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..

[Mojave]

For providing the evidence that you asked for.

That was big one. Even for you.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The theory that the peppered moths were the result of mutations was never experimentally confirmed.

That's excellent. Now that we've given you the example you asked for, you'll stop saying it's non-reproducible? Or will you keep denying reality?

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was big one.

You asked for one, I gave you one. Need more?

[Mojave]

You asked for one, I gave you one.

If you repeat that lie 100 times, will it magically become a truth?

[Mojave]

Now that we've given you the example you asked for

That's positively pathological.

[Coyoteman]

Here's more data!

(I would rather post data than trade insults.)

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL!

[allmendream]

Dr. Lenski has already replicated his own results.

Moreover new genetic variation will arise in any growing population. It is the inevitable consequence of imperfect replication.

[Mojave]

No mention of Escherichia coli bacterium in the link. Wanna try again?

[Mojave]

Dr. Lenski has already replicated his own results.

He verified his own experiment? So did Alexis Carrel. Empirical science, sans the empirical science.

[Toddsterpatriot]

As soon as your prove your claim in post #289. Good luck!

[Mojave]

And you’re back to “prove the negative.” That wasn’t much of a surprise.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You made a claim that can’t be proved? I’m shocked.

[allmendream]

He replicated his own results. Did you not read the article? It becomes increasingly obvious that you know nothing of the subject, and neither do you wish to learn anything about it.

Your M.O. is typical. Nit pick about definitions of species. Accuse any data you don't wish to address as being fraudulent, or in error, etc. Anything to avoid addressing the data.

[Mojave]

He replicated his own results.

And that's empirical how?

Nit pick about definitions of species.

Nit pick? You adamantly asserted they didn't even exist.

[allmendream]

Wrong again, I said that although the term species is used it doesn't mean the same thing and among bacteria the concept is ill defined; so your question as to whether it is a new species or a new strain is meaningless.

Empirical: dependent upon data or data based.

Yes, the data of Dr. Lenski is empirical.

Why do you think someone else needs to confirm it unless you are suggesting he is engaged in fraud?

[Fichori]

Nice bones.

Why did someone draw funny lines between them?

[hocndoc]

Of course withholding is a tax.

Teaching less than the truth does not approach physical death or enslavement - we would all be guilty as well as victims.

There is no reasonable justification for prohibiting people who identify with a religion from acting politically.

Churches don’t influence politics and matters of State, the individuals within churches do so.

It is the individual members of churches who each have the right not to be killed, the right not to be enslaved, the right not to have their property taken or used for purposes against their will - within and informed by their religions.

Which other groups of like-minded people do you think should not be able to act together according to their beliefs?

You have a sense of truth, of right and wrong, your own personal philosophy. You act on it by expressing your opinion and beliefs. You have the right to try to convince others to agree with you, but you do not have the right to force them to act only according to your on personal philosophy.

[Mojave]

1. A species is a population of interbreeding individuals. Bacteria reproduce asexually.

2. I said that although the term species is used it doesn't mean the same thing and among bacteria the concept is ill defined

[Mojave]

Why do you think someone else needs to confirm it unless you are suggesting he is engaged in fraud?

Carrel wasn't engaged in fraud and his experiment continued for decades.