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 ...
HeLa cells are an immortal cell line taken from the cervical cancer of Henrietta Lacks.
Alexis Carrel reportedly kept a chicken heart cell culture going for twenty years. Without an actual sample of the culture it is impossible to conclude if he actually had an immortal cell line.
Either way the conclusions that Carrel drew from it, that all cell lines would be immortal, was obviously in error. Hayflick corrected that error.
Amazing how the power of Science to discover and correct error is attempted to be used to suggest that all Science is in error; and that we need not even consider the implications of data, because later it might be found to have a flaw in one of the conclusions taken from it.
So it's not science?
Why can’t you remember a question that was asked a few minutes ago?
You've already been shown the chemist said nothing remotely religious or unscientific. Repeating these cultist lies is another now failed liberal tactic. It's worked for years, but enough cirtizens are onto such lunacy now and the tide is turning.
That creationists do not submit to the peer reviewed journals speaks to the nature of their evidence. That creationists are seeking to have the rules of science changed to allow belief and revelation to be included speaks very loudly to the nature of their evidence.
Your peer review journals were shown to be a complete farce. You were challenged to present some recent critical inspection of evolution by NON-creationist scientists and the best you could do was post some nonsense about chimps and vegetation.What's TRULYrevealing is when cultists scream about a sticker that merely reminds students the truth of evolution being theory, undermining their cult.
Sure he did. Carrel's experiment with noncancerous cells was used to advance the false theory that cellular aging was solely due to environmental conditions.
HeLa cells are an immortal cell line taken from the cervical cancer of Henrietta Lacks.
And those cells survive due to genetic factors, not environment.
Evne changing the subject, you shoot yourself in the foot.
The multiple and changing theories of evolution involve plenty of blind faith, in addition to whatever degree they may be "scientific."
It has been posted to you several times.
The entire experiment took twelve years to get to generation 44,000 of twelve experimental populations. Citrate plus e.coli evolved in one of those twelve populations around generation 31,500. By thawing generation 20,000 from that population Dr. Lenski can replicate his results and re-evolve citrate plus e.coli.
31.5/44 = 0.716 * 12 years = 8.6 years (an approximation)
So the spectacular results of Dr. Lenski, which he has replicated, took about 9 years I would guess. Two to three years to check the results, replicate them, and write a paper which will probably win him the Nobel prize one day.
Please read the article. I know you wont actually deal with the data but it might keep me from having to spoon feed you the basics of the experiment.
So Creationism is not science?
My father is a Baptist preacher. He paid income tax, Medicare and Social Security on his pay as a preacher as self-employed worker. Read the information at that link.
Yes, the government collects equal amounts. For those employed by others, the employer - including churches - pays half, the employee has half deducted from his wages. Those who are self employed pay the whole thing - or double what an employed person has deducted from his salary.
You spend so much time trying to discount the Creator, Soliton. Some day you’ll meet Him; may you have stopped your crusade against Him before doing so.
well in that case, once again you fell flat on your face!
His conclusion that any cell line will be immortal was what was in error. Hayflick corrected this error.
So you conclude from this that no science is ever to be trusted? Because one experiment in the dawn of cell culture had an incorrect conclusion taken from it that was eventually corrected?
I take an entirely different lesson from the episode, one that doesn’t suggest that we ignore and fail to deal with the data.
You continued inability to deal with the data is noted.
So your figure just dropped from 12 years to a guess of 8.6 years. Watch that landing! And since mutations allegedly occur randomly, your 8.6 year figure is pretty much meaningless.
Multiple projects could be expected to have such a random mutation occur in one of them in a fraction of that time.
But let's not wait for reproducible results and instead just throw empirical science out the window.
Why can't you link the question? Or answer your own?
Can. Shouldn't have to.
False. It involved noncancerous heart cells and was intended to prove that complex multicelluar organisms, like chickens, could live forever if not exposed to environmental contaminants. And his long term project and its non-reproducible results had the effect of establishing and preserving that false theory for over fifty years.
That's what happens when the theory becomes more important than facts or independent verification.
Why ask me? I've never even mentioned it.
It wasn't just one mutation. It is obviously a series of mutations that enabled e.coli to utilize citrate.
It took till generation 31,500 to get this spectacular result. A result you think it would be ‘throwing empirical science out the window’ to deal with intellectually.
Empiricism means based upon data. This is based upon data. Data you fail to deal with.
Post after post. You don't read the experiment. You don't actually accuse Dr. Lenski of fraud. You just FAIL to DEAL with the DATA.
Your continued EPIC FAIL to deal with the data is humorously observed.
Why not answer?
Yup, it's a neat little chinese fire drill they call science isn't it? Then they pretend to call it conservatism!
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.