Christian Schools Sue State University

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"This is hardly scientific literature."

I have read some higher level writeups of what he was dicsussing and what he gave was an accurate assesment.

Are you, an engineer, qualified to evaluate?

"Please remember that the most widely used high school biology text (Modern Biology by Otto, Graham, Towle, et. al.) was still teaching phylogenetic recapitulation just a decade ago although every reputable graduate embryology text and embryologist had repudiated this theory several decades previously."

Are you sure it was not teaching ontogeny. Many YEers get recapitulation and evo-devo confused. You should be less likely to have that problem, based on your stated educational background, but it still happens.

Well, they were talking about good ole Ernest Haeckel, if you know who he was, and giving him the credit for this wonderful concept. Although I do not claim to be an expert embryologist, I do know a fair amount about the subject. When a textbook is claiming that embryonic aortic development was once gill slits, then I know it’s hogwash. This is the kind of science that firmly established the acceptance of evolutionary thinking in the public mind.

"BTW, you didn’t answer my question but I presume that you are unable to give a cogent scientific answer."

I think an example of how new and dangerous influenza bugs are being produced through evolutionary processes is a descent example.

Yeah, but you have not established that viral change is necessarily evolution. We don't know that this is evolution per se. This ability may be already inherent, although not expressed, in the genetic structure. Man, where is your scientific rigor? Are viruses living systems or are they simply life-like?

 

[jcrawford]

It's very reassuring to know that some biologists compare and equate human beings to the growth and development of bacterial viruses regarding their evolutionary origins and mutations in accordance with Darwin's superior survival theory of 'natural selection' of the fittest.

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El_Guero:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UTEOTW posts from a variety of different sources, most of them well-respected journals.

By the way, that is an "appeal to popularity".</font>[/QUOTE]You obviously need to review the rules once again. If anything, that would be an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are only fallacies if the authorities are actually ignorant of what you say they support.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html </font>[/QUOTE]I did review:

UTEOTW posts from a variety of different sources, most [not all] of them well-respected journals.

Ergo, YOUR PRIMARY proposition was the strength of variety. If YOU had stated "ALL HIGHLY RESPECTED" then I would have considered your primary proposition to point to the accuracy of his arguments.

Do you really want me to begin attacking you as you have attacked me?

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Sincerely sorry to hear of your father's passing.

Thank you. However, a year ago would have been better timed.

 

[El_Guero]

I am ashamed that so many 'Believers' attack the basic rights of Christians to be treated fairly and not discriminated against because of their faith.

A Mormon can deny the True Christ, but a Christian is expected to deny Genesis.

Since this thread continues to break down and move away from the original proposition(s), I am moving on.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Ergo, YOUR PRIMARY proposition was the strength of variety. If YOU had stated "ALL HIGHLY RESPECTED" then I would have considered your primary proposition to point to the accuracy of his arguments.

Do you really want me to begin attacking you as you have attacked me?

No, my primary point was that he posts from accurate sources, even though not all of them are on the level of Proceedings of that National Academy of the Sciences, USA. There's nothing wrong with that--one can cite from Tetrahedron Letters as well as the Journal of the American Chemical Society and still be completely accurate.

Am I supposed to feel guilty for beating up on a poor, defenseless, mild-mannered person? You certainly were bashing on UTEOTW before I replied. If you had been less rude to him I wouldn't have said anything. I'd say it's up to you if you want to attack me or not, since this forum is unmoderated.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Shore nuff? Are viruses living organisms? "

Well, that is debatable. For our purposes, however, they have muatable DNA and show the ability to adapt. These are the types of processes we are looking for whe nwe want to discuss the importance of evolution to medicine, as an example.

"How do we know this is evolution and is not an inherent ability that is not previously expressed?"

The various strains of the flu virus are adapting by a combination of mechanisms. Two are quite important. One is the mutation of the genes that are part of the flu virus. The flu is a very simple organism. It only has 8 gene segments. Changes to the genes can influence how the virus behaves. One protein that the flu makes id hemagglutinin. This is a protein on the surface. Changes here can affect what kinds of hosts the virus can infect. Another protein is neuraminidase which affects how well the virus can spread new copies. Changes to the genes, and especially the ones that make these proteins, can alter the virus in new ways. These are caused by mutation which is a very important part of evolution.

Another way that the virus can adapt is if the same host gets infected with two different strains. Then new combinations of the eight gene segments can combine in novel ways. Sort of like sex for a virus. But this can create novel combinations of traits which may make a new strain of the flu which could potentially be deadly.

These two together are the reason for concern about a possible bird flu epidemic in SE Asia.

"According to evolution, are viruses the evolutionary precursors of living cells or are they debris from once living systems?"

Red herring. Why does it matter? A virus does not exactly lend itself very well to a fossil record. But you can apply genetic techniques to viruses and learn about their phylogeny. These techniques support origins for various families of viruses hundreds of millions of years ago. These techniques also suggest multiple paths for the origin of viruses based on the type of virus.

"Is this evolution or variation within the existing genetic parameters?"

Well, they are making new sequences of their genes so I don't see how it could be considered anything other than evolution.

"If viruses are evolving at such a rate, then explain why we don’t see macroevolutionary change posited as having occurred in other organisms? In other words, viruses are still viruses despite all the supposed evolution that we should have been able to observe over the past couple of decades. At this rate of change, we ought see some new intermediate life form. However, viruses are still viruses including the new emergent forms. "

Just what do you want to see a virus turn into?

This is a common mistake that YEers make. I am surprised that you would make such a mistake. They assume that evolution should by necessity lead to what we consider higher and more complex organisms. In reality, they are exploiting a niche and have little likelyhood to evolve into something we would consider more grand.

Take the example of bacteria. There is more genetic diversity within these single celled organisms than in all of the multi-celled organisms on earth. They have been very successful as single celled organisms without any need to become multicelled. Only a tiny fraction of the life on earth has come to exploit niches for multi-celled life.

"Well, if this is your level of scientific citation, then you are rather light in your understanding and evidence. At best, your source is high school biology and at worst, it is tabloid science for public consumption. Sorry but I don’t feed at that trough."

I think if you take a look around at some of the threads where I take on the facts, you will see that my primary sources are the original primary literature. See a few of these.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/18.html

The flu link was not mine originally. I just pointed out what you seem to have missed.

"Are you, an engineer, qualified to evaluate?"

Nope. I am forced to trust the experts.

Changing gears...

"Well, they were talking about good ole Ernest Haeckel, if you know who he was, and giving him the credit for this wonderful concept. Although I do not claim to be an expert embryologist, I do know a fair amount about the subject. When a textbook is claiming that embryonic aortic development was once gill slits, then I know it’s hogwash. This is the kind of science that firmly established the acceptance of evolutionary thinking in the public mind."

If they were presenting Haeckel's orignal ideas as fact that they should certainly called out for such an egregious authorship.

But it is possible that they were using Haeckel to introduce good science. All vertebrate embryos have a series of structures called by various names including pharyngeal arches and even "gill slits." In different vertebrates, different arches form different structures. Showing this is good science. For instance you can show that the same embryonic structures form the jaw in reptiles and the inner ear bones in mammals. The fossil record then shows that the reptile jaw evolved int othe mammal inner ear bones. So in this way, ontogeny supports the fossil record.

 

[TC]

What I see is that the standards say x,y,z is to be taught. However, the students took a class that says x,y,z is wrong and that t,u,v is right. Now, they are mad because their class will not be honored. They want special treatment that no one else gets and are calling it discrimination to be told no. It is not.

 

[Petrel]

What do you think of this? I posted it before, but it got lost in the beginning old earth/young earth debate.

Originally posted by Petrel:
First of all, any scientist, even a creationist, ought to have an understanding of evolutionary theory. This is especially true for biologists.

I'd have to read the textbooks in order to know if the classes should be certified or not. I'm dubious about A Beka Books--I had one of their grammar books in elementary school that I would classify as "lame."

As long as the textbooks educate students about evolution to the same extent that secular textbooks do, I don't see why the classes shouldn't be certified. Whether it's in the textbook or not a conservative Christian school is likely to teach that evolution is false. Rejecting certification simply on the basis that students leaving the class might think that evolution is false is demanding adherence to an ideology, not ensuring knowledge of current science. If the level of education is similar to that in secular schools, this amounts to religious discrimination.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense to reject otherwise qualified students based on their belief in a six-day creation when they may very well change their minds with further education in science, like I did.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] "Shore nuff? Are viruses living organisms? "

Well, that is debatable. For our purposes, however, they have muatable DNA and show the ability to adapt. These are the types of processes we are looking for whe nwe want to discuss the importance of evolution to medicine, as an example.

The importance of evolution to medicine is limited to observations of viral evolution since human evolution has never been observed and all Darwinist theories about origins of human 'species' are inherently racist.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by TC:
What I see is that the standards say x,y,z is to be taught. However, the students took a class that says x,y,z is wrong and that t,u,v is right. Now, they are mad because their class will not be honored. They want special treatment that no one else gets and are calling it discrimination to be told no. It is not.

Since part of the UC standards of xyz are a form of scientific racism, (x), and a high school teaches that x is wrong, the students are to be congratulated for receiving a superior high school eduction.

 

[Petrel]

Really? Medically significant mutation in a human gene and natural selection to propagate that mutation has never been observed?
Smallpox-amplified human CCR5 mutation confers protection against HIV.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Petrel:
What do you think of this? I posted it before, but it got lost in the beginning old earth/young earth debate.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Petrel:
First of all, any scientist, even a creationist, ought to have an understanding of evolutionary theory. This is especially true for biologists.

I'd have to read the textbooks in order to know if the classes should be certified or not. I'm dubious about A Beka Books--I had one of their grammar books in elementary school that I would classify as "lame."

As long as the textbooks educate students about evolution to the same extent that secular textbooks do, I don't see why the classes shouldn't be certified. Whether it's in the textbook or not a conservative Christian school is likely to teach that evolution is false. Rejecting certification simply on the basis that students leaving the class might think that evolution is false is demanding adherence to an ideology, not ensuring knowledge of current science. If the level of education is similar to that in secular schools, this amounts to religious discrimination.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense to reject otherwise qualified students based on their belief in a six-day creation when they may very well change their minds with further education in science, like I did.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, an excellent summary and proposal, Petrel. Might I also suggest that Lubenow's expert assessment of the human fossil record be included as a textbook in all high school coursework on theories of evolution?

 

[Petrel]

In my opinion private schools can include whatever they like as long as they also cover the theory of evolution in equal depth to that of secular courses.

You left out the part about how the theory of evolution is inherently racist, by the way.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Really? Medically significant mutation in a human gene and natural selection to propagate that mutation has never been observed?
Smallpox-amplified human CCR5 mutation confers protection against HIV.

Obviously, genetic mutations and viral infections are observable in humans, but that doesn't add up to a medically useful observation of human evolution in or out of Africa, as neo-Darwinists and UTEOWE might contend, in their studious comparisons of human beings to bacteral viruses.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Petrel:
In my opinion private schools can include whatever they like as long as they also cover the theory of evolution in equal depth to that of secular courses.

You left out the part about how the theory of evolution is inherently racist, by the way.

By including Lubenow's superior text on the human fossil record, private schools would plumb the depths of neo-Darwinist 'scientific' theories of evolution which Lubenow documents as being intrinsically, inherently and ultimately racist.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by TC:
What I see is that the standards say x,y,z is to be taught. However, the students took a class that says x,y,z is wrong and that t,u,v is right. Now, they are mad because their class will not be honored. They want special treatment that no one else gets and are calling it discrimination to be told no. It is not.

Well, I don't like the term discrimination because it is the vocabulary of whiners. However, there is prejudice and bias here. We are observing the rise of a new dogma as fierce and repressive as any Pharisaical dogma. It is ironic that those of the academy who defend academic freedom should be the very ones repressing other viewpoints. These same people tolerate and accredit every other harebrained idea or teaching except Christianity.

 

[paidagogos]

The sheer burden of answering point–by-point in this thread is overwhelming. It is rather like teaching kindergarteners. They ask, “Why is red red?” Furthermore, it is hardly worth the effort since the posters already have their minds firmly fixed and will not change regardless of the argument or evidence. Also, there are various levels of comprehension among the posters. A few are over their heads in their quotes and others are using popular sources as hard science. What I hope to show is that the case is not open and shut although I doubt that the biased evolutionists will admit to this. They are hardened in their dogma.

Viruses have been used as evolutionary examples of mutations. This is a very simplistic and wrong understanding of mutation. So-called mutation in simple systems, such as viruses, is vastly different from mutations in more complex organisms. (BTW, I do understand the complexity of simple systems but I use complex-simple as a means of differentiating between organisms with few levels of organization and those with many.) Mutation in complex systems is always deleterious and dysfunctional. This is not true of simple systems. In fact, simple systems appear to mutate freely. My argument is that these are not mutations at all but this is the ability of a simple system to readily change due to its few levels of organization. It is an inherent ability, not mutation.

Take viral systems for example. We cannot definitely decide whether they are living or simply life-like. Their replication emulates recombinant DNA. IMHO, it is the nature of their replication mechanism, not evolutionary mutation, which allows them to change. The change is limited to the parameters afforded by their replicating mechanism. The genetic changes appear to be in discrete units, which is suggestive. Does anyone care to pick up this idea and run with it.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[snip]
Changing gears...

"Well, they were talking about good ole Ernest Haeckel, if you know who he was, and giving him the credit for this wonderful concept. Although I do not claim to be an expert embryologist, I do know a fair amount about the subject. When a textbook is claiming that embryonic aortic development was once gill slits, then I know it’s hogwash. This is the kind of science that firmly established the acceptance of evolutionary thinking in the public mind."

If they were presenting Haeckel's orignal ideas as fact that they should certainly called out for such an egregious authorship.

But it is possible that they were using Haeckel to introduce good science. All vertebrate embryos have a series of structures called by various names including pharyngeal arches and even "gill slits." In different vertebrates, different arches form different structures. Showing this is good science. For instance you can show that the same embryonic structures form the jaw in reptiles and the inner ear bones in mammals. The fossil record then shows that the reptile jaw evolved int othe mammal inner ear bones. So in this way, ontogeny supports the fossil record.

Boy! Are you grasping at straws? Whenever I give you an example and support it, you presuppose something else. You can't say that I am wrong but you hate to concede a point, so you say, "It may have been ....... or it may have ......" Have you read Modern Biology? It's your emotions driving you, not reason. Why can't you accept my statement as true if you have NO evidence to the contrary? No, you would rather fantasize a scenario that puts your evolutionary authors in a better light. Well, you're in denial. Go see a shrink.

 

[Petrel]

Paidagogos, since you claim to find us all so foolish and ignorant, how about summarizing your education for us?

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Take viral systems for example. We cannot definitely decide whether they are living or simply life-like. Their replication emulates recombinant DNA. IMHO, it is the nature of their replication mechanism, not evolutionary mutation, which allows them to change. The change is limited to the parameters afforded by their replicating mechanism. The genetic changes appear to be in discrete units, which is suggestive. Does anyone care to pick up this idea and run with it.

You are partially correct that it is the replication mechanism that is responsible for virus evolution--RNA viruses are notoriously inaccurate in their copying and introduce point mutations much more often then eukaryotic cells' DNA polymerases which are typically hijacked by DNA viruses. However, an error in the copying introduces a mutation, which then is acted upon by natural selection to either eliminate that mutant or to propagate it.

Moreover, mutation is not the only mechanism whereby a virus can change its genetic material. It may change by point mutation, recombination, duplication of genes followed by mutation, or lateral gene transfer. Viruses make definite additions to their genomes, the only limit is whether the addition messes up something else that's necessary.

Extensive gene gain associated adaptive evolution of pox viruses.

There are at least three possible mechanisms of gene gain: extensive sequence divergence, which could push homologous genes below our similarity threshold; recombination between genes, which produces novel protein products; and horizontal transfer. All three types of event may be at work in pox genomes. Of the 875 families described here, 238 (27%) include members that have similarities to other pox proteins that were not included in the family because the length of the similar region was too short. These below-threshold similarities may be the result of either recombination with portions of other genes or extensive sequence divergence. However, examination of patterns of similarity in these 238 families did not reveal any clear examples of recombination.

The third possibility, horizontal transfer, is expected to be detectable through similarity to genes from phylogenetically distinct species. We compared all 4,042 pox proteins to the entire GenBank database and examined the resulting lists of hits for nonviral sequences. This approach is limited by the presence of sequences in GenBank, and the absence of a hit cannot be considered as a negative result. Nonetheless, 482 proteins have similarity to some nonviral GenBank entry with an e-value [less than or equal to] 1e-20, including members of 57 (7%) of the 874 families in our analysis. Of these 482 hits, 62% were to an organism of the same taxonomic class and 16% to an organism of the same taxonomic family as the viral host. These numbers increase to 70% and 22%, respectively for orthopox proteins. Many of these are plausible cases of horizontal transfer. For example, all members of the viral DNA ligase family (family 184) have similarity to a mouse or human DNA ligase III with a BLAST e-value of at least 1e-146. This gene was acquired in the common ancestor of the chordopox; it is tempting to surmise that poxviruses have acquired much of the machinery to replicate autonomously in the host cytoplasm via horizontal transfer. Horizontally transferred genes may also be important in evading host defenses. For example, the Amsacta moorei entomopoxvirus gene AMV-EPB_034 codes for an inhibitor of apoptosis. Its top non-self hit in GenBank is an inhibitor of apoptosis from Bombyx mori (with a BLAST e-value of 9e–81), which is an insect of the order Lepidoptera, the same order as the normal host of the virus (the red hairy caterpillar Amsacta moorei). This gene has probably been acquired independently several times in the history of Baculoviridae (13).

(I had to replace the symbols for less than or equal to above with text because the board formatting wasn't able to process it.)

And the appearance of a completely new "hybrid" virus with a genome consisting of four RNA strands (the "parent" virii had three).

Evolution of a quadripartite hybrid virus by interspecific exchange and recombination between replicase components of two related tripartite RNA viruses.

Our results provide convincing evidence that pseudorecombination and recombination are important mechanisms of speciation in cucumoviruses, and these evolutionary mechanisms undoubtedly extend to other viruses. In this regard, it has been proposed that multipartite RNA viruses generally have an evolutionary advantage because of their ability to facilitate genetic exchange by reassortment (15). For example, in segmented animal RNA viruses, it is well known that pandemic strains of influenza A virus arise by genetic reassortment between avian and human viruses, although this does not involve interspecific reassortment (16). Numerous experimental findings favor the hypothesis that recombination between related viruses has played a major role in the evolution of plant and animal viruses (17-19). Recombination of bromovirus sequences observed under stringent selection pressure in several different experimental systems (20) provides additional support for this hypothesis. Sackey and Francki (21) extensively investigated the interactions between CMV and TAV in mixed infections and found that replication of RNAs 1 and 2 of each virus could occur in dual infections. Such coinfections could provide an opportunity for pseudorecombinants to survive for some period until RNA recombination generates chimeras with a selective advantage. Similar events could have occurred during evolution of a natural cucumovirus pseudorecombinant that was recently found to consist of genomic RNAs 1 and 2 from peanut stunt virus, another Cucumovirus member, and CMV RNA 3 (22).

In summary, our observations suggest that pseudorecombination and recombination between genomic RNAs of different virus strains, followed by segment reassortment, can favor maintenance of variability in viral genomes and facilitate evolution of new viruses with altered biological properties. During mixed infections of different viruses, genetic material may be rearranged or exchanged between species, as well as within species. Considering that the high error rate of viral replicase promotes potential recombination events, the appearance of hybrid replicase complexes between different virus species, as we have demonstrated in this report, could lead to the acquisition of new and unexpected virulence potential. However, as suggested by Fraile et al. (23), productive natural recombination events that could result in evolution of new virus derivatives would be expected to be relatively rare over limited periods of time in local populations. Nevertheless, over longer periods of time in intensively cropped agricultural areas that provide the potential for high levels of natural coinfection, new virus species should arise that could adapt to special environments and distinctive selection pressures.

Whether viruses are living or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they evolve. Evolution is the propagation of beneficial genetic change. It is easy for us to see evolution happening on a reasonable time scale with viruses because they reproduce so rapidly, are amenable to recombination with foreign DNA due to their existence inside a foreign cell, and often have an error-prone replication system. However, one cannot conclude from this that it is therefore impossible for anything more complicated to evolve in a similar fashion--in fact, the opposite is suggested.