Posted on 01/18/2005 6:53:09 AM PST by mike182d
MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) - Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution ``a theory, not a fact.''
In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board decided to appeal last week's ruling. Board members said U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's order to remove the stickers immediately ``amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools,'' according to a statement.
Monday's decision came after board members met with lawyers for three hours in a closed session.
-- snip --
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
> Explain the Cambrian explosion.
See post 54.
> Explain how mere protein molecules, which contain and process more information than MIT students could dream of, naturally came into existence with all the information necessary for the creation of life.
OK:
From: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr2dud.htm
Creationism's Dud From Their Arsenal:
Probability
THE LIE:
"Even if such relatively simple molecules, such amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), could populate the hypothetical primitive oceans, the formation of biologically active proteins could never occur. Under these conditions, the sequence of the amino acids would be purely by chance. There we 20 different amino acids in proteins. The average protein has 400 amino acids, but even 100 of these amino acids can be arranged in 20100, or 10130 different ways. The probability of just one such molecule arising by chance is thus equal to the number one followed by 130 zeros. This is essentially impossible, but to get life started would require billions of tons each of several hundred different proteins and equal quantities of even more complex DNA and RNA molecules." --- Reverend Duane Gish
THE TRUTH:
The following are various organic / biochemical reactions that may have occurred on primitive earth. The reactions are taken directly from the text Biochemistry by Geoffrey Zubay, the second edition, 1988. To be honest, I though this text was more comprehensive that it appears to be. In order to address abiogenesis, one first must decide what would be required for a primitive "living" system. Based on the studies of Thomas Cech, Norman Pace, Sidney Altman, and Alan Weiner, I would suggest that a membrane encapsulated system containing RNA or an RNA like molecule would be sufficient. This is based upon experiments which have demonstrated that RNA can perform the following:
1) act as a polymerase and direct template specific synthesis of RNA
2) act as a site specific nuclease to cleave RNA
3) act as polymerase and direct template independent synthesis of RNA
The result of these reactions is a molecule that under different ionic conditions can replicate, and release the products of replication via cleavage. To my way of thinking, in order to optimize the concentrations, and allow for somewhat adequete conditions for a self replicating system, it should be self contained, thus a membrane would be important if not required for our first "living" organism. It is quite possible that the earliest life forms performed these required reactions by nucleating in pockets of salt water saturated clays. Eventually however, a membrane is required. You should not from the above discussion assume that proteins are not required for this most primitive of scenarios.
Beyond this, there is circumstantial evidence that would support RNA's role in primitive life. First of all, it is completely ubiquitous and absolutely required for life of all known systems. No known biological systems can survive without RNA. DNA viruses have to go through an RNA intermediate. Not all RNA viruses require a DNA intermediate. This is an important distinction. Secondly, increasing evidence has demonstrated that it is the RNA in ribosomes that is critical for protein synthesis, not the proteins. It appears that the proteins are more of a scaffolding, while the RNA performs the catalytic function. Thus we have evidence of yet another role for RNA - that for polypeptide synthesis. Furthermore, RNA has been implicated in maintenance of telomeres, which is important to prevent loss of genetic information in each round of replication. Other groups have also implicated RNA as a catalyst involved in carbohydrate metabolism. From these examples it is clear that no other molecule is nearly as wide reaching in its biological implications as RNA.
Now, what is required to form an RNA molecule, and is it reasonable to expect that these molecules may have formed spontaneosly on primitive earth?
To answer the first part, you need bases, a sugar and phosphates. To answer the second part, the answer is yes, and no. Although the arguments are certainly not definitive, they are currently the best ones that I am aware of, although it is entirely possible that I have missed important research in this area in the last few years. The next message(s) will detail these reactions and my comments on them. Much to my regret, the text that I have does not supply the reactions for lipid synthesis or sugar synthesis. The lipid reactions I have completely forgotten and will have to ignore. The sugar reactions, I remember a bit more of, and will try to recount what I can.
First, I will discuss the biochemistry required for synthesis of the purine bases adenine and guanine. Under conditions postulated to have occurred on primitive earth, all of these reactions have been shown to occur, and the resulting end products are major products of the precursors.
H2N CN This is diaminoaleonitrile, a
\ / relatively simple product, easily
HCN ---> C synthesized from hydrogen cyanide
||
C
/ \
H2N CN
|
| Now add a little ionizing radiation
| and another molecule of HCN and we
V get:
NC N
\ / \ \ A mess. Organic molecules do
C not lend themselves well to this
|| C media. Seriously though, you get
C / 5-aminoimidazole-4-carbonitrile
/ \ N which is a direct precursor of
H2N adenine. Just add HCN
|
| HCN
V
NH2
| N
N // \/ \\
| || C
\\ / \ /
N N
By adding H2O to 5-aminoinudazole-4 carbonitrile you get a
precursor of guanine
|
| H2O
V
O Is it my imagination or are
|| N my drawings getting better?
/ \ / \\ anyways, now just add a little
H2N || C cyanogen and voila!
/ \ /
H2N N
H
|
| (CN)2
|
V
O
|| N
HN/ \ / \\ Here is guanine. So the purines
| || C seem easy enough to make. Lets
/\\ / \ / try some pyrimidines now.
NH2 N N
H
Fortunately at least one pathway for pyrimidine synthesis is a bit less complicated than for the purines. For the sake of brevity I will post it here, if you are genuinely curious, you can find all of this in the text cited in the first message.
NH2 O
HC | ||
||| NCO- //\ H2O / \
C ------> N C -----> HN C
C | || | ||
N //\ / //\ /
O N O N
H H
Cytosine Uracil
So now we have four bases. The next step is the sugar. To me, this is the biggest problem of the whole thing. Not because sugars would not form spontaneously under these circumstances, but because of the exponential nature of stereoisomers that can form with each additional carbon atom. The number of separate 5 carbon sugars is high enough to make the selection of ribose seem prohibitive. Some researchers think that glycerol or another similar sugar may have evolved first, simulating the structure that would later be achieved through ribose. Such a structure might look like:
O Base
\ |
C
H H / |
C - C H
OH OH
Where as ribose looks like:
*
HOCH O Base
\ / \ |
C C
/\ H H / |
H C - C H
OH OH
* **
* denotes carbons involved in forming nucleotide polymers
** denotes hydroxyl groups required for RNA catalytic activity.
As can be seen in the above diagrams glycerol supplies the critical catalytic hydroxyl, but lacks the carbons required for polymerization. To me, this is critical, and needs to be resolved, but until such a time it is the most current thinking. As for the phosphates, suffice it to say that they are added fairly easily. I will look for the lipid reactions, and if I can find them, I will post them along with the phosphate reactions. I hope everyone has found this interesting and informative. --- Jeff Otto Read about the Urey-Miller experiments at the University of Chicago in the 1950's and then follow it up with study of the more recent work of Dr. Sidney Fox at the University of Miami.
Urey-Miller created amino acids by discharging electricity through an atmospheric soup of chemicals. Much as lightning passing through a primordial Earth's atmosphere would have done. Sidney Fox at the University of Miami took those amino acids (created in the same way) and then, by heating them (to less than 150 degrees F) in conjunction with other aspartic and glutamic acids (also created through simulation experiments) and was able to polymerize them into proteinoid microspheres. Under a microscope, the microspheres look like primitive cells. In fact, artificially fossilized microspheres are indistinguishable from the earliest known microfossils that date back to about 3.5 BYA.
Although hesitant to claim that these were alive Dr. Fox stated that they were undeniably "protoalive". This is not an evasive answer. As Tim M. Berra says in "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" (pg.75):
"For centuries, science knew nothing intermediate between non-living and living things, but today the distinction is not at all clear. Since life evolved from non-living matter, at some point we must arbitrarily draw a line and say that everything beyond that point is alive. Viruses, for example, appear to be alive when they infect a host, but seem to be non-living when outside a host." Since a single cell would appear to be the smallest unit that can be said to be alive, proteinoid microspheres may quite justifiably be called protocells, or, life.
These are just the early stages of these types of experiments. There is every likelihood that within the next couple hundred years man will be able to create self-replicating life of varying forms from purely chemical and natural elements under laboratory conditions. --- Simon Ewins
Not one did?
You didn't address the words of the sticker.
Sure I did. I addressed the fact that it singled out Evolution among all possible scientific theories.
More importantly you didn't address the words of the 1st Amendment.
OK. Let me do so. A governmental body which selectively criticizes a particular theory because it contradicts the religious beliefs of a certain narrow sect of Christians is favoring that sect, thus interfering with the free exercise of religious rights and tending to establish a religion within that jurisdicition.
Would you like the 2nd amendment to be interpreted the way the 1st is interpreted?
Yes. It should be read as a severe restriction on governmental power.
> And that makes the use of stickers in these b ooks the equivalent of establishing a state church?
>You are delusional.
You are delusional if you think that that was my point. And since you are delusional, there's no point in trying to reason with you.
What was the name of that law or it's number? Could I look it up and read it?
> loose commonality with fundamentalist Muslims
Loose commonality? Hardly. In the case of both the fundie Muslims and the fundie Christians, the intent is:
1) God created man as we currently are
2) Any science that contradicts this view is to be quashed.
The idea that these stickers are to provide alternate theories is obvious BS, as they picked the one theory that religions oppose. There are no such stickers putting forth doubts about quantum mechanics, basic chemistry, algebra or Copernican heliocentrism.
Thanks for the ping. I was away all morning. Ping list to be deployed ...
|
A conservative looks at the US Constitution and finds no basis for a federal judge telling a school board in Cobb County, Georgia what they can and can't teach their children as long as they are not violating anybody's God given rights(See the DOI).
Supporters of an overly powerful fedgov look at the Constitution and find a basis for whatever advances their agenda in whatever penumbra is available and then support fedgov dictates on how local taxpayers can spend their tax money.
That would be you.
You are a strange person. You believ ethat it is acceptible for a school board to institute their own religion? You believe that it is acceptible for school boards to lie to children? To teach them BS? Sounds like a Lib position.
> the issue is whether you are a supporter of an overly powerful and intrusive fedgov or a conservative.
Right Wing Professor said it best: "A governmental body which selectively criticizes a particular theory because it contradicts the religious beliefs of a certain narrow sect of Christians is favoring that sect, thus interfering with the free exercise of religious rights and tending to establish a religion within that jurisdicition."
One cannot be both a Conservative AND a supporter of this school board in their efforts to institute a state church, no matter how small. Their actions are simply unAmerican and wholely opposed to the spirit of the freedom of religion. They, and their supporters, are no better than other Liberals who try to sneak their agendas into the classroom.
Nicely put. I'm definitely stealing that line. (Is your nick a reference to an Orion drive?)
Conservatives do seem strange to liberals who favor an overly powerful central government. No news there.
You believ ethat it is acceptible for a school board to institute their own religion?
LOL, just the facts BamBam, just the facts. But do tell, what religion has been "established" by the school board and where is this codified?
You believe that it is acceptible for school boards to lie to children?
Actually I don't but that is neither here nor there because the disclaimer is not a lie and the remedy for an out of control school board is for their constitutents to recall them, not federal judicial activism. The remedy for those who can not live with the boards decisions if they are backed by a majority of taxpayers is to vote with their feet.
To teach them BS? Sounds like a Lib position.
Look, bambam, you're a statist of the first order. Whatever accords with you worldview you will find a way to justify federal intervention. I'm a conservative, I take the Constitution on its face whether it accords with my world view or not.
> Is your nick a reference to an Orion drive?
Yup! With luck, you'll see one in the movies reasonably soon that I designed.
Right Wing Professor is practicing sophistry without a license. He should know better.
> Evolutionists have the luxury of changing their theory...
... as new facts come in. It's called "science."
> just the facts BamBam
"BamBam?"
Ah, the level of your discourse is made plain. Come back to us when you've graduated the 4th grade.
> what religion has been "established" by the school board
The religion of Creationism. That is the sole purpose of these stickers.
> the disclaimer is not a lie
Yes, it is. "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." It is, in fact, both.
> The remedy for those who can not live with the boards decisions if they are backed by a majority of taxpayers is to vote with their feet.
Ah, so you left the USA when Clinton was elected?
> I'm a conservative
That seems highly dubious. Conservatives do not resort to "bambam." That's for children and Leftists.
In an earlier thread, I attempted to post parts of the opinion, but there were translation errors in posting from the pdf file. Those posts are here (post #92) and here (post #490).
As for my position, I donot support it as a decision by a Federal judge, because in my view of things, the feds should have no juristiction over state-run education. But that merely addresses the federalism aspect of the matter.
Interestingly, the judge also said that the sticker violated the Georgia constitution. Perhaps it does; I don't know. If so, the matter should have been resolved in a Georgia state court. In that case, depending on what the Georgia constitution says, it may have been a correct decision -- if it were by a state judge.
In any event, at the level of the sticker itself, I think it's goofy, and the school board never should have gotten involved in such a mess.
The grounds on whic the stickers were ordered removed was the 1st amendment, doofus.
Your statement that there is no valid scientific basis for criticizing evolution implies that as a defence of the judges actions.
And yet the two are totally unrelated and you just acknowledged this by denying any connection.
Bah, do you have ADD or what?
Fine. Have fun.
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.