Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by 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..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
Every time, judging by the lack of any successes. Lemme know if you ever come up with one.
No source? I'm shocked. LOL!
You've haven't produced one. The experiment is reproducible, even though there is no record of it ever having been successfully reproduced.
Alexis Carrel all over again.
Nothing more.
That is not correct. That might be all that you could glean from such a specimen, but your lack of knowledge in the field does not so limit others.
Mrs. Ples (the fossil's nickname) was one of my favorites in graduate school, and I spent hours with a cast resembling the one on the left in my post. I learned a lot, but nothing like the experts who have studied the field for forty years or more.
But that's nothing. You obviously know more than they do, so why don't you tell us all about it?
That was quick.
That was sarcasm. “The experiment is reproducible, even though there is no record of it ever having been successfully reproduced.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CE6D9123FE633A25757C1A96F9C946296D6CF
Empirically speaking, you are wrong.
Other scientists are watching individual microbes evolve into entire ecosystems. Paul Rainey, a biologist at the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study at Massey University, has observed this evolution in bacteria, called Pseudomonas fluorescens, that live on plants. When he put a single Pseudomonas in a flask, it produced descendants that floated in the broth, feeding on nutrients. But within a few hundred generations, some of its descendants mutated and took up new ways of life. One strain began to form fuzzy carpets on the bottom of the flask. Another formed a mat of cellulose, where it could take in oxygen from above and food from below.
Fast-Reproducing Microbes Provide a Window on Natural Selection
You don’t need no steenking experimental verification. Very special rules for very special truths. Just like Global Warming®!
Peppered moths.
Where are the experiments for Creationism again? LOL!
I don’t remember those experiments. You have a link? Maybe a Bible passage?
Inside your strawman.
You're welcome.
How could you? There's never been a successful experimental replication of the results.
But you knew that.
For what?
For peppered moths, I know.
For providing the evidence that you asked for.
True that. The theory that the peppered moths were the result of mutations was never experimentally confirmed.
Nice foot shot.
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.