Creationism education bills

[OldMaid 2,135]

Does anyone think there are more than six inches between Mensa's knuckles and the ground?

[Gepetto 1,454]

Does anyone think there are more than six inches between Mensa's knuckles and the ground?

 

Like you're saying he's not as evolved as others?

[GettnHuge 2]

Does anyone think there are more than six inches between Mensa's knuckles and the ground?

 

I disagree. Look at the chart and consider another option

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww140/bakdahelup/070831.jpg

[Voltaire 5,491]

You missed my question. Let me try again. ARE SCHOOLS TRYING TO TEACH SETI AS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY? If so, I have an issue with this. If not, it has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

SETI isn't a scientific theory. The only 'theory' about it is the belief that somewhere in the universe, life may have evolved to the point that an intelligence capable of transmitting radio waves exists; because since it happened here, maybe it happened somewhere else too. In practical terms, SETI is a search for a needle in a haystack by some underfunded guys in Arizona. They're not even sure what they're looking for, most of what they get is junk. They hope they get a wavelength transmission that they don't recognize, and try to figure out what it is. So far, no intelligence. I could hardly imagine a more slow, tedious, and boring job.

[penultimatestraw 473]

OMG. Awesome!!! LMAO. He left off the first part of the quote:

 

[/font][/left]

Mensa.... you left out the part where he slams the Creationists. I know you didn't do that intentionally to mislead anyone, so I fixorated it for you. Because I can read things objectively, what I interpret here is that Shapiro is frustrated with staunch Darwinists, because he is having difficulty getting his findings accepted. He says he EXPECTS this from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. I love that quote. LOVE IT. But it seems he expected more from his scientific peers and he feels they are validating the Creationists' claims, which he doesn't seem to appreciate so much.

Not one person here has refuted Shapiro's work. What we have refuted over and over and over again is that his findings of intelligent cell behavior mean they must have been designed by something/someone. This is also the view of Shapiro himself. So can you stop talking about Shapiro? He doesn't agree with you and quite frankly, if I were him I would be pissed off at people using my years of hard work to deceive others. He's also probably regretting even mentioning Creationists in his paper.

There may be other reasons that his findings are not being accepted with wide open arms. Maybe his experiments were faulty? Who the hell knows? We surely don't. One thing that can be said for sure though, in no way does Shapiro's scientific research prove there is an Intelligent Designer. Period. And if you somehow see that in his research, you are not looking at this objectively at all.

[nikki2200 4]

hY

SETI isn't a scientific theory. The only 'theory' about it is the belief that somewhere in the universe, life may have evolved to the point that an intelligence capable of transmitting radio waves exists; because since it happened here, maybe it happened somewhere else too. In practical terms, SETI is a search for a needle in a haystack by some underfunded guys in Arizona. They're not even sure what they're looking for, most of what they get is junk. They hope they get a wavelength transmission that they don't recognize, and try to figure out what it is. So far, no intelligence. I could hardly imagine a more slow, tedious, and boring job.

 

 

Yea I know. What I'm asking is if they teach this to kids in a science class that there is a theory that there are aliens out there and try to make it seem like there is scientific evidence as such, I would have the same issue with it as teaching them we have evidence there is a mysterious creator in the sky that made us all.

[IMMensaMind 462]

SETI isn't a scientific theory. The only 'theory' about it is the belief that somewhere in the universe, life may have evolved to the point that an intelligence capable of transmitting radio waves exists; because since it happened here, maybe it happened somewhere else too. In practical terms, SETI is a search for a needle in a haystack by some underfunded guys in Arizona. They're not even sure what they're looking for, most of what they get is junk. They hope they get a wavelength transmission that they don't recognize, and try to figure out what it is. So far, no intelligence. I could hardly imagine a more slow, tedious, and boring job.

 

I agree with all of that. SETI is credible in science; science and scientists recognize as valid SETI's charter to identify intelligence via repeated patterns of specified complexity. In fact - by definition - any received radio waves would be evidence of an extremely old intelligence, due to the rate at which radio waves travel.

 

For very clear reasons, people have a bug in their ass when ID does exactly the same thing, because they have a mental switch that prohibits the notion of consideration of an intelligence being culpable for organics - and that does not square with me.

 

I wonder if people think that Shapiro even respects the views of Michael Behe.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I disagree. Look at the chart and consider another option

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww140/bakdahelup/070831.jpg

So he's a liar and a big fat dumb head?

[IMMensaMind 462]

So he's a liar and a big fat dumb head?

 

 

It delights me that this is all you have.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

December 21, 2005, 12:05 p.m.

The Lemon Cliffs of Dover

I.D. and the establishment clause in the classroom.

 

By Lee J. Strang

 

Tuesday, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that the Dover school board violated the establishment clause by requiring ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement to their classes. It stated that Darwins Theory of Evolution is not a fact and has gaps, and told students that intelligent design offered an alternative explanation of the origin of life. The statement then referred students who wanted to learn more about intelligent design to a book in the school library, Of Pandas and People.

 

Intelligent-design proponents argue that intelligent design is science and not religion, and should therefore be taught in the science classroom. Intelligent design is the idea that design, and not random genetic mutation and selection, accounts for the incredible biological complexity we see around us.

 

I am not sure they are completely right, but proponents such as Drs. Michael Behe and William Demski have forcefully defended their claims in debates, conferences, scientific articles, and popular books such as Darwins Black Box and The Design Inference. Even assuming, however, that intelligent design is not scientific but is instead religious, the Constitution properly interpreted does not exclude it from public-school classrooms. Unfortunately, the recent Dover case shows just how far the Supreme Courts establishment-clause case law has strayed and also serves as a cautionary note to others who would include intelligent design in the public-school science classroom.

 

Since 1947 and Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court has with a few recent exceptions sought to purge religion from the public square. In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that Arkansass statute that prevented public schools from teaching evolution was unconstitutional, and in 1987 the Supreme Court struck down Louisianas balanced treatment statute that required equal time for creation science. In both cases the Court found that the religious purpose of the statutes proponents was key to their unconstitutionality. Given this precedent, the ruling in Dover is not surprising.

 

In Everson and subsequent cases the Supreme Court made the historical claim that the Establishment Clause erected a wall of separation between church and state. That claim has been subjected to withering criticism, and yet the principle of separation remains today in, for instance, the infamous Lemon tests prohibition of a religious governmental purpose. It was this factor, more than anything else, that the judge in Dover relied upon to find the Dover boards actions unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Courts case law, because it is unhinged from the historic meaning of the establishment clause, remains deeply hostile to religion in the public square. So long as the Courts current incorrect interpretation of the establishment-clause remains the law, it will beget more bad law such as the Dover decision.

 

It is not only the Supreme Courts hostile establishment-clause precedent that led to the unfortunate result in Dover, because the facts of the case made the result even more likely. Judge Jones spent many pages in his opinion relating board-member statements showing the clear religious purpose of the Dover school board such as, 2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Cant someone take a stand for him? Even the boards attorney warned the board that the history leading up to its decision to require reading the statement a lot of discussion . . . for putting religion back in the schools would damage the boards chances in a lawsuit. The bad facts of the case forced even a judge like Judge Jones, who was appointed by George W. Bush, to make bad law.

 

The vast majority of Americans are religious, and a large percentage are serious Christians. Teaching intelligent design in public-school science class is one of the current skirmishes in the larger battle over the role of religion in the public square. Americans who want their children exposed to alternatives to materialist Darwinism must work to prevent more bad law and bad facts that would push religion further out of the public square.

 

Americans can elect local, state, and federal representatives who will press for equal access for intelligent design or other criticisms of materialist Darwinism in science class or elsewhere in the curriculum. We can also work to ensure the appointment of federal judges who abide by the original meaning of the Constitution. The original meaning of the Constitution is the publicly understood meaning of the Constitutions text when it was ratified. When judges follow the original meaning, they respect the democratic choices of our society and the limits of their office. Originalist judges will find, as Justice Scalia argued last Summer in McCreary County v. ACLU, that the establishment clause permits government to favor religion over irreligion or nonreligion. This would eliminate the establishment clauses false hostility to religion.

 

Perhaps more immediately, we can encourage our school boards to be circumspect if they decide to include a discussion of intelligent design in the science classroom. Instead of presenting overtly religious arguments for intelligent design, present the strong explicitly scientific claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington. Then, even under the Supreme Courts current case law, federal judges will have a more difficult time declaring teaching intelligent design unconstitutional.

 

Lee J. Strang is assistant professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Professor Strang teaches property, constitutional interpretation, appellate practice, and federal courts. He has published extensively on constitutional law and interpretation.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Darwin in the Classroom

Ohio allows alternatives.

By John G. West Jr.

 

 

 

fter months of debate, the Ohio State Board of Education unanimously adopted science standards on Dec. 10 that require Ohio students to know "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

 

Ohio thus becomes the first state to mandate that students learn not only scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory but also scientific evidence critical of it. While the new science standards do not compel Ohio's school districts to offer a specific curriculum, Ohio students will need to know about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory in order to pass graduation tests required for a high-school diploma.

 

Ohio is not the only place where public officials are broadening the curriculum to include scientific criticisms of evolution. In September the Cobb County School District in Georgia, one of the largest suburban school districts in the nation, adopted a policy encouraging teachers to discuss "disputed views" about evolution as part of a "balanced education." And last year, Congress in the conference report to the landmark No Child Left Behind Act urged schools to inform students of "the full range of scientific views" when covering controversial scientific topics "such as biological evolution."

 

After years of being marginalized, critics of Darwin's theory seem to be gaining ground. What is going on? And why now?

 

Two developments have been paramount.

 

First, there has been growing public recognition of the shoddy way evolution is actually taught in many schools. Thanks to the book Icons of Evolution by biologist Jonathan Wells, more people know about how biology textbooks perpetuate discredited "icons" of evolution that many biologists no longer accept as good science. Embryo drawings purporting to prove Darwin's theory of common ancestry continue to appear in many textbooks despite the embarrassing fact that they have been exposed as fakes originally concocted by 19th-century German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel. Textbooks likewise continue to showcase microevolution in peppered moths as evidence for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection even though the underlying research is now questioned by many biologists.

 

When not offering students bogus science, the textbooks ignore real and often heated scientific disagreements over evolutionary theory. Few students ever learn, for example, about vigorous debates generated by the Cambrian Explosion, a huge burst in the complexity of living things more than 500 million years ago that seems to outstrip the known capacity of natural selection to produce biological change.

 

Teachers who do inform students about some of Darwinism's unresolved problems often face persecution by what can only be termed the Darwinian thought police. In Washington state, a well-respected biology teacher who wanted to tell students about scientific debates over things like Haeckel's embryos and the peppered moth was ultimately driven from his school district by local Darwinists.

 

Science is supposed to prize open minds and critical thinking. Yet the theory of evolution is typically presented today completely uncritically, as a dogma to be accepted rather than as a theory to be explored and questioned. Is it any wonder that policymakers and the public are growing skeptical of such a one-sided approach?

 

A second development fueling recent gains by Darwin's critics has been the demise of an old stereotype.

 

For years, Darwinists successfully shut down any public discussion of Darwinian evolution by stigmatizing every critic of Darwin as a Biblical literalist intent on injecting Genesis into biology class. While Darwinists still try that tactic, their charge is becoming increasingly implausible, even ludicrous. Far from being uneducated Bible-thumpers, the new critics of evolution hold doctorates in biology, biochemistry, mathematics and related disciplines from secular universities, and many of them teach or do research at American universities. They are scientists like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich, and Baylor University philosopher and mathematician William Dembski.

 

The ranks of these academic critics of Darwin are growing. During the past year, more than 150 scientists — including faculty and researchers at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian — adopted a statement expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism's central claim that "random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life."

 

Deprived of the stock response that all critics of Darwin must be stupid fundamentalists, some of Darwin's public defenders have taken a page from the playbook of power politics: If you can't dismiss your opponents, demonize them.

 

In Ohio critics of Darwinism were compared to the Taliban, and Ohioans were warned that the effort to allow students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin was part of a vast conspiracy to impose nothing less than a theocracy. Happily for good science education (and free inquiry), the Ohio Board of Education saw through such overheated rhetoric. So did 52 Ohio scientists (many on the faculties of Ohio universities) who publicly urged the Ohio Board to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory.

 

The renewed debate over how to teach evolution is not likely to stop with Ohio.

 

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, every state must enact statewide science assessments within five years. As other states prepare to fulfill this new federal mandate, one of the looming questions will be what students should learn about evolution. Will they learn only the scientific evidence that favors the theory, or will they be exposed to its scientific criticisms as well?

 

Ohio has set a standard other states would do well to follow.

[Frank M 181]

I am not sure they are completely right, but proponents such as Drs. Michael Behe and William Demski have forcefully defended their claims in debates, conferences, scientific articles, and popular books such as Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Inference. Even assuming, however, that intelligent design is not scientific but is instead religious, the Constitution — properly interpreted — does not exclude it from public-school classrooms. Unfortunately, the recent Dover case shows just how far the Supreme Court’s establishment-clause case law has strayed and also serves as a cautionary note to others who would include intelligent design in the public-school science classroom.

 

 

Link me to one peer reviewed scientific article that either of these two jokers have published proving any aspect of their ID claims. Not interpretations of other work, anything that these two wrote. So far, you have been unable to do that because they don't exist.

 

Perhaps more immediately, we can encourage our school boards to be circumspect if they decide to include a discussion of intelligent design in the science classroom. Instead of presenting overtly religious arguments for intelligent design, present the strong — explicitly scientific — claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington. Then, even under the Supreme Court’s current case law, federal judges will have a more difficult time declaring teaching intelligent design unconstitutional.

 

— Lee J. Strang is assistant professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Professor Strang teaches property, constitutional interpretation, appellate practice, and federal courts. He has published extensively on constitutional law and interpretation.

 

So, the problem in the Dover case was that the focus was too religious?

 

Gee, could that possibly be because the central tenet of ID is religious and not scientific in nature?

 

And can you link me to any peer reviewed articles from "scientists" at the Discovery Institute? In fact, can you link to any "research" done by the Discovery Institute that has not been published by the Discovery Institute Press?

 

Waiting with baited breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Frank M 181]

Darwin in the Classroom

Ohio allows alternatives.

By John G. West Jr.

 

 

These op-ed articles from pro ID sites really bolster your case. Much more so than any real scientific paper would.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Link me to one peer reviewed scientific article that either of these two jokers have published proving any aspect of their ID claims. Not interpretations of other work, anything that these two wrote. So far, you have been unable to do that because they don't exist.

 

You have before you evidence of the nastiness with which Darwinists - the vast majority ideology represented in scientific circles - approach affronts to their ideology. Just where do you expect to find "peer-reviewed" articles in that environment? It's a slow process to beat down the fortress that Darwinists have created - and trapped our populace, including kids (of which you're clearly a strident product).

 

So, the problem in the Dover case was that the focus was too religious?

 

Actually - yes. And it was the Dover Board's own fault. They skewed the case so blatantly towards the religious that Judge Jones had no choice but to rule against ID in that case, due to the mitigating circumstances and precedences which he has no choice but to follow. Christians can (mis)use ID just as Atheists can (mis)use Evolutionary Theory.

 

That piece highlights just how bad precedent seeps into law vis a vis the Establishment Clause. It is a case I make as well, and I used the examples of the Founding Fathers stumping their own religion while being politicians. That is something - using the contemporary (incorrect) view of the Establishment Clause - that should be forbidden, yet the writers themselves were in supposed violation.

 

Does. Not. Compute.

 

And this is a negative way in which our society has been altered.

 

Gee, could that possibly be because the central tenet of ID is religious and not scientific in nature?

 

Non sequitur. I have already explained to you that it isn't; no serious ID proponent demands the nature of the Designer.

 

And can you link me to any peer reviewed articles from "scientists" at the Discovery Institute? In fact, can you link to any "research" done by the Discovery Institute that has not been published by the Discovery Institute Press?

 

Waiting with baited breath.

 

I would hope you'd be waiting with bated breath. If it's baited, you're yet another example of a poster who has had some trout stank.

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

Darwin in the Classroom

Ohio allows alternatives.

By John G. West Jr.

 

 

 

fter months of debate, the Ohio State Board of Education unanimously adopted science standards on Dec. 10 that require Ohio students to know "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

 

 

 

From the forum rules

Observe all copyright laws when posting copyrighted material. If the material does not belong to you, do not post (cut & paste) the full article/text on the FF Today Board or FF Today Forums without permission. Post only the introductory paragraph then credit the source/author and link to the article. Posting articles from other sources in their entirety is a violation of our Posting Guidelines. If you do so, your thread and account will be deleted.

 

If you are going to copy and paste this stuff, it would be nice to at least have a link.

[Frank M 181]

You have before you evidence of the nastiness with which Darwinists - the vast majority ideology represented in scientific circles - approach affronts to their ideology. Just where do you expect to find "peer-reviewed" articles in that environment? It's a slow process to beat down the fortress that Darwinists have created - and trapped our populace, including kids (of which you're clearly a strident product).

 

I would hope to find them in scientific journals if they are scientific articles. Where are these articles?

 

Hint-there are none because they don't exist because ID is not a science.

 

HTH.

 

 

I would hope you'd be waiting with bated breath. If it's baited, you're yet another example of a poster who has had some trout stank.

 

 

Really? That's what you have for an answer?

 

I'll ask again, because it's apparent you have nothing : What has the Discovery Institute put out in anything that wasn't published by the Discovery Institute Press, their own publishing company? One thing, that's all I'm asking.

[nikki2200 4]

So are we back on the "separation of church and state" is unconstitutional argument again? Trying to keep up here, folks. Doing my best.

 

You have before you evidence of the nastiness with which Darwinists - the vast majority ideology represented in scientific circles - approach affronts to their ideology. Just where do you expect to find "peer-reviewed" articles in that environment? It's a slow process to beat down the fortress that Darwinists have created - and trapped our populace, including kids (of which you're clearly a strident product).

 

When I mocked you before for stating something similar about war of the evil atheists against the truth, you said I haz hyperbole. So what haz you then?

[Frank M 181]

So are we back on the "separation of church and state" is unconstitutional argument again? Trying to keep up here, folks. Doing my best.

 

 

 

When I mocked you before for stating something similar about war of the evil atheists against the truth, you said I haz hyperbole. So what haz you then?

 

Yes, nasty Science is directing a conspiracy to keep the truth from our youth.

 

:thumbsupsmiley:

[OldMaid 2,135]

I think the only question left to ask is does IMMentalRetard whack off to Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?

[Me_2006 14]

 

But here comes another cycle of semantics and spin. "I never explicitly said that meant blah blah blah. Can you refute such a claim as posited by Bob Smith? You are merely afraid of accepting such a position or are too simple-minded to comprehend how I'm not a total assfaced, scrotum sucking liar."

 

 

The misunderstanding is with you. Science doesn't disqualify a Designer. Know that. His MS-DOS analogy was correct: he used it to have the reader imagine a program that could self-adjust based upon environmental criteria.

 

 

Perhaps your mind isn't expansive enough to comprehend the implications of the discovery. I've found many atheists/agnostics are missing the circuitry to absorb things like that. Being leftist just makes it worse. There's no medicine for you.

 

 

 

 

Nature is filled with precursors - that they then do not mention wrt the flagellum. Keep trying. Simply claiming that the flagella is not IC is not the same thing as acually proving that it is not irreducably complex. You're not wrapping your mind around this question

[Me_2006 14]

 

But here comes another cycle of semantics and spin. "I never explicitly said that meant blah blah blah. Can you refute such a claim as posited by Bob Smith? You are merely afraid of accepting such a position or are too simple-minded to comprehend how I'm not a total assfaced, scrotum sucking liar."

 

 

NO WHERE in this entire thread did I assert what you claim -

 

 

You're not even a challenge. I know what you're going to say before you do. That's why you wont answer my questions. But it's okay, I don't need you to. I know the answers. Everyone does. I just want to see if you're psychotic enough to refuse to admit it. Apparently you are as you wont respond to posts of mine that mention it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You're not even a challenge. I know what you're going to say before you do. That's why you wont answer my questions. But it's okay, I don't need you to. I know the answers. Everyone does. I just want to see if you're psychotic enough to refuse to admit it. Apparently you are as you wont respond to posts of mine that mention it.

 

I don't even know what you're talking about, nor do I have any idea of the questions you're talking about. I consider you a fairly solid intellectual lightweight, so I haven't been paying much attention to you. What is it you want to ask me?

[IMMensaMind 462]

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the Evolution of any fundamental or biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

 

Such books simply don’t address the problems I raise. Molecular Evolution by Wen-Hsiung Li (Li 1997) is a fine textbook which does an admirable job of explicating current knowledge of how genes change with time. That knowledge, however, does not include how specific, irreducibly-complex biochemical systems were built. The text contains chapters on the molecular clock, molecular phylogenetics, and other topics which essentially are studies in comparing gene sequences. As I explained in Darwin’s Black Box, comparing sequences is interesting but cannot explain how molecular machines arose. Li’s book also contains chapters on the mechanisms (such as gene duplication, domain shuffling, and concerted evolution of multigene families) that are thought to be involved in evolution at the molecular level. Again, however, no specific system is justified in Darwinian terms.

 

So now Frank, Nikki - and now Nikki hands off to MedStudent because he's teh schmaht and she's not - have claimed that my assertion has been refuted, but not a single one of them can actually produce a textbook that does contain what I asserted does not: the same assertion Behe makes in the statement bolded above.

 

So can you produce it, or are you forced to concede?

 

And: do you know who said the first bolded quote above?

[GettnHuge 2]

So now Frank, Nikki - and now Nikki hands off to MedStudent because he's teh schmaht and she's not - have claimed that my assertion has been refuted, but not a single one of them can actually produce a textbook that does contain what I asserted does not: the same assertion Behe makes in the statement bolded above.

 

So can you produce it, or are you forced to concede?

 

And: do you know who said the first bolded quote above?

 

wow look who's back on the warpath. There is a reason they have to pass it on. Because you IGNORE the tough questions. Frank asks and makes his case...you avoid it,

so then Nikki reasserts the question and post repeatedly...you avoid it, medpunk picks up the case... you avoid it. Then you spin the argument into something it's not and

suddenly become bold again. You make your silly case and ask to be proven wrong. Someone else does the same thing and you demand they prove themselves right.

:rolleyes:

[MDC 7,901]

Religion is for cowards who are afraid to live their lives.

 

Hth?

[nikki2200 4]

So now Frank, Nikki - and now Nikki hands off to MedStudent because he's teh schmaht and she's not - have claimed that my assertion has been refuted, but not a single one of them can actually produce a textbook that does contain what I asserted does not: the same assertion Behe makes in the statement bolded above.

 

So can you produce it, or are you forced to concede?

 

And: do you know who said the first bolded quote above?

 

I really have no idea what you are talking about. Really. My brain is kinda fried, but I have lost the ability to comprehend what you are saying anymore. If we are talking about irreducible complexity again, read the FOCKING link that was posted pages ago.

 

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

 

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" – tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial – even essential – to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

 

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

 

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

 

 

Figure 2:

There are extensive homologies between type III secretory proteins and proteins involved in export in the basal region of the bacterial flagellum. These homologies demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum is not "irreducibly complex." In this diagram (redrawn from Heuck 1998), the shaded portions of the basal region indicate proteins in the

E. coli

flagellum homologous to the Type III secretory structure of

Yersinia.

. OM, outer membrane; PP, periplasmic space; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.

 

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

 

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.

 

 

This was all presented in the Dover case. Behe was made to look like an idiot on the stand. Ken Miller convinced the conservative Christian judge that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum is false. The scientific community agrees with this. Why are we still talking about this?

 

And yea... I know your quote is from Shapiro. Google only showed that quote on Christian conservative websites. So who knows how hacked up it was and it what context he made that statement.

[OldMaid 2,135]

Actually my Google search turned up Franklin Harold as the author... Hmmm...

[nikki2200 4]

Actually my Google search turned up Franklin Harold as the author... Hmmm...

 

Yea but his quote is supposedly from Shapiro. Who the hell knows though. Wouldn't be the first time someone made up quotes from Shapiro.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. Really. My brain is kinda fried, but I have lost the ability to comprehend what you are saying anymore. If we are talking about irreducible complexity again, read the FOCKING link that was posted pages ago.

 

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

 

 

[/font]

 

This was all presented in the Dover case. Behe was made to look like an idiot on the stand. Ken Miller convinced the conservative Christian judge that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum is false. The scientific community agrees with this. Why are we still talking about this?

 

And yea... I know your quote is from Shapiro. Google only showed that quote on Christian conservative websites. So who knows how hacked up it was and it what context he made that statement.

 

I'm aware of Miller's attempt to invalidate IC with this TTSS claim. There are a couple of problems with his attempt:

 

Connecting the Type III Secretory System to Bacterial Flagellum

 

Miller's whole argument that the bacterial flagellum evolved by Darwinian means rests on the existence of the type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is coded for by about ten genes, each of which is homologous to genes in the bacterial flagellum. Thus Miller sees the TTSS as embedded in the bacterial flagellum, capable of being selected for on its own, and as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. He writes: "The TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001)."

 

 

 

Accordingly, the TTSS may be thought of as a possible subsystem of the flagellum that performs a function distinct from the flagellum. Nevertheless, finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that serve some different function. At best the TTSS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn't constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What's needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that.

 

 

 

There's another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000). This can also be seen intuitively. The bacterial flagellum is a motility structure for propelling a bacterium through its watery environment. Water has been around since the origin of life. But the TTSS, as Mike Gene (see citation at end) notes, is restricted "to animal and plant pathogens." Accordingly, the TTSS could only have been around since the rise of metazoans. Gene continues: "In fact, the function of the system depends on intimate contact with these multicellular organisms. This all indicates this system arose after plants and animals appeared. In fact, the type III genes of plant pathogens are more similar to their own flagellar genes than the type III genes of animal pathogens. This has led some to propose that the type III system arose in plant pathogens and then spread to animal pathogens by horizontal transfer.... When we look at the type III system its genes are commonly clustered and found on large virulence plasmids. When they are in the chromosome, their GC content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. In other words, there is good reason to invoke horizontal transfer to explain type III distribution. In contrast, flagellar genes are usually split into three or more operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome. There is no evidence that the flagellum has been spread about by horizontal transfer."

 

 

 

It follows that the TTSS does not explain the evolution of the flagellum (despite the handwaving of Aizawa 2001). Nor, for that matter, does the bacterial flagellum explain in any meaningful sense the evolution of the TTSS. The TTSS is after all much simpler than the flagellum. The TTSS contains ten or so proteins that are homologous to proteins in the flagellum. The flagellum requires an additional thirty or forty proteins, which are unique. Evolution needs to explain the emergence of complexity from simplicity. But if the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, then all we've done is explain the simpler in terms of the more complex.

 

 

 

The scientific literature shows a complete absence of concrete, causally detailed proposals for how coevolution and co-option might actually produce irreducibly complex biochemical systems. In place of such proposals, Darwinists simply observe that because subsystems of irreducibly complex systems might be functional, any such functions could be selected by natural selection. Accordingly, selection can work on those parts and thereby form irreducibly complex systems. All of this is highly speculative, and accounts for cell biologist Franklin Harold's (2001, 205) frank admission: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

 

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

 

Now, here's the thing: That is not a Franklin Harold quote; it is a James Shapiro quote. I know because I too have been in touch with James Shapiro via email. Among other very interesting things he said, he also forwarded me a .pdf of a book review that he wrote critiquing Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", which appeared in National Review in 1996. In that piece is that quote.

 

Either way, the explanation of TTSS as successor to the flagellum is completely logical. In short, Miller's piece doesn't say what you think it does; the science does not support his claim.

[GettnHuge 2]

I'm aware of Miller's attempt to invalidate IC with this TTSS claim. There are a couple of problems with his attempt:

 

 

 

http://www.designinf...er_Response.htm

 

Now, here's the thing: That is not a Franklin Harold quote; it is a James Shapiro quote. I know because I too have been in touch with James Shapiro via email. Among other very interesting things he said, he also forwarded me a .pdf of a book review that he wrote critiquing Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", which appeared in National Review in 1996. In that piece is that quote.

 

Either way, the explanation of TTSS as successor to the flagellum is completely logical. In short, Miller's piece doesn't say what you think it does; the science does not support his claim.

 

link to the email?

[IMMensaMind 462]

link to the email?

 

 

I'll give you another nugget: Shapiro and Behe are friends.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

I'll give you another nugget: Shapiro and Behe are friends.

 

I figured that simple request would bust you.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I figured that simple request would bust you.

 

How so?

[IMMensaMind 462]

For those who are hanging such a large percentage on the outcome of a trial: I wonder if you've considered the delicious irony of the Scopes Monkey Trial if you're so sure of yourself. Are you that certain you want to hang your hat on the outcome of a court case?

 

Think about that one, OJ.....

[GettnHuge 2]

How so?

 

link?

[nikki2200 4]

For those who are hanging such a large percentage on the outcome of a trial: I wonder if you've considered the delicious irony of the Scopes Monkey Trial if you're so sure of yourself. Are you that certain you want to hang your hat on the outcome of a court case?

 

Think about that one, OJ.....

 

The trial in 1925? My retard meter just overloaded.

[nikki2200 4]

 

I'll give you another nugget: Shapiro and Behe are friends.

 

Well he told me that his best friend was the abominable snowman. But I'm not gonna prove it or anything by posting the e-mail here. You'll just have to believe me.

 

Actually it wouldn't even matter if you posted the e-mail here because I'm positive you would change the verbiage to match what you wanted it to say like you've done in the past with him.

[nikki2200 4]

I still think that we came from aliens. Why won't anyone acknowledge my belief? Y'all suck.

 

Here is my proof.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm-Vh3j8sys

[IMMensaMind 462]

Well he told me that his best friend was the abominable snowman. But I'm not gonna prove it or anything by posting the e-mail here. You'll just have to believe me.

 

Actually it wouldn't even matter if you posted the e-mail here because I'm positive you would change the verbiage to match what you wanted it to say like you've done in the past with him.

 

Now that would be pretty stupid of me, wouldn't it, b!tch? Considering you've emailed him yourself. You can verify what I've said with him, can't you? He responds to emails, and he responds within a day.

[GettnHuge 2]

Now that would be pretty stupid of me, wouldn't it, b!tch? Considering you've emailed him yourself. You can verify what I've said with him, can't you? He responds to emails, and he responds within a day.

 

link ######?

One would think if he told you exactly what you wanted to hear, you would be posting it here, bragging it up, sticking it in our

faces. But you haven't. Which pretty much sums up what we suspect.