Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[Dannager]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/15/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

"The Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 Tuesday to delete a science standard and correlating lesson plan that encourages students to seek evidence for and against evolution. Critics had called the material an opening to teach intelligent design, which holds that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority."

Looks like the Ohio state school board is back on track again.

 

[david_x]

Why? Again, you are just repeating your assertions. You have done nothing to show the affects mutations would or should have on a virus that you claim they would. You are making claims based on what appears to be a limited knowledge of viruses and providing no support, research, mechanisms, or even detail on your claims.

Any mutation that might effect the case for the virus might cause a whole or the complete disaperence of the casing would damage the virus mortally, plus darwins law would work against it too.

Pop quiz: Do viruses even have cell walls? And how do you justify saying that the packages viruses come in are called "cells", in the first place? To be frank it seems you are quite out of your depth talking about viruses.

It is a desperate sign to turn to nit-picking. It's still protein formed using the DNA.

Looks like the Ohio state school board is back on track again.

Closing minds, making human robots, and dictating thought. Sounds like an advance to me.

 

[Dannager]

Closing minds, making human robots, and dictating thought. Sounds like an advance to me.

Don't start with this. Scientific debate belongs in peer-reviewed scientific journals - not in the classroom. Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory. It stays out of the science classroom until it fixes that.

 

[david_x]

Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory.

Exactly so why are we teaching evalution! (It's scientific)

 

[Dannager]

Exactly so why are we teaching evalution! (It's scientific)

Man, what? Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory so we aren't teaching it. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory so we are teaching it.

 

[david_x]

Man, what? Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory so we aren't teaching it. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory so we are teaching it.

"People who think too much often outsmart themselves" People put so much faith in scientific theory, it's not their fault we all make mistakes.
((mabye you should start a thread in Pilosophy & ethics))

 

[The Lady Kate]

Exactly so why are we teaching evalution! (It's scientific)

There you have it...

evolution is a scientific theory... it's taught in science class.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory... it's not taught in science class.

 

[shernren]

It is a desperate sign to turn to nit-picking. It's still protein formed using the DNA.

Nope, it's not nit-picking. Your microbiological perspective is still being done from a cell-based perspective. Plasma membranes are complex things. You have a phospholipid bilayer studded with cholesterol, pore and channel proteins, receptors, antigens. The plasma is supposed to facilitate passive transport and osmosis, regulate active transport, adhere to other cells, generate "self" signals to immune cells. Often a plasma membrane also has other specialized functions such as phagocytosis and detachment (e.g. mature sperm, I assume it is a change in plasma membrane structure which causes it to detach).

You haven't gotten down to scale to the level of a virus. A virus is basically naked RNA in a coat of proteins. Fullstop. Often the proteins aren't even different, for example the protein coat of a spherical virus is an icosahedron with 20 identical triangles each composed of a polymeric complex of proteins. (And all this from just wikipedia.)

That's why it's not called a cell wall or a plasma membrane. It's called a capsid. Because it does nothing much, really, besides encapsulate the nucleic material.

You have not shown how a mutation would cause a virus to lose the genes that encode its capsid. Besides, even if there was such a mutation, that doesn't disprove the fact that thousands of mutations which change a capsid allow the virus to escape the immune system by effectively becoming a new species of virus. You can't disprove good mutations by showing us an example of a bad mutation, just like you can't show that all whites are racist just by showing that one white is racist.

 

[Dannager]

"People who think too much often outsmart themselves" People put so much faith in scientific theory, it's not their fault we all make mistakes.
((mabye you should start a thread in Pilosophy & ethics))

What the heck are you talking about? Are you trying to make a point of some sort? Because it's lost on me.

 

[The Lady Kate]

What the heck are you talking about? Are you trying to make a point of some sort? Because it's lost on me.

Lost on me too.... please clarify.

 

[david_x]

You have not shown how a mutation would cause a virus to lose the genes that encode its capsid. Besides, even if there was such a mutation, that doesn't disprove the fact that thousands of mutations which change a capsid allow the virus to escape the immune system by effectively becoming a new species of virus. You can't disprove good mutations by showing us an example of a bad mutation, just like you can't show that all whites are racist just by showing that one white is racist.

You missed the point, unless this kind of mutation does occur than the virus is displaying a deffence mechanism, not chance mutation.

What the heck are you talking about? Are you trying to make a point of some sort? Because it's lost on me.

Never mind, unrelated. (of cource I was kidding around, that's what means)

 

[notto]

You missed the point, unless this kind of mutation does occur than the virus is displaying a deffence mechanism, not chance mutation.

Can you tell us what mechanism this defense mechanisms takes? How does the virus interact with the environment to trigger it?

If you are claiming that individual virii change once an anti-viral is introduced or once antibodies are present, then my guess is that you are indeed mistaken on how this whole thing works.

 

[shernren]

You missed the point, unless this kind of mutation does occur than the virus is displaying a deffence mechanism, not chance mutation.

You're missing the entire microbiology of viruses. A virus doesn't HAVE a metabolism or a cell wall or a nucleus or an endoplasmic reticulum or mitochondria or any of those fancy pro/eukaryotic life processes to DEFEND. A virus is just nucleic acid bundled in proteins. It doesn't so much as shiver on its own outside a living medium. The one thing it does to make it remotely living is to hijack other cells and make them live to produce more of it. It doesn't perform respiration, assimilation, growth, excretion, it doesn't even respond to stimuli other than "let's-board-and-takeover" physical contact. For crying out loud, it can be crystallized and still be infective (imagine chaining a million humans together in tetrahedral configuration with almost no relative movement, food, and water for a week).

That's why a virus doesn't HAVE defence mechanisms. It only faces two possible dangers:

1. That when it hijacks the cell, the cell will not allow it to reproduce. Which is precisely what antivirals do, and as far as I know there isn't a single virus immune to antivirals (they aren't used not because they aren't effective but because they are expensive. Only "big" diseases like AIDS merit their use.).

2. That it will be recognized. And to avoid recognition its proteins and composition change - effectively creating a new virus, and crucially according to the rules of natural selection that generate evolution.

to notto: virii is not a standard plural of virus, the standard one is "viruses". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus Don't worry, I was surprised too when I read it. XD

 

[notto]

to notto: virii is not a standard plural of virus, the standard one is "viruses". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus Don't worry, I was surprised too when I read it. XD

Not surprised. I thought it might be wrong. Just wanted to make sure that the clearn intent was there along the lines of 'populations evolve, ot individuals' but thanks for the heads up.

 

[david_x]

2. That it will be recognized. And to avoid recognition its proteins and composition change - effectively creating a new virus, and crucially according to the rules of natural selection that generate evolution.

There is what I was saying, excluding the "laws" of natural selection or evolution.

This is not a sign of evolution, it is a sign of a creator who knew what he was doing.

 

[shernren]

Alright then. Which genes in the viral code of any virus encode for mutations to occur? Evolution is a sign of a Creator who knew what He was doing - why should it be any other way?

 

[Dannager]

There is what I was saying, excluding the "laws" of natural selection or evolution.

This is not a sign of evolution, it is a sign of a creator who knew what he was doing.

Sounds like it's a sign of a creator who knew what he was doing using evolution.

 

[david_x]

Alright then. Which genes in the viral code of any virus encode for mutations to occur?

Oh don't be so close minded, the Lord most likly made that part of the gene structure unstable just so it could surrvive.

 

[gluadys]

Oh don't be so close minded, the Lord most likly made that part of the gene structure unstable just so it could surrvive.

IOW, God created it to evolve so that it could survive in changing conditions.

Now why limit this to viruses?

 

[david_x]

Now why limit this to viruses?

Being as it is an extreme as far as complexity.

(what is IOW?)