selection unless someone demonstrated irreversibiltiy. Have they?

 

In the event that your response includes personal attack, I will stop responding to your posts.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist uses the term Irreducible Complexity and argues against evolution. Yet it is clear that he is not using the term irreducible complexity appropriately and also that he doesn’t understand biology/evolution.

 

 

Biochemist’s errors related to Irreducible Complexity

 

1) Biochemist said that glycolysis is irreducibly complex – Behe’s catch phrase - yet Behe himself says the TCA cycle, and other A-->B-->C-->D metabolic pathways, aren't.

 

2) Biochemist haphazardly threw the term irreducibly complex around, labeling things such as “the mamalian sodium ion cell wall pump (or the urea cycle, or beta oxidation of fats, or glycolysis, or sex hormone homeostasis, etc, etc, etc, etc) “ as IC, even though Behe does not list any of these as being IC in his book, nor did Biochemist do an IC analysis to show that any of the systems he listed as IC were IC.

 

3) When directly asked whether he was asserting that glycolysis was IC as he had originally claimed, Biochemist skirted the issue and then just lumped in a bunch of other stuff into the discussion – again, without saying whether his new system was IC or not.

 

 

 

 

Biochemist’s biology errors

 

1) While saying he speaks as a biochemist slash pharmacologist, Biochemist made the mistake of claiming mammalian cells have cell walls: something anyone who has taken BIO101 would know to be wrong.

 

2) Biochemist doesn’t know that evolutionists have given new names to revisions of evolution: names such as Neo-Darwinism (synthetic theory of evolution) and punctuated equilibrium.

 

3) Biochemist doesn’t know what natural selection is. He claims that the observations of Darwin’s finches’ beaks changing in response to changes in the environment as being confirmation of natural selection has been invalidated, when in fact it is an excellent example of natural selection.

 

4) Biochemist doesn’t know what evolutionary term directional selection is.

 

5) Biochemist erred by saying that punctuated equilibrium is the opposite of natural selection, when in fact it is not. And if is to be called the opposite of anything, PE is the opposite of gradualism.

 

6) Biochemist’s statements show that he is ignorant of the vast many modifications that have been made to Mendel’s postulates of inheritance over the years.

 

7) Biochemist tried to claim that believing in evolution is just as faith-based as believing in God: what a silly, ridiculous, laughable, Creationist-like position to assert. We have direct, empirical evidence of natural selection, evolution, speciation, and so on, but absolutely no direct empirical evidence of a supposed supernatural God.

 

 

Considering all of the above, why should anyone take Biochemist's arguments seriously?