Facts and Opinions (Karyotype Discussion)

[Gman]

I guess that depends on who puts their scientific label on it.. One research institute, the "Discovery Institute" says that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

You wouldn't find the public sector making such claims about ID though or IC.. Why? Well for one thing it is still illegal to teach it in a public setting (such as in textbooks), second again it is still in it's infant stage. It needs more funds to ge the ball rolling. Where are you going to get the money for it is beyond me..

[Kurieuo]

I guess that depends on who puts their scientific label on it.. One research institute, the "Discovery Institute" says that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life...

Please be careful with references. Can you find me a quote at the Discovery Institute website saying a thing? I think you will they are very warey about putting forward ID as an alternative. They do not wish ID to be taught in schools for it is too under-developed.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo says: "Actually IC does not suggest such a thing"


Then I guess I've been misled

I was expecting you to dig in with your statement, but I appreciate your being open to a different understanding. It is is entirely understandable what you were lead to believe. I have read a few ID books, followed what the media says, what Christians say, and people in general say, etc. Many things are stated as being ID when infact it is not. I believe there are only a few reliable sources for ID, and that is the Discovery Institute, ARN, writings by Meyer, Wells, Dembski, Behe and anyone directly affiliated with these people. It is almost pointless reading information about ID any where else.

I have even come to believe ID is a useless term now. Everyone just believes something different about what it is perhaps largely due to misrepresentations in the media, misunderstandings by Creationists, and reactions by Evolutionists. Maybe the same thing is happening with ID terms. You will have some who may argue IC does infact mean we should look no further for it proves design. From reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box it seemed evident to be he was only questioning the Darwinian gradualism as being the mechanism which drives evolution. This was because of the IC he saw in biochemistry, which is evidenced by many components within a system all being needed at once to be beneficial. Such suggested to Behe that the driving force or mechanism behind evolution could not have evolved gradually over time as Darwin proposed.

As such it does not say, "hey, lets look no further!" Behe (who coined the term IC) is infact acceptable of common descent (for example, see http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm), and in his book I received the impression he was very much calling for scientists to put forward explanations as to how these systems we take for granted in biochemistry (e.g., blood clotting, the baterial flagellum) could have come about. I thought he was in fact meaning to inspire debate and draw out responses, rather than throw a spanner in the works to grind scientific research to a halt. Given IC, the most one can claim is that one is rationally justified in believing design was involved, rather than the de facto claim that design is indeed involved. IC does not prove design, but is only suggestive of it. The difference is subtle, but makes a lot of difference.

Kurieuo

[jacksprat]

If a Down reproduced you couldn't be sure it would produce another trisomy 21.Trisomy 21 has no advantages and the cruel principles of evolution would eliminate it.
Gametogenesis (which was discovered considerably later than evolution was postulated) preserves karyotypes with an incredible degree of accuracy by blocking reproduction of karyotypes which contain unmatched chromosomes.The proof is all around us.
If all these facts had been known in Darwin's day no-one would have ever made such a stupid suggestion as evolution
If you are looking to aberrant chromosome numbers to rescue evolution let me tell you you still have a lot of work ahead of you-because until you present a plausible explanation for karyotypes as we know them evolution remains entirely nonsensical.
I wish there was a way my original document could be posted in its entirety because I anticipated every one of these objections and answered them-why??because I had to satisfy myself first.And let me tell you-karyotypes and meiosis AND integrated functions of chromosomes have entirely satisfied me that evolution is baloney
The daftest thing about evolution is that it has taken the marvellously designed mechanisms of karyotype preservation as evidence that karyotypes defied them.How daft can you get.

[jacksprat]

If any chromosome fails to match and synapse gametogenesis stops,evolution therefore impossible.If a chromosome splits,the part detached from the nentromere is lost.Evolution of karyotype impossible.

[jacksprat]

If any chromosome splits the part detached from the centromere will be lost.If not lost,it would only be by reattachment.

[David Blacklock]

Jackspratt said:

"made such a stupid suggestion as evolution"
"evolution is baloney"
"evolution remains entirely nonsensical"

DB: I'll have to devote considerable time to compose a reply to these thoughtful contributions.

[jacksprat]

Evolution,of course is a testable hypothesis.
Karyotypes have tested evolution and karyotypes mock it.
Meiosis has tested evolution and meiosis mocks it
Integrated functions of chromosomes have tested it and they mock it.

[jacksprat]

Dear David,
I am so pleased to see that you at least appreciate the thought that goes into reaching a conclusion which is generally rejected,and which goes against majority opinion.
Evolution is unique in that it was formulated before the discovery of Mendelian principles of inheritance,before the discovery of karyotypes,of meiosis and of integrated functions of chromosomes,and yet it is jealously retained despite the fact that these realities of biology so resoundingly disprove it.Words fail me to describe the irony of this situation

[Gman]

Please be careful with references. Can you find me a quote at the Discovery Institute website saying a thing? I think you will they are very warey about putting forward ID as an alternative. They do not wish ID to be taught in schools for it is too under-developed.

Kurieuo, I'm fully aware of DI's stance with ID... And yes they do fund ID as a scientific theory..

http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If any chromosome splits the part detached from the centromere will be lost.If not lost,it would only be by reattachment.

What would happen if a fragment contained duplicated centromere code?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If any chromosome fails to match and synapse
gametogenesis stops,evolution therefore impossible.

Are you certain, do you have evidence to support this?

If a chromosome splits,the part detached from the nentromere is lost.Evolution of karyotype impossible.

Whats a nentromere. =P

Seriously now, if it is lost can you explain how trisomy occurs?

[Kurieuo]

Please be careful with references. Can you find me a quote at the Discovery Institute website saying a thing? I think you will they are very warey about putting forward ID as an alternative. They do not wish ID to be taught in schools for it is too under-developed.

Kurieuo, I'm fully aware of DI's stance with ID... And yes they do fund ID as a scientific theory..

http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

Sorry, I should have been more clear about what I meant. You will notice even on that page you reference the following:

the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which... supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;"

Since ID is still being developed it is therefore not a complete theory, and as such not an equal origins of life theory to that of Darwinian evolution. In fact, the moment it develops a theory relating to life origins, I see that the designer would need to be identified. For example, I see RTB's creation model as a particular ID life origins theory (see http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... mary.shtml). Yet, I am uncertain as to whether such a theory should be taught in the classroom of physcial sciences, or rather in a theology class. I certainly see no hurt in making brief mention to many differing theories including YEC, as long as they do not take the main stage. Sadly many different scientific pursuits (theology, philosophy, physical sciences, etc) are split up into their own individual pursuit in the education system, when in fact I see they often run together.

Now I have read on several occasions that one reason the Discovery Institute do not want ID taught in schools is for the very fact ID is relatively new with no clear boundaries defined, and as such it is not on par with evolution as a scientific origins of life theory. Furthermore, it is therefore open to abuse by Creationists who want to have a YEC interpretation of the Bible taught alongside of Evolution in the science classroom. The following provides a good summary:

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

...

Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner.

Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3164&program=CSC...

Kurieuo

PS. Just giving notice that I think I'll split this discussion from this thread soon as it is irrelevant to BGood's original post.

[Gman]

Kurieuo, believe me, I know what DI promotes... In fact, I promote them with my funds, ok? The point I was trying to make is that even though they say ID is still in it's infant stage, (which I assume everyone knows) they still are promoting scientists who are developing ID as a "scientific theory," not a scientific hunch..

supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;

Btw, I do NOT believe creationism should be taught in public schools. As for ID, not untill more facts come in..

[Kurieuo]

But then... where do they say "intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life..."

This is one area I think Wikipedia entirely misrepresents the Discovery Institute. When I previously read Wikipedia's whole page on Intelligent Design several months ago I strongly reacted to it and thought it belonged on the garbage heap. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible online resource, it showed me how poor they really can be as a resource and it put me off them. I certainly see this above statement you quoted of theirs misrepresents the Discovery Institude, and therefore I think it belongs on the garbage heap. I know I've come across strong, but I do not mean to cause offense. I just feel strongly whenever I see misreprestations of ID such as at Wikipedia.

Kurieuo