Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by 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.
That may be so, but then the whole sequence might be considered an intron.
Andrew C has been examining the raw data in a highly technical field, and in terms of counting genomic changes was doing better than I was. There is nothing wrong with what he's been doing; it just so happens that one of the two human (and ape) proteins he's been looking at is on the y chromosome. Even you, surely, must appreciate that a functional gene for the most fundamental part of the protein synthetic apparatus cannot be on the y chromosome, since women make proteins the same way men do.
No, it just means that on a structure like the ribosome, which is responsible for the synthesis of almost every protein the cell makes, a single mutation has enormous impact, and so the protein is very highly conserved. In contrast, a protein like alcohol dehydrogenase, which in some cases is responsible for the oxidation of a wide variety of alcohol substrates, can undergo mutations which change its specificity without global effects on the organism - particularly if you have multiple copies of the gene.
Essential, universal proteins tend to be highly conserved. Proteins which code for, say, detoxification of external toxins evolve rapidly, as the environment changes.
No, they weren't. I originally wasn't going to pick on you about this point, but the more research I did I realized it was kind of important. Here's a quick little link about it.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amphibfr.html
and a more detailed link about amphibian/reptile evolution.
http://www.myherp.com/articles/other/evolution.htm
Frogs as we know them were not around when the amphibian-reptile transition occured. They have survived, in one form or another, for millions of years since then.
Your position is characteristic of a VERY common misconception about the way evolution works. New species do not completely replace old species unless there is direct competition between them. Amphibians occupied a specific niche in the ancient ecosystem. They could move about on land and thus avoid competition from fish and other water-based organisms. Reptiles had traits that made them even less dependent on water and thus could occupy a NEW niche in the ecosystem. They DID NOT replace amphibians. They didn't have to. Reptiles could entirely avoid places where amphibians ruled. That's why the traits that define reptiles were such an advantage: scales, shelled eggs, better skeletons. Amphibians were perfectly capable of competing with speicies of fish and occupied a new enviornment from them. Reptiles occupied still another enviornment. The Nautulis(sp?) has existed relatively unchanged since it occupies a perfectly suitable little enviornmental niche all its own and nothing better has come along that directly competes with it enough to force into extinction. Reptiles did not "replace" amphibians.
Back to your point about frogs not changing. Individual speices of frogs, and there are oodles, are widely varied and have changed drastically since the first frog-like ancestor species evolved. The basic "frog format" however, is well-adapted to the conditions these species tend to occupy. Hence it is superior to other speices that might have tried to compete with it and has not died out.
There are no contradictions in the theory of evolution. What you are discussing here is a very common misconception about how evolution works. You're right! The position you're arguing against here doesn't make sense and is, in fact, not the way the system works.
If the miserable few examples of avian evolution that you provided, are all you personally need to believe that avian evolution is fact, then I doubt you really want to discuss science.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Please Think
Just to make sure before I reply, do you honestly believe the above statements to be fact and that you aren't being satirical? I don't want to put words into your mouth.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
A repeat of my previous point: How can you realistically discuss science when you don't seem to understand the difference between scientific facts, scientific theories, scientific hypotheses, and just plain BS?
Quoting from "ThinkPlease", which you included in your reply to him:
The preponderance of the evidence shows that: ..... [snip]. These statements are not immutable, and can be changed by a preponderance of the evidence in the favor of a new model, provided it explains the behavior of the world better than any of the old models listed above.
Far be it for me to speak for "ThinkPlease" but which words in the phrases "a preponderance of evidence" and "These statements are not immutable....." do you not understand?
So that's what abiogenesis is, a process! I always thought it was a fairy tale. I wonder what kind of process? Why would it be a process and not an event? If it is a process, it is the process of ceasing to think. If it is an event, it is a wish upon a falling star.
LS,
I just want to make absolutely sure, as this has been a problem before. Thanks for asking though.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
My point exactly, so why do you keep pretending like you know the difference?
Kindest Regards,
Boiler Plate
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.