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

#102 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I just documented that the junk DNA paradigm is false,
If by "documented" you mean "baseless assertion", yes, you did document that.
HTS wrote:
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.
Then explain how variability does not contradict "fixed".

Take your time.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Only if the DNA violated the branching pattern of nested hierarchies. For example if wings on butterflies had the precisely the same DNA configuration as wings on birds. Of course in reality the genomes of birds and butterflies are consistent with nested hierarchies, therefore are still in line with evolutionary predictions.

What does orthology mean, Hoots? Specifically in reference to ERV's.

Before I meet the Intelligent Designer would be nice.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#103 Mar 10, 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.
It does exist, your empty claims notwithstanding.

But if it did not, then we would presume that the genome had a way of removing useless DNA. Why not? Most redundant structures gradually disappear in evolution. Your probability challenge would be solved in the same way. You fail to understand that when junk DNA was first discovered, it was a surprise to biologists.

However, as you well know, its far worse than that for Designers. Evolution can accommodate junk, design cannot.

And if DNA is such a perfect code, why do humans and primates have a broken gene for vitamin-C? If we were all perfect before the Fall, why did the vitamin-c gene break not just for us but for all simian primates (monkeys, apes, humans) in exactly the same spot after the Fall?

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So does he.(shrug)

If it supports evolution, it's wrong. Period. Doesn't matter what the evidence is.

.

Fundies have no shame.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That reminds me, I'm still waiting for Hooter to tell us why the ameoba has twice the amount of functions that the human genome has. Around 6 billion instead of 3 billion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does exist, your empty claims notwithstanding.
But if it did not, then we would presume that the genome had a way of removing useless DNA. Why not? Most redundant structures gradually disappear in evolution. Your probability challenge would be solved in the same way. You fail to understand that when junk DNA was first discovered, it was a surprise to biologists.
However, as you well know, its far worse than that for Designers. Evolution can accommodate junk, design cannot.
And if DNA is such a perfect code, why do humans and primates have a broken gene for vitamin-C? If we were all perfect before the Fall, why did the vitamin-c gene break not just for us but for all simian primates (monkeys, apes, humans) in exactly the same spot after the Fall?
Well the other simians didn't pish off the invisible Jew wizard by eating apples.

By the way, there was no Fall since DNA is "fixed".

So I'm told.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
As I have insisted too - evolution does follow a nested hierarchy. But you seem to be confusing genetic convergence with structural convergence.

If the environment is selecting two different creatures in similar ways, for example demanding a vertebrate be streamlined in water, then we would expect the shape of a dolphin and a shark to converge as far as superficial streamlining goes.

But their underlying genome would not be converging. Dolphins and sharks have not shared a common ancestor for over 400 million years and the genetic analysis confirms this. A dolphin's genes are far more like a human's than like a shark's, even though they look more like a shark than a human.

Analysis of pseudogenes, ERV's and ubiquitous proteins show a pattern of divergence consistent with the fossil record. That is, two independent lines of evidence supporting the same nested hierarchy of branching evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108 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."
Hey, shubee sock puppet, your "second postulate" fails the test of empiricism.

Its hogwash.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109 Mar 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That reminds me, I'm still waiting for Hooter to tell us why the ameoba has twice the amount of functions that the human genome has. Around 6 billion instead of 3 billion.
First rule of creationism: do not let empirical facts get in the way of a good story.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#110 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You didn't. It isn;t fixed. Mutations abound. Some are positive. Some neutral. Some are negative.

You documented that Coyne concludes that the theory of evolution predicts "junk DNA" and nothing more. You don't understand science, arguments, evidence or comprehension of what evidence states. No wonder you have to pretend to have credentials you don't possess.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#111 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."
Pure crap. You can't support it. All you can do is rinse and repeat.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#112 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
No it doesn't. It is convergence of phenotype due to common selective pressure on different genotypes. It doesn't contradict speciation, it just explains why we see similar phenotypes in vastly different genotypes.

You should pretend you have a BS. You are good at BS.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#113 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, shubee sock puppet, your "second postulate" fails the test of empiricism.
Its hogwash.
I wouldn't wash a good hog with it, but I agree completely with the sentiment.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have insisted too - evolution does follow a nested hierarchy. But you seem to be confusing genetic convergence with structural convergence.
He seems to be confused period.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#115 Mar 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does exist, your empty claims notwithstanding.
But if it did not, then we would presume that the genome had a way of removing useless DNA. Why not? Most redundant structures gradually disappear in evolution. Your probability challenge would be solved in the same way. You fail to understand that when junk DNA was first discovered, it was a surprise to biologists.
However, as you well know, its far worse than that for Designers. Evolution can accommodate junk, design cannot.
And if DNA is such a perfect code, why do humans and primates have a broken gene for vitamin-C? If we were all perfect before the Fall, why did the vitamin-c gene break not just for us but for all simian primates (monkeys, apes, humans) in exactly the same spot after the Fall?
You fail to understand that your logic is founded on philosophy, not science.
Why does an intelligently designed code require perfection, according to your standards?
All computer programs are imperfect. Does that indicate that they are not intelligently designed?
A "broken gene" for vitamin C does not prove that DNA was not intelligently designed. You cannot defend your argument without references to religion.
And by the way, if natural selection is the all-powerful force that you claim it to be, why did primates lose their ability to synthesize vitamin C? According to the ToE, any mutation that was harmful to the reproductive success of a species should have been removed by natural selection millions of years ago. You claim that evolution created a whale from a land mammal by weeding out millions of slightly deleterious mutations over millions of years, yet you don't find it surprising that natural selection is incapable of removing a mutation that is obviously detrimental to a species.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#116 Mar 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have insisted too - evolution does follow a nested hierarchy. But you seem to be confusing genetic convergence with structural convergence.
If the environment is selecting two different creatures in similar ways, for example demanding a vertebrate be streamlined in water, then we would expect the shape of a dolphin and a shark to converge as far as superficial streamlining goes.
But their underlying genome would not be converging. Dolphins and sharks have not shared a common ancestor for over 400 million years and the genetic analysis confirms this. A dolphin's genes are far more like a human's than like a shark's, even though they look more like a shark than a human.
Analysis of pseudogenes, ERV's and ubiquitous proteins show a pattern of divergence consistent with the fossil record. That is, two independent lines of evidence supporting the same nested hierarchy of branching evolution.
The fundamental problem of convergence that is categorically ignored by evolutionists is the vast improbability of the appearance of mutations to result in similar endpoints. That is the whole issue. An oceanic environment does not prompt the correct mutations to appear to result in a streamlined creature. The evolutionary paradigm requires not only the appearance of innumerable favorable mutations... but specific mutations to result in a fixed endpoint. Not only is it believed that complex eyes evolved by the appearance of random changes in genetic code, it is believed that similar distant end targets were achieved in indpendently evolving lines. That stands in direct contradiction to the evolutionary "branching pattern" as described by Polymath.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#117 Mar 11, 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."
Stuff it, Shub.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#118 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to understand that your logic is founded on philosophy, not science.
Why does an intelligently designed code require perfection, according to your standards?
All computer programs are imperfect. Does that indicate that they are not intelligently designed?
A "broken gene" for vitamin C does not prove that DNA was not intelligently designed. You cannot defend your argument without references to religion.
And by the way, if natural selection is the all-powerful force that you claim it to be, why did primates lose their ability to synthesize vitamin C? According to the ToE, any mutation that was harmful to the reproductive success of a species should have been removed by natural selection millions of years ago. You claim that evolution created a whale from a land mammal by weeding out millions of slightly deleterious mutations over millions of years, yet you don't find it surprising that natural selection is incapable of removing a mutation that is obviously detrimental to a species.
Still waiting on your direct evidence of a god.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#119 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental problem of convergence that is categorically ignored by evolutionists is the vast improbability of the appearance of mutations to result in similar endpoints. That is the whole issue. An oceanic environment does not prompt the correct mutations to appear to result in a streamlined creature. The evolutionary paradigm requires not only the appearance of innumerable favorable mutations... but specific mutations to result in a fixed endpoint. Not only is it believed that complex eyes evolved by the appearance of random changes in genetic code, it is believed that similar distant end targets were achieved in indpendently evolving lines. That stands in direct contradiction to the evolutionary "branching pattern" as described by Polymath.
Still waiting on your direct evidence of a god.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120 Mar 11, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No it doesn't. It is convergence of phenotype due to common selective pressure on different genotypes. It doesn't contradict speciation, it just explains why we see similar phenotypes in vastly different genotypes.
You should pretend you have a BS. You are good at BS.
I can see through your special pleading interpretation of convergence. You think that if the same genotype produced convergence in differing species, you would be convinced of the fallacy of evolution. Yet you easily accept differing genotypes in similar species producing similar phenotypes. You have no clue as to how this fits into your paradigm of common descent. You simply have a predetermined mindset that it does.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
You fail to understand that your logic is founded on philosophy, not science.
Why does an intelligently designed code require perfection, according to your standards?
It's not our standards. It's yours.

You uh, DO remember claiming a "100% functional genome", yes?
HTS wrote:
All computer programs are imperfect. Does that indicate that they are not intelligently designed?
A "broken gene" for vitamin C does not prove that DNA was not intelligently designed. You cannot defend your argument without references to religion.
Actually we're quite happy for the possibility of designs being imperfect or broken.

But thanks again for admitting that ID is religion.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
And by the way, if natural selection is the all-powerful force that you claim it to be, why did primates lose their ability to synthesize vitamin C? According to the ToE, any mutation that was harmful to the reproductive success of a species should have been removed by natural selection millions of years ago. You claim that evolution created a whale from a land mammal by weeding out millions of slightly deleterious mutations over millions of years, yet you don't find it surprising that natural selection is incapable of removing a mutation that is obviously detrimental to a species.
Why, have we ever claimed land mammals have more detrimental mutations than whales? Do we claim that natural selection will give us a "perfect 100% functional genome"? Well done for totally not grasping the concept you pretend to criticize. You DO know that we have adapted to our vitC problem by eating and drinking stuff, right?

Explain orthology Hooter.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 min Paul Porter1 142,778
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min replaytime 20,717
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr ChristineM 172,029
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 17 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 18 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 20 hr Chimney1 304
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... Mon Dopy 1
More from around the web