Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.
A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.
Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.
This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is Scientific and has nothing to do with blasphemy as it doesn't mention God to blaspheme HIM; while I.D. posits that God is a rank amateur and incompetent who cannot design life that is capable of adaptation without direct divine intervention.
You’re getting your science from wikipedia now?
Let’s start with this gem: “NO CHANGE IN THE UNDERLYING DNA SEQUENCE OF THE ORGANIMS”
Are you sure about that?
Try to stay focused...we’re talking about American science and the ‘religion’ in question is Christianity.
While religion (if you insist) has it’s shortcomings, godless liberal socialism has mountains of piss poor track records as well.
You’re floundering and not really even treading water here.
“Maybe it tries to adapt by matching its code to the feedback of the new environment. Maybe it knows what it’s looking for once it has found it, and thus must down-regulate repair so this strategy does not defeat itself.” GGG
So your admitting that increasing mutation rates and decreasing mutation repair could “match its code to the feedback of the new environment”. Wow. An admission that mutation of DNA could stumble upon a solution to stress such that life could adapt itself to a new environment.
Are you really suggesting a single cell is self aware in that it “knows” anything?
A cell “knows” when mutations have solved its stress problems because it has a marked advantage over its cohorts who do not share that mutation. It is called natural selection. That is how it “knows”.
And yes, it down-regulated mutation repair because the entire point of increasing mutation rates to arrive at a solution to the stress is worked against by repairing the mutations.
So now your admitting that mutations can adapt an organism to a new stressful environment? Why else would a cell respond to stress by deliberately increasing its mutation rate?
Actually, Darwin's ToE is blasphemous to the core because it assumes that adaptation and “evolution” are random to the core. They maintain that the designs we see in nature are an illusion and are really just the product of blind, random chance. This is the HEIGHT OF BLASPHEMY. It's sad to see people who identify with Christianity like you come along and make excuses for them.
On the other hand, Creation Scientists (and to a much lesser extent, IDers) give God the credit for the designs we see in nature, and look for ways to see God's design in areas that are still poorly understood. So not only are they not blasphemous, they give all the glory to God, and are filled with wonder (and praise) every time they discover another one of God's ingenious designs.
I'll take Creation over evolution any day.
==Yes I am sure...a change in sequence is a genetic change not an epigenetic change.
“Other known epigenetic mechanisms include histone deacetylation and chromatin remodeling, RNA inhibition, RNA modification, and DNA rearrangement.”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15689067
It would appear that the box you keep trying to put around epigenetics is far too small.
And you are again supposing that “random” somehow means “beyond the power of God” which is absolutely blasphemous; NOTHING is beyond the power of God.
And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things. Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.
How does RNA inhibition or RNA modification supposedly change DNA sequences?
DNA rearrangement could derive an actual genetic change (most likely to be detrimental or nonsense if it does) but is more likely to just move the gene from one location to another without actually changing what is being produced.
Your contention that genetic variation arises by epigentic mechanisms is simply not supported by anything you have produced to date, and neither have you proposed an actual mechanism whereby genetic variation could arise by changing of epigenetic markers rather than actual changes to DNA sequence.
What is "American" science? Stuff that only works in the United States?
As for "American" Christianity, why do you suppose we even have a clause in our constitution prohibiting the establishment of religion? What's you best theory of what the writers were thinking about?
==So your admitting that increasing mutation rates and decreasing mutation repair could “match its code to the feedback of the new environment”. Wow. An admission that mutation of DNA could stumble upon a solution to stress such that life could adapt itself to a new environment.
What I am admitting actually goes against random mutation. For instance, the increase in mutation rates and decrease in mutation repair are initiated by design, not chance. Moreover, we still don’t know if the mutations themselves are random under these kinds of conditions. Maybe the processes that control these mutations are shuffling genes in much the same way as humans “shuffle” a Rubics Cube.
==Are you really suggesting a single cell is self aware in that it “knows” anything?
Who knows? One thing is for sure...something knows something. And whether this something has direct knowledge or is programmed (or both) remains to be seen. What a fascinating field of research! (except for Darwinists).
==A cell “knows” when mutations have solved its stress problems because it has a marked advantage over its cohorts who do not share that mutation. It is called natural selection. That is how it “knows”.
I’m not discounting that what we call “natural selection” plays a part. But then again, how does the cell “know” when it has adapted to the environment? How did it “know” that it was out of synch with the environment in the first place? Maybe we should call this process unatural-natural selection.
I thought we both agreed that God is in control, and than that random is a word that only has meaning with respect to our own perspective. Unfortunately, Darwinists see randomness to the core, whereas Creationists recognize that God is in control.
==And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things.
Again, you have it completely backwards. You will always have to reject God's creation whenever you think it contradicts Darwin's fairytale.
==Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.
I think you are being a tad uncharitable. ID limits itself to finding design in nature. ID doesn't go nearly far enough IMHO. But apparently the very prospect of looking for design in nature drives you up the wall. Why are you so threatened by that? Does it all come down to your faith in Darwin's ToE?
A cell “knows” when it is undergoing stress because it has evolved molecular signaling mechanisms that elicit a stress response. One of these responses is to deliberately increase its mutation rate.
A cell “knows” it has derived a selective advantage due to genetic variation when its offspring out-compete those without that genetic variant such that the population becomes overwhelmingly the descendent's of the cell that derived the genetic variation that best overcame the stressful conditions.
I am afraid that only “Darwinists” (i.e. evolutionary biologists) are conducting ANY research in this or any other field of Biology. The I.D. movement is bereft of any research and neither do they plan on ever doing any. And I know why.
I thought even you might realize that American teachers indeed teach American students but I guess I was indeed mistaken.
Show me where godless Russian scientists have contributed more to our body of scientific knowledge...
Again, can you show us where “free exercise thereof” excludes Christians from acknowledging their faith publically?
==Why would cells be programmed to elicit an increase in mutations during stress if mutations are not amenable to deriving selective advantage to overcoming that stress?
You’re assuming that the mutations themselve are completely random. But what if each mutational move has a goal?
==A cell “knows” when it is undergoing stress because it has evolved molecular signaling mechanisms that elicit a stress response. One of these responses is to deliberately increase its mutation rate.
Fine. First, how does the cell “know” it’s under stress? If the cell deliberately increases its mutation rate, then at a very minimum the mutation rate IS NOT RANDOM.
==A cell “knows” it has derived a selective advantage due to genetic variation when its offspring out-compete those without that genetic variant
But wouldn’t the cell’s offspring out-compete those without said advantage under either scenario? Wouldn’t you have to set up controlled experiments to determine whether the cell is self-selecting, or is being naturally selected, or both???
Science taught the godless way leads to exactly this kind of misunderstanding not only of science but issues of faith and concepts of God.
This is exactly it. God's Word is, well, the Word of God.
And when you compromise it because man's reason says something contradictory, often with the intent of "refuting" God's Word, where are you putting your faith?
There are lots of things you can acknowledge publically that you can't promote when you are a government employee in a position of authority over children.
==I am afraid that only “Darwinists” (i.e. evolutionary biologists) are conducting ANY research in this or any other field of Biology.
Could this be because Darwinism is a state sanctioned religion that has taken over our science institutions, brooks zero dissent, and that we are forced to pay for with our tax dollars whether we agree with the religion or not?
==The I.D. movement is bereft of any research and neither do they plan on ever doing any.
Not true. Creation and ID scientists don’t have the luxury of labs and research grants paid for by the US taxpayer, but they do nevertheless carry on research. Look at the ID research the Templeton Foundation is funding, or read the Journal of Creation. Both camps are cranking out new research in support of Creation/ID all the time.
Again, focus, we’re talking about science and how it is taught in THIS country...as influenced by CHRISTIANS.
that is... we’re not talking about ‘religions’ like Islam and how science is taught in Pakistan.
IS that easier for you to understand now?
I know that’s extremely difficult but if you insist in that illogical line of reasoning you’re stuck on, just be prepared to defend godless science instruction in Cuba, North Korea and Russia.
the godless model isn’t working out...not in science, not in anything, it’s leaving people empty because of it’s vacuousness.
Criticizing and remaining angry at God won’t change this situation for you no matter what you do.
And misunderstandfing God will not at all validate godlessness either!
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.