Christian Schools Sue State University

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[snip]

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't like a comment in the above post. Overall, I have resisted the temptation to shred this guy but I consider myself impervious to mere personal vendetta. I've laughed within myself at the twisting, turnings, the self-seriousness and nuances this repartee has followed. I usually edit my posts and remove anything in poor taste even though I can't cover the hypersensitivity of whiners and paranoids. In other words, some people will be offended regardless of what you say.

However, I did a gauche thing when I suggested that UTEOTW visit a shrink. This has unacceptable connotations. I was wrong and ask UTEOTW's forgiveness.

I probably will forego this thread, although I may remain a lurker, since I weakened and resorted to a personal dig. This is my way of exercising self-discipline.

 

[paidagogos]

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

Firstly, I have never called you "foolish and ignorant." I attacked ideas, not people. Secondly, I boast of no credentials but I ask you to evaluate my arguments on their own merits. Since I have repeatedly criticized the "cult of the expert", it would be hypocritical for me to attempt to establish myself as an expert.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I find no substantial support for what I understand as your position. These are simply hypotheses and theories which abound in multitude among evolutionary scientists. These hypotheses are tenable only if you have a priori accepted evolution--there is no proof or evidence here.

Your post does not confront my question. We're both beating the air without making contact. This debate is going nowhere fast, so I'm signing off. Adios.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
I don't like the term discrimination because it is the vocabulary of whiners. However, there is prejudice and bias here.

Precisely because there is prejudice and bias in UC's overt acts specifically against Christians in this case, pointing out and specifying the particular prejudices and biases implicit in the alleged discrimination may become the vocabulary of winners, and instead of whining about the racial prejudice and religious bias inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories, teachings and practices in our public school systems, state colleges and university curriculums and admissions policies, Christians might develop arguments and legal strategies to overcome neo-Darwinist hostility to their adult presence on public school boards and their children's admission to state college and university campuses.

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.

They have the secular state and secular judges to appeal to in order to re-enforce their Pharisaism. That's why the only strategy to dislodge them from their high places and offices that will work will be a prayerful appeal to the courts to put a stop to the racist teachings and practices inherent in neo-Darwinist theories about human evolution in and out of Africa.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Again, I find no substantial support for what I understand as your position. These are simply hypotheses and theories which abound in multitude among evolutionary scientists. These hypotheses are tenable only if you have a priori accepted evolution--there is no proof or evidence here.

Your post does not confront my question. We're both beating the air without making contact. This debate is going nowhere fast, so I'm signing off. Adios.

If you couldn't see proof of the viability of genetic diversification in those examples, then I guess there is no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
[QB] 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.

Paidagogos: You allowed yourself to be distracted from the topic on this thread, and although I agree with your POV about viruses, and support your arguments, complaining about biased evolutionists who are "hardened in their dogma" is futile.

The only thing that unnerves them and will cause them to revise, revamp or reconsider their dogmatic hostility to creationist microevolution in virology, anthropology and biology is to follow in the footsteps of Lubenow and charge neo-Darwinist theory in paleoanthropology, zoology, genetics and biology with being inherently racist.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
The only thing that unnerves them and will cause them to revise, revamp or reconsider their dogmatic hostility to creationist microevolution in virology, anthropology and biology is to follow in the footsteps of Lubenow and charge neo-Darwinist theory in paleoanthropology, zoology, genetics and biology with being inherently racist.

And you must do this in every single post!

Be careful with that talk about creationist microevolution--you let that in and before you know it you've gone from unicellular organisms to multicellular colonial ones, and we just can't have that!

 

[UTEOTW]

"I don't like a comment in the above post..."

Look. You're not going to offend me. I'll point out personal attacks just to show the lack of good debating tactics. But you won't hurt my feelings.

I was the picked on kid in school. I got thick skin. Then when I became interested in this topic, I learned real quick that you can't be shy when people start questioning your faith, morals, motives, logic, intelligence, and anything else they think they can attack.

So, I'm not offended or hurt. Since you fell that you may have been overboard and made a mistake, I'll be glad to excuse it and move on. I would have in any case. But it is nice to hear.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The sheer burden of answering point–by-point in this thread is overwhelming."

It tends to happen in threads around here. They diversify very quickly.

"lso, 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. "

Another common problem. As an engineer, I am likely over my head in just about any topic that is likely to come up. Except maybe thermodynamics. That happens occasionally. In any thing else, I just have to try and apply the basic science that I learned in college as best I can to understand the various topics. It often requires that I try an educate myself on new topics as they come up. And it helps that I have done research since I graduated and I worked in a physical chemistry research lab for 3.5 years in college.

I do try and go back to the original publication when convenient. There are many examples of where I have done this. But I will also go to more "popular" sources when required or sometimes for convenience. If someone posts about moon recession, it is far easier to go to TO and get their list of papers on the topic than to try and go find them on my own.

"Viruses have been used as evolutionary examples of mutations. This is a very simplistic and wrong understanding of mutation."

It is a bit different than what occurs in genuine cells. But it still demonstrates some of the ways in which different kinds of processes can let organisms adapt.

"So-called mutation in simple systems, such as viruses, is vastly different from mutations in more complex organisms."

Granted.

"Mutation in complex systems is always deleterious and dysfunctional."

Not true.

There is an increbible amount of writing devoted in the biological literature to tracing how organisms adapt. Here is a thread I started that traces how biologists document the developmental process of large numbers of genes. You will notice that I pull exclusively from primary, professional literature.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

And here is a thread I started in order to challenge another poster who claimed that evolutionary processes could not create new "information." Three specific cases are discussed, again with references back to the original papers, and I'd guess about a dozen other examples are given.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html

 

[UTEOTW]

"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."

I have no need to grasp at straws.

I stated rather clearly that if they were presenting Haeckel's original ideas as fact, then I consider it to be wrong. They should not have been doing so and it was a terrible mistake to have done so.

My response comes out of these observations, however. It is very common for YEers to use Haeckel's mistakes to try and cast doubt on all of ontogeny. You will often see any mention of ontogeny or of Haeckel as being some terrible underhanded thing. But when you investigate, things may a bit different.

So, not having a copy of the book in question, I cannot be sure of what exactly was going on. I have your claim of what they say. I have no way to verify the claim. I have experience that shows that these things are often overblown in an attempt to discredit ontogeny.

So I struck for the middle. I admit that they are wrong if they are claiming that the developing embryo goes through stage equivelent to different stages of evolution. That embryos of different species go through development stage very much like each other is factual. But I also take you "gill slits" comment and show how ontogeny using gill slits is actually good science. We see the same tissues in reptiles and mammals giving rise to different adult tissues BUT these different tissues can be shown through the fossil record to have evolved from one into the other. It is a way to independently check each other.

 

[TC]

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.

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

Agree

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."

Agree - I would have to read the books too.

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.

If they can show that they do indeed understand the required science, then they should be accepted. I have not seen where the students have demonstrated that they do have that knowledge.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TC:
I have not seen where the students have demonstrated that they do have that knowledge.

I haven't seen where they were given a chance! From my reading it looked like the university told the school they would not be accepting that course for any student, not just for any unqualified student.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Petrel:

Be careful with that talk about creationist microevolution--you let that in and before you know it you've gone from unicellular organisms to multicellular colonial ones, and we just can't have that!

All right. You can delete the reference to microevolution if you prefer.

 

[The Galatian]

Bottom line? If people want to make up their own stories about science, they are free to do so.

They do not have a right to demand others validate the stories, or to expect that all Christians are obligated to support them.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Bottom line? If people want to make up their own stories about science, they are free to do so.

They do not have a right to demand others validate the stories, or to expect that all Christians are obligated to support them.

Neither do they have the right to teach neo-Darwinist racial, religious and science fiction stories about human evolution to adolescents in public high schools in the name of science.

 

[The Galatian]

Um, they do have a right, indeed, a responsibility to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. That's what they are there for.

But public schools are not required to validate your religious assumptions.

Get used to it.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Um, they do have a right, indeed, a responsibility to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. That's what they are there for.

But public schools are not required to validate your religious assumptions.

Public school superintendents, chancellors and school boards ought to be required to weed out and separate neo-Darwinist racial, religious and science fiction stories about human evolution from their high school 'science' curriculums though.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
I have not seen where the students have demonstrated that they do have that knowledge.

I haven't seen where they were given a chance! From my reading it looked like the university told the school they would not be accepting that course for any student, not just for any unqualified student. </font>[/QUOTE]The course, evidently, did not cover areas of science that UC deemed necessary, so those courses were uncredited.

How could the students prove proficiency in the subject?

Undergraduate students must have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent (GED) before attending USC.

USC admissions guide

Passing the GED test in Biology should have been proof enough. The American Council on Education (linkie) has info.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Passing the GED test in Biology should have been proof enough. The American Council on Education (linkie) has info. [/QB]

Yes, by getting into the state accreditation business, UC is just going on a witch hunt specifically after Christians who teach non-evolutionist biology in high schools, colleges and universties.

The results of this case will hopefully award extensive punitive damages to the plaintiffs.

 

[UTEOTW]

"non-evolutionist biology"

Oxymoron.

 

[El_Guero]

JC

Talk about doublespeak.

Orwell would be proud - if he could be.

USC /= UC

Watch out bro., they are morphing