Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The difference between good teaching and bad teaching is the subordination of ones "ego" to the needs of the class and subject. I wouldnt expect you to understand that.

Quote:

Why do you keep going on about creationism ? I dont want it taught in schools at all. Havent you read anything Ive said ?

You brought it up in the context of teaching religion in classes

Ignoring Creationism is just as dumb as teaching it as a "valid Theory" to be used in the science curriculum itself.

Why do you think most anti-IDers have me on Ignore Io?

What about Setanta's last post eh? Wasn't that brilliant?

Can anybody give a brief account of what fm is saying.

The assumptions made in the papaer are somewhat irrelevant to the role that evolution plays.

all the specific segments of a genome are encoded into groups of three or multiples of three of the available amino acids.

WHy evolution want used is because the encoding and actions of one prticlular genome have nothing to say of how it translates to the portions of another species.

This article makes it sound (Sort of) that DNA transcription is an internal product of some special creation.

The fact that we see"fossil" genes in animals that have dicarded a specific gene function (like HOX or the Alu insertion into the NANOF gene after the diversion of chimpanzee and humans commion ancestors).

I think the article is patting itself on the back for discovering a bleeding obvious gene function.

Thearticle is totally soilent on the transfer and transcription of DNA and RNA , it doesnt discuss Uracil' transfer function nor does it even discuss the enzymes and ribosomes involved in cleaving at the specific points that it does with respect to specific species.

This article is trying to say something that the underlying work had not implied or even mentioned

Only assumptions in support of evolution are OK by him.

Superfluous facts in an attempt to sound knowledgable.

The same genome in different species has different functions.

This is not a sentence but I think it means there are genes that we dont know the use of and have assumed they are no longer used, with an example based on chimps and humans having a common ancestor.

The fact ISthat we see"fossil" genes in animals that have discarded a specific gene function (like HOX or the Alu insertion into the NANOG genethat occured after the diversion of chimpanzee and humans common ancestors).

The article was quite lengthy and thorough but it didnt tell you everything there is to know about DNA.

I thought Id make it clearer for you

ALBEIT very key facts that explain how factorial analysis explains how ALL proteins are coded from group sets of three amino acids (or 6 or 9 or 12 or 15 or 18o or 21 etc) All of which are made up of groups of two linked nucleotides out of a complete pallette of 4 nucleotides in DNA and 4 for RNA (with the substitution of Uracil.

Quote:

Quote:
ALBEIT very key facts that explain how factorial analysis explains how ALL proteins are coded from group sets of three amino acids (or 6 or 9 or 12 or 15 or 18o or 21 etc) All of which are made up of groups of two linked nucleotides out of a complete pallette of 4 nucleotides in DNA and 4 for RNA (with the substitution of Uracil

.

Incredible!! How anybody thinks that explains anything is outside my zone. It's speaking in tongues. It's a ritualistic incantation associated with a belief system which caters to a congregation which is flattered to think it understands life processes and that with drivel of that nature it can persuade us all to admire it and set aside traditions on which our culture is based and join it on a ride to we know not where.

No rational mind - given the evidence of buttons and buttonholes in an article of clothing - would deny that both "intelligence" and "design" played roles in the fabrication of such a garment, but - mystery of mysteries - the brightest and most educated in our culture, reject such considerations for all the infinitely more complex living organisms, insisting (dogmatically) that they somehow "evolved" by haphazard, sequential, random mutations. A challenge is therefore, proposed - to anyone anti-"Intelligent Designer", who believes he has not been "brain-washed", but who has at least a "hair-line crack" to open-mindedness - to refute the material herein - the non-factuality and astronomical improbabilities of pure random-chance-mutations of individual elements (among the multi-billions in the DNA helix) as a credible belief system in explaining: ü the spider, butterfly, or bacterium flagellum (Pajaro Dunes Micro-Biology Conference - scientists challenging Darwinism); ü male-female sexuality feelings: irresistible sex-drive before; gratification after - evoking propagation and proliferation of mammalian species; ü the (simple, yet ever so complex) umbilical cord concept for mammals - from kittens to humans? This book is a scholarly review (in layman terms) of all pertinent aspects of Science versus Bible in all applicable fields: Archaeology, Astronomy, Biology, Cosmology, Egyptology, Paleontology, Physics, etc., with over 300 references to the arcane writings of world-class scientists, historians, mathematicians and adventurers.

Here is a "product description" of the book:

Quote:

...insisting (dogmatically) that they somehow "evolved" by haphazard, sequential, random mutations. A challenge is therefore, proposed - to anyone anti-"Intelligent Designer", who believes he has not been "brain-washed", but who has at least a "hair-line crack" to open-mindedness - to refute the material herein - the non-factuality and astronomical improbabilities of pure random-chance-mutations of individual elements (among the multi-billions in the DNA helix) as a credible belief system in explaining:...

Anyway--I was on Ignore and dead you said only the other day. And asserting that I'm angry is something to do with you. It has nothing to do with me and it isn't an argument either. It's fatuous.

Seriously, 'glitter words'?? Speaking in tongues??

ALBEIT very key facts that explain how factorial analysis explains how ALL proteins are coded from group sets of three amino acids (or 6 or 9 or 12 or 15 or 18o or 21 etc) All of which are made up of groups of two linked nucleotides out of a complete pallette of 4 nucleotides in DNA and 4 for RNA (with the substitution of Uracil.

What you say here continues to be myopic and unhelpful.