It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If ID and creationism were given funding and grants...

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Apologies to the OP for getting so far off the main topic. We're done hijacking your thread now.




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
No. I didn't miss any points. And neither did I claim that ID is science. I simply stated that it should be included side by side with the non-theistic veiw of evolution.


so should we present theistic alternatives to the non-theistic view of gravity, cell biology, and anatomy?

it's not science, it shouldn't be presented in the science class



And there have been proponents of ID within the scientific community. The problem is that whenever they present their work, the militant atheists come out and do their worst to discredit it all as "psuedo-science". And all just because it says something a little bit different than their pet theories.


no... it's simply not science

and there are more members of the scientific community named steve...

it isn't even pseudo-science... it's simply non-science.

and the "militant atheists" aren't the only ones that discredit it, as there are quite a few theistic evolutionary biologists...



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


you wouldn't be able to properly teach biology if you removed "origins"
evolutionary theory is essentially the basis for modern biology.

cell biology, immunology, reproduction, genetics... you couldn't teach them.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
Apologies to the OP for getting so far off the main topic. We're done hijacking your thread now.


OK....now that we are back in topic:

Did you even read my last post?

I said:

1) ID and creationism can be taught in public schools, but not together in a science class. Do you have a problem with teaching ID and creationism in an elective class? This way, as you mentioned, poor kids can still be presented that view without having to pay for private school. This option would also resolve the issue of getting rid of both of them if one has to go. (which I don't agree with to begin with, but this is another way around that)

2) This debate is not whether or not ID belongs in schools; it's about being taught in a science class

3) Evolution is taught in science class because it makes a hypothesis and then tests it through experimental procedures. What is the hypothesis of ID and creationism and what are the experiments that can be used to test the hypothesis and falsify them?

4) This thread is for discussion of ID and creationist hypotheses and not for bashing or questioning evolution. DO NOT BRING EVOLUTION UP IN THIS THREAD if you are going to BASH it or DISCREDIT IT. This is about CREDITING ID and creationism, which has nothing to do with bashing evolution.

I don't know how I can make the last two points any clearer.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!!!

AGAIN: ID'ers and creationists, what experiments are you performing, or your community, to falsify your hypothesis?


[edit on 8-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you wouldn't be able to properly teach biology if you removed "origins"
evolutionary theory is essentially the basis for modern biology.

cell biology, immunology, reproduction, genetics... you couldn't teach them.

Uh...

Yes you could. Just fine, actually.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Falsifying hypothesis????

Maybe you should open your mind a little more.
Do you think ALL scientists in the past had to overcome religion to study and experiment??

Some of the Most brilliant men and women actually used their faith to discover new inventions (George Washington Carver, Helen Keller's teacher, others....)
I can't look them up w/out closing BTS.

One experiment would be to travel worldwide and look at the sedimentary layer
throughout.
One problem that's been failed to address with dating the ice layers in untouched areas, is that while they have use each layer, to come up with their necessary timeline, it's been proven, that WWII bombers were found in (somewhere around newfoundland) with enough ice layers to be thousands of years old.

Also, given the so-called proven increased oxygen levels of years past. Why not expound upon that, using science?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
If ID and creationism were given funding and grants...

...by the government, it would be a violation of church/state separation. I can't believe this is even an issue in this day and age.

America! EVOLVE already!



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
No it wouldn't. Studying a religion isn't respecting its establishment.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Exactly!
But so Many communists in education and government institutions would NEVER even entertain the thought!

If you think we don't have active communist parties manipulating our country, you need to WAKE UP.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Looking at sedimentary layers isn't experimentation, it is observation. For this to be a scientific experiment it would need to posit a mechanism that:

1) systematically describes the presence and structure of existing sedimentation
2) predicts how sedimentation will occur in the future
3) refutes existing scientific explanations used to account for the process of sedimentation
4) is subject to the possibility of scientific falsification



[edit on 8-12-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 

Labels. I hate the damn things. Libertarian is as close as one of those labels gets in describing me politically. COMMunist? Never. COMMon sense, yes.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The problem here, Lude, is that you are asking people who have little to no understanding of what science is and how it is done.

It's a pity. But that's the way it is at the moment on this subfora. Matti (mattison) would have been able to give a more detailed insight as a trained post-doc, and IDer (although I think he might have changed his stance a bit, not sure). He has outlined some experiments that he believed would be tests of ID.

I thought otherwise, but hey-ho. I'll see if I can find it...

ABE: here it is, I posted it on another forum...


One of the most frequent criticisms of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is the lack of testable hypotheses offered by proponents, and/or the inability of ID to even form testable hypotheses.
While I doubt that no testable hypotheses have been offered, it's my intention to offer a specific testable hypothesis based on an ID assumptions. Furthermore, the test will generate positive quantifiable results. Use of the word 'positive' in this context does not indicate results that support the testers ideas, but in fact, results that doesn't rely on something not happening... pardon the intentional double negative.

Being that this is a discussion forum, and a somewhat informal environment, I will forgo attaching formal references but will be more than willing to discuss the basis for my assumptions on an as need to basis.

The hypothesis will be based on the concept of Irreducible complexity as described by Behe: A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. The critical thing here is removal of the components... Behe says nothing about altering components.

The allegedly IC system we are going to be investigating will be the rotary biological motor ATP Synthase

There are many variations on the ATP Synthase theme in nature, the simplest enzymes are those present in bacteria and chloroplasts. In general, the minimal complex is thought to consist of 6 unit subunits, alpha, beta, gamma, a, b, and c, with a stoichiometric ratio of 3:3:1:1:2:10-14. While all of these units appear to be essential for function, we will consider the alpha:beta:gamma:c complex to comprise the enzymes irreducible core. The justification for this is as follows: The catalytic site of this enzyme is located at the interface between the alpha and beta subunits. This is where ATP is formed from ADP and inorganic phosphate. The alpha and beta subunits are where the catalytic activity takes place, and thus cannot be removed.

The c subunits, which actually form a ring within the membrane, mediate proton flux through the membrane. This is the source of energy that the cell uses to synthesize ATP... the energy of an electrochemical gradient. If there is not proton flux through the membrane, then neither the c subunit ring nor the gamma subunit rotate, hence the c subunits are part of the enzymes IC.

Finally, as proton flux is mediated via the c subunit ring, causing rotation of the c subunits, and the asymmetrical gamma subunit within the alpha-beta hexamers central cavity, the conformation (shape) of the alpha and beta subunits change. This change in shape facilitates the synthesis of ATP and ADP. IOW, the gamma subunit, via rotation induces something called the 'binding change mechanism,' and is in part responsible for catalysis. Thus the gamma subunit is part of the ICore.

The a and b subunits are thought to stabilize the 'stator' portion of the enzyme relative to the 'rotor' portion. While they are likely important for catalysis, they will not be considered here for theoretical and experimental simplicity.

The hypothesis is that the ATP synthase, at the level of the above described ICore, is IC.

The test
Now the question here is what are we interested in. We are interested in exploring the tenets of the IC hypothesis. An example would be how well matched must these components really be to yield a functioning enzyme? How well matched are they now? What degree of genetic change can be tolerated before loss of function? We can explore the degree of 'inherent compatibility' via experiments that correlate enzyme functionality with genetic homology. We can further correlate these changes with 'number of generations'. Finally we correlate change in enzyme functionality vs. number of generations.

There will be two varieties of mutation that will be explored, those that affect the enzymes active site, and those that affect protein-protein interactions. Active site mutations will directly affect catalysis, while mutations affecting protein-protein interactions will affect the ability of the enzyme to assemble. In this example, the term active site also refers to the enzymes 'substrate binding site,' and associated residues.

Predictions
Based on the idea of IC, it is postulated that the enzyme will be able to tolerate only the most highly conservative mutations... an aspartate to a glutamate, an asparagine to a lysine, etc. in the active site residues. Residues that will be critical are not only those the affect catalytic activity directly, but those that the affect substrate binding.
Furthermore, it is predicted that the enzyme will be able to tolerate less homology at the amino acid level in the protein-protein binding regions, relative to the active site, but the tolerated level of aa homology will be roughly equivalent to the known homology that exists between subunits. For example if the homology of the gamma subunits between model species is 80%, then no more than 20% of relevant amino acids can be altered before the ICore breaks down.

So the relationship between genetic homology and enzyme functionality will not be entirely linear. Rather the enzyme will cease to function at approximately the above described level of genetic homology.

When these minimum relationships are determined, it will be interesting to construct a 'minimal homology' enzyme, and apply selective pressure, ultimately comparing change in enzyme functionality vs. number of generations. IC predicts that this relationship will be non-linear. That is enzyme functionality will not increase in a linear fashion over time.

Model Organisms
There are several model organisms we can consider in this scenario, and in fact a variety should be used. The first bug coming to mind is E. Coli. For one thing, at log phase, assuming dichotomous replication, it can reproduce itself once every 20 minutes. In short thousands and thousands of generations can be investigated in a relatively brief period of time... certainly the length of a Ph.D., or long post-doc.

Furthermore, there are a wide variety of media available for E. Coli. Different minimal and rich media combinations could be utilized to apply different selective pressure, and the effects could be explored. You could use a 3D type analysis to correlate media glucose concentration, enzyme functionality, and number of generations.

The other organism I would use is chlamydomonas... for several reasons. Firstly, it's a eukaryote, and the comparison would be nice. Secondly it's got a single chloroplast that can be easily genetically manipulated. The chloroplast is nice for a couple of other reasons. For example, you could alter the chloroplast ATP synthase, leaving the mitochondrial enzyme in tact. The organism can then be grown on acetate, and supplied varying levels of light as selective pressure. In addition, the amount of light could be kept constant, and the amount of acetate varied. The same type of graphical analysis could be performed here as in the above described examples.

A further organism I would consider using is Pseudomonas. This bug seems to have a penchant for adaptation, and some believe actually possesses an extrachromosomal apparatus specifically for the purpose of adaptation. This extrachromosomal DNA could be exploited. Perhaps a variety of selective pressure can induce some sort of positive change in the enzyme in this particular organism. The nice thing about this bug would be the fact that you would be removing the 'random' aspect of mutation. Predictions with this bug could vary among ID proponents, some might see the increased rate of specific directed mutation as a positive thing, while others might think it would have either no effect, or a negative effect overall.

In addition to the above selective pressures, a variety of mutagenic chemicals or 'activities' could be applied to each model organism also... ID based hypotheses would predict that the slope of the graph comparing generations, with cellular growth or enzyme functionality would be negative. The longer a critter is exposed to a mutagen, the less fit it becomes both systemically, and at the level of the individual IC system.

So... keep in mind this is just a rough sketch of something I've been considering in my head. It's entirely possible that even ID proponents will not agree entirely with my predictions, or the relevance of my particular methods. But nonetheless, here is a testable hypothesis that makes predictions from an ID perspective that will generate positive quantifiable results that can be further examined via a variety of different analyses and correlations.

linky

The problem I see is that, firstly, IC systems can evolve. Secondly, it is really just a negative argument against evolution (which is what IC was), and is less a support of ID. Also, some comments from a molecular biologist on the forum it was posted (wounded king).


[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


See my post on page 2 of this thread for a critique of the notion of "irreducible complexity" in the context of "intelligent design."



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


how can you teach immunology when we come up with new vaccines every year because diseases EVOLVE?

how can you teach genetics when mutation is a portion and a contributing factor to evolutionary theory?
reproduction...same but to a tiny degree

cell biology, we'd have to truncate the little part where we mention that cells don't make exact perfect replicas of themselves when they reproduce

we would be teaching piecemeal science instead of proper science

oh...
that's the thing at the center of this argument, evolution is science. it produces accurate predictions...hmm......

until ID becomes a scientific theory, it has no place being taught from anywhere but the pulpit



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
until ID becomes a scientific theory, it has no place being taught from anywhere but the pulpit

What he said! Starred that sucker.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how can you teach immunology when we come up with new vaccines every year because diseases EVOLVE?

That isn't macroevolution, I don't even consider it evolution (speciation, which I'm not particularly against), but it isn't an integral part. All you need to know is that diseases change to teach immunology. And remember that viruses aren't particularly "organisms."


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how can you teach genetics when mutation is a portion and a contributing factor to evolutionary theory?

You don't have to go into evolution to teach genetics. You have to teach mutation, but not evolution in that sense.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reproduction...same but to a tiny degree

Not much at all, mutation again.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
cell biology, we'd have to truncate the little part where we mention that cells don't make exact perfect replicas of themselves when they reproduce

That's not evolution, those are errors in DNA replication and loss of telomeres.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we would be teaching piecemeal science instead of proper science

Macroevolution is a theory in itself, and isn't an integral part of any other sciences. Immunology is the best example, and even then you don't go into macroevolution that much.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's the thing at the center of this argument, evolution is science. it produces accurate predictions...hmm......

At least, evolution is more "science" that intelligent design. I don't think evolution, like history, or archaeology, or anything else that you can't study to run an experiment on is exactly "science," but it's as close as we can get while still looking to the past.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
until ID becomes a scientific theory, it has no place being taught from anywhere but the pulpit

Which is probably never. Really intelligent design is so vague that it could mean anything... My favorite example is that such an omnipotent being, when "crafting" things, has to create a way for them to arise... What we do know is very limited, the universe could have actually "began" twenty seconds ago and the rest of the "past" was just made to line up with that point. A deist way of looking at things, really, I guess - not that I believe in it.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Please stay on topic! Do not bring up evolution in this thread unless it somehow pertains to crediting ID and creationism as a scientific theory. There are plenty of other threads and sites that deal with micro evolution and macro evolution and the common fallacies people make when dealing with those definitions.


Here is a good one.


By Clear Skies

Exactly!
But so Many communists in education and government institutions would NEVER even entertain the thought!

If you think we don't have active communist parties manipulating our country, you need to WAKE UP.


Again, the argument is not whether or not creationism and ID should be taught in public school, but whether or not it deserves to be placed in a science class. Respond to this if you want to contribute to this thread.

What makes ID and creationism a scientific theory to be taught alongside evolution in science classes? What experiments do you perform to falsify creationism and ID?

[edit on 9-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
First, let me shoot the whole atheistic campaign out of the water and prove here and now that there is no such thing as evolution. I pose this question to you as I always do when on U-tube doing battle with you people.

1. Right and wrong, how do you know the difference and from where do you get your morality from.

You cannot give a vaid answer to this because if you say it was by chance ot nature you are deceiving yourself. If that were so, you or I should have no problem with killing the guy next door for his car and then going out to dinner in it with your friends.

Question: Where does morality come from? How do you know right from wrong, and if two atheists disagree.... who is right?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Why is it more believeable to think that "God" created the universe.

1. You cannot get something from nothing at all.

2. Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed:

A Therefore to be created, an even greater force is needed to bring cause into effect.

B. That force cannot consist of matter, nor can it be part of the total energy of the entire sum total of the universe.

C. That force cannot be subject to any laws of this universe.

D. That force must be something that is neither matter or energy


" In the beginning God (outside spiritual force) created (cause) the heavens and the Earth (effect).... and God said, Let ther be (catalyst) light, and there was light (BIG BANG!).

Yes, ID is definately a valid approach to apply alongside the fairytale of evolution which has no real answers, and many holes, and leaves one with a sour feeling in the belly.

I support the teaching of ID as the alternative to fairy tales.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
And so it continues, negative arguments against evolution, therefore ID/creationism is true. Along with plain assumptions/long-refuted arguments/poor logic, but no science.

Intellectually vacuous?

[edit on 9-12-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join