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 ...
You've clearly got enough of your own to deal with.
Just what IS that 'rate'?
Did Chimps EVOLVE foot thumbs or did we humans DEVOLVE them?
Circular logic.
Hell!
We have problems with the HOT kind!!!
UMMmmm...
Cranberry sauce!
You DO like to stir the pot! ;^)
That is SO true in my area!
But the POTENTIAL was there: just like all bacteria have the POTENTIAL to be come Human after a while.
--EvoDude(between my anode and cathode, I, too, have great potential.)
Problem is, tpanther, is that even if you did demonstrate it beyond the shadow of a doubt, he’d deny it just as he denies all the fulfilled prophecy that people have presented him with.
There is NOTHING that he would accept as valid evidence that anything in Scripture is real or true. He denies it without ever backing up any of his statements. It’s just his say so.
His loss.
As usual.
Sorry; but a logical oxymoron has just occured.
Reply #666 is reserved for folks like LeGrande
Slow down guys!
I have other threads I’ve got to monitor tonight!
No, read the post again. The stress rate has to be just so for a long enough period of time. Too high a stress rate would more than likely kill off the population before the mutation rate would produce enough change to be viable, especially with it needing that many generations to occur.
Hey, what I'm interested in is finding out why there's a difference in the number of chromosomes between chimps and man if they shared the same ancestor.
From everything I've seen, a change in the number of chromosomes in a human is NEVER beneficial. It virtually always results in deformed, or defective if you will, humans who are generally not capable of reproducing.
I imagine the same exists for other species as well.
So where did the wide range of the number of chromosomes come from if all life evolved from the same pond scum?
And why is that LeGrande? Because it is a "speed limit" that is not known to have ever been exceeded in this space-time universe? And that being the case, that God Himself cannot exceed it? [Therefore He is shown to be not omnipotent. Q.E.D. It's a sophomoric argument.]
An omnipotent God is never subject to the rules He put in place to govern the universe He created. Creator and creation are distinctly different entities, one free cause, the other intended effect. So how do you plan to demonstrate that the speed of light "proves" that God doesn't exist?
If the speed of light were variable, perhaps the order of the universe would be very different than what we observe. If the fluctuations were wildly varying from time to time and space to space, perhaps nothing distinct could exist in any way that we humans could become conscious of in the first place, let alone put into language.
The world is the way it is, and not some other way. You need to ask yourself why that is....
Just my two cents.... FWIW.
And you know this how?
If you’re not too busy, I would still like to have some references or links to the scientific challenges to the theory of evolution that you mentioned last night.
Your suggestion that in Dr. Lenski’s experiment the stress level needed to be carefully modulated to get an increased mutation rate without the stress killing the cells is based upon what exactly?
Your misunderstanding of what the experiment consisted of no doubt.
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.