Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

Scare you, eh? Just how easily scared are you?

 

Science is peer-reviewed. Just how would such a belief - whacked out or otherwise - actually do harm? Can you explain that? Scientists who get no results obtain no funding. All sorts of people hold all sorts of whacked out views. You're jousting windmills, and uttering hyperbole as though such people could actually do damage. Nonsense.

-------------

People who have whacked out beliefs have never gotten their messages forced into the classroom. Well, not in the US anyways.

 

Not in the US anyway? And you're still scared? Your answer here is a deflection: there are plenty of Christian scientists. What they research and publish must be peer-reviewed in order to gain popular acceptance.

 

You know: like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Heavens if that ever makes it into the classroom.

 

When Creationism theory was discredited and discarded, it rightfully was taken out.

 

Links? Or are you engaging in nonsequitur? Creationism covers a whole lot of ground. Are you referencing those that believed Darwin was FOS in whole cloth in an attempt to associate the concept of Creationism in general?

 

But the proponents were never happy about it. Teaching the lie, and presenting it as fact alongside real science, simply because the lie has the political power to force it's way into the school curriculum is scary.

 

And yet...it hasn't happened in the US. Scary.

 

Tell ya what I'm wondering: are you scared that children are learning to accept the notion that "we may have only 30 years left on this earth", unless we radically change our environmental habits"? How about the radically insane movie played in my niece's science class a while ago, showing children's heads blowing off if they didn't agree to lower carbon emissions?

 

That scary for ya?

 

Or are you fine with it, because it jibes with your religion?

 

That monster had to be slain before but the non-scientific dolts who like it, never accepted defeat. If they can actually come up with a retrenched, modified, and improved theory -one that can pass peer reviewed muster, they're welcome back. The newest version of this turd is the one destroyed in Strike's video.

 

Which just tells me that you're not even interested in investigating what I posted, because what I posted has nothing to do with the weak stilted attempt shown in Strike's video to besmirch all of the field of ID.

 

Clearly it's false. You can see that right? So the folks who like creationism need to take this retarded ass theory and flush it or try to fix all the problems again and comeback with real science. Instead they try to run around the end and force it in with political muscle. That's the problem.

 

Near as I can tell, the problem appears to be close-mindedness.

 

You want something complimentary, not trying to toss evolution... I'm saying it's all nonsense. There isn't any need for it, it adds nothing but confusion to the explanations, has zero beneficial side effects. It's as welcome as a hemorrhoid.

 

Keep yammering away and talking right past what I've been posting. If you actually paid any attention, you'd see that what I posted is exactly what you're looking for.

 

This is extremely, extremely, frustrating. Since you obviously don't consider evolution proven (you say they are complimentary, which is the Catholic Church's position too so I've seen it before and am familiar with it, but they are not because things can't occur both top-down and bottom-up and the bottom up position doesn't have any need fora top down co-position) -and furthermore, sadly, you be right because it's the nature of science that you can never fully prove any theory- there will not ever be anything that ever reaches your level of proof to do anything about this.

 

Do you not know how to use the HTML function in this website? The only time I've ever challenged the concept of "proof" wrt Evolution is when those who deny any concept of Creationism (because they claim its "unprovable) overlaid with Evolution as possibly complimentary. I personally accept most of the doctrine of Evolution, but know enough to understand that there are limits to our understanding of its mechanisms.

 

In fact, what I believe IS the truth is explained in the link I posted. Random Mutation is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, yet it remains a cornerstone of the stolid secular evolutionist.

 

I have to ask if you even understand just what I'm presenting here, as it seems as though you do not.

 

Evolution had to account for every bit of evidence ever discovered 130 years ago when it was presented. Despite 130 years of efforts to discredit it, not a single shred of evidence has ever been found to do so. What has been found has instead modified the theory because it needed to be accounted for and thus had refined and strengthened and perfected it. And that process is ongoing.

 

You understand that 130 years of modifying evolutionary theory took place by discrediting former views of Evolution, do you not?

 

 

You just claimed something as not true that is utterly true. Evolutionary theory is constantly being revised/altered. What I posted is another theory to revise and alter evolutionary theory. It is not combative to the overall concept. Had you paid attention to the information in the link, you would have read that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

So since religious people can't beat it, and have gone 0 fer 50,000 in their attempts, the recourse is to ignore evolution, be obstinate, then repackage their already dis-proven theory, refuse to put it under scrutiny, then use political clout to try to force everybody to put it on par with real science.

 

But to be considered on equal footing, ID has to also account for all the evidence as well and has to withstand challenges. It's not about trying to crush it. If they put out a real indisputable theory and can defend it, and not get embarrassed by real scientists like they did in Strike's video, well then go ahead please. As a matter of fact, if they can actually succeed at it, I'd be happy to see it taught in the classroom. Until then, it's no better than Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

 

"Religious people cannot beat it"? I'm not here to defend those "religious people" who are contesting Evolution! Who ever said I was? You're still trying to make this conversation about something it is not! You're like the college professor who drones on about some unrelated topic when asked a question!

 

 

They are the most fun ones to pick on because they are truly retarded but in fact, no. Evolution is not compatible with, not complimented by or not anything to do with Creationism that I have seen. Evolution contradicts creationism and there's no middle ground. Yet. You know what, maybe there is, I highly doubt it and I'm not looking for it, but if you think so, go ahead and knock yourself out, keep trying to find it and come back with a Creationism 4.0 and 5.0 that passes the muster. Don't cover the gapping holes apparent in Strike's video with band-aids and expect to impress anybody. Try harder to fix the problems.

 

I would be delighted to hear some substance supporting your claim that Creationism and Evolution are not compatible, as that is utter nonsense. I have squared the two extremely nicely. Reduced to simplest form: why would it be impossible to simply arrive at the belief that God's mechanism for Creation was Evolution?

 

In fact, I would be satisfied to have classrooms instructed on the opinion held by IDers that evolution is not a bottom-up process, but - rather - a top-down algorithmically programmed mechanism (which makes far more sense to me personally). Teaching that such an opinion exists is absolutely harmless.

 

Excellent! Since that is all that I have been arguing, just where the hell have you been?

 

Make your theory airtight and on par with evolution and I'll be happy to see it included. Anyone who wants to promote the version we saw in Strike's video, should die of embarrassment or at least run into a hole and take up knitting. Unless and until a decent version of ID exists, presenting a lie as fact is not harmless. Are you willing to admit that that Intelligent Design as we saw in Strike's video is bullsh*t and we don't want that one?

 

I didn't watch 2 hours of video, and it was additionally apparent that the video was made to put ID in its worst light, and highlight factions of ID that I believe are least credible to pursue.

 

Since I haven't seen an updated version of ID, I conclude it is useless.

 

Interesting, and insightful. Perhaps you should conclude that "since you haven't seen an updated version of ID, you should draw no conclusions". At least, an open-minded person would.

 

And since I have posted what I believe to be the most credible POV on ID right now, you should have already seen it. Unless you're engaging in this conversation with me without actually having all the necessary information?

 

Irony. Galileo and Copernicus are my heroes, not yours, so please stop.

 

Reflected irony, considering that you have no focking idea who my heroes are, or aren't - and I count those two as among the greatest Scientists this world has ever known. They are as 'heroic' to me as Einstein, or anyone else.

 

Want to retract statements made in haste, and without the benefit of research?

 

Additional irony: they were treated by the Church exactly as you're trying to treat the subject of ID.

 

At least the Catholics admitted their error and so now are slow to make the same ones.

 

Since the Church took well over 100 years to admit such mistakes, can I expect you to take equally long?

 

On evolution, they are, in fact, much smarter than most Protestant denominations and very similar if not identical to you. Isn't that funny? But since it is/was the churches that have always tried drown out evolution as they tried to drown out heliocentricm, you are in fact IDENTICAL to them in every way becuse you are the spiritual heirs to their [edit out].

 

Look at the intellectual attempting to teach me something on a topic which I brought up for that very reason! Do you think it an accident that I brought up the Church in this regard? I'm aware of this topic. You have many misplaced notions about me; that's certain.

 

Now if you have decent version of creationism go ahead and present it. What I'm seeing, I find a complete joke who's only value is as entertainment laughing at foolishness. I have to give the psuedo-scientists in Strike's video at least credit for the effort. Feel free to dig up some real ones and try again, I'm not stopping your guys from looking, just from spreading falsehoods and buying you time to get it right. If/when you can get guys that can present your side armed with dependable facts who don't come across as complete fools, you'll have a real honest to goodness Science Class worthy theory. I'll be happy to hold open the school door for them myself.

 

How smug. Just focking look at the link I posted. It's light-years ahead of the nonsense Strike posted.

[OldMaid 2,129]

You can make a point for evolution based off this thread... CLEARLY some people are more evolved than others...

[IMMensaMind 462]

Everything I saw in that blog was unproven theories and opinions by some engineer that claims to have figured out the secrets of the universe because he knows MS-DOS.

 

I'm not going to write a 4 page post to pick it apart because I really don't care enough. When I see something like that it gets forced into the same place of my brain that I put information learned from TV shows such as Flava of Love.

 

I cannot help it if you didn't understand what you read there. The MS-DOS analogy was trivial. What matters is the research which has definitely determined the concept of Random Mutation (a cornerstone of Secular Evolutionism) is a failure.

 

And if that's a failure, those attempting to leverage belief in the Theory of Evolution as a mechanism to disprove Creationism are left with a giant pile of 'splaining to do.

[nikki2200 4]

I cannot help it if you didn't understand what you read there. The MS-DOS analogy was trivial. What matters is the research which has definitely determined the concept of Random Mutation (a cornerstone of Secular Evolutionism) is a failure.

 

And if that's a failure, those attempting to leverage belief in the Theory of Evolution as a mechanism to disprove Creationism are left with a giant pile of 'splaining to do.

 

 

What research? Please explain to me where any science exists whatsoever in the below statement. It's a freaking opinion that Random Mutation cannot occur in our DNA because it can't in computers. Am I a Cylon? Or a focking Android? Is this dude a molecular biologist? No he's a focking computer programmer. But please.... explain to me how anything in this passage I am copying directly from the blog is scientific evidence.

 

Darwin, in his time, believed that random variation in heredity produced all manner of species. He said: most of the time it's harmful, but occasionally it's helpful and from these variations come all kinds of beautiful forms that appear to be designed.

 

What is meant by "random variation"?

 

Thousands of biology books say it's accidental copying errors in DNA.

 

They say, essentially, that it's corrupted data that occasionally turns out to be beneficial instead of harmful.

 

This is where Darwin and the biology books were wrong.

 

As a communication engineer I know - with 100.000000000% certainty - that this is impossible.

 

Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such thing as "the percentage of the time that corrupted data is helpful instead of harmful."

 

It's ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt it.

 

If there actually is some legitimate scientific research behind what this guy is saying, provide the focking link for that because quite honestly posting this as some sort of scientific evidence is embarrassing.

[nikki2200 4]

Also, you are saying the MS-DOS references are trivial. The whole blog is about MS-DOS. It's where his entire theory comes from and he considers it proven because he has a very good understanding of how computers work.

 

Now imagine for a moment that DOS 1.0 was never modified by any Microsoft programmers. Imagine that after 1981 the boys in Redmond, Washington never touched DOS again.

 

Instead, by analyzing the programs it ran, by sensing changes in hardware, DOS “grew” new parts, all by itself. Imagine that it added icons and a mouse, automatically, and after a process of evolution, Windows emerged.

 

Imagine that after a time, Windows developed Internet Explorer - all by itself - just by adapting to the changing environment of the computer. By re-writing and re-arranging its own lines of code.

 

Imagine that it then developed networking features. Imagine that, sensing that it needed an email client, evolved Outlook Express. One day the Outlook icon was suddenly there on your desktop. You clicked on it and as you began to use it, it added and subtracted features to suit you.

 

Imagine that, sensing that it needed virus protection, that it adaptively developed defenses for those viruses.

 

Sometimes the viruses would take out some computers, but the computers that survived were even more resistant.

 

Imagine that the viruses also self-adapted and continued to try to worm their way in, in a never-ending competition of dueling codes.

 

Imagine that ALL of this adaptation happened over a period of years without a single software engineer ever touching it. Imagine this happening automatically just because it got installed on billions of computers.

 

Oh, I almost forgot: imagine that the very latest version of Windows could still fit on a single 750 megabyte CD-ROM.

 

If DOS 1.0 evolved into the Windows of today without any engineer touching it, would you say:

 

-That accidental file copying errors, culled by natural selection, were responsible for these evolutionary changes?

 

(When have you ever seen a software program or computer virus that accidentally evolved new features through a accidental copying errors?)

 

OR would you say…

 

-That the original engineer who wrote DOS 1.0 was so incredibly skilled that he actually devised a program that could self-adapt? That it could upgrade itself without downloading another friggin’ Service Pack?

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

[Strike 5,233]

Briefly. It's a 2 focking hour video. WTF. But here's the problem - and it's where it's evident that you're not listening, and that you're a strident atheist with his mind made up/etc: what I posted doesn't attempt what your video claims: your video prosecutes the premise that ID should be mentioned in science class as an alternative to Evolution.

 

You argue as though all those who believe that ID has value hold the same positions about it. That's simply not true.

 

Not only do I believe that to be incorrect, my link explains why they commiserate.

 

1) I'm not an atheist.

 

2) The video I provided is a documentary that details the outcome of the ONLY or FIRST trial where ID's validity as science was questioned. It simply documents the FACTS of the case. Here are the findings of the judge, paraphrased by Wikipedia:

 

* For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

 

* A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

 

* The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

 

* The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

 

* Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

 

* After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

 

* [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

 

* ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

 

* Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

Obviously you don't really care about the TRUTH in this matter. If you did you'd watch the video or at least research the case.

 

 

 

This thread is to Immensamind as the "it's not a crime to be here illegally" is to TorridMuhammad.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The minute I leave a thread civility goes with me.

[nikki2200 4]

In fact, what I believe IS the truth is explained in the link I posted. Random Mutation is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, yet it remains a cornerstone of the stolid secular evolutionist.

 

 

Are you saying there is no scientific evidence of chromosome mutation? If you say yes to that then this discussion is officially over.

[FeelingMN 273]

Why wouldn't emergent phenomena be consistent with the hypothesis of top-down based information (ie: algorithmic programming)? Information can be corrupted; it's not any different than viruses or other dysfunctions that arise as a result of mistakes in binary code, etc.

 

So where is the conflict?

 

And why would the "highest order of info" conflict with the concept of "Free Will"?

 

Emergent phenemona are bottom-up in nature. So how could a top-down process design something that essentially creates itself? Isn't this a contradiction?

 

And if I was designed...and I think I'd have to be...irreducible complexity and all, then I'd have a predetermined purpose as designated by an intelligent agent. Bye bye free will.

 

ID is inherently teleological. So I guess you can't really blame all those lefties for their behavior.....they were just designed that way. God's just focking with you Mensa.

 

So how come it isn't taught in the classroom?

 

Genetic transposition is taught in classrooms. You can take off your tinfoil hat.

 

Two problems I have with ID:

 

* How can anyone be so certain of the "intentions" of God/intelligent agent/designer/whatever. I mean, isn't it hard enough to delineate the intentions of people here on earth? But there's folks who have God figured out?

 

* Science is incomplete. It's a work in progress. There are gaps in what we know....and ID seems to bloom inside these gaps. Find an inconsistency or a conundrum? ID is quick to offer a solution. Just seems a little too convenient to me....and that's ID's appeal (for some), to jump in whenever there's uncertainty and say....yep, this looks like the work of an intelligent agent. Mystery explained....there's no proof....but mystery explained.

 

The truth is science has given us a wealth of knowledge concerning how the universe operates. Is it complete? Not even close. Does it get everything right? Nope....there've been tons of mistakes made by scientists over the years. But over the course of history, science has expanded our world....our reality. What has ID done? As of yet it's biggest claim is that it's an alternative to evolution. yay! It has no predictive quality. It hasn't generated any new knowledge. It's simply a filter through which to view facts already presented by science. If folks wanna believe in it...by all means, please do so. But unless you're gonna come with something concrete...something verifiable then quit offering it as a viable explanation for how the world works.

[Me_2006 14]

[penultimatestraw 473]

Perhaps your plan, Frank - as a caveman leftist - is to simply drag people or things that offend or challenge your sensibilities into the mud, so that nothing actually gets talked about. Lost in the mire of insults and stupidity. Is that your plan?

 

Let's try to get this on course, partially to see if you're really interested in an actual discussion with someone of another viewpoint. Tell me how you would counter the following excerpt:

 

 

 

I'll just stop here for a moment. For those of you who yammer on and on about "only teaching science in the classroom"...

 

THIS IS SCIENCE. AND IT PUTS A .50cal HOLE IN THE SECULAR SCIENCE CONVENTIONS. THE REVELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF Dr. Barbara McClintock FORCE the notion of studying INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS LINK.

 

So how come it isn't taught in the classroom?

 

 

 

The research of Dr. Shapiro indicates that Random Mutation is FALSE. What the protozoa does IS. NOT. RANDOM.

 

This type of investigation falls under the perview of Intelligent Design. And this is irrefutable fact.

I do not think the presence of regulatory elements eliminates the role of random mutation in evolution, nor does it imply an intelligent creator. It just adds a layer of complexity which could have evolved over the ~3.7 BILLION years life has existed on the planet. That is a lot of generations of protozoa and their ancestors. Kind of like a million monkeys typing long enough will eventually compose Shakespeare by chance. And regulatory genetic elements are taught in biology/biochemistry class: look up the lac operon.

 

A good example of evolution being fueled by random mutations can been seen with HIV, a rapidly replicating organism with poor proofreading capacity to correct genetic mistakes. One can readily show changes to the HIV genome occur all the time - most of these have no functional consequence (I know, the Intelligent Creator works in mysterious ways). Some altered genes cause malformation of structural proteins, including targets of some anti-HIV drugs. In the absence of the selective pressure (the drug), such mutations confer no selective advantage, and may even be harmful. But if the drug is present, viruses with the mutation are relatively more fit, and thus survive to pass on the altered gene(s). Conversely, if the drug (and selective advantage) is removed, the original wild type virus will return if enough replication cycles occur. This does not mean an intelligent creator is orchestrating these changes, but rather the inherent mutability of the virus fueled by environmental change. This is a big reason why HIV vaccines are so difficult to create - rapid, random mutation of the target.

 

You choose to invoke an omnipotent creator to explain changes which mathematically you cannot or will not accept; I think almost anything is possible when one talks about time in evolutionary terms. My belief is strongly supported by observations and experimental data; yours is contained within a book based on faith.

 

And please watch the entire video Strike provided; it will save you some time in posting additional ineffectual arguments.

 

Lastly, IMM, is your lashing out at Frank, atheists, liberals, proponents of global warming, etc, a reflection of the Christianity you espouse? As a non-wingnut atheist, absent spirituality, it is difficult for me to take you very seriously when you identify others as bigots in the face of your behavior. Such hypocrisy is one of the things that turns many away from religion.

[Mike Honcho 5,127]

Tell ya what I'm wondering: are you scared that children are learning to accept the notion that "we may have only 30 years left on this earth", unless we radically change our environmental habits"? How about the radically insane movie played in my niece's science class a while ago, showing children's heads blowing off if they didn't agree to lower carbon emissions?

 

That scary for ya?

 

Or are you fine with it, because it jibes with your religion?

 

No Pressure

For more details on this topic, see No Pressure (film).On Friday 1 October 2010, 10:10 released a short film in which some children and adults are blown up for doing nothing about climate change, after being asked to participate at school and at work.^[43] Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on the same day following negative publicity^[44] and apologised for "miss[ing] the mark".^[43]

 

 

I'd be really curious to find out the story of how your niece saw this movie in a science classroom "a while ago". Surely the teacher that showed this met with some consequences, fired, suspended? I'd like to hear more about how this all occured.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What research? Please explain to me where any science exists whatsoever in the below statement. It's a freaking opinion that Random Mutation cannot occur in our DNA because it can't in computers. Am I a Cylon? Or a focking Android? Is this dude a molecular biologist? No he's a focking computer programmer. But please.... explain to me how anything in this passage I am copying directly from the blog is scientific evidence.

 

 

 

If there actually is some legitimate scientific research behind what this guy is saying, provide the focking link for that because quite honestly posting this as some sort of scientific evidence is embarrassing.

 

You're not seeing because you do not want to see. I said it before, and I'll say it again: this blog merely points out the research that not only is being done, BUT WAS DONE OVER 60 YEARS AGO.

 

Do you understand the ramifications of that? Dr. Barbara McClintock's research, which is over 60 years old, absolutely definitively and conclusively contradicts conventional neo-Darwinist theory, and puts a major hole in the conventional belief in the function of Evolution!

 

That is not something trivial! Are you really going to complain about a blog which contains multiple links to the very research you're complaining the blog does not contain merely because you have to click on the links?

 

Fer crissakes.

[MedStudent 56]

I'd be really curious to find out the story of how your niece saw this movie in a science classroom "a while ago". Surely the teacher that showed this met with some consequences, fired, suspended? I'd like to hear more about how this all occured.

 

Yeah, he kind of glossed over that. What was the name of this school? How old was she?

[IMMensaMind 462]

1) I'm not an atheist.

 

2) The video I provided is a documentary that details the outcome of the ONLY or FIRST trial where ID's validity as science was questioned. It simply documents the FACTS of the case. Here are the findings of the judge, paraphrased by Wikipedia:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

Obviously you don't really care about the TRUTH in this matter. If you did you'd watch the video or at least research the case.

 

 

 

This thread is to Immensamind as the "it's not a crime to be here illegally" is to TorridMuhammad.

 

I don't think you understand this subject, because you've digested in toto what you've been presented about ID to be digested. What I'm discussing is something which simultaneously puts a massive hole in previously accepted paradigms of Random Mutation as the vehicle of Evolutionary Progress and grants the subject of ID immense credibility.

 

In short, ID has already been propagandized, and you've accepted the propaganda - and that propaganda utilized a whole lot of misinformed IDers at best, or idiots at worst. That a court case went poorly for those people who couldn't, wouldn't or didn't present the intelligent position I'm trying to air here does not diminish the legitimacy of this scientifically established knowledge.

 

To me, the best question has been: why has full understanding of the ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries not been allowed to reshape the debate of Evolutionary advance?

 

So...you're not understanding what my objection to that video is. It's extremely clear that there are 'religious' connotations to the study of Intelligent Design: after all, any and all deistic religions hold that view.

 

What we're talking about here is just how troublesome/illegal/unlawful it should be to actually have something scientific that indicates an Intelligent Designer taught in schools, when science itself has provided the research needed to grant legitimacy to the notion!

 

This isn't a violation of the Establishment Clause, as it doesn't establish any specific religion at all! Can you prove otherwise??

 

Would you object to the discoveries by McClintock and Shapiro being taught in school? Because that's all I'm suggesting here. I'm suggesting - as Voltaire mentioned he'd have no trouble with - that as Evolution is taught in Science class - that the teacher be well equipped with the knowledge gained from the research of McClintock and Shapiro that contradicts the conclusions pushed by Neo-Darwinists -

 

...and here I have to pause, so you understand just what that means...

 

- that the Evolutionary process actually is programmed, and not random!

 

NOT RANDOM! You understand what that means? McClintock's research has been validated, and is over 60 years old!

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'd be really curious to find out the story of how your niece saw this movie in a science classroom "a while ago". Surely the teacher that showed this met with some consequences, fired, suspended? I'd like to hear more about how this all occured.

 

My understanding was that video was aired in a college prep class a while ago, by a clearly left-wing eco-freak. I was told of it several weeks ago, and know no more details than that. This is not new: schools - and idiot agenda-driven teachers in schools - attempt to propagandize kids about Eco-Environmentalism all the time. As you can see, this video is still available; it just took a search describing what I was told the video was about to find it.

[nikki2200 4]

You're not seeing because you do not want to see. I said it before, and I'll say it again: this blog merely points out the research that not only is being done, BUT WAS DONE OVER 60 YEARS AGO.

 

Do you understand the ramifications of that? Dr. Barbara McClintock's research, which is over 60 years old, absolutely definitively and conclusively contradicts conventional neo-Darwinist theory, and puts a major hole in the conventional belief in the function of Evolution!

 

That is not something trivial! Are you really going to complain about a blog which contains multiple links to the very research you're complaining the blog does not contain merely because you have to click on the links?

 

Fer crissakes.

 

 

Who said I didn't want to see it? If I didn't want to see it, I would have never clicked on the link in the first place. I was actually quite interested in reading it and seeing what it said.

 

One thing I can tell you for sure from someone who actually did read it objectively, is it did NOT absolutely definitively and conclusively contradict anything. It was an opinion piece written by someone I'm not sure is even qualified to have an opinion on the matter. There were no links in that blog to any actual scientific research (there were a couple of links way at the bottom to other magazine articles) and all that guy was trying to do was prove that random mutation can't exist because if you randomly change letters in a sentence it doesn't make sense anymore?

 

Why should I have to go hunting for information for a point that you are trying to make? You're the one that kept linking that blog as absolute truth and a valid source of information on why ID is legitimate science and belongs in the classroom. I'm just merely pointing out what a pile of shiit your source was.

[MedStudent 56]

My understanding was that video was aired in a college prep class a while ago, by a clearly left-wing eco-freak. I was told of it several weeks ago, and know no more details than that. This is not new: schools - and idiot agenda-driven teachers in schools - attempt to propagandize kids about Eco-Environmentalism all the time. As you can see, this video is still available; it just took a search describing what I was told the video was about to find it.

 

I'll just keep it simple:

 

I don't believe you.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I do not think the presence of regulatory elements eliminates the role of random mutation in evolution, nor does it imply an intelligent creator. It just adds a layer of complexity which could have evolved over the ~3.7 BILLION years life has existed on the planet. That is a lot of generations of protozoa and their ancestors. Kind of like a million monkeys typing long enough will eventually compose Shakespeare by chance. And regulatory genetic elements are taught in biology/biochemistry class: look up the lac operon.

 

A good example of evolution being fueled by random mutations can been seen with HIV, a rapidly replicating organism with poor proofreading capacity to correct genetic mistakes. One can readily show changes to the HIV genome occur all the time - most of these have no functional consequence (I know, the Intelligent Creator works in mysterious ways). Some altered genes cause malformation of structural proteins, including targets of some anti-HIV drugs. In the absence of the selective pressure (the drug), such mutations confer no selective advantage, and may even be harmful. But if the drug is present, viruses with the mutation are relatively more fit, and thus survive to pass on the altered gene(s). Conversely, if the drug (and selective advantage) is removed, the original wild type virus will return if enough replication cycles occur. This does not mean an intelligent creator is orchestrating these changes, but rather the inherent mutability of the virus fueled by environmental change. This is a big reason why HIV vaccines are so difficult to create - rapid, random mutation of the target.

 

You choose to invoke an omnipotent creator to explain changes which mathematically you cannot or will not accept; I think almost anything is possible when one talks about time in evolutionary terms. My belief is strongly supported by observations and experimental data; yours is contained within a book based on faith.

 

And please watch the entire video Strike provided; it will save you some time in posting additional ineffectual arguments.

 

Lastly, IMM, is your lashing out at Frank, atheists, liberals, proponents of global warming, etc, a reflection of the Christianity you espouse? As a non-wingnut atheist, absent spirituality, it is difficult for me to take you very seriously when you identify others as bigots in the face of your behavior. Such hypocrisy is one of the things that turns many away from religion.

 

Frank is a bigot; that has been clearly established. I'm also not interested in whether people turn towards, or away from, religion. It strikes me as falling on one's sword to complain that hypocrisy is what turns one away from religion, as there is little in this world to be found which isn't hypocritical. Have you turned away from watching TV, or any particular movie stars? There's hypocrisy every where you look.

 

That said, I am not a proponent of organized religion either. Understand that.

 

I reserve my lashing out for those who are insulting or rude. That means my targets have been specifically chosen. You are not one of those targets; not really. If you try to make this personal, however, you WILL become a target. The moment you try to reach past what I'm saying, and attempt to contrive what it means about me, you are out of bounds.

 

Now, as for the core of your points:

 

James Shapiro - who is one of, if not the leading scientist in this area, disagrees with you completely.

 

So far, only one person - GettnHuge - has acknowledged the ramifications of McClintock's and Shapiro's discoveries. These discoveries are not in question....the publicity of them is. Why is that?

 

Could it be that such information being suppressed is being suppressed on purpose? I believe that to be the case; there is no other more credible explanation.

 

What this means, Straw - and you still do not understand what is being explained here - is that this research doesn't sh!t can the notion that there IS Random Mutation (of course there is, and it is explained as a corruption of data), what it does is sh!t can the notion that it is the Random Mutation itself which is responsible for progress in the mechanism of Evolution. The progress made in Evolution is now (correctly, IMO) being attributed to the programming that cells appear to contain to restructure their DNA intelligently.

Capisce?

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'll just keep it simple:

 

I don't believe you.

 

I don't care.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Who said I didn't want to see it? If I didn't want to see it, I would have never clicked on the link in the first place. I was actually quite interested in reading it and seeing what it said.

 

One thing I can tell you for sure from someone who actually did read it objectively, is it did NOT absolutely definitively and conclusively contradict anything. It was an opinion piece written by someone I'm not sure is even qualified to have an opinion on the matter. There were no links in that blog to any actual scientific research (there were a couple of links way at the bottom to other magazine articles) and all that guy was trying to do was prove that random mutation can't exist because if you randomly change letters in a sentence it doesn't make sense anymore?

 

Why should I have to go hunting for information for a point that you are trying to make? You're the one that kept linking that blog as absolute truth and a valid source of information on why ID is legitimate science and belongs in the classroom. I'm just merely pointing out what a pile of shiit your source was.

 

You can only determine something to be a 'pile of sh!t' if such research by McClintock and Shapiro do not exist. Since it clearly does - I linked a white paper to it - the problem is with your lack of desire to commandeer Google yourself.

 

As for 10:10 being allowed to propagandize our children worldwide, that too is known. Here are the environmentalist being allowed to do what you all are vociferously objecting to IDers doing.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMxY7p6WJY

 

This video is still on YouTube. Anyone who thinks that our children aren't being propagandized by activist environomentalists are either complicit, or stupid. 10:10 is very ingrained into the education system, and they merely came out with a sterilized version of the same video when they were criticized for this one.

[Mike Honcho 5,127]

I'll just keep it simple:

 

I don't believe you.

 

 

Agreed, he's a liar.

[MedStudent 56]

You can only determine something to be a 'pile of sh!t' if such research by McClintock and Shapiro do not exist. Since it clearly does - I linked a white paper to it - the problem is with your lack of desire to commandeer Google yourself.

 

As for 10:10 being allowed to propagandize our children worldwide, that too is known. Here are the environmentalist being allowed to do what you all are vociferously objecting to IDers doing.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMxY7p6WJY

 

This video is still on YouTube. Anyone who thinks that our children aren't being propagandized by activist environomentalists are either complicit, or stupid. 10:10 is very ingrained into the education system, and they merely came out with a sterilized version of the same video when they were criticized for this one.

Looks like it's more of a British thing and the video you claim was shown in your niece's science class supposively caused outrage with sponsors cutting funding. I just think you made up the story about them showing it in her science class. I can't believe YOU wouldn't want to know all the details and I can't believe the parents would not have raise a shiitstorm that would have made news.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Agreed, he's a liar.

 

I heard this 3rd hand. I researched the 10:10 video. I am not a liar; I am just passing on what I became aware of. I will grant you this: I believe it is possible that the class saw the scrubbed version of that video: the rap version. I do not know. I only know 10:10 video. It is certainly possible that I made an error in presumption about a video, when the scrubbed video was likely shown.

 

Either are propaganda. Either way, I apologize. I would hope that people would understand that the core point remains the same, and remained unassailed.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Are posters not understanding that the concept of Random Mutation as being the core advancement mechanism of Evolution is what has been refuted by this research? That doesn't mean that Random Mutation doesn't exist, it just questions whether the advancements develop from them, or whether they are simple data corruption that is eliminated.

 

This speaks to the general question of whether evolution is a designed process - programmed through algorithms within cellullar genetic coding - or whether it all happens by accident, and these billions of glorious accidents result in progressively superior species.

 

If posters are tenaciously holding on to the latter position, please explain how Shapiro's discovery of the behaviour of the protozoa which is placed in a stressed environment is even possible.

 

Proof is right in front of you.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Barbara McClintock's white paper, describing chromosome transposition, which violates the concept of randomness as the vehicle for Evolution.

 

An interesting write-up describing the problems with Neo-Darwinism, and exactly why this McClintock/Shapiro discovery should rewrite conventional thought wrt Evolution, and inject the notion of ID.

[nikki2200 4]

Are posters not understanding that the concept of Random Mutation as being the core advancement mechanism of Evolution is what has been refuted by this research? That doesn't mean that Random Mutation doesn't exist, it just questions whether the advancements develop from them, or whether they are simple data corruption that is eliminated.

 

 

Why don't you google Beneficial Chromosome mutation, CCR5, or bacterial mutation and read up on the plethora of actual scientific results gathered through actual scientific experimentation that proves that random mutation can be beneficial or create "advancements"? Or do you believe them to be performed by biased by left wing conspirators so you don't want to look at that like you didn't want to watch Strike's video? Like any scientific theory, it has some inconsistencies. That's why scientists continue to study it. However the true scientific evidence in support of evolution far outweighs any anomalies found by one or two people.

 

This is all rather baffling to me, I must admit. I'm the first one to call BS on something. I actually like a good conspiracy theory now and then. I'm intrigued by the supernatural. If someone could actually scientifically prove that there was a god, I'd be the first one to jump aboard. But this whole ID movement is nothing more than a flamboyant push of the Christian agenda guised as "science". How anyone could think otherwise is astounding.

 

The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, actual scientific experimentation, and paleontological discoveries. Advancements in molecular biology could have blown the whole thing to shreds. It did not; ironically it continues to provide even more scientific support.

 

Think about it this way. Do you actually think that if it could be scientifically proven that a divine creator exists, that the top scientists in the world wouldn't be foaming at the mouths to do so? And that the media wouldn't be killing each other to be the first one to break the story? Are you that paranoid that the world hates God that much?

 

I think it's remotely possibly that the scientific community is not taking ID seriously, because it has no legitimate basis in science. By definition, it's not even a scientific theory because it cannot be, nor has it ever been tested. That being said, it has no business being taught in a science class in a public school. And for those that are so worried that their kids might learn about Darwinism and say "Hey, that makes sense," there are plenty of private Christian schools that are available to send them to whose teaching may align more with your agenda.

[OldMaid 2,129]

Mensa called... They're issuing you a cease and desist letter concerning the use of the word Mensa in your screen name.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why don't you google Beneficial Chromosome mutation, CCR5, or bacterial mutation and read up on the plethora of actual scientific results gathered through actual scientific experimentation that proves that random mutation can be beneficial or create "advancements"?

 

I'm trying to be patient. Really. What you're describing requires a premise to be accepted; one that you clearly have accepted: that the mutations are random. The whole point of McClintock's research 60 years ago - and Shapiro's research now - is to establish that the mutations that you insist upon calling random aren't random at all; they're programmed.

 

If they were random, how exactly does a protozoa shatter its DNA into 100,000 components and then reorder it in response to being stimulated in a stressful environment?

 

And seeing as OldMaid wants to be faggoty and insulting, instead of actually attempting whatever meager braincells he/she possesses, how about OldMaid takes a crack at that as well? Or is all you have the ability to insult?

 

Just how exactly is a mechanism which is supposed to be random actually predictable and ordered?

 

 

Or do you believe them to be performed by biased by left wing conspirators so you don't want to look at that like you didn't want to watch Strike's video? Like any scientific theory, it has some inconsistencies. That's why scientists continue to study it. However the true scientific evidence in support of evolution far outweighs any anomalies found by one or two people.

 

Still trying to be patient: the Shapiro/McClintock research doesn't counter Evolution. How many times must I type that before it sinks in?

 

This is all rather baffling to me, I must admit. I'm the first one to call BS on something. I actually like a good conspiracy theory now and then. I'm intrigued by the supernatural. If someone could actually scientifically prove that there was a god, I'd be the first one to jump aboard. But this whole ID movement is nothing more than a flamboyant push of the Christian agenda guised as "science". How anyone could think otherwise is astounding.

 

Oh yes. Shocking. Still trying to be patient....

 

The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, actual scientific experimentation, and paleontological discoveries.

 

You act as though the theory of Evolution hasn't had to be utterly revised manifold.

 

Since "the science of evolution" has undergone about 130 different rewrites in that time, just exactly what is it that you're arguing? What I'm talking about is simply another tweak to the Theory.

 

Do you actually understand this topic?

 

Advancements in molecular biology could have blown the whole thing to shreds. It did not; ironically it continues to provide even more scientific support.

 

Patient....

 

So does this - but it does it in a way that challenges the notion that the reason Evolution works is because it's random. It isn't random at all; the evidence couldn't be any more plain. I posted McClintock's paper on it; you got what you asked for.

 

Think about it this way. Do you actually think that if it could be scientifically proven that a divine creator exists, that the top scientists in the world wouldn't be foaming at the mouths to do so? And that the media wouldn't be killing each other to be the first one to break the story? Are you that paranoid that the world hates God that much?

 

You're making some incredible leaps. The most that this is is evidence that suggests design, and not chance. What is done with that is up to the individual: but it certainly does legitimize the notion that Scientists should be considering that there is a Designer, and not the opposite.

 

Beyond that, to say that you cannot accept the notion that Secularists do not want there to be a God is IMO extremely naive. Hardened secularists want there not to be a God as much as theists want there to be a God.

 

I think it's remotely possibly that the scientific community is not taking ID seriously, because it has no legitimate basis in science. By definition, it's not even a scientific theory because it cannot be, nor has it ever been tested.

 

If one can make predictions based on the hypothesis of a Designer (as Perry Marshall did), and be found to be correct, and - likewise - establish evidence of repeated patterns and mechanisms in disparate life forms (which ID endeavors to do on one level), then it is exactly as testable as large portions of Evolutionary Science is now.

 

ID doesn't seek to supplant Evolutionary Science. It seeks to enhance it; to redirect it.

 

I posted evidence of why those who are proponents of Shapiro's work are correct, and why those who are proponents of 'Random Mutation as the vehicle for Genetic Advancement' are incorrect: the latter had predicted that it would take 1000's of years for bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. They claimed that since the alterations to the environment that bacteria are exposed cause bacteria to only very slowly evolve, no resistant-strain bacteria should be forthcoming for a very very long time.

 

Those who are proponents of a top-down designed evolutionary mechanism argued that the bacteria would adjust far more quickly than that, because the mechanism to adapt is intentional; ordered and intelligent.

 

That was the core of the MS-DOS analogy.

 

So who was right?

 

You know who was right: we are now dealing with very serious strains of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, precisely because the bottom-up random Evolutionists were absolutely and totally wrong.

 

That being said, it has no business being taught in a science class in a public school. And for those that are so worried that their kids might learn about Darwinism and say "Hey, that makes sense," there are plenty of private Christian schools that are available to send them to whose teaching may align more with your agenda.

 

Please name for me something I've explained above that isn't Scientific, and shouldn't be taught in classes. The fact is that it's the truth, and it's been documented. Neither McClintock nor Shapiro are fringe scientists.

[IMMensaMind 462]

A Third Way

James A. Shapiro

The recent reviews in your columns of books by Dennett, Dawkins, and Behe are testimony to

the unflagging interest in controversies about evolution. Although such purists as Dennett and

Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved

by conventional neo-Darwinism, the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom.

There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and

contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities.

Unfortunately, readers of Boston Review may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment

because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and

philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists. Although our

knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary

expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The

possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered. In

my comments, then, I propose to sketch some developments in contemporary life science that

suggest shortcomings in orthodox evolutionary theory and open the door to very different

ways of formulating questions about the evolutionary process. After a discussion of technical

advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will

focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the

potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.

The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us

revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and

function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of

complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical

viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was

formulated. The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition

from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics.

Four categories of molecular discoveries are especially important in opening up exciting new

ways of thinking about the biological processes that underlie evolutionary change.

(1) Genome Organization. Our current ideas of genome organization are completely different

from the "beads on a string" view that dominated genetics in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time

genes were "units" which corresponded to individual organismal traits, and the "one gene-one

enzyme" hypothesis told us that the essential business of each gene was to encode a specific

protein molecule linked to a particular phenotype. We have now deconstructed each genetic

locus into a modular assembly of regulatory and coding motifs. Most of these motifs are shared

among many loci, suggesting that genomes are assembled Lego-like from a repertoire of more

basic sequence elements, many of which do not encode proteins but determine other important

functions (transcription, translation, RNA processing, DNA replication, chromatin

condensation, etc.). As we analyze genome expression during cellular proliferation and

Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

2 of 5 10/5/03 12:09 PM

multicellular development, we have learned that diverse genetic loci are organized hierarchically

into interconnected genome-wide networks which function dynamically. Not confined to a

single pathway, many genetic loci are active at different times, participating in the expression of

more than one phenotypic trait. Comparisons of genomes in different organisms have revealed

unexpected patterns of evolutionary conservation across large taxonomic distances, while

closely-related genomes frequently differ significantly in the arrangement of repetitive DNA

elements which do not encode proteins.

How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of

life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating

"one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of

individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no

matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of

freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.

Studies of the molecular sources of genetic variability have taught us two major lessons about

how cells take care of their genomes--one about self-protection, the other about

self-reorganization.

(2) Cellular Repair Capabilities. First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly

astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of

mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that

inevitably occur during DNA replication. These proofreading systems are capable of

distinguishing between newly synthesized and parental strands of the DNA double helix, so

they operate efficiently to rectify rather than fix the results of accidental misincorporations of

the wrong nucleotide. Other systems scan non-replicating DNA for chemical changes that

could lead to miscoding and remove modified nucleotides, while additional functions monitor

the pools of precursors and remove potentially mutagenic contaminants. In anticipation of

chemical and physical insults to the genome, such as alkylating agents and ultraviolet radiation,

additional repair systems are encoded in the genome and can be induced to correct damage

when it occurs.

It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the

kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of

evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not

passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to

suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background

localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems.

(3) Mobile Genetic Elements and Natural Genetic Engineering. The second major lesson of

molecular studies into the origins of genetic change is that all cells possess multiple biochemical

agents for natural genetic engineering--processes that include the cutting and splicing of DNA

molecules into new sequence arrangements. Most frequently, natural genetic engineering

capabilities reveal themselves through the activities of mobile genetic elements--DNA

structures found in all genomes that can move from one position to another. Mobile genetic

elements are the most fluid components of the genome and also the most taxonomically

specific. In human cells, mobile elements include retrotransposons, like the half-million or more

Alu sequences dispersed over all our chromosomes, as well as the inherited gene fragments

which our lymphocytes assemble daily to form active genetic loci encoding the key antigen

recognition molecules of our immune system. The biochemical agents of DNA restructuring

include the enzymes used in our own genetic engineering for research and biotechnology

(nucleases, ligases, reverse transcriptases and polymerases) as well as other proteins that

combine to form molecular machines capable of mobilizing different genomic components.

The existence of cellular biochemical activities capable of rearranging DNA molecules means

Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

3 of 5 10/5/03 12:09 PM

that genetic change can be specific (these activities can recognize particular sequence motifs)

and need not be limited to one genetic locus (the same activity can operate at multiple sites in

the genome). In other words, genetic change can be massive and non-random. Some

organisms, such as the ciliated protozooan Oxytricha, completely reorganize their genetic

apparatus within a single cell generation, fragmenting the germ-line chromosomes into

thousands of pieces and then reassembling a particular subset of them into a distinct kind of

functional genome. Furthermore, natural genetic engineering systems can operate premeiotically

during the somatic development of tissues that will ultimately produce gametes. This means that

major chromosome reorganizations can be present in multiple gametes. Consequently, the

appearance of new genome architectures during evolution is not necessarily limited to isolated

individuals.

The discovery that genome reorganization is largely a biological process traces back to Barbara

McClintock's pioneering studies of mutation and chromosome rearrangement in maize from the

1940s through the 1960s. She linked these genetic events to changes in the regulation of gene

expression programs during plant development. We can now appreciate her tremendous

wisdom and foresight by seeing how the Lego-like patterns of integrated genome organization

mentioned above could be created by the activity of cellular natural genetic engineering

systems. Because, like all cellular functions, natural genetic engineering systems are subject to

control circuits, they can be held in abeyance for long periods and then called into action at

certain key times. Sometimes these activations can be regularly programmed, as in the

development of our immune systems, and sometimes activations can occur in response to

crisis, as McClintock documented in maize.

The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at

variance with neo-Darwinist postulates. We have progressed from the Constant Genome,

subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid

Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing

new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic

capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless,

neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and

insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.

(4) Cellular Information Processing. While it is easy to see how advances in our

understanding of genome organization and genetic change will impact theories of evolutionary

processes, another development in contemporary biology is of less obvious but even more

basic relevance. This is the growing realization that cells have molecular computing networks

which process information about internal operations and about the external environment to

make decisions controlling growth, movement, and differentiation. This realization has come, in

large measure, from detailed genetic analysis of cellular processes and multicellular

development. The inducible repair systems mentioned above provide a relatively simple,

well-studied example. Bacterial and yeast cells have molecules that monitor the status of the

genome and activate cellular responses when damaged DNA accumulates. The surveillance

molecules do this by modifying transcription factors so that appropriate repair functions are

synthesized. These inducible DNA damage response systems are sophisticated and include

so-called "checkpoint" functions that act to arrest cell division until the repair process has been

completed. When the checkpoints do not function, cell division proceeds before repair is

completed, and the damaged cells die or produce inviable progeny. One can characterize this

surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network

demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making.

There are many other cellular systems that display comparable information-processing

capabilities. Fro example, it is now common among molecular biologists who study the cell

cycle to speak of various checkpoints (Is DNA replication complete? Are the chromosomes

properly condensed and aligned on the metaphase plate?) and decision points (e.g., when to

Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

4 of 5 10/5/03 12:09 PM

initiate chromosome movement and cytokinesis).

A recent special issue of Scientific American1 describes beautifully how cancer is now seen as

a disease of the molecular information processing routines that ensure orderly cell growth and

behavior in the healthy organism. Aberrant tumor cell growth appears to result from at least

two kinds of malfunction: the loss of checkpoint controls, or the failure of decision-making

routines that dictate programmed cell death (apoptosis) for cells in inappropriate surroundings.

During embryonic development, cells make decisions about differentiation based on multiple

molecular signals picked up from their environment and from their neighbors by means of

surface receptors. These receptors are linked to intercellular molecular cascades called "signal

transduction pathways" which integrate the inputs from the receptors to generate appropriate

patterns of differential gene expression and morphogenesis of specialized cell structures.

Signal transduction is not limited to multicellular development. We are learning that virtually

every aspect of cellular function is influenced by chemical messages detected, transmitted, and

interpreted by molecular relays. To a remarkable extent, therefore, contemporary biology has

become a science of sensitivity, inter- and intra-cellular communication, and control. Given the

enormous complexity of living cells and the need to coordinate literally millions of biochemical

events, it would be surprising if powerful cellular capacities for information processing did not

manifest themselves. In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated

during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century. This time around, however, the

discussion is informed by two new factors. One is that the techniques of molecular and cell

biology allow us to examine the detailed operation of the hardware responsible for cellular

responsiveness and decision-making. The second is the existence of computers and information

networks, physical entities endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities.

Their existence means that discussing the potential for similar activities by living organisms is

neither vague nor mystical.

What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for

thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than

ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the

Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species

displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs

cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social

organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can

begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer

modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable

questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of

novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict

phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal

transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural

genetic engineering hardware?

Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold

of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these

questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a

radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have

historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science

is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest

in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected 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. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we

Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

5 of 5 10/5/03 12:09 PM

can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive

posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to

validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

A sounder perspective on the history of science would be very helpful to all concerned. For

example, a parallel has been drawn by Allen Orr and others between criticisms of Darwinian

orthodoxy and assaults on the Law of Gravity, presenting them as equally deplorable examples

of anti-science obscurantism. Yet, if truth be told, gravity is far from a settled matter. The

relativistic Law of Gravity at the end of the 20th century is not the same as the classical Law of

Gravity at the end of the 19th century, and discovering how the continuous descriptions of

general relativity can be integrated into a single theory with the discrete accounts of quantum

physics is still an active field of research. From a scientific point of view, then, the Law of

Gravity has quite properly been under continuous challenge. Dogmas and taboos may be

suitable for religion, but they have no place in science. No theory or viewpoint should ever

become sacrosanct because experience tells us that even the most elegant Laws of Nature

ultimately succumb to the inexorable progress of scientific thinking and technological

innovation. The present debate over Darwinism will be more productive if it takes place in

recognition of the fact that scientific advances are made not by canonizing our predecessors but

by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our successors.

[nikki2200 4]

It's like arguing with a brick wall that thinks it is a wooden fence, that it is, in fact, a brick wall.

 

I knew I shouldn't have come in here.

[OldMaid 2,129]

It's hard to take you seriously, when you go to great lengths to convince people of your intelligence and open mindedness but when hurling insults, the first place you go to is faggoty. Thus proving just how small minded you really are.

 

I think there must be a virus in your programming!

[FeelingMN 273]

A Third Way

James A. Shapiro

 

 

I missed the part where he talks about Intelligent Design.

 

Your interpretation of his work is skewed toward Christian belief. When I read his statements (which are awesome by the way), I think how it could be possible for the most complex molecule ever discovered (DNA) to possess emergent qualities....such as intelligence. Why is it so hard to fathom that complex entities can be more than the sum of their parts? With an eye toward the process that gives rise to human consciousness, could we not say something similar is at play in a molecule that is comprised of billions of base-pairs? (Shapiro calls DNA a data storage organelle....beautiful!) I have no problem with ascribing a molecular intelligence to DNA. None. In fact I think to do so is completely cogent with the idea of emergence.....and it keeps god out of the equation.....and keeps all of this within the purview of science.

 

What I still have a problem with is claiming all of this was designed by an outside agent. If you really believe that....and you obviously do, then where did this design stop? Is it just at the level of DNA? Or was it used to "design" all complex phenomena? Was it used to "design" the human brain? If so, we run into problems with Free Will.....which is often an argument levied against an omniscient/omnipotent god. Funny how those arguments mirror each other....because they're essentially at odds with the same idea: Christianity. What I also find funny is how you continue to sidestep serious criticisms of ID yet are quick to hurl insults whenever you feel you've been "wronged". You're not interested in honest intellectual debate. You're simply interested in being right.

 

I have yet to read anything by Shapiro where he interprets his findings in light of ID. When he mentions 'intelligence', I hear him speaking of a molecular intelligence.....not the work of an outside agent. All of that chatter has been provided by ideologues who have been eager to proselytize young scientific minds.

 

Again, if ID is a legitimate endeavor, it will produce knowledge on its own rather than hijacking true scientific experimentation, slapping a crucifix on the title, and claiming they've proven the work of an outside agent.

[nikki2200 4]

 

Your interpretation of his work is skewed toward Christian belief. When I read his statements (which are awesome by the way), I think how it could be possible for the most complex molecule ever discovered (DNA) to possess emergent qualities....such as intelligence. Why is it so hard to fathom that complex entities can be more than the sum of their parts? With an eye toward the process that gives rise to human consciousness, could we not say something similar is at play in a molecule that is comprised of billions of base-pairs? (Shapiro calls DNA a data storage organelle....beautiful!) I have no problem with ascribing a molecular intelligence to DNA. None. In fact I think to do so is completely cogent with the idea of emergence.....and it keeps god out of the equation.....and keeps all of this within the purview of science.

 

 

Is that what he is saying? I can't even follow or make any determination for how he's getting from Point A to Point B. I think it just clicked now. So if DNA is showing any intelligence, he's making the leap that that proves it must have been programmed/designed by someone or something more intelligent? Did I get that right?

 

I read that blog which was supposed to be a good summary of his beliefs and I guess that's what he was saying. That much like a computer program, chromosome mutation can't happen "intelligently" unless someone programmed it to do so. If this turns out to be true then I think I'll turn into a polytheist because the same dude didn't program my brain as he did his.

[IMMensaMind 462]

It's hard to take you seriously, when you go to great lengths to convince people of your intelligence and open mindedness but when hurling insults, the first place you go to is faggoty. Thus proving just how small minded you really are.

 

I think there must be a virus in your programming!

 

How blind are you to your own behaviour? Your first post here was an insult. Your second was an insult. And you think you have authority to chide over someone who insults in response to your insults?

 

When you insult first, you make it clear that you have nothing to talk about; nothing to say. You intend to screw around. So you get screwed with. Quit complaining about beds you make that you sleep in.

 

Prove me wrong - or STFU.

[IMMensaMind 462]

It's like arguing with a brick wall that thinks it is a wooden fence, that it is, in fact, a brick wall.

 

I knew I shouldn't have come in here.

 

WTF does that mean? I have very strong beliefs - but have you wavered in your views/strong beliefs either? At all? So what are you saying?

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

I missed the part where he talks about Intelligent Design.

 

Then you didn't read it.

 

What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for

thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than

ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the

Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species

displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs

cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social

organization?

 

The fact is that this research blows a hole in chaos theory; in the ideology that Evolution works through a process of random mutations. This research indicates the opposite.

 

Your interpretation of his work is skewed toward Christian belief.

 

What? This is pure science. I have said nothing different during this entire thread. You have confirmation bias at work: you believe you didn't see a thing about an "underlying inteligence", and you continue to operate on a secular level.

 

I'm suggesting to you that this is the bridge between the two. I am not a Christian that dismisses Science. I am a Christian that is very in tune with those Seculars who attempt to use Science to replace a legitimate notion of belief in God, and hold the position that Science alone is necessary to conclude that all explanations of our existence are random and natural.

 

This research - I say again - is very strong evidence how mistaken that POV is.

 

When I read his statements (which are awesome by the way), I think how it could be possible for the most complex molecule ever discovered (DNA) to possess emergent qualities....such as intelligence. Why is it so hard to fathom that complex entities can be more than the sum of their parts? With an eye toward the process that gives rise to human consciousness, could we not say something similar is at play in a molecule that is comprised of billions of base-pairs? (Shapiro calls DNA a data storage organelle....beautiful!) I have no problem with ascribing a molecular intelligence to DNA. None. In fact I think to do so is completely cogent with the idea of emergence.....and it keeps god out of the equation.....and keeps all of this within the purview of science.

 

NO, it does not keep God out of the equation! "Underlying Intelligence" absolutely aims right at the heart of such a notion! We've been told repeatedly by Secular Evolutionists that there wasn't an underlying intelligence; that mutations take place only over a long period of time (and their predictions wrt bacteria have been massively incorrect as a result) and are totally Random (That's what the Random Mutation as the cornerstone of Evolutionary Theory is).

 

What I still have a problem with is claiming all of this was designed by an outside agent. If you really believe that....and you obviously do, then where did this design stop? Is it just at the level of DNA? Or was it used to "design" all complex phenomena? Was it used to "design" the human brain?

 

Why would you think you have to have all these answers in order to study the science behind it to determine answers? It appears to me that you're requiring a standard of this emergent Science that no other Science is held to. You're asking great questions - but not having definitive answers doesn't delegitimize the evidence that indicates that there is Science here to pursue.

 

If so, we run into problems with Free Will.....which is often an argument levied against an omniscient/omnipotent god.

 

This is a theological argument. I'm not sure why Sentience cannot be one of the goals of this Intelligent Evolutionary model. And if we accept that possibility, I do not see why Free Will cannot be part of that as well.

 

Funny how those arguments mirror each other....because they're essentially at odds with the same idea: Christianity. What I also find funny is how you continue to sidestep serious criticisms of ID yet are quick to hurl insults whenever you feel you've been "wronged".

 

Why do you notice only my insults? Why do you never comment on the initiator of the insults? As you can see, I'm having a conversation with you that doesn't involve insults - though right now you're trying to make this personal, and doing so in an incredibly one-sided way. I simply do not insult people who do not insult me. If you respect a presented position - even if you disagree - you get a clear and constructive response. Can you point out otherwise?

 

You're not interested in honest intellectual debate. You're simply interested in being right.

 

What?? EVERYONE is interested in being right! WTF does that mean? Are you interested in being wrong here?

 

I have yet to read anything by Shapiro where he interprets his findings in light of ID. When he mentions 'intelligence', I hear him speaking of a molecular intelligence.....not the work of an outside agent. All of that chatter has been provided by ideologues who have been eager to proselytize young scientific minds.

 

Nope - you're reading right past what he's saying, which is why he's used the word underlying, and why he's said that it can bridge the gap between Christians and Darwinists. Why would you think he would mention that at all, if what you're saying is correct?

 

My position represents that bridge; I have never represented what I believe you think the hard-core Christian view is here.

 

Shapiro is not stupid. I'm sure he's being extremely careful wrt choosing sides, as he understands just what stigma comes with doing so - on both sides.

 

Again, if ID is a legitimate endeavor, it will produce knowledge on its own rather than hijacking true scientific experimentation, slapping a crucifix on the title, and claiming they've proven the work of an outside agent.

 

ID researchers have already explained that they are seeing repeated patterns in microcellular level that indicate intentional design. In short, what they've said is exactly what Shapiro is corroborating.

 

The blind will not see.

[OldMaid 2,129]

It's how you choose to insult that's telling...

[IMMensaMind 462]

It's how you choose to insult that's telling...

 

 

 

Your argument is now about how I choose to insult? And you actually have the gall to think that how I respond with insult is worse than not actually being the one who chooses to insult initially? Is that what your position is?