No, the term phyla has nothing to do with the age of the fossil. It is part of the way living things are arranged into classes according to similarities. The following explains it beautifully (from: Classification:
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
I disagree with that. Looking at all options and using opening discoveries of humans shows a high dependance on human intelligence. In addition the rules for assessing a position were formulated by humans also, not by a computer. To me the real test of intelligence for a computer in this case would be for the computer just knowing what the legal moves are, to formulate the rules by which to asses a good position by playing - as humans learn the game. In other words, computers are still dependent on humans for being told how to assess a situation (or a chess position).
Dozens of times in each case, yes. People can tell when they're getting a recorded message.
I do not see why survivability cannot be calculated in living things. In engineering, say in making a bridge, one has to calculate not only the strength of the design but also climate (storms, etc), earthquakes, and other factors - and this is done regularly. The same goes for planes. They are built not just to be good enough to take off and land but also to survive storms, some equipment failures and so on. So in my view you can indeed intelligently design survivability. In fact, we know that there are many ways in which the survivability of humans has been achieved such as the ability of our immune system to deal with totally unknown attackers, the ability of our DNA to silence genes acting improperly, the ability of our bodies to 'put out more than usual' in an emergency, etc. So there are clearly ways to achieve survivability in living things and it cannot be doubted that He who was able to create life, would also be able to ensure survivability by various methods.
Be prepared to be accused of being medved.
As a note, he is ridiculed for considering Venus bouncing around in the solar system, yet the current explanation for the moon requires a Mars size planet(where did it come from?) caroming off of the Earth(where did it go?).
No, it's not wrong, as can be proven by a google search using the phrase 'de novo protein design.' People are trying to design (and succeeeding at designing) functional proteins from scratch.
I think we are talking two different things. I am saying that a totally new protein with new characteristics, qualities, etc. to accomplish something new in the organism. We are nowhere even close to that as the following shows:
de novo Protein design
De novo protein design is the generation from first principles of a protein sequence that will fold into a predicted and defined three-dimensional structure. In de novo design, the designed sequence bears no intentional resemblance to the sequence of a natural protein. The guiding principle behind de novo design is that, if we can design from scratch a simple protein whose physical characteristics mirror that of the design, then we can hope to fully understand protein structure, stability, specificity and, ultimately, function. Thus, the approach of designing proteins from first principles may permit the incremental synthesis of a system that mimics the complexity and subtlety of a natural protein. We are focussing on the design of two types of proteins: synthetic membrane proteins, and synthetic water-soluble peroxidases. Both projects require the extensive use of computer modeling, chemical synthesis and physical-chemical characterization of the designed proteins.
From: de novo protein design
As you can see they are just trying to create a stable protein for testing. Not to accomplish any purpose at all or to put it into any organism which is where the rubber meets the road. They have not succeeded even in that.
This is what is technically known as 'moving the goalposts'. Having made the categorical statement that we can't make a new gene, and then having been challenged on it, Gore3000 now says we can't make a new gene and all of the accoutrements that usually go with a gene.
Nope, I am not moving the goalposts. The question arose regarding abiogenesis way back in post 4626 and specifically to my statement that "Really? In spite of all our knowledge, intelligence and technology no one has yet been able to create as much as a single new gene that performs a single new function. We alone have some 30,000 such genes. ". Clearly this is a very big problem for evolution and abiogenesis - all the parts have to work together. You do want to end up with a living, viable organsims do you not?
1. gore3000 [omitted]: examples of large natural deaths of populations is virtually unheard of.
2. PatrickHenry's link: there is general agreement over the existence of 6 major extinction events.
3. gore3000: Which has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinian/Malthusian struggle for life theory.
You post #1. #2 refutes #1. #3 is a transparent, sorry attempt to change the subject. I'll say again, would you like to concede or counter?
An aside to the lurkers, this is why the amnesia comments crop up so often. This is why we call it "blue spew." This is the reason for virtual ignore.
An aside to the crevos, take note: These are the debating tactics with which you are associated. These are the type of arguments you are allowing to champion your position. This is why crevos and their arguments are met with such skepticism and distrust.
There is a big difference between the early formation period of the solar system and the time of the dinosaurs.
Not to mention an astonishingly poor understanding of the theory of evolution. In any event, we march merrily forward to post 5000.
In your linked article it claimed that one of the extinctions had destroyed some 96% of the species on Earth. Did you not read it? Seems such a large extinction would have left plenty of 'space' for a new phyla - if evolution were true.
Ya know, it's funny. I've asked several crevos several times to explain, briefly, the theory of evolution that encompasses both origin of life and the formation of the species. Every time, without fail, they change the subject, tell me to shut up, or ignore me completely.
How come, Pat? Why, Pat, why?
Well, it's difficult for someone as well-loved as me to grasp how anyone could be treated so poorly. Have you given any thought to getting a new tailor? Perhaps it's those bell-bottoms you keep wearing that throw off your presentation.
True, but physics didn't change during that period. It really doesn't matter to me when a body had such an eccentric orbit, but why such a "large" body would have one. Wouldn't accreting bodies require a relatively unperturbed center of mass?
It was one of the myriad large bodies coalescing out of the planetary disk.
... caroming off of the Earth(where did it go?).
The Earth, the Moon and a whole lot of debris that has since burned up or smacked into something else.
No, the term phyla has nothing to do with the age of the fossil. It is part of the way living things are arranged into classes according to similarities. The following explains it beautifully (from: Classification:
Think of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Whoever said it was?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.