Explore the strengths and weaknesses of Florida's "Academic Freedom" bill

Isn't this a direct example of evolution in action?

1. “creationism” and “creationists” evolved to:

2. “cdesign proponentsists” as an intermediate form, evolved to:

3. “intelligent design” and “design proponents”

There, then is the missing link creationists/IDists have always been looking for.

I don't think they will count that, as the evolution of the fairly functional intermediate form was an unintelligent mistake and not design.

It's all soooo totally about the money.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: I don't think they will count that, as the evolution of the fairly functional intermediate form was an unintelligent mistake and not design.

While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicing it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations. Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplats have their own DNA and are thought to be decended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles are completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells. We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and cloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA. Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, expecially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago. Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.

Dale, some peer review:
You should check your spelling:

mimicing

chloroplats

decended

cloroplasts

expecially

Also, "the DNA in those organelles are" should be, "the DNA ... is", and "common decent" should be "common descent".

Having said that, I thought it was a very interesting essay. Very convincing argument for common descent.

Hope you don't mind the critical comments.

This is all about the creationists and their egos what else. They just want to go and make sure the rest of us do not learn about the scientific fact that is evolution and they don' want us to expose theism for what it really is one big myth and lie.

GvlGeologist, FCD: Dale, some peer review: You should check your spelling: mimicing chloroplats decended cloroplasts expecially Also, "the DNA in those organelles are" should be, "the DNA ... is", and "common decent" should be "common descent". Having said that, I thought it was a very interesting essay. Very convincing argument for common descent. Hope you don't mind the critical comments.

While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicking it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations. Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and are thought to be descended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles are completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells. We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and chloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA. Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, especially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago. Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.

I guess the DI has two main problems:
1. The egos of its fellows are far too big.
2. Some of these guys have to make money ID creationism.
Thus, as long as they want to characterize themselves as the leading heads of the ID creationist movement it's difficult for them to disguise ID creationism as "Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism" because someone will always find their fingerprints.

Why are we having an argument that was settled 100 years ago? and again, in law, in 1987. This was again 'settled' by a (thoughtful) ruling last year? What stake must be driven, and where?
It just seems insane - have the forces of ignorance reached a point where they cannot be driven back by principle, reason, science or sanity?

Why is this still an issue?

jay boilswater: Why are we having an argument that was settled 100 years ago? and again, in law, in 1987. This was again 'settled' by a (thoughtful) ruling last year? What stake must be driven, and where? It just seems insane - have the forces of ignorance reached a point where they cannot be driven back by principle, reason, science or sanity? Why is this still an issue?

So this book encapsulates the "teach the controversy" paradigm yet does not address alternative theories of origins. I wonder how you can really have a controversy then. "It was evolution" or "it wasn't evolution it was erm something else that i won't talk about in any great detail because those nasty scientists have taken most of the evidence for themselves...".

What a thrilling read that will be.

The whole "strengths and weaknesses" approach is just equivocal / disingenuous / misleading (depending on how deluded or dishonest you consider the Discoverup Institute fellows to be).

They assert that they want students to make up their own minds about evolution, but this is once again singling out evolution as a special case among scientific theories. Maybe the scientific institutions should prepare a textbook that does exactly that - examine the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

The table of contents would be like:

1 Introduction p1

2 Strengths of evolution p25

2.1 Evidence for common descent p28

2.2 Population genetics p617

2.3 Natural selection p1024

2.4 Speciation mechanisms p1354

2.5 Predictions of evolutionary theory p1752

2.6 The explanatory power of evolutionary theory p2231

3 Weaknesses of evolution p2592

Index p2593

:-)

Why are we having an argument that was settled 100 years ago? and again, in law, in 1987.

Teach the Controversy is the latest "paradigm" the Disco crew is peddling. Now if we apply a little of reason, something the Disco crew avoid at any cost, what are the alternatives to evilution to contrast and argue about?......
[crickets chirping]
I thought so. If you have no alternatives to a given position then there is no controversy. Ignorance a controversy does not make.

Commentors, strengths and weaknesses is the in thing.

The "strengths" will be very slight, and the weaknesses very strong insinuating impossibility.

strengths and weaknesses - get it right

Pete Dunkelberg said, Son of Of Pandas and People is the answer. Recall that the ID gang at the Discovery Institute (Disco) got the Dover school board in trouble with their creationist textbook Of Pandas and People, in which the words “intelligent design” and “design proponents” had been substituted for the words “creationism” and “creationists”, with “cdesign proponentsists” as an intermediate form.

raven:

Why are we having an argument that was settled 100 years ago? and again, in law, in 1987.

The plan was to knock over biology and evolution first and then go after all the other sciences. They should have picked on a smaller field first.

Larry write:

"I would welcome a lawsuit if one were possible – it would be an opportunity to have the evolution controversy declared to be non-justiciable. The way things are now, the fear of lawsuits is discouraging school boards and legislatures from enacting science curricula that include the weaknesses of evolution."

So Larry, you never learn do you. Go on, appeal the decision. The only result will be that the defendants will be going to jail for perjury. Maybe the intellectual giants who broke the law and got caught should have thought about the detrimental effect that a lost court case would have on their religious agenda before they choose to break the law and lie about it under oath.

There is only one way to make any progress in presenting any alternative "theories" and that is to do some science, something that creationists of all types steadfastly refuse to do.

IMO the priority should be to get rid of that statement in the new Florida science standards that says that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” That statement is just plain wrong.

OT - Hey Stanton - I got my book in today! :-)

Stacy S.: OT - Hey Stanton - I got my book in today! :-)

ABC/Larry: IMO the priority should be to get rid of that statement in the new Florida science standards that says that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That statement is just plain wrong.

Stanton - the pictures are great :-)

While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicking it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations. Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and are thought to be descended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles is completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells. We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and chloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA. Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, especially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago. Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.

Nice scenario. Of course it has already been done thousands of times and the answer is that, whatever gene you choose mitochondrial or nuclear, organisms are related in a nested hierarchy.

I would make one slight correction however. This is not true in all cases. Nuclear DNA is inherited biparentally and undergpoes recombination. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally in animals and does not undergo recombination. Therefore, there are some instances where the two data sets would be expected to give slightly different answers.

Of course creationists have no answer for the pattern observed or the correspondance between data sets, so keep asking the tough questions. The most likely response will be some variant of "I don't understand it so it can't be true".

It appears the apostles of Darwin can not bear any dissent from their religion in their sacred academic temples payed for by Christrian taxpayers. Why should we have to hide the evidence for intelligent design or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission for fear that Christians can use those things to support their world view?

Why should we have to hide the evidence for intelligent design

Pole Greaser, why do you insist on making Christians look foolish?

PvM: Pole Greaser, why do you insist on making Christians look foolish?

"It appears the apostles of Darwin can not bear any dissent from their religion in their sacred academic temples payed for by Christrian taxpayers."

PG, assuming you really are what you portray yourself to be, a creationist, I'm assuming you won't mind a little helpful criticism. The correct past tense of pay is paid.

If you're not a creationist, if your goal is to make science deniers look uneducated and ignorant, carry on. You're doing a great job.

Larry lied: And the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision is one of the most discredited decisions in American history – for example, the ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU and Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against ID and the defendants

ABC/Larry...get off the cross. We need the wood for other uses.

I do not understand why the Discovery Institute (and the poor, uneducated evangelicals that they are using to push their agenda) do not just ADMIT that evolution is fact! Afterall, we have evidence. As we speak, the DI's creationist movement is evolving. The meaning of what was once a truly democratic phrase ("Academic Freedom") has evolved through their influence into "Academic FreeDUMB."
Let's hope that the state representatives in Florida don't allow themselves, our teachers and our children to become pawns in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy.

If I challenged the statement that Newton’s laws of motion are the “fundamental concept underlying all of physics,” would that be a proposal to teach physics without teaching Newton’s laws of motion?

ABC/Larry:

Dale Husband:

ABC/Larry: IMO the priority should be to get rid of that statement in the new Florida science standards that says that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That statement is just plain wrong.

Wow! Another example of Lying for Jesus, it seems! If you really think that statement is wrong, let's see you teach biology without evolution.

That is just a straw man argument. All I did was challenge the statement that evolution is the "fundamental concept underlying all of biology." If I challenged the statement that Newton's laws of motion are the "fundamental concept underlying all of physics," would that be a proposal to teach physics without teaching Newton's laws of motion?

You are lying yet again, Larry. Are you really one of the Three Stooges?

In any biology class of students from the real world, evolution will be brought up, if not by the teachers, then by at least one of the students asking questions about it. And the teacher will have to either affirm it or deny it, and explain why for the sake of either teaching science by itself or teaching science mixed with religion. Therefore, your response is baseless.

Also, a lot of the criticisms of evolution are not based on religion.

I think what was meant just now was What is 1 correct non strawman criticism?

Maybe Larry is saying that Cell Theory should be mentioned as well??

I don't know anything about science - I'm just wondering if that is where he is coming from.

And, a chemistry teacher could affirm the periodicy of a table of elements while denying that it's central to chemistry! Heck, that should be elementary!!!111!!one!!1

Henry

Henry J: And, a chemistry teacher could affirm the periodicy of a table of elements while denying that it's central to chemistry! Heck, that should be elementary!!!111!!one!!1 Henry

Well, ABC/XYZ/Larry's got us there. Can't argue with that solid evidence-based refutation of 150 years of research. No, sir. We're hooped. Hats off, Larry. You win.

OK Larry - I'll bite ... What in biology has nothing to do with evolution?

Stacy,

I was comparing omitting evolution from biology to omitting the periodic table from chemistry. Both concepts are crucial to understanding their respective subjects.

Henry

Thank you Henry :-)