Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[TeleMad]

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

 

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

Biochemist: I noticed that you did not answer my question, so perhaps I could articulate it again.

 

You make so many errors that I have to address.

 

Biochemist: My suggestion is that the best proof cases for natural selection are those variations that do vary irreversibly.

 

That's a nice PERSONAL OPINION for YOU to hold. Doesn't make it fact.

 

The FACT is that the changes in beak morphology in response to changing environmental conditions is an excellent example of natural selection witnessed first hand in the wild.

 

 

Biochemist: It also suggests strongly that the variation is not as a result of mutation...

 

And Darwin never mentioned mutation in relation to natural selection. What Darwin said was that there was VARIATION and INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in the population, and those that gave their possessors an advantage would be preferentially favored by natural selection. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS SEEN IN THE CHANGES IN BEAK MORPHOLOGY OF DARWIN'S FINCHES.

 

Biochemist: 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.

 

Which shows you don't know what you are talking about. How many times and how many different ways do I need to point that out to you?

 

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

 

In the event that your posts continue to show your ignorance of the very theory you are attacking, I will continue to point out your errors.

[Biochemist]

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

 

Perhaps. Behe did not offer a general proof case (to my knowledge) to deny IC for any linear sequence enzyme system. This is essentially an exercise in sophisticated probabilistic mathematics. We could certainly envision a single enzyme sequence that reaches adequate complexity. I understood Behe's point to be that a simple enzyme sequence may not be complex enough to be IC.

 

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

See post 220

 

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

See post 220

[TeleMad]

Behe did not offer a general proof case (to my knowledge) to deny IC for any linear sequence enzyme system.

 

So support your position already ... show us that your proposed system is actually IC. How many times do I have to ask you? How many times will you avoid supporting your position?

[Biochemist]

So support your position already ... show us that your proposed system is actually IC. How many times do I have to ask you? How many times will you avoid supporting your position?

Read post 220

[TeleMad]

Okay, so you LOSE all of the benefits of IC. Your biochemical complexity argument is reduced to a pitiful argument from incredulity... "gee, this stuff is so complex it just must have been designed." No type of formal underpinnings to your assertion anymore, just your personal opinion - which means next to nothing, seeing as how you know nothing about the theory you are attacking.

 

Worse, we've now seen that you will be dishonest if you think it will help you out. You came hear claiming multiple systems were IC when they're not. Shame on you.

[TeleMad]

So let's see where we stand. ID sucks and shouldn't be taught in science class.

[Queso]

yeah seriously. what would they teach anyway..? i don't see any facts here, so i doubt you would see any in a classroom. students would fail to see that too, and believe whatever the teachers say...that's if they actually listened.

[Fishteacher73]

One scary fact is that they are trying to push ID in TX. Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the US and many state's cirriculum follows suit. ID can and porbably should be discussed in school, but in a philosophy or theology class. If you are to bring in the Christian ID model as "science" than any other religious creation myth should also be presented as "theory". Hell, I'll make one up just have them put it in there.... :friday: