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.

HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#82 Mar 8, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not possible, since the Earth and the universe is finite.
Besides, saying DNA doesn't self-organise every day is utter reality denial since no ID is EVER necessary.
Unless of course you can present the evidence of the designer's interference every day.
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution doesn't rely on abio.
<quoted text>
No-one on the planet understands God. And since there's no evidence the concept is scientifically irrelevant, period. You're confusing god of the gaps with evolution of the gaps, since evolution works and is the only theory capable of making predictions based on those gaps. You lose again. Unlucky.
Any time you wanna stop being our beeyach just let us know. But let's face it, you enjoy it.
DNA has never been shown to self-organize without pre-existing DNA.
And since you keep harping on evolution making "predictions"...
Perhaps you would like to squarely address it's many failed predictions... Such as...
1. Genetic determinism...FAILED
2. Junk DNA paradigm...FAILED
3. Fossil record... FAILED
4. IrreducIble complexity...FAILED
5. Plausibility of functional intermediates...FAILED.
6. Lamarckism...FAILED
7. Abiogenesis ...FAILED
8. Continuity between non-life and life...FAILED.
9. Homologous structures produced by homologous genes...FAILED

The only "predictions you have are imaginary, like not finding rabbits in the Precambrian, no centaurs, and no feathers in bats.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#83 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA has never been shown to self-organize without pre-existing DNA.
And since you keep harping on evolution making "predictions"...
Perhaps you would like to squarely address it's many failed predictions... Such as...
1. Genetic determinism...FAILED
2. Junk DNA paradigm...FAILED
3. Fossil record... FAILED
4. IrreducIble complexity...FAILED
5. Plausibility of functional intermediates...FAILED.
6. Lamarckism...FAILED
7. Abiogenesis ...FAILED
8. Continuity between non-life and life...FAILED.
9. Homologous structures produced by homologous genes...FAILED
The only "predictions you have are imaginary, like not finding rabbits in the Precambrian, no centaurs, and no feathers in bats.
1. Epigenetics is not outside of evolution.
2. Junk DNA was not a prediction of evolution, merely something evolution could accommodate (and ID cannot)
3. Fossil recird - huge success, with the predicted convergence of different types demonstrated repeatedly through the record and no violations of the nested hierarchy.
4. No example of IC proven, nor even possible to establish in principle - its IC that has failed.
5. Meaningless garbage
6. Lamarckism was part of what Darwin's theory was meant to debunk in the first place.
7. Abiogenesis is not part of the ToE
8. Just 7 restated
9. Evolution predicts homologous structures by heterogenous genes. Succeeded.

The major predictions of evolution with common ancestry are that relations between species either in the fossil record or the genome should form a nested hierarchy of variation. That is what we find. ID would NOT require that constraint, in fact it would be barmy for an intelligent designer to adhere to it. Yet this is what we find. No exceptions.

Evolution wins, and your trumped up set of failures are complete bunkum.
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#84 Mar 9, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Evolution predicts homologous structures by heterogenous genes. Succeeded.
Explain yourself.
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#85 Mar 9, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Junk DNA was not a prediction of evolution, merely something evolution could accommodate (and ID cannot)
.
Junk DNA not a prediction of evolution?

   University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 

*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81

So, your first contention, that junk DNA was not a prediction of ToE, is false. It was the poster child of organic evolution for at least two decades. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, evolutionists are disavowing themselves of their previous statements.
You second contention is a religious argument. You cannot say that junk DNA, if it did exist, is inconsistent with god because you cannot assume to know anything about God.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#86 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Junk DNA not a prediction of evolution?
   University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
So, your first contention, that junk DNA was not a prediction of ToE, is false. It was the poster child of organic evolution for at least two decades. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, evolutionists are disavowing themselves of their previous statements.
You second contention is a religious argument. You cannot say that junk DNA, if it did exist, is inconsistent with god because you cannot assume to know anything about God.
Chimney did an excellent job. Of the answers to your nine points, you have only been able to show that he was mistaken about pseudogenes and that doesn't even refute the overall point. You even throw in a straw man for good measure. Note he didn't say anything about God. He stated ID. ID is a religion pretending to be science, is man made and can't explain junk DNA.

It was a pleasure watching you fail. Doctor, Pffffftt!
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#87 Mar 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney did an excellent job. Of the answers to your nine points, you have only been able to show that he was mistaken about pseudogenes and that doesn't even refute the overall point. You even throw in a straw man for good measure. Note he didn't say anything about God. He stated ID. ID is a religion pretending to be science, is man made and can't explain junk DNA.
It was a pleasure watching you fail. Doctor, Pffffftt!
There is nothing for me to explain about junk DNA.
It doesn't exist... Which makes evolution biologically impossible.
DNA is a fixed code...not a hodgepodge of worthless past evolutionary permutations as you would like to believe. Therefore, you remain at a loss to invoke a mechanism to gain genetic information through mutations. You paradigm REQUIRED that most DNA would be useless to counter probability challenges. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, you are left without a viable theory.
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#88 Mar 9, 2014
And by the way, Dan, explain the ridiculous claim that evolution "predicts" that homologous structures will be produced by non-homologous genes.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#89 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing for me to explain about junk DNA.
It doesn't exist... Which makes evolution biologically impossible.
DNA is a fixed code...not a hodgepodge of worthless past evolutionary permutations as you would like to believe. Therefore, you remain at a loss to invoke a mechanism to gain genetic information through mutations. You paradigm REQUIRED that most DNA would be useless to counter probability challenges. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, you are left without a viable theory.
A large portion of the genome is non functioning sequences often called "junk DNA". The existence of junk DNA does not make evolution biologically impossible. In what sense is it fixed? Do you mean it is the same code in every person? Every organism? Or do you mean that you are just regurgitating something you don't understand, but believe supports your ignorance. If you answered C, you would be correct.

We already have the mechanism and examples that have been brought up on this forum numerous times. Evolution doesn't require that most DNA be useless. What kind of mindless assertion is that anyway. The junk is left over because it isn't required and doesn't function.

This is a dead horse, but you will keep beating it. Don't let me stop you. I enjoy watching your ignorance out of control. I just wonder how deluded a person has to be to claim they are a medical doctor while presenting evidence that they really need a psychiatrist.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#90 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
And by the way, Dan, explain the ridiculous claim that evolution "predicts" that homologous structures will be produced by non-homologous genes.
That is covergent evolution. Evolution works with the tools it has. If the same or similar selective pressure is applied to two different genomes within the constraints of physics and environment homologous structures will arise. Consider the evolution of the eye that you don't understand. Think of it as much like the pressure of reality driving you psycho fundies to come up with the same lies and ignorance to rail against the world.

Rather, why don't you support your wild ass assertions yourself gutless.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#91 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
   University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Coyne's argument is clearly false. The theory of devolution explicitly states this obvious expectation:

"2. The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost."
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#92 Mar 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A large portion of the genome is non functioning sequences often called "junk DNA". The existence of junk DNA does not make evolution biologically impossible. In what sense is it fixed? Do you mean it is the same code in every person? Every organism? Or do you mean that you are just regurgitating something you don't understand, but believe supports your ignorance. If you answered C, you would be correct.
We already have the mechanism and examples that have been brought up on this forum numerous times. Evolution doesn't require that most DNA be useless. What kind of mindless assertion is that anyway. The junk is left over because it isn't required and doesn't function.
This is a dead horse, but you will keep beating it. Don't let me stop you. I enjoy watching your ignorance out of control. I just wonder how deluded a person has to be to claim they are a medical doctor while presenting evidence that they really need a psychiatrist.
I just documented that the junk DNA paradigm is false, and you continue to cling to it. DNA is a fixed code in that it's nucleotide sequences produce a fixed precisely predictable end result. That is a biologic fact.
Your idiotic childish insults only reveal your deep insecurity.
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#93 Mar 9, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is covergent evolution. Evolution works with the tools it has. If the same or similar selective pressure is applied to two different genomes within the constraints of physics and environment homologous structures will arise. Consider the evolution of the eye that you don't understand. Think of it as much like the pressure of reality driving you psycho fundies to come up with the same lies and ignorance to rail against the world.
Rather, why don't you support your wild ass assertions yourself gutless.
"Convergent evolution" is merely a label. You haven't explained anything. Evolution predicts a branching the pattern of speciation, as Polymath has insisted. Convergence contradicts that paradigm.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
DNA has never been shown to self-organize without pre-existing DNA.
Then like I said, you have a problem since both the Earth and the universe is finite.

So why did you avoid this again?
HTS wrote:
And since you keep harping on evolution making "predictions"...
Perhaps you would like to squarely address it's many failed predictions... Such as...
1. Genetic determinism...FAILED
False.
HTS wrote:
2. Junk DNA paradigm...FAILED
False.
HTS wrote:
3. Fossil record... FAILED
False.
HTS wrote:
4. IrreducIble complexity...FAILED
Correct. But that's creationism for you.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
5. Plausibility of functional intermediates...FAILED.
False.
HTS wrote:
6. Lamarckism...FAILED
Correct.
HTS wrote:
7. Abiogenesis ...FAILED
8. Continuity between non-life and life...FAILED.
False.

These are both the same thing. The theory of evolution (still) does not rely on abiogenesis.
HTS wrote:
9. Homologous structures produced by homologous genes...FAILED
False.
HTS wrote:
The only "predictions you have are imaginary, like not finding rabbits in the Precambrian, no centaurs, and no feathers in bats.
False.

Explain orthology Hooter. You've uh, only avoided addressing this every single time.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain yourself.
You first.

Only fair, we've explained ourselves a thousand times and you STILL can't address what we post.

You on the other hand have nothing to say.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#96 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Junk DNA not a prediction of evolution?
   University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
So, your first contention, that junk DNA was not a prediction of ToE, is false. It was the poster child of organic evolution for at least two decades. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, evolutionists are disavowing themselves of their previous statements.
Wrong. Common ancestry doesn't worry about whether DNA is "junk" or not. It's only concerned with the pattern of inheritance, that of nested hierarchies. And that it DOES predict.
HTS wrote:
You second contention is a religious argument. You cannot say that junk DNA, if it did exist, is inconsistent with god because you cannot assume to know anything about God.
Well then hey bub, then you got a BIG problem. You've been SAYING that DNA can't arise unless there's already pre-existing DNA. In which case, according to you, God has DNA. Hence you are assuming to know stuff about God. Therefore you have two choices:

1 - You need to tell us precisely how you know this. So far you can't. And something tells me this won't ever change.

2 - If you can't, then your claim that "all DNA must arise from previous DNA" is moot.

p.s. Debunking IDC does not validate evolution. It only debunks IDC. Which you yourself have just unwittingly admitted is a non-falsifiable religious concept. Again, rendering all your objections moot.

Gotta love fundies. Keep 'em talking they debunk themselves.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#97 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
There is nothing for me to explain about junk DNA.
It doesn't exist... Which makes evolution biologically impossible.
DNA is a fixed code...
In which case mutations are non-existent and we are all clones. If there is variation then DNA is not fixed.

Oh by the way, DNA is quite obviously not fixed. Just for the record.

So it would uh, appear that actually you do have quite a LOT to explain, Hoots.
HTS wrote:
not a hodgepodge of worthless past evolutionary permutations as you would like to believe.
Straw-man.
HTS wrote:
Therefore, you remain at a loss to invoke a mechanism to gain genetic information through mutations.
Mutations ARE the mechanism. And we have never remained at a loss at all, since we've presented to you numerous scientific studies which have observed exactly this.

So far you've yet to address a single one. Your denialism doesn't count.
HTS wrote:
You paradigm REQUIRED that most DNA would be useless to counter probability challenges. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, you are left without a viable theory.
Actually since natural selection has a habit of weeding out detrimental traits probability challenges had been overcome LONG before you were born. While neutral changes are negligible. Again, there's a shedload of research that backs this up but you don't accept any of it anyway.(shrug) Pity though that you don't have the ability to debunk any of it yourself. So what else can you do but endlessly repeat your caricature about "junk DNA"?

Explain orthology for me Hooter.

Ya know, like THIS year.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#98 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Junk DNA not a prediction of evolution?
   University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
So, your first contention, that junk DNA was not a prediction of ToE, is false. It was the poster child of organic evolution for at least two decades. Now that the junk DNA paradigm has been falsified, evolutionists are disavowing themselves of their previous statements.
You second contention is a religious argument. You cannot say that junk DNA, if it did exist, is inconsistent with god because you cannot assume to know anything about God.
As for Coyne's specific claims about pseudogenes, yes, that is consistent with evolution but not with design. Note also that the same pseudogenes such as the wrecked pseudogene for vitamin C is wrecked in the same place in primates. As common ancestry would predict, if there are any pseudogenes in the genome.

And although you idiots keep claiming it, the "junk DNA paradigm" is not falsified. There is a ton of junk DNA. Even the overblown claims that up to 80% of the DNA did something were an exaggeration, as most of that "something" is a useless merry go round of transcribing RNA which is immediately dismembered again. In fact only 9% was ascribed USEFUL function and the most optimistic prediction today is that "up to 20%" may be useful.

Junk DNA is not a core prediction of evolution. Its merely consistent with it, athough it would have been just as consistent if there had been a mechanism that removed pointless DNA from the genome. If such a mechanism were there, that would not have prevented evolution. So its not a necessary part of the evolutionary paradigm and was at first met with surprise even from biologists.

On the other hand, once junk DNA was discovered, ID has had a hard time explaining it. Why would a designer add useless pseudogenes? Not to mention the multiple nonsense repeats, and ERV's, most of which are utterly useless. So what they do is, every time some function for a bit of DNA is discovered, they trumpet that "junk DNA is dead" which is an absurd exaggeration.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99 Mar 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A large portion of the genome is non functioning sequences often called "junk DNA". The existence of junk DNA does not make evolution biologically impossible. In what sense is it fixed? Do you mean it is the same code in every person? Every organism? Or do you mean that you are just regurgitating something you don't understand, but believe supports your ignorance. If you answered C, you would be correct.
We already have the mechanism and examples that have been brought up on this forum numerous times. Evolution doesn't require that most DNA be useless. What kind of mindless assertion is that anyway. The junk is left over because it isn't required and doesn't function.
This is a dead horse, but you will keep beating it. Don't let me stop you. I enjoy watching your ignorance out of control. I just wonder how deluded a person has to be to claim they are a medical doctor while presenting evidence that they really need a psychiatrist.
Yup. Still don't know why chickens have a recessive gene for teeth. And why that particular mutation still keeps cropping up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100 Mar 10, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Coyne's argument is clearly false. The theory of devolution explicitly states this obvious expectation:
"2. The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost."
Uh, Shoob. You're lying again. You cannot possibly hope to refute a currently accepted theory without even learning the basics.

This is why no-one takes you seriously.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#101 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain yourself.
The example of the cephalopod eye explained it just fine.

The very different structures of lungs in Australian vs African lungfish does it too.

The use of different digits for the wing assembly of bats, birds, and pteranodons likewise.

Different structures, different genes, but the same general requirements leading to superficially similar structures assembled out of different sets of genes.

Exactly what evolution would expect. I fail to see your issue with this point.

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) 13 min 15th Dalai Lama 85,700
What's your religion? 14 min was auch immer 154
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 15 min dollarsbill 5,075
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun ChristineM 165,438
Humans evolved from Canadians Sat Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species Sat Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Sat was auch immer 10
More from around the web