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..

[metmom]

If the speed of light were variable, perhaps the order of the universe would be very different than what we observe.

Seems to me that I've heard that the speed of light is not a constant after all.

Speed of light may have changed recently

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

And this is not the only source that says so.

So if we know that it can go slower, how do we know that it can't go faster?

At least, scientists tell us with a straight face that the entire mass of the known universe can expand to fill all know space in a trillion-trillionth of a second, thus putting the speed of expansion at a rate much greater than 186,000 miles/second when it suits their purposes to explain the origin of the universe sans God.

[metmom]

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?

Keeping the population alive.

So it would make more sense to just wait for things to happen naturally instead of speeding them up by putting the populations under stress?

Again, how does this compare to the mutation rate in the wild?

[allmendream]

A bit of research and perhaps you wouldn't sound so foolish. Human chromosome two lines up with two chimp chromosomes, there was no aneuploidy problem.

[allmendream]

The population of e.coli was NOT PUT UNDER STRESS. Please read the article and/or the paper. Nothing about putting the population under stress. I don't know how you got that idea in your head, but it is wrong.

A bit of research and you will find your answers.

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

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf

[metmom]

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimps have 24.

Is it not true that a change in the number of chromosomes in humans produces detrimental results?

How did the number of chromosomes change without adversely affecting the individual?

How could it in other animals?

[metmom]

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

"different histories"? But no stress, right? No selection pressures?

But "different histories".

[allmendream]

Chromosomal fusion would not lead to aneuploidy problems.

Aneuploidy like Downs syndrome, Klinefelters, etc are either a loss of an entire chromosome or the gain of an extra copy of a chromosome.

Chromosomal fusion is just a rearrangement of the same genes in 23 packages (x2) rather than 24 packages (x2).

No muss no fuss.

There are even the relics of an unused centromere on Chromosome two and telomeres where the fused chromosomes used to end.

Just a bit of research would answer your questions.

[allmendream]

Who said no selection or no stress?

I said “They were most likely under less stress and less selection than a wild population of e.coli.”

The experiment did not involve actively selecting for citrate utilization, neither did it involve deliberately putting the cells under stress.

The cells were allowed to grow. They were not put under stress, neither were they selected for anything other than growing in a lab environment.

[tpanther]

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.

I think you're confused again. It was me asking you to produce viable critical recent "peer review" of evolution by NON-creationist scientists.

Additionally, providing such "peer reviews" really exist, I mentioned how would you tell if it was the work done by a creationist scientist or a non-creation scientist, if there was no name attached to their critical examination of evolution reviews?

[hosepipe]

Actually the speed of light is stong evidence that God DOES EXIST..
The speed of light is way to slow to be practical in this Universe..
The speed of light is strange.. almost mysterious..

Einstein didn't like the speed of light.. its too limiting and strange...
I don't like it either (the speed of it)..

The speed of light limits humanity to this PLANET.. or solar system..
Warp speed is a mental construct of utopian Star Trek geeks..

[Coyoteman]

From your post #544:

Scientists have indeed challenged your cult. Non-creationist scientists, or not, it really doesn’t matter though.

I would appreciate some references or links to those challenges.

[LeGrande]

You DO like to stir the pot! ;^)

I like to whack the hornets nest and run! It is good for the circulation : )

[LeGrande]

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.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it was true and fulfilled prophecy. Otherwise it is like those infomercials that promise everything and deliver nothing.

[tpanther]

You’ve already seen them. When you saw the chemist, ASSuming you even bothered to read it, you squealed something about a theocracy or religion or being burned at the stake, and that was it.

Just like always.

It’s the same with you on each and every post on every single thread.

Meanwhile, we’d be interested in seeing something other than a non-effort on your behalf to show us a valid NON-creationist peer review that evo-cultists are always blabbering on and on about!

A recent truly critical examination of the cult of evo...

something besides a story about vegetation or chimps in Ngono.

[Mojave]

Quantum Signals Move at 10,000 Times Speed of Light
Thursday, August 14, 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403382,00.html

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“Something tells me that LeGrande has a problem telling us what the speed of spiritual light is. Now you want me to measure a figment of you imagination? LOL”

So the spiritual light of religion has not been measured? Then why not admit you are full of bull when you say you disproved God?

[LeGrande]

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.]

Until it can be demonstrated that some kind of information can be sent at greater than the speed of light, that is a pretty good falsification of the omnipotent God theory.

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?

You are presupposing an awful lot there. Your first false (or at least not demonstrated) supposition is that there is anything "outside" of our Universe. Your second false supposition is that the Universe was created by an intelligent being and that the creator isn't subject to its own laws. Etc. Etc. If you have any evidence to back up any of your claims I would be more than happy to look at it : )

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.

"If" doesn't cut it. The speed of light is very well defined and it looks like the EM field is the basis of our Universe. In other words light : )

The world is the way it is, and not some other way. You need to ask yourself why that is....

I do all the time. It is a marvelous mystery, but I try to see it as it is, not as I believe it to be : )

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

When the Bible speaks of light, it’s not always solar is it? The Bible often refers to a light beyond the comprehension of those who do not wish to see it.

[LeGrande]

Actually the speed of light is stong evidence that God DOES EXIST.. The speed of light is way to slow to be practical in this Universe.. The speed of light is strange.. almost mysterious..

I am curious? Why is the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, evidence of a God? And which god are we talking about? Ra or Lucifer the God of light?

[Mojave]

Until it can be demonstrated that some kind of information can be sent at greater than the speed of light, that is a pretty good falsification of the omnipotent God theory.

Because under the new gospel of LeGrande, the universe created God.