Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^ | March 11, 2003 | Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano

[Remedy]

A university professor said she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought, and she now says academic freedom at her school is just a charade.

During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women (MUW), Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled "Critical Thinking on Evolution" -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design. Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."

The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics.

"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News. "[W]ithout knowing anything about my talk, he makes that decision. I think it's just really an outrage."

Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought and said she hopes her dismissal will smooth the way for more campus debate on the theory of evolution. University counsel Perry Sansing said MUW will not comment on why Bryson was asked to resign because it is a personnel matter.

"The best reaction," Bryson says, "and the most encouraging reaction I have received has been from the students." She added that the students who have heard the talk, "They have been so enthusiastically supportive of me."

Bryson has contacted the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy and is considering taking legal action against the school.

[Boiler Plate]

How creationist! Paste it in-line under a "Dear Junior" header Vade

You decide to jump in a exchange between Junior and myself, please do not expect top billing.

None the less your explanation of the evolution of flight was really quaint and you did score high for originality. I don't think anyone else you use that one.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[VadeRetro]

You decide to jump in a exchange between Junior and myself, please do not expect top billing.

No one is quibbling about my billing.

I don't think anyone else you use that one.

"Cursorial" theory. A Yahoo! on 'cursorial theory bird flight' gets 203 hits.

[js1138]

As for post #327, I do not understand how it addresses either of the questions I raised with the professor. Perhaps you could explain.

You started the discussion of chromosome count inpost #161 with this:

Then I asked whether he believes in chromosomes, which of course he did. So I asked him how we evolved from 22 chromosome pairs to 23 chromosome pairs gradually. He didn't even try to answer.

I assume you were challenging the assumption that a species could have members with differing chromosome counts and still interbreed with viable offspring. Lots of species do, as indicated in post #327.

Humans do not show the same degree of variability in chromosome count, but it does exist and does not always result in retardation or sterility.

Particularly interesting is the mosaic count, since it directly applies to your question about evolution.

[longshadow]

Luddite¹⁷²⁰ placemarker

[Boiler Plate]

As we have already seen, this is simply not true--the skeletons are so reptilian in character that two of them were actually mis-identified as reptiles for several decades, and study of the cranial structure has shown it to be much more reptilian than avian.

This is from Dr. Sankar Chatterjee of the Univ. of Texas

"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. "

So is Archaeopteryx a transitional species? Apparently not by 75 million years. Of course Dr. Chatterjee may be a charlatan as well seeing as he admits to the difficulty of proving the evolution of birds.

"Although birds are one of the best-known groups of living vertebrates, their origin, evolution, and early adaptive radiation are poorly documented in the fossil record."

Fortunately you can fill in the gaps with some more of your delightful "Bruce the Air Grabbing Bi-ped" stories.

Regards,
Boier Plate

[Boiler Plate]

"Cursorial" theory. A Yahoo! on 'cursorial theory bird flight' gets 203 hits.

Well so much for original, but you still get quaint points!

[ml/nj]

Lots of species do, as indicated in post #327.

Really. I do not understand where #327 indicates that lots of species have breeding members with differing chromosome counts. I'm not even sure what polyploid means. The first definition I saw said: "Having three or more (Gk. polys, many) sets of homologous chromosomes," and for homologous chromosomes it said: "A pair of chromosomes containing the same linear gene sequences, each derived from one parent. Humans normally have 22 pairs of homologous chromosomes [plus the XX or XY]." So what is this supposed to mean?

And doesn't this relate to plants? If there are "lots of species" with mixed-chromosome-count populations as you suggest, maybe you could identify two such animal species so I could go read about them.

ML/NJ

[atlaw]

"Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers." Did Chatterjee really say this? And if so, is there some context for the quote that is missing? I knew Chatterjee was kind of flakey, but I figured he was mostly just over-enthusiastic about his own find.

[balrog666]

Once again you display all the charm, grace, and wit of the average starving weasel. It must suck to be stuck in the cocoon of ignorance you wrap around yourself.

Oh, and the horse you rode in on too.

[atlaw]

Your repetitive, fact-free and long-winded insults seem to boil down to "Oh yeah, so's your mother." Make a macro out of that and post it occasionally. It'll be just as effective.

[js1138]

And doesn't this relate to plants? If there are "lots of species" with mixed-chromosome-count populations as you suggest, maybe you could identify two such animal species so I could go read about them.

A link for the google impaired

This is just the first thing that came up. You may feel free to continue this search on your own. You showed initiative and curiosity with your professor. Continue down that line.

[Boiler Plate]

Here is the website

http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/titles/sampler/chatjee.htm

[js1138]

From the link provided in the previous post:

Fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and chickens all have some polyploid species.

[VadeRetro]

[Quoting from Chatterjee]

"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. "

So is Archaeopteryx a transitional species? Apparently not by 75 million years. Of course Dr. Chatterjee may be a charlatan as well seeing as he admits to the difficulty of proving the evolution of birds.

Simple non sequitur. Chatterjee is not proving your point. Worse, I have already quoted Flank in great detail refuting exactly Gish's claim that Archaeopteryx "isn't a transitional" because it had feathers. That is, what about all the reptilian features it has which no modern bird shares?

Furthermore, since the Chinese feathered dinosaurs of the late 90s--specifically Caudipteryx and Protoarchaeopteryx--feathers are no longer considered diagnostic exclusively of birds. Thus, even the lawyerly escape hatch you and Gish are trying to use has been closed for years. Get the latest Scientific American, the one on newstands now, and stop trying to "prove" your point by stumbling through the world oblivious to scientific fact and what has been said to you so far.

[VadeRetro]

I might as well mention that you don't refute Archaeopteryx with Protoavis, either. At least read the thread you're on, if you don't read anything else!

[VadeRetro]

I liked Shaka Zulu, too, but that's three times you whiffed at a simple question. That's OK. Just jump in and jabber anything you like. You and f.C!