Another Anti-Science Bill

Another Anti-Science Bill

There are 454 comments on the Okie Funk story from Feb 19, 2014, titled Another Anti-Science Bill. In it, Okie Funk reports that:

The Oklahoma House could consider a bill today that if signed into law would undermine science education in the state's classrooms, especially the teaching of evolution theory.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Okie Funk.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#405 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't get my information from a website. I have over 30 years experience working in a laboratory where I practice science with actual accountability. Mutations cause corruption of DNA, resulting in non-viability, an impaired immune system, cancer and many other disease states. This is common knowledge. The problem is, non of your esteemed professors of evolutionary biology have any accountability...hence, they freely abandon standards of science in their quest to justify their religion.
You believe in dogma that has no scientific basis. Even your beloved E.Coli experiment, after 50,000 generations, resulted in a weakened strain. Do you know what happens to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in an environment without antibiotics? They are less competitive than their unmutated counterparts. Their antibiotic resistance results from a LOSS of genetic information. What about chromosomal duplication...like trisomy 18 and Down's syndrome?
And your poster child of evolution...sickle cell anemia. You site a mutation resulting in a life threatening illness as evidence that mutations can create finely balanced sensory organs...
Dogen, if you want to believe in your fairytales about bacteria evolving into worms and peacocks and humans, that is your choice...but don't try to invoke science to justify your bizarre worldview.
You're still operating under the assumption that all mutations are bad. Mutations can be good, bad, or neutral. ERV's have been shown to have function. Ergo our prediction is correct and yours is falsified.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#406 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
I haven't denied antibiotic resistance in bacteria. You fail to realize that antibiotic resistance in bacteria results in a weakened strain in an environment without antibiotics.
Citation please. Don't forget to include the info that this is always the case.
HTS wrote:
I know your insecurity requires you to throw mud at my credentials, because the truth assaults your religion. I understand your childish tirades perfectly.
Oh, so THAT'S why you can't address our posts.(shrug)

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#407 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead, Dogen... Pretend that I don't have scientific credentials if it makes you feel better, you haven't logically defended anything.
We don't need to pretend. We know. That's because you've misunderstood and/or rejected literally every scientific field. The most you do is stab people with a needle. You don't need science creds for that. I know because I know people who work in medical capacities and deal with them every day.

No need to be coy Hoots. We know you have no actual science knowledge.

So explain orthology for us. You said you were gonna wipe the floor with us, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#408 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed that the insertion of viral DNA has been observed to result in functionality. That is a lie. It has been SURMISED.
Except it has been tested. In multiple different ways. You've been told how in the past. You haven't been able to refute that yet. No explanation of what exactly functional ERV's are, no explanation for their alternate moniker, no explanation of their appearance or how they got there, no explanation for orthology.

Just simple denial on your part.

Still waiting Hoots.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#409 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
Do you know what happens to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in an environment without antibiotics? They are less competitive than their unmutated counterparts. Their antibiotic resistance results from a LOSS of genetic information.
"Kassen and Bataillon (2006)[5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."

[5]Nature Genetics 38, 484 488 (2006)

Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon

http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...

----------

Your claim is soundly refuted.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#410 Apr 3, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Kassen and Bataillon (2006)[5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."
[5]Nature Genetics 38, 484 488 (2006)
Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
----------
Your claim is soundly refuted.
OK, I stand corrected. In general, most mutant bacteria are less well adapted to an environment without antibiotics. I noticed that you hang on a few isolated improvements in the genome of an asexually reproducing species, and extrapolate that to all of your grand claims of evolution. You will not acknowledge that in general the overwhelming majority of mutations are corruptions. You cannot reference a single observation of a mutation occurring that could be interpreted as a step in macroevolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#411 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
OK, I stand corrected.
This alone is enough to make me believe in Biblical miracles.
HTS wrote:
In general, most mutant bacteria are less well adapted to an environment without antibiotics. I noticed that you hang on a few isolated improvements in the genome of an asexually reproducing species, and extrapolate that to all of your grand claims of evolution.
It's extrapolation via testing. Our DNA is a measure of how closely related organisms are.
HTS wrote:
You will not acknowledge that in general the overwhelming majority of mutations are corruptions.
You're right - we won't acknowledge such lies. Besides which you ignore natural selection at your convenience. If DNA really DID work the way you claimed, the human population as a whole would be decreasing instead of increasing.
HTS wrote:
You cannot reference a single observation of a mutation occurring that could be interpreted as a step in macroevolution.
You're right. Because that would be stupid. But we CAN calculate based on mutation rates that an accumulation of mutations will result in a measurable difference that amounts to evolution on a macro-scale. This has been understood for uh, oh, about five decades now.

Explain orthology Hooter.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#412 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't denied antibiotic resistance in bacteria. You fail to realize that antibiotic resistance in bacteria results in a weakened strain in an environment without antibiotics.
I know your insecurity requires you to throw mud at my credentials, because the truth assaults your religion. I understand your childish tirades perfectly.


Your "credentials" are suspect at best. You are dead wrong on so many things it is hard to take you seriously on things you might be right about. You have run down your own rep.

As to a "weakened" strain that is misleading. If antibiotics ARE its environment then it had adapted to it (evolved). Now you want to put it into a hypothetical environment where antibiotics are not present. If that were done then the bacteria would evolve to deal with it. Antibiotics are a dull fact of life for most modern bacteria. That is the reality they have evolved to. Do you think we could wipe out all biotic disease by throwing away all the antibiotics?

Stuff and nonsense.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#413 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead, Dogen... Pretend that I don't have scientific credentials if it makes you feel better, you haven't logically defended anything.

You don't post like you have any scientific credentials. Your arguments are mostly emotional appeals. I will take you as serious as your data warrants. So far, not that much.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#415 Apr 3, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I stand corrected. In general, most mutant bacteria are less well adapted to an environment without antibiotics. I noticed that you hang on a few isolated improvements in the genome of an asexually reproducing species, and extrapolate that to all of your grand claims of evolution. You will not acknowledge that in general the overwhelming majority of mutations are corruptions. You cannot reference a single observation of a mutation occurring that could be interpreted as a step in macroevolution.
Duh. A single mutation would NOT be macroevolution. It would be microevolution.


Now you are railing about evolution working the way we expect it to work.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#416 Apr 3, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh. A single mutation would NOT be macroevolution. It would be microevolution.
Now you are railing about evolution working the way we expect it to work.
Yeah, but how come a bacteria is still a bacteria? And what about a dog giving birth to a cat? How come we never see that, huh? Huh?!?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#417 Apr 3, 2014
".... are there still monkeys?"

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#418 Apr 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but how come a bacteria is still a bacteria? And what about a dog giving birth to a cat? How come we never see that, huh? Huh?!?

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#419 Apr 6, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I stand corrected. In general, most mutant bacteria are less well adapted to an environment without antibiotics. I noticed that you hang on a few isolated improvements in the genome of an asexually reproducing species, and extrapolate that to all of your grand claims of evolution. You will not acknowledge that in general the overwhelming majority of mutations are corruptions. You cannot reference a single observation of a mutation occurring that could be interpreted as a step in macroevolution.
Actually it was you extrapolating, hanging on your belief that antibiotic resistance always weakened the bacterium as a feature that could be generalised to all creatures and mutations. Since I showed you that the situation you assumed with bacteria was false, all an honest man would have to do was accept the point and revise his understanding. You chose instead to try and trivialise the exact example you gave that was supposed to prove beneficial adaptation false.

I have to laugh.

Also, I do acknowledge that there are more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones. When are you going to acknowledge that selection would work against that tendency? Its not hard to understand, unless your a priori convictions render you stupid.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#420 Apr 6, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot reference a single observation of a mutation occurring that could be interpreted as a step in macroevolution.
Well as soon as you reference an observation that a single step eastwards on hollywood boulevard signals a march to Washington, you might have a point. Whether you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution or really do not understand the first thing about it, I have not yet decided.

Macro evolution is not a mutation HTS. Its scores or thousands or millions of them.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#421 Apr 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Its not hard to understand, unless your a priori convictions render you stupid.
BINGO!
Chimney1 wrote:
Whether you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution or really do not understand the first thing about it, I have not yet decided.
The answer to both is: Yes!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#422 Apr 23, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as soon as you reference an observation that a single step eastwards on hollywood boulevard signals a march to Washington, you might have a point. Whether you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution or really do not understand the first thing about it, I have not yet decided.
Macro evolution is not a mutation HTS. Its scores or thousands or millions of them.
You grossly misrepresent the complexity of biology.
The naturalistic origin of many structures such as the transmutation from a scale to a feather cannot be compared to taking one step after another from Hollywood to Washington DC. You cannot logically explain the origin of the feather by simply stating that millions of mutations filtered by natural selection achieved the impossible.
You know perfectly well that no one can offer scientifically logical explanations...yet you persist in your simplistic, irrelevant examples.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#423 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You grossly misrepresent the complexity of biology.
The naturalistic origin of many structures such as the transmutation from a scale to a feather cannot be compared to taking one step after another from Hollywood to Washington DC. You cannot logically explain the origin of the feather by simply stating that millions of mutations filtered by natural selection achieved the impossible.
You know perfectly well that no one can offer scientifically logical explanations...yet you persist in your simplistic, irrelevant examples.
On the contrary. I would bet that I know better than you do, the complex interaction of at least 10 enzymes and the specialised protein structures required to run the oxidative phosphorylation of pyruvate and long chain fatty acids, generating the electrical differential across the mitochondrial membrane required to convert ADP into ATP and thus power the cell.

And that is just one cellular process. The transmutation of a scale into a feather is by comparison child's play.

One can EASILY postulate a series of simple changes, each presenting a selective advantage, that would convert a simple scale over time into a bump, a spike, insulating plumage, perhaps even display plumage, all for millions of years before a flight feather emerged.

The scientifically logical explanation of evolutionary change, accepted by 99% of biologists, has been explained to you 100 times.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#424 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You grossly misrepresent the complexity of biology.
The naturalistic origin of many structures such as the transmutation from a scale to a feather cannot be compared to taking one step after another from Hollywood to Washington DC. You cannot logically explain the origin of the feather by simply stating that millions of mutations filtered by natural selection achieved the impossible.
You know perfectly well that no one can offer scientifically logical explanations...yet you persist in your simplistic, irrelevant examples.
That's your baseless opinion, but we're still waiting for you to back it up. Until then you're denying labwork and computer models and direct observations.

Explain orthology Hooter.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#425 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You grossly misrepresent the complexity of biology.
The naturalistic origin of many structures such as the transmutation from a scale to a feather cannot be compared to taking one step after another from Hollywood to Washington DC. You cannot logically explain the origin of the feather by simply stating that millions of mutations filtered by natural selection achieved the impossible.
You know perfectly well that no one can offer scientifically logical explanations...yet you persist in your simplistic, irrelevant examples.

This is another unfortunate misconception that creotards have; that it takes millions of mutations to change a structure. Actually the number of mutations to create a feather from a hair was probably less than 20. Where this nonsense comes from I have no idea, because it is not what the research states.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 81,488
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 9 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 9 hr Science 1
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Dogen 32,891
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 13 hr Dogen 2,187
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 15 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web