AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[gore3000]

For one thing, ID hasnt' made any testable predictions.

Totally false. Behe claimed that the bacterial flagella was irreducibly complex. Scientific research has shown that if you 'knock out' any of the 40 some odd genes which compose it, the bacterial flagella does not work at all. This is proof of irreducible complexity.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You mean here?

[gore3000]

Punk-eek essentially claims that species transform themselves in a single giant leap. -me-

That, sir, is simply not true.

Of course it is. Punk-eek rejects gradual evolution. It claims that new functions are created suddenly by random mutations. This is why punk-eekers and Darwinists have been in constant fights with each other.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your reply at 406 and the heads up on your posts about philosophy and the ancients! I have learned so much from you! Hugs!

[VadeRetro]

This is why punk-eekers and Darwinists have been in constant fights with each other.

For liberal Democrats, it's still the 1960s. For creationists, it's still the early 1970s. (Unless, that is, they're quoting N. Heribert Nihlsson from sometime between 1930 and 1950.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

For one thing, ID hasnt' made any testable predictions.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, jennyp and I have been discussing Becoming a Disciplined Science - Prospects, Pitfalls and Reality Check for ID (pdf) - and the specific ID prediction with regard to steganography (item 10 in the report.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to Dembski's challenge in 440 where he said:

Show us detailed, testable, mechanistic models for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of ubiquitous biomacromolecules and assemblages like the ribosome, and the origin of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, and intelligent design will die a quick death.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the information!

[Alamo-Girl]

The link at 514 is incorrect, it should be this. Sorry about that!

[f.Christian]

hey...

the geologic column proves evocrapualism---how come that one hasn't been coming up lately. hugs!

[BMCDA]

Nope. Punctuated Equilibrium simply states that evolution does not happen at a constant rate and even Darwin acknowledged that (see link provided by VadeRetro). So 'suddenly' means several thousand or better several ten thousand years. These timespans are rather short on a geological timescale but pretty long if compared to the lifetime of an individual.
However Punk-Eek doesn't claim that radical changes must happen from one generation to the next.

[jennyp]

Of course it is. Punk-eek rejects gradual evolution. It claims that new functions are created suddenly by random mutations. This is why punk-eekers and Darwinists have been in constant fights with each other.

Now's as good a time as any to introduce version 1 of my Tree of Life. I think it illustrates the seeming contradiction between the punk eek & the gradualist interpretations of classical Darwinism.

The diagram shows small populations branching off of bigger, established species. When the breakaway populations are small, that's when the (gradual!) evolution happens. When (if) the breakaway population settles into its new niche & prospers, the population numbers increase, and it becomes harder for new mutations to take over the gene pool. Hence the new species settles down into a life of stasis, most of which end eventually either extinction.

Now here's an experiment you can try at home: Blow up the diagram so that it fits a whole page. Tack it up on a wall and throw darts at it. Score yourself 1 point for each hit on a blue zone (analogous to stumbling across a fossil from a species that has acheived stasis). But score yourself 100 for each hit on a red zone, because you're not almost never going to hit red - because that represents the relatively short period when the new species are rare and still transitional.

And that is exactly what the fossil record shows: Transitional sequences between higher classes are common, but transitional fossils between closely-related species are rare. (Notice I said "rare" and not "nonexistent".)

[jennyp]

This is why punk-eekers and Darwinists have been in constant fights with each other.

For liberal Democrats, it's still the 1960s. For creationists, it's still the early 1970s. (Unless, that is, they're quoting N. Heribert Nihlsson from sometime between 1930 and 1950

LOL!

[f.Christian]

brainwashed idiots.


532 posted on 11/10/2002 12:30 PM PST by jerry785


Certainly...govt science---head start for the mentally underprivileged---depraved!

hugs!

[jennyp]

"most of which end eventually either in extinction."

"because you're not almost never going to hit red "

[longshadow]

You might as well!

"1⁷²⁰"

"wildly elliptical" planetary orbits

"No, a circle is not an ellipse..."

[Dimensio]

Guess that according to you it proposes that God created life and human beings????????

No. Are you saying that any theory that does not propose as much is inherently materialistic? Do you know what 'false dichotomy' means?

[Condorman]

Every individual gets half the alelles from each parent so the 'frequency' of alelles in a population changes with each birth. This is a truism of genetics.

I have show this to be false in post 203. I expect you will want to promptly revise your statement.

[balrog666]

Don't forget the latest one:

"all species descend from each other"