Antievolutionists asked to review draft standards in Texas

The National Center for Science Education ^ | October 16, 2008

[Soliton]

Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.

Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."

Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..

[Oztrich Boy]

If supernatural explanations must be accepted as scientifically valid until explicitly disproven, then what's to prevent anyone from submitting any number of theories that posit supernatural causes, no matter how implausible, and demand that they be accepted without any supporting evidence?

Invisible, undetectable, steel eating termites were responsible for the collapse of WTC7

[Mojave]

I said nothing other than an unassailable model of how the change of allelic frequency is accomplished.

Through "natural selection" was your assertion. Which says nothing.

[allmendream]

Differential reproductive success leads to a change from generation to generation.

This has been seen in thousands of experiments.

If I subject a population of bacteria to increasing heat, those variations that are beneficial at high heat contribute more to each successive generation. Those variations that are detrimental at high heat contribute less to each successive generation. Eventually a “heat resistant” strain of bacteria is created merely through selection of genetic variation.

[Mojave]

Eventually a “heat resistant” strain of bacteria is created merely through selection of genetic variation.

Strain? Quit dancing.

Is the strain a new species? Does the "strain" have newly evolved genetic material or a changed balance in pre-existing genetic material?

[allmendream]

A species is a population of interbreeding individuals.

Bacteria reproduce asexually.

You can call a different strain a different species if you want, and sometimes Scientist do, if the strain is different enough and can be differentiated from the parent species.

But I am not “dancing”, or addressing speciation. I am addressing evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

And yes, the new strain/species would have newly evolved genetic variation.

In fact a bacteria under stress will up regulate error prone DNA polymerase and down regulate DNA repair enzymes, thus increasing its intrinsic mutation rate. This causes an increase in genetic variation while the bacteria is under stress. An increase in genetic variation is “newly evolved genetic material”.

[Mojave]

A species is a population of interbreeding individuals.

So German Shepards and Labrador Retrievers are different species? Since when?

Bacteria reproduce asexually.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

And yes, the new strain/species would have newly evolved genetic variation.

Beg that question. Now it's time to call your bluff. Produce a source for your assertion.

[allmendream]

Bacteria reproducing asexually is hardly a nonsequitur, maybe you cannot follow simple logic?

A species is a population of interbreeding individuals. Bacteria do not interbreed. Follow?

How would a newly evolved genetic strain NOT have newly derived genetic variation?

I plate a single bacteria on a plate. The genetic varieties that exist is one. When it divides itself into several thousand bacteria there are then several thousand bacteria, none of which are exactly the same. That is genetic variation that did not exist at the beginning of the experiment.

Bacteria under the stress of selective pressure increase their mutation rate, thus further increasing the amount of genetic variation.

These bacteria evolved the new genetic variation sufficient to utilize citrate while the parental bacteria could not utilize citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

[Coyoteman]

They are not going to believe a word you say.

They did not come to their beliefs through evidence, and no amount of evidence will change those beliefs.

What is sad is to see so many of them trashing science in order to support their religious beliefs.

One doesn't have to be anti-science to be conservative.

[Mojave]

A species is a population of interbreeding individuals.

False definition.

Bacteria do not interbreed.

And back to the non sequitur.

Follow?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7904

Swallow?

[Mojave]

One doesn't have to be anti-science to be conservative.

One doesn't have to promote global warming to be conservative.

[allmendream]

Being Scientific IS conservative.

Liberals base their thinking on unsubstantiated belief and emotionalism immune from rational thought, and produces nothing of value.

Conservatism is rational, evidence based, and utilizes information to produce things of value.

[allmendream]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Bacteria do not breed, either among themselves or with members of other species. Scientists can and do refer to bacteria as “species”, as I said from the beginning, but it doesn't mean the same thing as it means among sexually reproducing populations.

Giving up on the new genetic variation point?

[Mojave]

Thanks for your "proof" that bacteria species don't exist.

"But pinpointing the specific species of bacteria that influence the balance of inflammatory cells, says Dr. Littman, could lead to more sophisticated treatments that fine-tune bacteria in the intestine and, in turn, dampen the production of inflammatory cells." --ScienceDaily (Oct. 17, 2008)

[allmendream]

As I said from the beginning, Scientist do use the term “species” for bacteria; but it doesn't mean the same thing as among sexually reproducing species; and even Microbiologists disagree as to what the actual definition of species among bacteria actually means. As such your question about if it would be a ‘new species’ or a ‘new strain’ is practically meaningless. But if you want an answer, sure, it the new strain would be a new species. Who can disagree when there isn't a set definition?

Giving up on the new genetic variation point. Bacteria do evolve new genetic variations and develop into a new “species” as a result.

No interest in addressing the new “species” of ‘citrate plus e. coli’?

[Mojave]

"Scientists have discovered that a bone infection is caused by a newly described species of bacteria that is related to the tuberculosis pathogen." --ScienceDaily (Oct. 14, 2008)

Your rationalization failed. Your dancing is amusing.

[allmendream]

WHAT ARE BACTERIAL SPECIES? Frederick M. Cohan ­ Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06459-0170; ▪ Abstract Bacterial systematics has not yet reached a consensus for defining the fundamental unit of biological diversity, the species. The past half-century of bacterial systematics has been characterized by improvements in methods for demarcating species as phenotypic and genetic clusters, but species demarcation has not been guided by a theory-based concept of species. Eukaryote systematists have developed a universal concept of species: A species is a group of organisms whose divergence is capped by a force of cohesion; divergence between different species is irreversible; and different species are ecologically distinct. In the case of bacteria, these universal properties are held not by the named species of systematics but by ecotypes. These are populations of organisms occupying the same ecological niche, whose divergence is purged recurrently by natural selection. These ecotypes can be discovered by several universal sequence-based approaches. These molecular methods suggest that a typical named species contains many ecotypes, each with the universal attributes of species. A named bacterial species is thus more like a genus than a species. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160634?journalCode=micro

[allmendream]

It seems your attempting to “dance” away from addressing the subject of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation and the generation of citrate plus e.coli.

Dance dance dance.

Giving up on the fact that new genetic variation can and does arise during evolution?

[Mojave]

Dance dance dance.

And you do it so awkwardly.

"In a new study researchers from Aarhus University, Denmark found bacteria in the follicles of acne patients and healthy individuals to be those of previously known species, disputing the theory that acne is caused by some yet-to-be-identified bacteria." --ScienceDaily (Oct. 16, 2008)

"A strain is a subset of a bacterial species differing from other bacteria of the same species by some minor but identifiable difference." --http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3010.htm

Giving up on the fact that new genetic variation can and does arise during evolution?

That's a far cry from your false and unsupported assertion that any change in the genetic pool of a species must be by mutation. Gray moths.

[Mojave]

Bacterial systematics has not yet reached a consensus for defining the fundamental unit of biological diversity, the species.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

[allmendream]

Any change in genetic material is mutation by definition. How do you think citrate plus e.coli developed from a single bacteria if not through mutation of the genome of that one bacteria?

And yes, Scientists use the term “species” for bacteria, as I said from the beginning. But it doesn’t mean the same thing and Microbiologists do not even agree what “species” means in bacteria. Substantiating that point doesn't shoot ME in the foot, as I've attempted to point this out to you from the beginning.

It makes no difference if you want to call citrate plus e.coli a new species or a new strain. Either way evolution of a SINGLE bacteria that was unable to utilize citrate, gave rise to a bacteria that IS able to utilize citrate.

So much for thinking that no new genetic variation could arise.

You've lost every point, and are now reduced to dancing around the nonexistent definition of species for bacteria while pretending it is somehow relevant to the discussion of evolution through selection of genetic variation.