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

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[AndrewC]

That part of the flagellum has got to be very inefficient.

That might be due to the fact that F1-ATPase might not be a flagellar motor.

[gore3000]

we are finally getting to the semantics discussion which means that my point is correct:-me-

Non-sequitur.

A non-sequitur indeed! I had played along with your irrelevant semantic question for quite a bit. I also knew that as here, your whole point was not to discuss the issue but to indulge in ad hominems on me as the following post by you shows. I could care less of your opinion of me the fact remains that the important question, the important point which you are trying to divert from with your semantics and ad hominems is that the definition you and others have given of evolution is a false one.

So the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency is a cowardly redefinition of the theory. -me-

Redefinition from what? On what authority do you subsititute your own personal pet misinterpretation of a theory for the actual definition?

Evolution, Darwinian evolution which is the subject of this thread implies increased complexity, new genes, new genetic information, and new functions as I already showed in Post#508 but which you seem to think you can ignore now that we are some 300 post later on the thread:

What evolution means is to be found all over this board, however since you are looking for 'proof' that my statement about what evolution means is true let's go to the original source:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

As you can see above from the words of the great charlatan, evolution is about greater complexity. The definition of evolution given in TalkOrigins and other evo sites that "Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency over time. That's quantified and measurable."In no way deals with the increased complexity and transformation of species. Every individual gets half the alleles from each parent so the 'frequency' of alleles in a population changes with each birth. This is a truism from genetics. However, this in no way implies any change in the genetic pool of a species or any new genetic information. It therefore does not account for the transformation of species into more complex species as Darwin's definition requires.

Nothing that you have said since that post has even bothered to refute the above statement.

[gore3000]

According to gore3000, all who accept evolution are atheists,

Totally false, I have never said that.

I have however said that you, Junior, are an atheist and are falsely portraying yourself as a Catholic. I have much evidence for this - from your own mouth. You reject both that God created life and that God created man and instead insist on a materialistic explanation for both. You further join with atheist evolutionists in attacking religion. Your words are almost indistinguishable from those of the atheists in your group and have never heard you distance yourself from the atheist statements of the atheists in your group. In addition, when I legitimately try to question you on your assertion that you are still a Catholic, you refuse to answer and instead send in your gang to attack me for daring to question you on what you have given as evidence on these threads.

If you are still really a Catholic, you will discuss the above unCatholic behavior and explain how a Catholic can indulge in such behavior. If you do not, then I am completely justified in not considering you to be a Catholic or any sort of Christian as you claim to be.

[gore3000]

Surprisingly, you forgot to answer my question in the 2nd part of my post:

I did not forget. I view these discussions as a clash of ideas. I am not interested in the qualifications of anyone. The main concern for me is the truth of the statements made, not their provenance. Very intelligent people, very informed people can lie, very stupid and uninformed people can have brilliant true insights. So I do not go by titles or reputations. I would more honor a person who leads a decent life, raises a good family by menial work than a certain President. I would more likely accept that hard worker's opinions than those of X42. In addition to which, I have found that many people on the internet are not what they claim to be, so I do not waste my time with such claims and make none for myself.

While you may disagree with some of the above, I am sure you will agree with the following: let people judge my statements for their own worth - there certainly are enough on these threads to make a judgement on!

[VadeRetro]

... very stupid and uninformed people can have brilliant true insights.

As often as monkeys type Shakespeare. Evidence for the occasional lucky mutation!

[Heartlander]

(Mechanisms labeled in the schematic diagram)

“In the past, I have asked ID critics just what would the flagellum look like if it was not designed. After all, if you pay attention as I do, they commonly argue that this and that does not look like it was designed. Nevertheless, the critics have not answered this question. Yet if the transport/secretion system is a logical ingredient that solves a design problem entailed in making the flagellum, and the flagellum was indeed designed, those looking for non-teleological explanations would misinterpret the significance of such a subsystem and mistakenly impose an historical interpretation on an engineering solution.”

But it seems that there is always someone who might say something like this:
· Duplicate a proton F1ATPase gene. This should be evolutionarily almost neutral.
· Mutate a gene for another fibrillar structure so it sticks to the rotor part of the F1ATPase.

“Here's the recipe for making a just-so story. First, survey the biological world for structures/functions. Find those that seem useful for coming up with a precursor to the system in question and patch them together without much regard for biochemical and/or genetic details. Place the patchwork in an imaginary creature from the distant past that has conveniently gone extinct. Invoke a vague selective pressure that selects for the patchwork and then imagine it is plastic and amenable to further selective modification that just happens to arrive at the system in question.”

It reminds me of that old Steve Martin bit – How to be a Millionaire:
· First get a million dollars…

…or how to build a car from scratch:
· First get an engine
· Attach it to a drive shaft…

But there is always time… Yes, time solves all. Or maybe not:

“Now, if someone wants to start this story with "any ol' transporter," I'm afraid that's not good enough. Remember, that we need to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum (not some "flagellum"). That means we need to account for the flagellum's type III export machinery, which includes flhA, flhB, fliR, fliQ, fliP, fliI, and more. All of the other bacterial transport/secretion systems cited to support the EFM hypothesis merely illustrate that the majority of transport/secretion systems are dead-ends from a flagellar perspective, as none of them have spawned a eubacterial flagellum, despite them all being equally good starting material at this point in the EFM hypothesis. “

“Yet by proposing that the flagellum once existed as a type III system and later acquired the ability to rotate is not hardly any different that proposing type III systems could reacquire the ability to rotate and violate Dollo's Law.”

I think I need to quote Nebullus on this one:
“The only proper response is to reject something like that.”
I don't need to defend logical thinking.

The irony, obviously, in claiming, “Look, this disproves ID!” is that by disproving ID, it becomes a theory…

[f.Christian]

riderless/headless chariot anomaly.

Wheelless too...all horses/ego---on the skids!

[VadeRetro]

Yet if the transport/secretion system is a logical ingredient that solves a design problem entailed in making the flagellum, and the flagellum was indeed designed, those looking for non-teleological explanations would misinterpret the significance of such a subsystem and mistakenly impose an historical interpretation on an engineering solution.

So ID is unfalsifiable after all?

[VadeRetro]

Wheelless too...all horses/ego---on the skids!

So what does this "chariot" have? Is it galvanized? Does it say "Rubbermaid" anywhere?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker. (Code 69-Q)

[f.Christian]

Self will/delusians...run riot/rot!

[Heartlander]

As is evolution?… (by the way, you missed the point)

I mean if someone did find one ‘human' skull 3 billion years old, what would you say?

Look, I’ve always seen ID as a ‘theory of everything’ more than a ‘theory for biology’

Pssst… Let me let you in on a little secret… ID is not stealth Creationism, but the Information Theory is stealth ID.
Don’t tell anyone though, OK…

[Heartlander]

Oooops!!!

I’ve given away the whole conspiracy…

Disregard the last post please!

[Alamo-Girl]

I’ve given away the whole conspiracy… LOLOL!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Or even a five-bladed variable pitch propellor. (French horns are variable pitch too; at least with the proper crooks.)

[VadeRetro]

As is evolution?… (by the way, you missed the point)

C'mon! You can think of a falsification.

I mean if someone did find one ‘human' skull 3 billion years old, what would you say?

I knew you could!

To answer your question, it depends. Just for one thing, it depends on whether or not it turns up in Paluxy River, TX and is found by Carl Baugh.

In Darwin's day, the picture presented by the fossil record, the geologic column, and the then-known extant species had just crystalized enough for he and Wallace to see what is going on. 150 years later, it's getting unlikely--a little late in the game--for the trends in the evidence becoming apparent then to reverse. But an apparent 3-billion year old skull would demonstrate that something we think we know is wrong.

Pssst… Let me let you in on a little secret… ID is not stealth Creationism ...

Is it supposed to be science? There's never in history been a science with less intellectual content.

[Nebullis]

Just for fun, flagella usually come in groups. There are several motors and the filaments intertwine during rotation.

[Condorman]

what Nobel Prize winning discovery in biology EVER does not tend to disprove evolution?

Here's an idea. Rather than making grandiose blanket assertions, you take your top pick from the list of Nobel Laureates in Medicine and demonstrate how that specific discovery disproves evolution. You have been making that claim for so long, and with such vehemence that you must be fully conversant with the list, so this should be childishly easy for you.

[gore3000]

Also, dismissing weaker bonds as less significant may be foolish

Still dancing with irrelevancies eh? Still refusing to take back your insult at Stephem Meyer for telling the truth?:

"…no chemical bonds exist between the nucleotide bases along the message-bearing spine of the DNA helix, demonstrating that physical and chemical forces are not responsible for the specific sequencing in the molecule." -Stephen Meyer-

"Here we go again. Steve Meyer came up with the quintessential creationist slogan. Remarkeable in its stupidity and twisted intent. It'll be a favorite for years to come.

563 posted on 11/10/2002 5:59 PM PST by Nebullis

Have you after almost 300 posts given any proof for your insult? Have you after almost 300 posts given any refutation for the above? All you keep giving is confusionism about possible influences on the ordering of DNA but not a single bit of evidence for any of it being ordered. You have been shown that the DNA pairs do not touch each other and therefore have no bonds to each other sequentially in the drawing in Post# 611 and here's an even more detailed view showing that the DNA bases are not joined sequentially to each other:



You have kept on and on insulting and ignoring all the evidence presented to you and not posting anything in refutation. You know very well that all the possible DNA arrangements occur in living things. The DNA is read in threes each DNA base having 4 possible meanings A, C, G, or T which makes for a total of 4 x 4= 16 x 4 = 64 possible values. That is how the table below was determined, because those values do arise everywhere in living things:

The Genetic Code (DNA)

TTT	Phe		TCT	Ser		TAT	Tyr		TGT	Cys
TTC	Phe		TCC	Ser		TAC	Tyr		TGC	Cys
TTA	Leu		TCA	Ser		TAA	STOP		TGA	STOP
TTG	Leu		TCG	Ser		TAG	STOP		TGG	Trp
CTT	Leu		CCT	Pro		CAT	His		CGT	Arg
CTC	Leu		CCC	Pro		CAC	His		CGC	Arg
CTA	Leu		CCA	Pro		CAA	Gln		CGA	Arg
CTG	Leu		CCG	Pro		CAG	Gln		CGG	Arg
ATT	Ile		ACT	Thr		AAT	Asn		AGT	Ser
ATC	Ile		ACC	Thr		AAC	Asn		AGC	Ser
ATA	Ile		ACA	Thr		AAA	Lys		AGA	Arg
ATG	Met*		ACG	Thr		AAG	Lys		AGG	Arg
GTT	Val		GCT	Ala		GAT	Asp		GGT	Gly
GTC	Val		GCC	Ala		GAC	Asp		GGC	Gly
GTA	Val		GCA	Ala		GAA	Glu		GGA	Gly
GTG	Val		GCG	Ala		GAG	Glu		GGG	Gly

So regardless of your dancing around, regardless of the confusion you are trying to create, the fact is that DNA does use all possible combinations and therefore

THE ARRANGEMENT OF DNA IS NOT DETERMINED BY ANY PHYSICAL FORCES

just as Stephen Meyer, who you insulted for telling the truth, said. A truth which proves false your atheistic beliefs, a truth you cannot refute.

[Condorman]

Nothing that you have said since that post has even bothered to refute the above statement.

Your personal shortcomings in comprehension are poor support for your position. Repeating previously refuted statements likewise. The definition of evolution provided by Physicist is correct, your shrill bleatings notwithstanding.

The theory of evolution has changed somewhat in the last 150 years. Origin of Species is generally regarded as the seminal work, but others have taken that idea considerably farther. That you continually quote Darwin's works as if they are holy texts, ignoring the progress that has been made since then speaks volumes about your approach to science.