Posted on 11/01/2005 6:42:25 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On Nov. 4, 2003, Republican candidates made a strong showing in York County, Pa. Among the winners were Republican Heather Geesey, who was the top vote-getter among candidates for the nine-member Dover school board, with 2,674 votes. Democrat Aralene Callahan finished out of the running -- dead last, with 1,276 votes.
School board members voted 6-3 in 2004 to include these books as an optional supplement to freshman biology classes.
To hear Mrs. Callahan tell it, the school board thereby surrendered Dover's science curriculum to a Bible-thumping theocracy. If all you know about the case is what you've seen in the New York Times, then you might imagine that freshman science classes in Dover now resemble a Pentecostal revival meeting, complete with snake handling, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
But fear not, ye lovers of science, for Mrs. Callahan quickly rode to the rescue, sparing Dover's 14-year-olds a one-way ticket to the 13th century. The unpopular Democrat, who a year earlier had told the York Daily Record that her post-election plans included spending more time with her family, instead decided she needed to spend more time with the ACLU. And so it was that the board's plan became the object of a federal lawsuit, with Mrs. Callahan among the plaintiffs and Mrs. Geesey among the defendants.
The Dover evolution trial, then, represents the effort of Mrs. Callahan and her allies to win in court what they could not win at the ballot box.
...I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about schools or scientific theories. In fact, I think it fair to say that James Madison and his fellow Founders would have been horrified at the prospect of a federal judge telling folks in Dover what they should or should not teach their 14-year-olds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The traditional definition is spontaneous generation. This was the idea that non-living objects can give rise to living organisms.
RNA is transcribed into DNA in every human being every day. RNA hybridizes with DNA, and there is complete compatibility between RNA nucleotides and DNA nucleotides.
No naturally occurring RNA molecules have been found that direct the replication of other RNA molecules.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Very, very wrong.
Well, no it would be a force unknown implementing the design. Sort of like how RNA would switch roles with DNA.
Happens in every RNA virus.
Even without hydrolysis, RNA breaks down from background radiation.
So does DNA, at essentially the same rate. Photochemically, there's little difference. The big difference between RNA and DNA is the availability of 2',3' cyclic intermediates for RNA hydrolysis
Anyway, the lack of enzymes is also a stumbling block. Without protein enzymes, researchers have not been able to produce a duplicate of a RNA template.
Show me where an RNA molecule apart from a DNA molecule adds a DNA molecule.
No naturally occurring RNA molecules have been found that direct the replication of other RNA molecules. . . Wrong, I'm afraid. Very, very wrong. . .Performing your original search, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, in PubMed will retrieve 2020 citations.
RNA polymerase is a protein. We are discussing RNA World where the idea is that RNA doesn't use proteins to replicate itself.
Even without hydrolysis, RNA breaks down from background radiation. So does DNA, at essentially the same rate.
And we're not talking about abiogenesis in a DNA world.
Anyway, the lack of enzymes is also a stumbling block. Without protein enzymes, researchers have not been able to produce a duplicate of a RNA template. . . This has not been a good day for you.
Have you been reading your links?
There's a disconnect here. What's discredited is the idea that life can rise from non-life.
RNA polymerase is a protein. We are discussing RNA World where the idea is that RNA doesn't use proteins to replicate itself.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Why shouldn't RNA use proteins to replicate itself?
Have you been reading your links?
Yes, I have. Have you? RNA can replicate itself; the only problem left is to start without a primer.
We have seen instances where humans will resort to animalistic behavior. The terrorists come to mind. Their animalistic desire to dominate territory tells us Saddam Hussein lines up well with the animal kingdom. As the Liberals amazingly support the animalistic behavior in the Middle East, to a supernatural extreme, we can conclude that their motive is based on Evolution. The Liberals biggest enemy are those who oppose animalistic behavior - Christians.
Liberals support drug use, adultery, perverting children, child neglect for selfish reasons, killing unwanted humans (abortion), euthanasia, pornography, S&M, Beastiality, intolerance, terrorism...
They are creative animals run amok. Every person for themselves. The epitome of man without God. No restraint, for they make up their own minds what is right. Without God, who could fault them?
The entire point of RNA World Theory is that the earliest molecule of life was RNA. For this to be feasible, it must be shown that RNA molecules could replicate without the help of protein enzymes.
AFAIK, only older spontaneous generation theories similar to Aristotle’s 4th century BC version are discredited. That's like how only flight theors similar to da Venci’s 14th century version are discredited. But if you have evidence that modern abiogenist theory is widely discredited in scientific communities, I’d like to see it.
Irrespective of theology, we should have ethics because they promote our lives according to our nature as rational beings. A society without ethics leads to a lower quality of life, which is not in our interest. According to Objectivism, ethics are in our rational self interest. Having a theistic rather than an atheistic basis to them is no guarantee against destructive behavior.
Because we, unlike lions, are capable of developing a system of ethics, and insisting that others abide by it.
How could you ever tell me it is wrong to kill my children as a male Lion will? What would you be basing your truth on? I could legitimately point to the King of the Savannah as evidence within science that supports my position.
Humans interact with each other in a far more sophisticated way than lions. We can communicate with each other, make agreements with each other, cooperate creatively, in a way lions are not capable of. Our intelligence and our communication abilities in fact probably shaped our behavioral evolution.
We have seen instances where humans will resort to animalistic behavior. The terrorists come to mind.
Remember, it is a monotheistic religion that drives them to that. You can't blame jihad on a belief in evolution - they don't believe in evolution, they believe in special creation by (they claim) the same God you worship.
I don't see that as necessary. For example, life could have started as a tightly bound pattern of molecules on a surface, with RNA as the means to transfer that pattern from one place on the surface to elsewhere. Then RNA could have taken over as the genetic material. It seems implausible to me that RNA be the first genetic material; it's too complicated. I also don't see the necessity to make RNA world protein-free. If RNA took over as genetic material from something else, it might have started as the intermediary between that something else and proteins, just as it is today.
RWP. today is a bad day. I just buried my dog. I am sad.
However, RNA World is not my theory (hypothesis, actually.) Those behind it insist on no proteins -- I think to take into account the unlikely probabilities of proteins forming at random then hooking up with RNA forming at random.
And granted some propose an unknown proto nucleic acid but there is no evidence for it.
And I don't mean to make fun of RNA World because it is actually an interesting and pretty cool attempt to solve abiogenesis.
However, it is far, far, far, far from being ascertained, and considering previous claims that the solution to abiogenesis is just around the corner healthy skepticism is called for -- which, in fairness, many of those investigating it have.
Regardless, God exists and Jesus loves you. Really.
Our Muslim friends are capable of disagreeing with the ethics you decide upon.
Humans interact with each other in a far more sophisticated way than lions. We can communicate with each other, make agreements with each other, cooperate creatively, in a way lions are not capable of. Our intelligence and our communication abilities in fact probably shaped our behavioral evolution.
And that is why someone shouldn't kill the children that are holding back their gene distribution? A large portion of the male human population is concerned only with gene distribution and the females are just as receptive to the idea. All of these males efforts in life go to contributing to lust. Intelligence has not been a factor in their behavior as they knowingly contract AIDS or the need for a Sharia killing because they raped their sister.
Considering the Liberal domination of our Universities, the higher up the education ladder one travels, the more people are propelled into the same animalistic mentality. So clearly more education can be considered a contributing factor.
Christians also struggle with these animalistic tendencies, however most do not align themselves with it and recognize they need to stop, seeking God's motivation to overcome. I have witnessed the faithfulness of God for myself and many of my Christian friends. They are couples who I can comfortably allow my daughters to spend the night at their house with their daughter. Knowing that they hold highest standards of conduct amongst the members of their family.
Some Christians who evidence that they do not hold themselves to Biblical standards; I am not comfortable trusting. It is the job of the fellow believers to point out to people attending church, Godly standards. Also to instruct these folks in the Word of God on how to approach God for assistance in overcoming their sin. This process is sorely lacking in many churches because of the humanistic relativism indoctrinated by our education establishment.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
If a Christian is known for always filtering life through God's Word, these reproofs can be part of a normal conversation.
I think you're imposing a strictures on RNA world that don't really exist. There is evidence RNA preceded DNA. There is evidence the protein synthesis machinery was once much simpler. After that, there isn't much else to go on, yet.
I agree abiogenesis is speculative. If I were teaching it in high-school, I would just mention that we have a couple of scientific ideas, but since no one really knows anything, we're all free to come up with our own favorite hypothesis of how life started.
Sure. But even Christians differ among themselves on some aspects of ethics. That's going to be a problem whether one's ethics are theistic or atheistic.
BTW, since I missed the London bombings by a few hours this summer, Muslims are definitely not my friends. RWP has a strict rule; try to kill him, and you're off the invitation list. Interestingly, the other lot who came close to blowing me up, back in Dublin in the 1970s, were Presbyterians. So my personal score card of terrorist near misses is Theists 2, Atheists 0.
And that is why someone shouldn't kill the children that are holding back their gene distribution? A large portion of the male human population is concerned only with gene distribution and the females are just as receptive to the idea. All of these males efforts in life go to contributing to lust.
Humans are not fish. We have a large investment in our children. The best evolutionary strategy is not necessarily to sow your seed as widely as possible. If it were, attempts to impose morality would be futile. The reason sexual morality is even feasible is because humans have at least a tendency towards monogamy. Do you think you could train a tomcat to be monogamous?
Considering the Liberal domination of our Universities, the higher up the education ladder one travels, the more people are propelled into the same animalistic mentality
While I'm no fan of liberal academics, that's an unfair slur. I've been at loggerheads with our Chancellor on many occasions, but he is, as far as I can observe, a decent man, and a good husband and father.
Male lions tend to kill the children of the previous alpha male just like housecats barn cats are known to do. It's an elimination of competing genetics.
Democrarts are actually anti-Darwinian.
They are living proof evolution can reverse itself.
Sounds like legitimate science to me. Lions can get hungry and eat their own cubs, too. Victims of their environment, like in Louisiana and Paris.
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.