Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
The order of DNA base pairs does not show any such predilections.
Does he have a cite for this? Is the Pope Cuban?
But note that Gore3000 is once again changing his story. The original post said there are no nearest neightbor interactions. I showed that to be wrong. Now Gore3000 is arguing the nearest neighbor interactions don't affect the sequence, which is quite different from the original argument that it's important that they not exist so that each base pair of the sequence is independent of its neighbors. His argument changes from post to post, as each succeeding claim is shown to be false.
(The rest of Gore3000's ad hominems ignored. I guess I'll never know if he finished high school)
Parasites as a general class tend to lose the organs they don't need, and so in a sense become less complex.
...can be verified by looking at a tapeworm, a spirochete, or virtually any other parasitic organism. I have no idea why peculiar mental processes lead him to say this statement
"Shows quite well that you are either completely ignorant of what evolution is about or just plain trying to get away with a lie by insulting the messenger." <p. ...but I'm rapidly tiring of his factually unanchored, choleric, humorless, fanaticism-tinged rainbow-hued dyspeptic maunderings.
This must be a different Euglena from the one I looked at through a microscope as a student.
How can evolution explain the bat's sonar which is better than what our navy has?
It can detect submarines at 100 miles? Now why would a bat want to do that?
How can evolution explain the butterfly - an organism which is essentially born twice?
By my count, it ain't even born once.
How can evolution explain the fugu fish whose genes are so close to man that examining its genome showed us 1,000 genes in humans which the genome project had been unable to find?
I'm just dying to see what piece of legitimate piece of scientific work was twisted by a combination of creationist ignorance and tendentiousness to generate this claim.
Not astonishingly, your lies persist. That link to my post 424 is an answer to the challenge you issued in 416: "Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me."
I have done so. And you continue to lie with a megalomaniacal sense of self-importance. Climb down from your cross; no Christian are you.
That's a laugh. Gore3000 has done nothing but insult me since I started questioning the nonsense he posts on FR. I mean, not that I care; his statement that atheists can't be physicians pretty much turned him into a laughingstock in my eyes. But it's amusing that he whines about the insults of others. He dishes it out, but he can't take it.
Let me clarify, so that every one is absolutely aware of the situation. That link to post 424 points to a list of your own words, in context, with links to the originals.
In that sense, I will agree with you: it is slime. Your own. And that you can't face it speaks volumes.
It's here. The careful reader, a classification which eliminates certain blue people, will notice that the fugu genome people predict the existence of 1000 currently unrecognized human genes from their study of the fugu. Which, needless to say, is not the same as showing the existence of 1000 previously unrecognized human genes. I seem to recall that some patient explaining on the difference between the two has already been undertaken, but it seems to have passed without impact.
It can detect submarines at 100 miles?
I am somewhat reliably assured that you are significantly underestimating the capabilities of the Navy. ;)
To: gore3000
AND YOU WERE SHOWN AGAIN THAT YOU WERE WRONG
I was not wrong. You have quoted others out of context dishonestly.
What the liar Junior calls a "dishonest quote" is the summary and conclusion of the Origing of the Species posted in Post# 357
Shows the utter dishonesty of both you and Junior.
I also note that the you, being a liar, do not quote from the article on the fugu fish for your attack, because then you could not slime me. The article says:
And by comparing the sequence of genes in the fugu with those of what's known about the 30,000 or so human genes, the scientists say they have discovered nearly 1,000 in the fish that are apparently identical to previously unidentified ones in humans.
From: Humans are Three Percent Puffer Fish .
I must have missed that particular post of yours, so where have you ever been engaged in "honest" discussion?
Hmmm. Should I believe the people who are actually doing the analysis of the fugu genome when they say they "predict" the existence of 1000 new human genes, or should I believe the San Francisco Chronicle when it says they've "discovered" 1000 new human genes?
Let's all think really hard about this one....
As usual you are using rhetoric to try to talk away the truth, here's another article:
By comparing the human and pufferfish genomes, the researchers said they have been able to predict the existence of about 1,000 human genes that had not been previously identified.
From: Genome of Pufferfish Yields Clues to Human Genes
Of course that will not be enough for you so let's look again at the site of the researchers:
| News | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
July 26, 2002 Associated Press: Genome of pufferfish yields clues to human genes. Sequencing the genes of the pufferfish is yielding clues to the more complex human genetic makeup. Oakland Tribune: Meet the relatives -- the pufferfish. One enjoys seafood and wears a wan smile and has an inflated self-image in a crowd. The other walks around on two legs. |
||||||||||||||||||
What do you know! The people who did the research endorse the articles I quoted! So yes, this project has led to the finding of 1,000 new genes in humans - that's how close the genes of the fugu are to humans and of course this is a very strong proof against evolution.
I know how to read, which is rather more than you've demonstrated. Let's look at that article you quote from one more time, and I'll highlight a few bits for you:
By comparing the human and pufferfish genomes, the researchers said they have been able to the existence of about 1,000 human genes that had not been previously identified. The functions of these genes are not yet known, but being able to sort them out from the junk DNA is a step to determining what they do, the researchers said.
Of course that will not be enough for you so let's look again at the site of the researchers:
You've got to be kidding me - you list three articles, two of which are from the Chronicle, and the third is from the Oakland Tribune. Which newspaper is the "site of the researchers again? Never knew that the Bay-area papers were performing genome research right there in the newsroom.
Let's look at the actual site of the researchers. I'll highlight the relevant part again:
Nearly 1,000 previously unrecognized human genes are by comparing the two genomes.
So yes, this project has led to the finding of 1,000 new genes in humans
I don't know why I'm bothering with this - you've proven time and time again that you're just too damn thickheaded to understand the difference between discovering something and predicting something. Wallow in your own stupidity for a while - I'm done.
while you do not have the time to show what you claim are errors in my statements, you do have the time and desire to insult. How lame. How dishonest.
365 posted on 10/19/02 11:44 AM Eastern by gore3000
I am truly amazed how so many evolutionists ... are unable to discuss the issues rationally and instead need to resort to insults.
371 posted on 10/19/02 12:17 PM Eastern by gore3000
None of you evo losers has shown any of my quotes to be false. In fact I almost always post not just a quote but a link to the complete article. Still you guys dishonestly claim that my quotes are false.
389 posted on 10/19/02 9:43 PM Eastern by gore3000
AND YOU WERE SHOWN AGAIN THAT YOU WERE WRONG only thing is that instead of admitting it, or dropping the subject you continue with your moronic assertion
399 posted on 10/19/02 11:44 PM Eastern by gore3000
PROVE ME A LIAR. You do not answer but you sure insult people. Keep your mouth shut if all you can do is insult and have nothing else to say. Lame slimer.
400 posted on 10/19/02 11:46 PM Eastern by gore3000
You have not shown me to be a liar about anything. Do not ascribe to others your own lack of morals.
406 posted on 10/20/02 3:42 AM Eastern by gore3000
Junior: Various quotes taken out of context...
Which of course, with you being a sliming liar you cannot tell which they are [sic] or discuss them honestly.
413 posted on 10/20/02 10:54 AM Eastern by gore3000
With you evos, the proof is always somewhere else where no one can see it. All you slimers can do is lie about people you can never discuss the facts. Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me.
416 posted on 10/20/02 1:34 PM Eastern by gore3000
Tired of the repeated bleatings, I posted a series that directly addressed the claims (detailed above) denying that quotes had ever been misrepresented, and that never had it been demonstrated otherwise:
True to form, the only response was this:
"A key clue -- with the Web we're all journalists. We all have a credibility account, which we protect by playing-straight and piss-away through dishonesty. What's the Web mean, and do, for this equation? It gives hope to new entrants -- the cost of entry is no longer ink by the barrel, just readers by the score. But it doesn't change the basic equation. Nor will it. Credibility remains the coin of the realm." Dana Blankenhorn, 1997
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.