Intelligent Design Deployed in Kentucky

Creationists are morons. They probably eat blood susage.

Kentucky inbread clowns and their intelligent design theory is proof positive that it is a hoax, nothing intelligent ever came out of Kentucky, just bigots, moonshiners, and morons!!

Wow.
Awesome article.

I would expect nothing more from the panda's thumb.

I don't want intelligent design to be taught in school in the way this teacher did it.

What I want is for evolutionists to stop passing off their dumb ideas as scientific fact. Evolution is not a fact- there's a HUGE difference between natural selection and evolution- and that is what is meant by "teach the controversy"

CreationScience wrote:

Wow.
Awesome article.
I would expect nothing more from the panda's thumb.
I don't want intelligent design to be taught in school in the way this teacher did it.
What I want is for evolutionists to stop passing off their dumb ideas as scientific fact. Evolution is not a fact- there's a HUGE difference between natural selection and evolution- and that is what is meant by "teach the controversy"

Madame/Mr. Creationscience, perhaps you could explain the "HUGE difference between natural selection and evolution"?

Does this "natural selection" involve variation, reproduction and neutral and beneficial mutation? Does it involve environmental pressures selecting characteristics best suited for said environment? Does it involve populations adapting and possibly changing over time?

MIDutch:

Yes, it includes all of that.

Evolution, after the mythical "abiogenesis" requires that the beneficial mutations that occur in the genome would be encoded sufficiently to produce a new complex biochemical pathway (such as an enzyme or protein).

This has never been observed. Every genetic mutation changes a codon that encodes information for a pre-existing biochemical pathway. These pathways MUST be in existence in order for these mutations to mean anything (not to mention the need for the DNA strand to exist, and the information encoded in each strand).

CreationScience wrote:

MIDutch:
Yes, it includes all of that.
Evolution, after the mythical "abiogenesis" requires that the beneficial mutations that occur in the genome would be encoded sufficiently to produce a new complex biochemical pathway (such as an enzyme or protein).

Madame/Mr. CreationScience, obviously, you are MUCH more learned about such things, but I don't believe that evolution requires any such thing.

Evolution could be something as simple as a population acquiring longer fur in response to decreasing atmospheric temperature. No "new complex biochemical pathway" required for that.

From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-def...

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Also:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Please note: neither definition mentions "new complex biochemical pathway".

CreationScience wrote:

MIDutch:
Yes, it includes all of that.
Evolution, after the mythical "abiogenesis" requires that the beneficial mutations that occur in the genome would be encoded sufficiently to produce a new complex biochemical pathway (such as an enzyme or protein).
This has never been observed. Every genetic mutation changes a codon that encodes information for a pre-existing biochemical pathway. These pathways MUST be in existence in order for these mutations to mean anything (not to mention the need for the DNA strand to exist, and the information encoded in each strand).

Your "science" is a bit dated.

Here is another one, right out of the headlines.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/...

This is not a lonely study. It has lots of friends. Evolution is a fact in every reasonable use of the word.

Exactly my point, verified by both MIDutch and the article provided by dogen.

Mutations can be beneficial (such as the heterzygous allele for sickle cell anemia results in a person without sickle cell anemia, but a resistance to malaria). Natural selection is the driving force for the selection, and adaptation is the organisms ability to grow as a result of natural selection.

It may be passed off as evolution, but in reality it's not.
Another example of natural selection being passed off as evolution is the introduction of the crya1 gene into corn plants. We know that eventually insects will become resistant to this natural pesticide, but it's only because the ones who are not resistant will not be able to pass on their genetic information. The larva that survive will be resistant. It's adaptation and natural selection, NOT EVOLUTION!

CreationScience wrote:

...Another example of natural selection being passed off as evolution is the introduction of the crya1 gene into corn plants. We know that eventually insects will become resistant to this natural pesticide, but it's only because the ones who are not resistant will not be able to pass on their genetic information. The larva that survive will be resistant. It's adaptation and natural selection, NOT EVOLUTION!

By your reasoning, all life on Earth is the same species with a wide variety of adaptations.

CreationScience wrote:

Exactly my point, verified by both MIDutch and the article provided by dogen.
Mutations can be beneficial (such as the heterzygous allele for sickle cell anemia results in a person without sickle cell anemia, but a resistance to malaria). Natural selection is the driving force for the selection, and adaptation is the organisms ability to grow as a result of natural selection.
It may be passed off as evolution, but in reality it's not.
Another example of natural selection being passed off as evolution is the introduction of the crya1 gene into corn plants. We know that eventually insects will become resistant to this natural pesticide, but it's only because the ones who are not resistant will not be able to pass on their genetic information. The larva that survive will be resistant. It's adaptation and natural selection, NOT EVOLUTION!

So the variation in the population of larva, produced through mutation, that allows a subpopulation to survive is not evolution? Perhaps your conflating the fact of evolution, change in allele frequencies in a population overtime with the ToE which uses the fact of evolution, evidence from molecular, cellular and organismal biology combines it with paleontology to explain biodiversity today and in the fossil record. Perhaps you would offer your definition of evolution?
Cheers!

CreationScience wrote:

Exactly my point, verified by both MIDutch and the article provided by dogen.
Mutations can be beneficial (such as the heterzygous allele for sickle cell anemia results in a person without sickle cell anemia, but a resistance to malaria). Natural selection is the driving force for the selection, and adaptation is the organisms ability to grow as a result of natural selection.
It may be passed off as evolution, but in reality it's not.
Another example of natural selection being passed off as evolution is the introduction of the crya1 gene into corn plants. We know that eventually insects will become resistant to this natural pesticide, but it's only because the ones who are not resistant will not be able to pass on their genetic information. The larva that survive will be resistant. It's adaptation and natural selection, NOT EVOLUTION!

CS...this is really getting old. All you are saying is that "it looks exactly like evolution, but it's not evolution." You are not making any sense.

CreationScience wrote:

Exactly my point, verified by both MIDutch and the article provided by dogen.
Mutations can be beneficial (such as the heterzygous allele for sickle cell anemia results in a person without sickle cell anemia, but a resistance to malaria). Natural selection is the driving force for the selection, and adaptation is the organisms ability to grow as a result of natural selection.
It may be passed off as evolution, but in reality it's not.
Another example of natural selection being passed off as evolution is the introduction of the crya1 gene into corn plants. We know that eventually insects will become resistant to this natural pesticide, but it's only because the ones who are not resistant will not be able to pass on their genetic information. The larva that survive will be resistant. It's adaptation and natural selection, NOT EVOLUTION!

You live in an alternate reality where words mean what you want them to mean. Sorry, but this is like saying "its rain, gosh darn it, NOT WATER!!!!"

Pretty silly. Not science. Not rational.

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
So the variation in the population of larva, produced through mutation, that allows a subpopulation to survive is not evolution? Perhaps your conflating the fact of evolution, change in allele frequencies in a population overtime with the ToE which uses the fact of evolution, evidence from molecular, cellular and organismal biology combines it with paleontology to explain biodiversity today and in the fossil record. Perhaps you would offer your definition of evolution?
Cheers!

Well stated!

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Madame/Mr. Creationscience, perhaps you could explain the "HUGE difference between natural selection and evolution"?
Does this "natural selection" involve variation, reproduction and neutral and beneficial mutation? Does it involve environmental pressures selecting characteristics best suited for said environment? Does it involve populations adapting and possibly changing over time?

The HUGE difference? God is the difference. MORON!!

So we agree that God could have "dunnit" through evolution, then Wayne?

The Dude wrote:

So we agree that God could have "dunnit" through evolution, then Wayne?

Nope. Bad comprehension on your part I'm afraid.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Bad comprehension on your part I'm afraid.

Telling god his job and that he has to do it your way is pretty bad form. Maybe you need to rethink your brainwashing.

And why couldn't he, Wayne? I mean, aside from taking a literal interpretation of the Bible as fact?

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
The HUGE difference? God is the difference. MORON!!

Wayne believes that anyone who disagrees with him is under the influence of Satan.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Bad comprehension on your part I'm afraid.

Wayne believes that anyone who disagrees with him is under the influence of Satan.