|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should ID be taught in science classes... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Beretta, take your evolution stuff to the appropriate thread(s).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Which contained all the genetic material found in a modern banana -nothing added; some information lost perhaps, but not added. That argument has never made any sense to me. How does rearranging the bits and pieces on a DNA molecule change the amount of information? Mutations are mistakes made during the transfer of information from one generation to the next.(like birth defects)Evolutionists postulate that if these mistakes are beneficial to the animal, it will give the mutated animal an advantage and natural selection will then preserve that advantage.It seems logical enough but does it line up with reality? Years and years of experimentation has shown that mutation cannot develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms because mutations never add useful information. They are analogous to misspellings in a book. Even examples of 'beneficial mutations' such as sickle cell anaemia (causing resistance to malaria)do not create new features or improve overall survivability. Belief that mutations could slowly change an animal into some other animal is analogous to believing that a black and white TV could be changed into a color one by throwing random parts at it. The impacts will definately produce change but will the changes be beneficial? Read 'Principles of Genetics' -EJ Gardner or 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' -Dr JC Sanford (highly recommended) -and lest I be suspended once again, let me get back on topic.We should teach the children the truth about what we actually know about mutations not what we imagine must have happened.Science as opposed to philosphical musings. "So class, we have no evidence of anything beneficial occurring due to random undirected mutations but we BELIEVE that evolution happened and we hope that in the future we may obtain the necessary evidence to suggest that we may be right after all. In the meantime lets return to the actual provable science. Yes, 'faith moves mountains but only knowledge moves them to the right place'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
See reply to Ringo -message 58
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
what value is there in giving cave fish eyes that don't function? Well I would surmise that they did work at some stage or they wouldn't be there at all. Loss of information through mutation causing genetic blindness in some, while others are unaffected? Interesting question, I'll look into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: On a very broad scale of genetic information, would you say a bacterium has more or less of it than a human? On a narrower scale would you say a hummingbird has more or less of it than a crocodile? Fact:Humans have 1000 times more DNA than bacteria -yet salamanders, which are amphibians, have 20 times more DNA than humans. Humans have 30 times more DNA than some insects, but less than half of that of certain other insects. Question: "And so children given the above and given that evolution says bacteria evolved successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man -give us your ideas on probable scenarios that would throw our expected scenario so out of kilter and what plausible story we could hypothesise to overcome this difficulty..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Beretta writes: -and lest I be suspended once again, let me get back on topic. So how about answering a question from the OP?
quote: Edited by Ringo, : Spellings. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I know you're getting lots of help going off-topic, but it all seems to begin with you, so here's the deal. In this thread, please do not mention evolution or any evidence related to evolution. Address yourself specifically to the topic, describing positive reasons why ID should be taught in science class, and absolutely avoiding to complete exclusion negative reasons why evolution is wrong. Each failure to follow this request will receive a 24 hour suspension. What part of DO NOT MENTION don't you understand? Shut. Up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Years and years of experimentation has shown that mutation cannot develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms because mutations never add useful information. No it hasn't. Do you have evidence of any mutational screen or experiment designed to look for 'new organisms'. There are none because no one except a creationist would expect 'new organisms' to appear from nowhere in the course of an experiment. As to never adding useful information there are numerous examples presented ad nauseam of beneficial traits which can arise from de novo mutations. This whole line of argument is rubbish , no one except creationists think that for a trait to be beneficial it must rely on the addition of 'information', however you mean that term.
Even examples of 'beneficial mutations' such as sickle cell anaemia (causing resistance to malaria)do not create new features or improve overall survivability. Ummm, what do you mean by overall? Do you have evidence that the mortality rates in areas with endemic Malaria would be exactly the same if there were no sickle cell or similar alleles? Your statement about what we 'know' about mutations just shows that all you know about mutations comes from creationist propaganda, and apparently JC Sanford's book. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Your core problem is obvious: whenever called upon to present the evidence for ID, you instead criticize evolution. I have actually presented some evidence that points to creation as more probable than evolution. Unfortunately maintaining that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation does not hold up to closer examination. For instance, the genetic information example makes evolution look far less plausible than creation or some sort of ID proposition. There are lots of examples where evidence against evolution makes creation look more feasible if you look at the details of what is actually scientifically known.
You accept that scientists can decipher biological processes like the type III secretory system, but not that they can decipher the mechanisms behind hereditary change. Both can be deciphered -but hereditary change cannot necessarily be scientifically extrapolated to include all that is implied by the term 'evolution'.To demonstrate the logical incoherency and circularity of Darwinist thinking: "The prevailing assumption in evolutionary science seems to be that speculative possibilities, without experimental confirmation, are all that is really necessary.The principle at work is the same one that Waddington, Medawar and Mayr invoked when challenged by the mathematicians. Nature must have provided whatever evolution had to have, because otherwise evolution wouldn't have happened.It follows that if evolution required macromutations then macromutations must be possible, or if macromutations are impossible, then evolutionmust not have required them. The theory itself provides whatever supporting evidence is essential." (Johnson -'Darwin on Trial') IDists need to explain things like how the designer makes the change within the genome It appears that the designer put all the necessary information for variation and survival of different kinds of animals from the beginning. They vary according to environmental necessity or selective breeding. For example, breeding of different kinds of dogs show many different varieties are possible through selective breeding but there is no evidence that anything but some kind of dog is possible.Through selective breeding, information is lost so you'll never get a big dog out of a chihuaha once the info for long legs is bred out but if you want long legs again, cross the chihuaha with a long legged dog and put that genetic feature back.Same with humans -different amounts of melanin for skin color in isolated populations and different inherited features but all human and they won't ever be anything but human. Breeders pursuing conscious goals, intelligently guide their process and even then, the potential for variability runs out and the process reaches its natural limit.
And lastly, of course, there's the question of evidence for the actual designer. Just as SETI surveys radio emissions of stars looking for codelike sequences that would indicate intelligent origin, so scientists should have the academic freedom to be able to look at DNA and other info-rich systems in nature and consider the possibility of an intelligent causation. Neither evolution nor creation can be proven by scientific experiment but there are just some facts that make one explanation appear more likely than another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
just say that God is not empirical and therefore falls off the table of scientific consideration. Unless God did it, not via means of evolution in which case evolution falls off the table by virtue of being untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Evolution is based on mutation. Or 'Believed' to be based on a prior commitment to evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Science has a much to do with religion as a volcano has to do with the uplifting powers of salvation Unless God is real and did create everything - in which case, it should have everything to do with science and reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Paraphrasing what I have said before: You can't get a pig to fly over the barn and you can't get a true believer to see over the wall of blind faith. Especially if they're a true fundamentalist evolutionist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Science had to be invented to cast off the falacies and foolishness of religion. Or perhaps evolution starting with the Big Bang and abiogenesis in a primitive primordial soup had to be invented to cast off the reality of God. Maybe all the intellectual compromise is being propogated by evolutionists to keep their faith alive. Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi folks!
Beretta shows no interest in addressing the topic of this thread, but the lesson of his several suspensions indicates that he's simply going to continue to ignore moderator requests to stay on topic. I can suspend Beretta for longer and longer periods of time until he either begins staying on topic in threads (unlikely) or he gives up and goes away (likely) or the suspension becomes permanent (unlikely in the absence of abusive behavior), but losing a member just because of inability to stay on topic seems extreme. So I think I'll just close this thread. If anyone ever shows an interest in actually discussing the pro side of teaching ID in science class then this topic can always be reopened, or another thread can be proposed. I will not take sides in this discussion, but because I'm closing this thread before anyone has had an opportunity to reply to Beretta's last set of messages, I want to make it clear to anyone reading this thread that the absence of responses to Beretta should in no way be taken as an indication that his arguments have carried the day. The truth be known, beyond declaring his position, he never actually addressed himself to the issue of why ID should be taught in science class.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024