Posted on 02/09/2009 10:37:36 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
No Tolerance Allowed: Stein declines university speech after 'hundreds' of angry emails
by Christine Dao*
Comedian/economist/lawyer Ben Stein backed out of delivering a spring 2009 commencement speech because of complaints to the university about his views on evolution.
The University of Vermont’s president, Daniel Mark Fogel, was bombarded with angry messages, including one from British atheist and Darwin fanatic Richard Dawkins, after inviting Stein to deliver the university’s commencement speech. Stein had given a sold-out economics lecture at UVM on April 25, 2008, and it was for his economics expertise, not his views on evolution, that Fogel invited Stein back.
After Fogel shared “profound concerns” with him over the protest, Stein voluntarily withdrew from the May 17 appearance and declined the 7,500 (USD) honorarium that came with the invitation.
“I did not ask him to withdraw,” Fogel said at a news conference. “I wrote to Ben and, because his talk last spring was about the economy, I had always assumed that that would be the subject of his talk.”
“[L]et me be clear, I did not ask Ben Stein not to come,” he reiterated. “I had invited him and I was not going to retract the invitation. But I was not going to let him be blind-sided by the controversy…. I asked him to confirm that he would speak about the economy and it was at that point that he withdrew.”1
In a university press release, Fogel wrote:
Mr. Stein has also expressed opinions on subjects unrelated to economics, most notably with respect to evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and the role of science in the Holocaust. Those views are highly controversial, to say the least. Following the announcement of Mr. Stein as Commencement speaker, profound concerns have been expressed to me by persons both internal and external to the University about his selection. Once I apprised Mr. Stein of these communications, he immediately and most graciously declined our Commencement invitation.2
Stein, who has spoken at Columbia, Yale, Stanford, and many other universities, told The Burlington Free Press that he initially didn’t want the UVM engagement but agreed to it, as well as an approximate 80 percent cut in his usual fee, because of mutual friends he and Fogel share. Stein called the whole episode “pathetic” and the university’s response “chicken sh**, and you can quote me on that.”
“I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein told Free Press. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen—not just what the ruling clique calls science.”3
The Holocaust reference in the press release, Stein said, probably came from the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed when he interviewed the curator of a former Nazi “hospital” called Hadamar, who had cited “Darwinism” as the reason behind the horrific killings that happened there.
“I like Dr. Fogel and feel sorry that he is caught in the meat grinder of political correctness. My heart goes out to him. He’s a great guy trying to do his best in difficult circumstances.”3
Fogel said he received hundreds of emails, but only a few came from people at UVM, a signature implication of evolutionists and their intolerance bullying their way into arenas where they are not concerned, invited, or involved.
References
UVM’s president responds to questions about commencement speaker Ben Stein. Straight from the Source. Posted on straightfromthesource.wordpress.com on February 2, 2009, accessed February 4, 2009.
Office of the President, Campus Communication. The University of Vermont press release, February 2, 2009. Available on straightfromthesource.wordpress.com
Johnson, T. Ben Stein responds to UVM flap. The Burlington Free Press. Posted on burlingtonfreepress.com on February 4, 2009, accessed February 4, 2009.
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor.
It seems that it is your claim that this RNA after being transcribed from DNA that is more similar between humans and chimps, is then spliced and diced such that it would be more similar between chimps and gorillas.
So you are not claiming (apparently) that the spliced RNA nontranslated transcripts of chimps and gorillas will be more similar, but that is not only quite an illogical stretch not based upon any data, it is also a far cry from your assertion that the DNA similarity between humans and chimps being greater than ether's similarity with gorillas was a “logical impossibility” and “B.S.”.
Holy moving goal posts Batman!
Are you now willing to admit that my assertion that humans and chimps are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla is not “B.S.” or a “logical impossibility” but a clear fact based upon the data?
==Yes, transcribed from DNA that is more similar between humans and chimps than between chimps and gorillas.
When I say genome, I mean both the coding and non-coding sequences.
==It seems that it is your claim that this RNA after being transcribed from DNA that is more similar between humans and chimps, is then spliced and diced such that it would be more similar between chimps and gorillas.
All I know is the ENCODE says that each segment of code can produce five, seven or more functionally different transcripts. It stands to reason, then, that identical segments of the code can be used for very different purposes with respect to the great apes and humans. As such, I am predicting that they are going to find that these transcripts are one of the main reasons why chimps are more similar to the other great apes than humans in terms of body plan and functional needs.
==it is also a far cry from your assertion that the DNA similarity between humans and chimps being greater than ether’s similarity with gorillas was a “logical impossibility” and “B.S.”...Holy moving goal posts Batman!
Not at all. I was speaking about the entire genome, not just the linear sequence of DNA. I find it interesting that you wait until now to draw such a distinction. Could it be that you have realized that I am on to something and you are trying to weasel out of your own reductionist position to save yourself from future emarrassment?
==Are you now willing to admit that my assertion that humans and chimps are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla is not “B.S.” or a “logical impossibility” but a clear fact based upon the data?
I already said that it is clear that their linear DNA sequences are more similar, but added that doesn’t mean much because each segment of the non-translated regions can produce five, seven or even more functionally different transcripts. Thus, the near identical linear DNA sequences of chimps and humans can produce vastly different results in terms of body plan and functional needs.
You claim that this is all accomplished by the same genetic code. I have long predicted that there are codes upon codes (and even perhaps within codes) that cause these phenotype/functional differences within the genome/epigenome of chimps and humans. And I am quite confident that my prediction will be vindicated with further research.
If you were speaking “of the entire genome” you are still wrong. The human and chimp genome are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla genome.
So you DO admit that when looking at “linear DNA” (do you not understand that ALL DNA is linear?) humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla.
So you agree that when I stated exactly that and you said “I call B.S.” that it was YOU who was incorrect.
Wow. Progress. GGG finally, after much grousing, evasion, and quibbling; finally admits that the statement he said was “B.S.” was correct; but only about “linear DNA”. LOL.
All DNA is linear.
Only RNA transcripts are cut and pasted from different sections of the genome.
"we found that transposons (Alu) and repetitive segments caused large indels, which strikingly increased the average amount of sequence divergence up to more than 2% in the 3′-UTRs. Moreover, 20 out of the 87 transcripts contained more than 10% structural divergence in length. In particular, two-thirds of the structural divergence was found in the 3′-UTRs, and variable transcription start sites were conspicuous in the 5′-UTRs. As both transcriptional and translational efficiency were supposed to be related to 5′- and 3′-UTR sequences, these results lead to the idea that the difference in gene regulation can be a major cause of the difference in phenotype between human and chimpanzee."
==Only RNA transcripts are cut and pasted from different sections of the genome.
I consider the cutting and pasting to be part of what the genome does. Am I wrong about that? And further, if you are arguing that the instructions for the cutting and pasting originate from some other source besides the genome, then you are admitting that this is being controlled by something other than what you call the universal code of the DNA. Either way, I win.
That had nothing to do with your “prediction” of greater homology between chimps and gorillas in those regulatory sequences than is between chimps and humans.
It has not been in doubt that gene regulation was the major difference between humans and chimps; it obviously has to be as our proteins are about 99% similar. That doesn’t mean that our bodies will be 99% the same any more than two buildings made with tools that are 99% the same will be built the same way. Our proteins are, after all, just machines.
For example both humans and chimps have a gene for bone elongation, and that gene is 98% the same, and the protein is 99% the same; but our arms and legs are not within 99% the length of each other because of how that gene is expressed in arms and legs (longer arms and shorter legs in the chimp).
This does nothing to address the greater homology between humans and chimps than between chimps and gorillas, as all the regulatory sequences in Chromosome 1 and 2 (97% of each chromosome) are MUCH more similar between humans and chimps (the color RED) than between chimps and gorillas (GREEN).
Look at the map of chromosome 1 and 2 again GGG. What color do you see predominantly? 97% of that represents untranslated DNA sequences, including all regulatory sequences on those chromosomes.
What color do you see GGG?
==All DNA is linear.
It depends on what you mean by linear. For instance,
“One exon (i.e. a protein-making portion of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on as many as 14 different chromosomes. This means
that one exon can specify one part shared in common
by many different proteins.”
Gone are the days when genes were thought of as linear ‘beads on a string’ arrangement.
The genome binds to proteins and codes for proteins; this enable it to make functional RNA transcripts that code for proteins.
It is the RNA transcripts that are cut apart and pasted together to make different RNA products from the same DNA sequence. That was the entirety of your defense about multiple transcripts was it not?
Now you seem to not even be following your own argument.
No wonder you think either way you win, when you don't even understand your own argument it must be time to declare victory! ;)
That is RNA.
DNA isn’t RNA.
Do I need to go K-12 on you again?
DNA makes RNA transcripts. RNA transcripts are what are being ‘mixed and matched’.
Is that the long way of you admitting that chimps and humans could not possibly be as similar as their linear DNA suggests? That’s all I have been saying all along. My point is, now that we know that DNA is not read in linear fashion, but is instead transcribed in bits in pieces across many chromosomes and then spliced together, this will likely explain in large measure why chimps are more similar to apes than humans.
Mixed and matched by what, Allmendream? You said the genome is controlled by the universal code/DNA. Are you now admitting that there are codes upon codes? If so, should these codes upon codes be considered part of the genome or not?
PS Let’s stop with all the mutual insults already. It only slows down progress. Let’s do what Christ said and forgive and forget and go back to the cordial relationship we had when we first met. What do you say?
Mixed and matched by self splicing RNA, RNA protein complexes, and proteins all in response to molecular signaling processes.
This is not apart from the universal genetic code (other than RNA self splicing) it is part and parcel of how it all works.
It is hard to apologize for calling someone ignorant (which is merely a voluntary state of being and not at all an insult) who has called me a fanatic and openly told me that I was not a Christian and tries to portray revisionist history where somehow you ‘defeated me’ in arguments, when on all those aforementioned points your statements were in conflict with reality (detection of HIV in AIDS patients, the motivation of self proclaimed Islamic terrorists, the shuffling of genetic elements in antibodies, as well as the “logical impossibility” of chimps and humans being more similar than gorillas in their DNA ).
I will apologize for any expression I have made that conveyed any contempt, I will try to lighten up. :)
God bless and keep you triple G.
I didn’t ask for an apology. All I’m saying is that if we both are truly Christians, then let’s bury the hatchet and agree to disagree agreeably.
What planet are you from? This has got to be one of the most bizarre posts I've read in a long while.
That has nothing to do with the actual source of why we look so different, and the DNA differences that account for that difference is a maximum of about 7-8% difference over the genome. Once again, just because the orders (DNA) are about 93% the same, and the machines to carry out the orders (proteins) are all about 99% the same doesn't mean the finished product will be within even 80% the same morphology and appearance.
For example a very small change in bone elongation protein expression, control of neonatal development phases (increasing time of brain growth), gene control to make hairless bodies; and there would be HUGE changes in the morphology of the critter with a change that accounted for less than 0.00001% of the entire genome.
The argument for evolution/common descent doesn't rest on the similarity of DNA between chimps and humans, or that our differences from them be based primarily upon genes rather than gene control; the argument is based on the overwhelming pattern of similarity and divergence that forms phylogenies of nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence that indicate when the two populations shared a most recent common ancestor.
This pattern is found to greater and lesser extents in genes, regulatory sequences, endogenous retroviral sequences, repeat DNA, and pseudogenes; exactly as if genes and regulatory sequences were under selective pressure not to change, while ERV’s, repeat DNA and pseudogenes are more subject to divergence when comparing between species.
This same patter can be seen forming in experimental populations and among human populations, and is used to determine things such as the Asiatic origin of Native American populations rather than being Semitic as the Book of Mormon implies and several of their prophets have said.
I find it hilarious that many of the same FReepers who would decry such usage of DNA to determine probable times of common ancestry among species chimed in to fully embrace this same technique if it cast doubt upon the veracity of the Book of Mormon!
PS I spoke before I reached the end of your reply. I too will “lighten up.” And I too wish God to bless YOU and keep YOU.
All the best—GGG
I have indeed been blessed, and I count my blessings in gratitude to the Lord every day.
You mean you don’t read my posts before you reply to them?
That really explains a LOT. I will try to make my posts shorter ‘triple G’ with ADD. ;)
Not only am I saying that our around 6% genomic difference and 2% genetic difference with chimpanzees is not only not accountable for the severity of our difference with chimpanzees at a physical level; but also that MOST of that 6% difference is most likely found in segments of low to no functionality (pseudogenes, ERV’s, etc).
The differences in DNA that make all the difference in making a human rather than a chimp body (the genes and the sequences that regulate and control genes) is most likely only a smaller subset of that 6% genomic difference.
It doesn't take much to change the DNA of a chimp into the DNA of a human, and most of the changes that are there are inconsequential, but only God can give us an immortal soul.
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.